Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Any ideas?

What's the goal?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

California Chrome, off a layoff, was beaten 7 lengths in the PA Derby by Bayern who walked on the lead--this coming off a pathetic 1/2 mile pop-and-stop in the Travers.

Bayern then lasted a nose and neck in front of Chrome in the BC.

Let's not forget that four weeks earlier he had won the Haskell and four weeks before that the Woody Stephens. I thought with his style, he was outless in that year's Travers.

I'd suggest that Bayern physically matured over the summer and by November he was a better horse than CC. I guess if you see the two head to head races as not definitive of that fact you can disagree.

Of course, I didn't think either of them should have been HOY. My vote would have gone to Main Sequence.

[soonboomer]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

I'm in your camp on this one. When you have a card like Belmont put on Saturday, it's a horseplayer's dream. If they want to fix what's broken, make it a more attractive game to gamble on. As far as the Triple Crown, leave it be. It needs to take a great horse to win all three...a sound horse..with superior speed and stamina.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

Any ideas?

That argument has been hashed out a few times here recently.

Lowering takeout would be a good start. Giving people a better product to bet on would help. Change the image of the sport by imposing stiffer penalties on repeat offenders.

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I gave it more thought.

I respect your opinion but don't think another triple crown winner is going to do much. At least not to bettors. Our sport needs to attract the guys and gals that spend hours upon hours playing fantasy sports. They've got money and they are itching to wager with it. We need to give them a better product.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

That argument has been hashed out a few times here recently.

Lowering takeout would be a good start. Giving people a better product to bet on would help. Change the image of the sport by imposing stiffer penalties on repeat offenders.

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I gave it more thought.

I respect your opinion but don't think another triple crown winner is going to do much. At least not to bettors. Our sport needs to attract the guys and gals that spend hours upon hours playing fantasy sports. They've got money and they are itching to wager with it. We need to give them a better product.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Track Phantom]

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

they did have something like that not too far back, maybe mid 90's or so.

Also had something called the ACRS I think with a similar structure for running in designated events with a bonus at the end.

[Track Phantom]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

they did have something like that not too far back, maybe mid 90's or so.

Also had something called the ACRS I think with a similar structure for running in designated events with a bonus at the end.

What they had didn't fix the problem. I believe they had a points system that awarded runners who hit the board and accumulated points. That might inspire the top end runners to go on but what is needed is those middle to back end finishers in the Derby to continue on.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

+1

Also, the TC is just about the only thing left in American racing that incentivizes running your horse often. That's important.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

Good idea. I wish they did this racing for all year round for all divisions. Give incentives to owners to run. A point system that rewards horses that have competed in more races within their division plus performance points depending on how well they do in the race would be awesome. You could then provide a financial reward to that owner if their horse earns the most points.

For example, right now the Breeders Cup win and your in races is frankly a dumb concept. It is one arbitrary race. Instead of doing that give that Breeders Cup spot including entry fee, cost of transport, etc. to the horse in the division that has danced the most dances and performed the best in those dances.

[Robert Fischer]

Effects have effects.

If everybody starts standing on their toes to see the parade, then we all have to stand on our toes. Vision is just as bad, and now I've got a cramp.


If we space the Triple Crown, then we have to eliminate (or 'space' ) the Jim Dandy and the Haskell.

Effects have effects. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

Trainers opt to rest star 3yo's after the Preakness because the 1 1/2 mile Belmont is more risky and less rewarding than races like the Haskell and Travers. It's not just spacing, although spacing is a big part of it.

The Belmont is for horses like Tapwrit, Meantime, Gormley, J Boys Echo, Lookin At Lee. It isn't for horses like Cloud Computing, Classic Empire, Timeline, Always Dreaming etc... unless they have a triple crown on the line, have 'sporting' owners riding the high of the triple crown spotlight, or are looking to go 1-and-done to stud.

Spacing may make the Belmont, or a Derby+Preakness (2/3) more attractive, but this isn't kindergarten. You start moving things around, and you have to understand where everything else has to be adjusted to, and why.

[five-eighths]

The only thing I would think about changing is maybe adding a week between the Preakness and the Belmont. Triple Crown is not broken it's supposed to be tough, but adding that week would help out the horses that were good enough to run the first two legs.

Would be nice if there was a TC for 4yo so we could see some of the better horses race longer.

[burnsy]

Originally Posted by elhelmete

Why is having more frequent TC winners a better outcome than having fewer TC winners?

Asking seriously, my opinion isn't fully formed yet.

I started a thread in the Triple Crown section that's similar. My argument has nothing to do with TC winners, ratings or handle. The fact is the trainers are admitting that these horses can't do the 5 weeks. Has nothing to do with all the crap people are arguing over.......attendance, money or more TC winners. Its about the horses and burning them out. The moniker of calling this a "TRIPLE" is now pretty much a joke. There were 20 horses in the Derby, one ran a Triple. If they don't change the logistics then they got to change the rules, these outcomes are embarrassing. To all the, handle, attendance , money screamers. Santa Anita canned two more days last week.........there will be like maybe 2 thousand people at Belmont tomorrow. Horse racing is killing it.....why change anything?

Put it this way, they better do something...........anything to get more participants (horses actually running) and fan/owner interest or its just going to get worse. Forget I wrote this........its going great!

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I wouldnt change the TC.

What I would change is how narrow race conditions have become. There are so many different conditions now that trainers can opt to wait for the perfect race to help bolster their ITM %s. Yes, there would have to be cooperation between tracks, esp at this time of year where horses can ship just about anywhere in the northeast. But by doing this trainers will have to run when the opportunity presents itself.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.

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.