Has the Derby become too predictable?

[Denny]

Originally Posted by BCOURTNEY

Has it become too predictable?
Yes

Will people start to find it boring?
CDI management is boring, There wasn't a single handicapping contest in the country including CDI/The Kentucky Derby, restricted ADW signals and broadcast rights, compounded by poor non eventful coverage, what the hell is this company thinking?

The derby wasn't boring, never will be.

What do you think?
Would you leave it alone or make a change to the point system?
The point system was designed by industry to keep the small guy surprise factor to a minimum, it's working as intended. I dislike the point system.

Do you have another way in mind if you did away with points?

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by Denny

Do you have another way in mind if you did away with points?

Graded stakes earnings.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by Denny

A filly could run if she finished 1st or second in one of the major preps.
She'd have just as many points as most of the top contenders.
The only thing preventing that is the owners/trainers of fillies not wanting to run in a prep.
Not Churchill.

Though i think they like it better without the threat of a filly breaking down as happened with Eight Belles. So it's safer not to have a filly in the race.
Just a thought.

If they really cared about safety, they'd reduce the field size. The move was to make sure the Derby win was touted on a future stallion prospect's resume. That won't happen with a filly winner.

[Denny]

Now that the Derby is in the rear view mirror and people have made their comments, I'll give answers to my questions - in reverse:

Points system? -

It's been a resounding success. That said, I'd tweak a little.

Only Grade 1's would be 100 pts to the winner. Florida Derby, Arkansas, and Santa Anita. Unless the Blue Grass and Wood regain G1 status they go to 50pts. The UAE and Louisiana also 50. Sunland 25.

The major 7-furlong early season preps should have some points attached - even if only 10 to the winner. Great horses of the past started their 3-yo campaigns successfully with them for a run at the Derby.

Boring?

NO WAY. Sill the most exciting 2 minutes in sports.

Predicable?

If all we still had was WPS, I might say yes. But we have Exotics and there always seems to be at least one price horse to boost the payoffs.

Supers are a lot of fun and provide jackpot possibilities with the $1 minimum.
Yes, I like the higher minimum. In fact, I'm for a $1 minimum on all bets. I think the dimes cheapens the sport and really favor the biggest bettors.

A $69 Exacta for the favorite and a very logical contender was quite good too.

Even with the favorite winning, it's not like they're all odds-on. I'll take $7.80 on a clear-cut favorite anytime!

There's something for everyone.

Kudos to Churchill for doing this one thing right and not messing it up.

One suggestion: A 20-horse starting gate would be a good idea.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Denny

Now that the Derby is in the rear view mirror and people have made their comments, I'll give answers to my questions - in reverse:

Points system? -

It's been a resounding success. That said, I'd tweak a little.

Only Grade 1's would be 100 pts to the winner. Florida Derby, Arkansas, and Santa Anita. Unless the Blue Grass and Wood regain G1 status they go to 50pts. The UAE and Louisiana also 50. Sunland 25.

The major 7-furlong early season preps should have some points attached - even if only 10 to the winner. Great horses of the past started their 3-yo campaigns successfully with them for a run at the Derby.

Boring?

NO WAY. Sill the most exciting 2 minutes in sports.

Predicable?

If all we still had was WPS, I might say yes. But we have Exotics and there always seems to be at least one price horse to boost the payoffs.

Supers are a lot of fun and provide jackpot possibilities with the $1 minimum.
Yes, I like the higher minimum. In fact, I'm for a $1 minimum on all bets. I think the dimes cheapens the sport and really favor the biggest bettors.

A $69 Exacta for the favorite and a very logical contender was quite good too.

Even with the favorite winning, it's not like they're all odds-on. I'll take $7.80 on a clear-cut favorite anytime!

There's something for everyone.

Kudos to Churchill for doing this one thing right and not messing it up.

One suggestion: A 20-horse starting gate would be a good idea.

Starting gates are expensive. They aren't going to buy a 20 horse gate for 1 race a year.

[Denny]

With the money you make on that one day alone, a custom starting gate isn't all that expensive in relation Churchill.

They have them in Europe.
How is it they can afford them and CDI can not?
(Seen their stock price lately anyone?)

Don't be cheap CD. You're making a fortune on the derby.
Get a 20 horse gate so people can stop complaining about all the horses getting mugged at the start.
It would even create more room for the 1 post by moving it further from the rail with the extra feet you gain - without the gap between gates.

Really the only big complaint left to be addressed, imo.
(It's great publicity to be promoted as well)

Denny

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

If they really cared about safety, they'd reduce the field size. The move was to make sure the Derby win was touted on a future stallion prospect's resume. That won't happen with a filly winner.

I know that the Arc has, or can have, around 18 runners, but this is the fact that everyone knows and is the key. And at least the Arc is a much longer race.

The Derby should be realistic to other races, and particularly, the other Triple Crown races. For me, that means ~14 starters, just like the Preakness max. You almost never have close to that for the Belmont, but approach it. That's a good size betting field, near maximum for most typical horse races in America, and it is FAR better for betting and legitimate 'capping or racing analysis, even if you don't bet. 20 starters is, and has always been, silly. And that's being nice about it.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

I know that the Arc has, or can have, around 18 runners, but this is the fact that everyone knows and is the key. And at least the Arc is a much longer race.

The Derby should be realistic to other races, and particularly, the other Triple Crown races. For me, that means ~14 starters, just like the Preakness max. You almost never have close to that for the Belmont, but approach it. That's a good size betting field, near maximum for most typical horse races in America, and it is FAR better for betting and legitimate 'capping or racing analysis, even if you don't bet. 20 starters is, and has always been, silly. And that's being nice about it.

There's an enormous demand among owners and horsemen to be able to run horses in the Derby who have no chance.

Churchill doesn't want the grief they will get if they tell them to go away.

My fear every year is a spill on the first turn on national television.

[Thomas Roulston]

Change the purse distribution to something like what the Belmont now uses (8 monies) or even what the Melbourne Cup has used for decades (10 monies). And since over 200 owners will be paying an entry fee, the payments to pass the entry box and to start can be drastically cut.

[Denny]

For the amount of business, shouldn't the purse be HIGHER?

It's the biggest race we have. Shouldn't it pay like it?

[BCOURTNEY]

Originally Posted by Denny

For the amount of business, shouldn't the purse be HIGHER?

It's the biggest race we have. Shouldn't it pay like it?

Don't worry they will fund it with CDI's latest stock increases.