Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 07-09-2010, 10:51 AM   #1
andymays
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,908
Jeremy Plonk: Racing Needs To Downsize And It Is!

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/hor...emy&id=5365143

Excerpt:

In November of 2008, I wrote a piece for this site about the racing industry's need for contraction. The premise remains: Too much racing at too many places with too few fans to support it on a 50,000-races-per-year basis. Now, perhaps even more grossly in numbers, we have too few horses entering races to support the schedule as well.

Whether it wishes to or not, the thoroughbred racing game continues to undergo massive contraction. Going back only to 1989, more than 74,000 races were run in America, according to Equibase and the Jockey Club Fact Book. Last year, that number slipped to 49,000. That's roughly a one-third drop in the number of races in 20 years.

Excerpt:

No matter which definition first comes to mind for you when you hear the word "contraction," chances are there will be some pain involved. But when the pain subsides, you've given birth to something that you can embrace for years to come.
andymays is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 11:39 AM   #2
lamboguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston+Ocala
Posts: 23,637
he couldn't be more wrong, but this is what is going to happen to racing.

the game needs a complete overhaul to start out with. there is something wrong when you get million dollar horses that run once every 6 months. that is structurally unsound for the game.

the easy way out would be to have racing contract in size. its not the cure, the smaller you make the game the less interest you will have in it. this game needs expansion, not contraction. but more importantly it needs the people to support the expansion, and the game seems to be losing those people on a very consistant basis.
lamboguy is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 11:51 AM   #3
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamboguy
he couldn't be more wrong, but this is what is going to happen to racing.

the game needs a complete overhaul to start out with. there is something wrong when you get million dollar horses that run once every 6 months. that is structurally unsound for the game.

the easy way out would be to have racing contract in size. its not the cure, the smaller you make the game the less interest you will have in it. this game needs expansion, not contraction. but more importantly it needs the people to support the expansion, and the game seems to be losing those people on a very consistant basis.
I don't agree. There are far too many tracks and too many races for the horse population. We need competitive racing. Nobody likes these cards where the longshot of the day is 5 to 2. There will be pain, but in the end, the game could prosper. But it isn't going to happen with 40 tracks running on a Saturday with nothing but horrible horses or 6 horse fields.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 11:58 AM   #4
andymays
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,908
One of the problems with the downsizing that's going on is that it appears that the Tracks that are subsidized by the Casino money will be the ones to survive while some of the best tracks/facilities will go away.

What happens when the Casino subsidies go away? What happens when they figure out that Horse Racing isn't really needed by the Casinos?

I do think that in theory we need the handle concentrated on less tracks. I just wish it was concentrated on the best tracks out there and not just the ones with Casino money. Oh well.
andymays is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 12:03 PM   #5
Horseplayersbet.com
Registered User
 
Horseplayersbet.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I don't agree. There are far too many tracks and too many races for the horse population. We need competitive racing. Nobody likes these cards where the longshot of the day is 5 to 2. There will be pain, but in the end, the game could prosper. But it isn't going to happen with 40 tracks running on a Saturday with nothing but horrible horses or 6 horse fields.
You can't just look at it from the bettor's perspective. If you get rid of many of the 5 claimers, you lose owners, trainers and those who work for them. You also lose a reason to be subsidized with slots.
Owners bring out friends and family to the tracks, and they are a good source of new bettors.
I know you won't disagree that we need new bettors.
And what happens to the breeding industry. It will get kicked big time as many owners will not buy horses unless they have outs by running them cheaper to try to get their money out.

I think there are enough tracks right now, I just think we need more owners. So yes, we need better purses, but it all revolves around attracting more bettors....and this is only possible by lowering the price of the product (the takeout).
__________________

Horseplayersbet.com is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 12:09 PM   #6
BillW
Comfortably Numb
 
BillW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lexington, Ky
Posts: 6,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by andymays
One of the problems with the downsizing that's going on is that it appears that the Tracks that are subsidized by the Casino money will be the ones to survive while some of the best tracks/facilities will go away.

What happens when the Casino subsidies go away? What happens when they figure out that Horse Racing isn't really needed by the Casinos?

I do think that in theory we need the handle concentrated on less tracks. I just wish it was concentrated on the best tracks out there and not just the ones with Casino money. Oh well.
You're describing the flaw in the horsemen's "business plan" to grab for all the casino money they can. They are voluntarily destroying their own business. If you want to keep a failing business alive, you fight to make it profitable, not dependant on a handout.
__________________
http://horseplayersassociation.org/ - "Giving Horseplayers a Voice"
BillW is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 12:11 PM   #7
andymays
Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillW
You're describing the flaw in the horsemen's "business plan" to grab for all the casino money they can. They are voluntarily destroying their own business. If you want to keep a failing business alive, you fight to make it profitable, not dependant on a handout.

Right. They want to do everything they can not to address the problem and correct it.

Make betting on Horse Races a good bet again. A bet that can compete with other forms of gambling. Once that happens word of mouth takes care of the rest.
andymays is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 01:58 PM   #8
thespaah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
I think the writer is in the ballpark.
I agree with his premise that there is a a contraction about to happen in the business, but for other reasons.
As prvioulsy stated there are too many tracks competing for the same horses located closely to each other.
Other issues.
The rules in place allow trainers to warehouse horses. Current training methods have given rise to 7 start per year management of racehorses.
It's far too easy for a trainer to scratch a horse.
Racing secretaries have a tough job writing races for finicky connections that seemngly run when their horse is superior to the rest fo the entries. If no, the trainer withdraws. That's crap. There are trainers who will scratch if they draw an inside post. That's crap.
There are tons of other issues.
The bottom line is this, track managements are goingot have to get together with horsemen's groups and create a united front that has a goal for improving the game.
That united front needs to be presented to respective state racing commissions and presented in such a manner as to state if these things are not done the government here in ( fill in state name) will not only lose a sginificant source of revenue, but will see a tremendous reduction in the number of employed people.
Now, to some this may seem contradictory. Perhaps it is. The idea here is to catch the problem before it gets any worse. This way the impending( my speculation) contraction will hurt fewer people involved with the game.
thespaah is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 02:03 PM   #9
cnollfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 1,365
A race at Gulfstream a couple years ago scratched down to two horses (it was not supposed to be a match race). One was 50 cents to $1 and the other was 80 cents to $1. Can you imagine a football bettor having to bet $20 on the Colts - 6 to win $10, or $20 on the Saints + 6 to win $16? Sports betting wouldn't last two days at that rate. But that's what horseplayers are expected to do every day, and then the industry wrings its hands and says, gee, nobody likes horse racing anymore.
cnollfan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 02:05 PM   #10
46zilzal
velocitician
 
46zilzal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 26,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillW
You're describing the flaw in the horsemen's "business plan" to grab for all the casino money they can. They are voluntarily destroying their own business. If you want to keep a failing business alive, you fight to make it profitable, not dependant on a handout.
EXACTLY...once the revenue per capita invested comes back, racing is a poor cousin to the casino money. I watched out here over the last few years how racing is being put on the back burner as an afterthought
__________________
"If this world is all about winners, what's for the losers?" Jr. Bonner: "Well somebody's got to hold the horses Ace."
46zilzal is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 02:09 PM   #11
Dahoss9698
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 9,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnollfan
A race at Gulfstream a couple years ago scratched down to two horses (it was not supposed to be a match race). One was 50 cents to $1 and the other was 80 cents to $1. Can you imagine a football bettor having to bet $20 on the Colts - 6 to win $10, or $20 on the Saints + 6 to win $16? Sports betting wouldn't last two days at that rate. But that's what horseplayers are expected to do every day, and then the industry wrings its hands and says, gee, nobody likes horse racing anymore.
Horseplayers are expected to bet match races every day? What track?
Dahoss9698 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 03:09 PM   #12
thespaah
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,510
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnollfan
A race at Gulfstream a couple years ago scratched down to two horses (it was not supposed to be a match race). One was 50 cents to $1 and the other was 80 cents to $1. Can you imagine a football bettor having to bet $20 on the Colts - 6 to win $10, or $20 on the Saints + 6 to win $16? Sports betting wouldn't last two days at that rate. But that's what horseplayers are expected to do every day, and then the industry wrings its hands and says, gee, nobody likes horse racing anymore.
Actually sports beting works that way precisely.
For example today ....The Nationals are $153 to win $100. Rays are $200 to win $100....All favorites are odds on.
Sports betting handle is far more than handle on horse racing.
I am not stating here that sports betting is "better" than parimutuel racing.
It is that the comparison used here is ineffective.
thespaah is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 03:13 PM   #13
castaway01
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespaah
Actually sports beting works that way precisely.
For example today ....The Nationals are $153 to win $100. Rays are $200 to win $100....All favorites are odds on.
Sports betting handle is far more than handle on horse racing.
I am not stating here that sports betting is "better" than parimutuel racing.
It is that the comparison used here is ineffective.
I am not disagreeing that more money is bet on sports (okay, the NFL) than horse racing, but do you have any idea of what that number actually is? I'm curious if you know, rather than just saying it's "far more". What's the number---what is the sports betting handle in Vegas?
castaway01 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 04:03 PM   #14
rastajenk
Just Deplorable
 
rastajenk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lebanon, Ohio
Posts: 8,026
Let's see here...the Plonk article points out that contraction has been happening since 1989, with one third fewer races being contested now compared to 20 years ago.

Contraction is supposed to be good, but racing has spiralled with a downward vector during those 20 years.

So we are to believe more contraction is needed? That the contraction that has been occurring hasn't been managed properly, but that future contraction will? Is that what we're being asked to believe?

What other sport hates its fellow fans and participants more than racing? Could golf say, "You public course dirtbags, you're outta here. We need to strengthen the tournament game, so we're sacrificing the publinx gang." How long would major league baseball last if the minor leagues dried up and blew away?

But more to the point, when are the benefits of the contraction of the last 20 years supposed to kick in? Where are the successes of contraction that can be held up as examples of a new business model, harbingers of things to come, glimpses of a rosier future? Not seeing anything other than hazy dreams of superstarstudded weekends one right after another; hopeandchange, equine style.

Horseplayerbets mentioned something that I have said here before on these types of threads. The connections of these cheap horses that everybody loves to hate on are the ones that bring new money to the track. You can't tell 35, 40 percent or more of your fan base to get lost, and expect growth. The premise is not only flawed, it's illogical.
rastajenk is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 07-09-2010, 04:16 PM   #15
rwwupl
Registered User
 
rwwupl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillW
You're describing the flaw in the horsemen's "business plan" to grab for all the casino money they can. They are voluntarily destroying their own business. If you want to keep a failing business alive, you fight to make it profitable, not dependant on a handout.


I hope all these good ideas are not going to waste... It does not cost anything to e-mail them to:


CONTACT
Please contact me with any ideas or thoughts you have to improve the Horse Racing Industry. Working together, as a united group, we can achieve our goals of re-establishing Horse Racing as the most popular sport in America.

dennis_mills@racingfuture.com
rwwupl is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.