Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I own a piece of 3 horses with some partners. We never skipped a race because the purses are large and we didn't have to run. We love large purses and want to run as often as possible to take advantage of them. But it's not always possible because sometimes there isn't an appropriate spot and sometimes the horses have physical issues.

I think there's a delicate balance between the players and owners/trainers etc...

You need both.

You need happy players to bet and raise handle, but you also need owners to be doing well so they keep buying horses. Then more will be bred and we won't have shortages.

Isn't some of that because as purses rise, so do costs? Feed goes up, day rates go up, vet bills go up. That is what I've seen happen.

[cj]

As for the Triple Crown, most of the preps have changed schedules so I see no reason the TC itself can't change. But, I hope it doesn't. It would just provide even less incentive to run horses more. If you drag it out it will have a bigger impact on the races in the summer and fall. It would damage those races just like the BC has done to former championship level races.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by five-eighths

The only thing I would think about changing is maybe adding a week between the Preakness and the Belmont.

The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.

[Grits]

originally posted by Super Pickle

But even more telling ESPN won't even bid on it. The large owner of sports media in the world dismiss your event as non-event. I would say that in itself defines broken.

FWIW.... ESPN, earlier this year, laid off over 100 of their folks, commentators included. So, ESPN isn't the be all, end all that it once was given they're bleeding losses. As the piece notes, viewers are finding other sources. NBCSN which picked us up is one of those.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/s...offs.html?_r=0

The “Worldwide Leader in Sports,” as ESPN brands itself, laid off scores of journalists and on-air talent on Wednesday, showing that even the most formidable media kingdom was vulnerable to the transformation upending the sports broadcasting industry as more and more people turn away from cable television.

The network has lost more than 10 million subscribers over the past several years. At the same time, the cost of broadcasting major sports has continued to rise. ESPN committed to an eight-year, $15.2 billion deal extension with the N.F.L. in 2011; a nine-year, $12 billion deal with the N.B.A.; and a $7.3 billion deal for the college football playoffs, among many others.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

I'm perfectly OK with that. Our opinions obviously differ.

[Grits]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.

Your point is foolish and nitpicking. Do the math, there's only been 12 of them, and this is a third of the 12.

Last I heard, and this was at Belmont all last week, TCs are still a pretty big deal. It's fine like it is.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I fully remember Bob Baffert -- the trainer that you admire so much -- telling the media that the trainers have to be catered to in this game...because they are "fully invested" in this game...while the "gamblers" have OTHER gambling options to resort to if this game ceases to be "to their liking". I know that, by "gamblers", Baffert was referring to the bettors...but his comment could easily fit the OWNERS, as well.

As Dahoss so accurately stated...the elevated purses were supposed to play a certain role...but they brought about the OPPOSITE side-effect from the one that was initially predicted. Instead of the fields becoming fuller and more competitive...they became smaller, and more UNBETTABLE. Do we continue rewarding the connections, for not delivering on the promises that they initially made?

Align the purses in accordance to field size, I say...and try to do something to breathe some life into this game. Otherwise...we will ALL be looking for a "new, less-expensive hobby".

[PaceAdvantage]

It would be so cool if you actually looked like your avatar. Just sayin'

[Jeff P]

Racing's special event days (Derby, Preakness, Belmont, Breeders Cup Saturday, etc.) aren't the problem.

Racing's problem are the other 360 odd non special event days each year.

The fact that racing is still able to draw big crowds big handle on special event days should tell you something:

Namely that there are still thousands of horseplayers and fans who WANT to support horse racing.

The fact that racing is completely unable to draw big crowds big handle on the other 360 odd non special event days each year should also tell you something:

Namely that because of high takeout, drugs, odds that change after the bell, and the myriad other negatives that have been mentioned thousands and thousands of times over the years by horseplayers right here on Paceadvantage.com...

While at the same time horse racing's decision makers (defined as track management, leadership at horsemen's alphabet groups, racing commissioners, and politicians) have buried their collective heads in the sand:

By refusing to admit you have a problem you have driven the current horseplayer fan base down to a mere fraction of what it once was.

I submit to you the novel idea that - if you want an outfit like ESPN to consider your special event days as "must broadcast" content:

You need to create more horseplayers.

Period.



-jp

.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

By refusing to admit you have a problem you have driven the current horseplayer fan base down to a mere fraction of what it once was.

I submit to you the novel idea that - if you want an outfit like ESPN to consider your special event days as "must broadcast" content:

You need to create more horseplayers.

Period.



-jp

.

In the great gambling laboratory known as Las Vegas...horse-betting is officially DEAD. The few remaining horseplayers have been relegated to remote corners of the specious sportsbooks...and there are no assigned tellers to take their bets. I spent all day yesterday standing behind sports bettors...who were betting on baseball games, six hours before they were scheduled to begin.

And our game is looking for "network coverage"?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

It would be so cool if you actually looked like your avatar. Just sayin'

The only difference is that my mustache has gotten a little grayer in recent years. And I dumped the overcoat...since my move to Vegas.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Isn't some of that because as purses rise, so do costs? Feed goes up, day rates go up, vet bills go up. That is what I've seen happen.

It could be. I'm not around it long enough to know.

I think there's going to be some increase in costs just due to inflation, but I'm not sure how much increased purses impact day rates and things like that. If the purses go up, the trainers/jockeys get more when the horse runs well. 10% of a bigger purse is more money for them too.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I fully remember Bob Baffert -- the trainer that you admire so much -- telling the media that the trainers have to be catered to in this game...because they are "fully invested" in this game...while the "gamblers" have OTHER gambling options to resort to if this game ceases to be "to their liking". I know that, by "gamblers", Baffert was referring to the bettors...but his comment could easily fit the OWNERS, as well.

As Dahoss so accurately stated...the elevated purses were supposed to play a certain role...but they brought about the OPPOSITE side-effect from the one that was initially predicted. Instead of the fields becoming fuller and more competitive...they became smaller, and more UNBETTABLE. Do we continue rewarding the connections, for not delivering on the promises that they initially made?

Align the purses in accordance to field size, I say...and try to do something to breathe some life into this game. Otherwise...we will ALL be looking for a "new, less-expensive hobby".

I think aligning purses and "take" to field size is a great idea, but to get to your other points.

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.

Also, it may be accurate to say that as purses have risen field sizes have fallen, but I believe this may be a case of "correlation" is not the same thing as "causation".

Fields are smaller for a few reasons I can think of and there may be more.

1. Crop sizes are WAY down and we haven't had a corresponding consolidation of tracks/races to match. You'd have to ask breeders why crop sizes are down, but I'm going to guess it's because there wasn't enough demand from owners to buy horses at appropriate prices because they were losing money and economic times were a little tougher.

2. Trainers are saying the horses aren't as sound (I wouldn't know).

3. Perhaps Lasix use is an issue (some think there is a longer recovery time)

4. Some trainers think greater spacing races leads to more "A" efforts (which may or may not be related to #2 and 3#).

To me, #4 is the most controversial. Even if some trainers get better results that way, no one has demonstrated to me that you make more money that way. My group likes running, buy we always defer to the trainer on what's best for the horse's health and well being.

I wouldn't change the Triple Crown. If it's hard to hold a horse together for 3 grueling races and trainers want to space more, I can see how that hurts the series. But when a horse actually pulls it off, it seems like it means more.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I think aligning purses and "take" to field size is a great idea, but to get to your other points.

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.

When do you suppose this "balance" is to take place? Millions and millions of dollars in increased purses have been handed out to the owners in order to lighten the burden that they carry in this game. As an owner yourself...can you tell us when this "balance" is set to kick in...so the horseplayers can ALSO see some benefit from all this "extra money" that has been funneled to this sport in recent years?