Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Breeders Cup News/Updates/Opinions

Racing
#121

Aside from actual human capacity, why ISN’T it beneficial to host the Breeder’s Cup at smaller tracks?

I totally see Churchill Down’s point-- it’s a lot of trouble and not a lot of gain when they already host arguably the biggest day in racing.

But I would think it would be win-win for small tracks just to get the national exposure. (Unless they run out of beer… especially in Texas! Egads :lol: )

Or… Aside from the fact that Pimlico falling apart at the seams, why doesn’t MD make a bid for the BC? Pimlico can handle the crowds, and maybe it would breathe some life into MD racing? Or do you think they are just too far gone to even begin to get organized to undertake a BC?

(“You” is not directed at anyone in particular here… I am just wondering…)

#122

Yep, Pimlico would seem logical, but I don’t think that Magna has submitted the track for consideration. Agreed the track has proven they can deal with well over 90,000 people for a day’s worth of racing, wagering and partying. Baltimore, et al has for several years now - provided the weather is good - delivered on attending the big race days.

The fact that the track is dirt may become a factor in 2009 and forward however.

I suspect the Breeders’ Cup officials want a bigger venue because: on-track wagering can only be bigger with more people and the buzz factor with the media of boasting of “100k” people attending a race day. A big city like a NY or LA “technically” should mean the big league and mainstream press (tv, radio, print) will help generate some exciteement. I still think that’s a bit ‘old school’ thinking.

NJ is effectively greater NYC but still failed to be the big story in NY and I don’t think when the BC has been held a Belmont the crowds are huge. Arlington (I was there) was utterly maxed out when the BC came and I thought Lone Star was packed to the gills too. Churchill is Churchill so if the BC was held there from here on out I doubt people would be too dissappointed. Fans would somewhat enjoy making this the fall Kentucky Derby of sorts for a variety of horses at different distances, surfaces and ages.

For “smaller” tracks DelMar in late October could be fun too. I’ve read some discussion as to Saratoga hosting the BC but the general comment is that the risk of weather being too cold is always a factor. The hoards of fans who are just as happy out in the picnic area in August with coolers and watching on tv won’t be there if its 38 degrees :wink:

#123

the BC at Saratoga? that would be too cool… wishful thinking, i’m sure, but still…

#124

I was at Lone Star and that track is very small. They accommodated the extra BC fans by adding temporary tents and grandstands. I thought they did a good job (except for the beer tap running dry) of handling the parking, the turnstiles, etc. It can be done at smaller venues.

#125

I was also wondering about Saratoga, but the weather concerns make sense. Although is Saratoga really any colder than Woodbine?

Aside from the push for artificial surface, I don’t see why they don’t give the Philadelphia market a try-- either Philadelphia Park or Delaware Park. Although I’m not sure what maximum capacity is at either of those places. Seating area at both those tracks seems smalled to me compared to tracks like Churchill Downs. But at the same time, they don’t seem any smaller than Monmouth.

For me, I think it would get kinda dull if the BC just bounces between the big tracks.

#126

[QUOTE=Texarkana;2770261]
Aside from the push for artificial surface, I don’t see why they don’t give the Philadelphia market a try-- either Philadelphia Park or Delaware Park. Although I’m not sure what maximum capacity is at either of those places. Seating area at both those tracks seems smalled to me compared to tracks like Churchill Downs. But at the same time, they don’t seem any smaller than Monmouth.

For me, I think it would get kinda dull if the BC just bounces between the big tracks.[/QUOTE]

Or if going for bigger markets but smaller tracks you could add in the rejuvinated Suffolk Downs to reach the Boston crowd or just converted to Tapeta-surface Golden Gate Fields in San Francisco. It if was pitched to the city as a means to draw in fans who spend money it could get more civic support. Louisville said the economic impac to the city vy having the BC at Churchill Downs was $30 million. That’s not a bad chunk of change :wink:

Both cities off fans traveling to the BC plenty of things to see and do after the races and the nights before. Plenty of nearby hotel space - unlike say Oceanport - to stay at and easy in/out with the airport and public transportation.

The rub with Saratoga on top of the weather concerns is that much of the housing stock for those attending the races during the summer meet are doing so with residents making a lot of accomodations available: from seasonal B&B’s to temp. backyard parking lots nearby. I’m not sure if they’d welcome doing it all over again for two days.

#127

Boston and San Francisco would be great draws… I know very little about the feasibility of hosting the BC at either of those tracks since I’ve never been to either, but the markets themselves would be very attractive in my mind.

I shouldn’t have said earlier that the BC would be “dull” if it stayed at the big tracks… great racing is still great racing. But I love that whole “World class racing comin’ to a track near you” mentality.

#128

If they truly want to keep calling it a “World Championships”, then they seriously need to consider running it at tracks that have proper Turf courses, i.e not 7f bull rings. The “world”, doesn’t race on anything that tight.
I think that is seriously affecting the amount of European horses that are coming over. That and a weak dollar which makes the races seem less appealing compared to the HK and Japan purses.

#129

“World Championships”

With more tracks in the US becoming poly (or varieties thereof) the objection to making perhaps the BC a one-year in US and next year held in Europe may end.

I don’t see however the Asian markets hosting anything except perhaps a sideline day of racing under the banner of “Breeders’ Cup”. They might get maybe 1 US horse shipping to Asia to race. Tons of money and ‘local’ viewership over there but the time difference and the shipping fatigue would make US players scant.

Regarding the tv ratings the preliminary numbers posted yesterday are actually off.

BloodHorse 10-30-07 “Breeders’ Cup TV Ratings Stagnant”

National ratings for ESPN’s coverage of the Breeders’ Cup World Championships Oct. 27 from Monmouth Park in New Jersey show only marginal improvement over last year’s anemic numbers. The telecast, which aired from noon-6:15 EST, drew a .75 national rating, up slightly from 2006’s .7 number. The .75 translates to approximately 1.05-million viewers.

ESPN reports what is termed a cable rating, which is different from the national rating. The cable rating was .87 this year, compared to .85 in 2006, or a rise of 2%. ESPN reported that the 1,053,892 viewers represented a 6% improvement from 993,952 a year ago. Viewership peaked in the final hour, when 1,320,488 people tuned in.

The results of the last two years represent a roughly 50% decline in viewers from 2005, the last year that NBC aired the Breeders’ Cup.

The Breeders’ Cup telecast aired opposite college football coverage on CBS and ABC, and a Nancy Kerrigan ice-skating special on NBC. FOX did not air sports programming during that time.

ESPN reported a .3 rating for the Friday coverage of the Breeders’ Cup from 4-6 p.m. EST.

It would be hard to keep say a ratings point of 3 for the entire 7+ hours of coverage. NBC dictated a lot of the flow of the BC as they were key partners - and voices - in how it work work from the inception. It was a day of racing designed to some degree to a tv audience.

I wonder if a big three network would seek to bring it into their lineup when the contract comes up for renewal.

#130

That is a very valid point. Colonial Downs? :lol:

#131

The facilities might be a tad lacking.

Going back and forth between Hollywood Park, Belmont, Arlington and Woodbine would work. Isn’t Gulfstream now a 9f oval with an 8f turf course?

Saratoga is probably too far off the beaten track to work.

It’s a pity Ascot didn’t put a dirt or all-weather track in the infield when they spent $400m refurbishing a couple of years ago. I suppose they could still do that. That would be the perfect overseas spot.

#132

While the BC does have some rather fat purses the future of the event does depend upon better structuring of the invitations and payouts. Dubai as we all know pays the shipping charges for those invited horses to come there to the festival.

The BC folks do not pick up the transport expenses for the Euro horses. If the event was ever to offer, for example, the race in the UK you can be certain that US owners would balk if the shipping wasn’t at least somehow subsidized if not out and out paid for.

Also ‘win and you’re in’ still falls flat for those horses not nominated to the BC. At the very least if you win a designated race that has such a meaning I think the supplement fee shoudl be waived if the horse is not otherwise nominated to the BC.

Agreed that both actions are just a further drain on the money to be awarded and increase the expenses, yet something has to be done to stem the dwindling of foreign entries.

#133

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;2770703]
The facilities might be a tad lacking. [/QUOTE]

Understatement of the century! :lol: If we’re going for bitty tracks with good turf courses, Atlantic City also has a nice turf course over a mile. :smiley:

Going back and forth between Hollywood Park, Belmont, Arlington and Woodbine would work. Isn’t Gulfstream now a 9f oval with an 8f turf course?

Saratoga is probably too far off the beaten track to work.

It’s a pity Ascot didn’t put a dirt or all-weather track in the infield when they spent $400m refurbishing a couple of years ago. I suppose they could still do that. That would be the perfect overseas spot.

Yes, Gulfstream is a mile turf course now. I think those 4 tracks would probably work, but I’d still like the idea of incorporating less mainstream tracks in here and there. Not so frequently it would completely dissuade the rest of the “world,” but enough to showcase more tracks in the country.

It is a darn shame Laurel couldn’t handle the crowds…

Moving it over to Europe or Asia… let’s face it, really only North America races as extensively on the dirt, and over half the races are on the dirt. I think you’d really limit the entries, and thus drop TV ratings even more. As much as they want to call it the “World Thoroughbred Championships,” I think everyone in the world knows we think the world revolves around us. :wink: Too bad we need the rest of the world to keep us going. :lol:

#134

Nobiz Like Shobiz might still race at Hollywood Park in 2007

Also performing well in defeat was fourth-place Nobiz Like Shobiz, who was making his first start on wet turf. Trainer Barclay Tagg didn’t rule out an upcoming start in the Hollywood Derby, and said Nobiz Like Shobiz was likely to return for a 2008 campaign.

#135

Do they pay horses to ship from the West coast to the East and vice versa for the BC? Why would they balk at shipping to Ascot. Can’t cost much more than going intracontinental.

The “win and you’re in” deal was silly. Not sure the point in it if you already have to be nominated. I suppose if you had a very oversubscribed field in one of the races, but that definitely wasn’t a problem this year, or most years.

#136

You all make excellent points. I do like the idea of the BC shifting around as it does. It makes the BC accessable to everyone in the US, for the most part, and perhaps might entice people in some areas to get more into it. I might be wrong in thinking that, but I know having the BC in TX when I lived there was really exciting for us. Further, those tracks upgrade their facilities, which is good too. I personally like how they do it. Not every track is going to suite everybody.

But I still can’t believe they ran out of beer in TX!!! How does that happen!? Do other BC goers not drink as much beer :wink:

But I whole heartedly agree, the ‘Win and Your In’ idea, as neat as it sounds, is useless. There should be some financial tag along with it. I guess you can ask, would Lahudood have made it to the BC without it though? The BC folks might argue no, so they win. It appeared to be more of a marketing ploy, and I don’t think it worked the way it set up.

#137

The problem at Saratoga is that the stands are open, not enclosed. You are never really “indoors” at Saratoga, just under a roof. Most of the big day seating there (Travers) is outside, on the ground. Also, they cannot run 1 1/16 Mile races here for the babies or a 1 Mile dirt race. The barns are also open, not enclosed like Belmont.

As for accessability by having the Cup travel, it make sense until you see the price of a grandstand bleacher seat. Mine was $200 and I had no roof over my head.

I was there and though Monmouth did a nice job. The fact is that I got the impression before the event than many of the “usual writers” were negative on the event going to Monmouth in the first place.

#138

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;2770576]
If they truly want to keep calling it a “World Championships”, then they seriously need to consider running it at tracks that have proper Turf courses, i.e not 7f bull rings. The “world”, doesn’t race on anything that tight.[/QUOTE]

Interestingly the South China Post newspaper said it almost the exact way …

And surely, there must be someone, somewhere questioning the concept of having so-called world championship turf races on these seven-furlong dog tracks that are even tighter than Happy Valley? Yes, there are tracks that small.

And are they really “world championships” when the entry system presents such a formidable barrier for horses produced outside the US breeding industry?

South: South China Post Wed Oct 31, 2007 “We’re doing just fine”

#139

They make an excellent point.
Can you imagine if the BC Classic was held on a 6f or 7f dirt track? There would be a mutiny among trainers and owners. Well that’s in effect what they are asking European horses to do when to hold the BC at small tracks. It’s especially ridiculous in the BC Mile, as many of the big Mile races in Europe are on straight, or one gentle turn, courses. The draw effectively killed Excellent Art’s chances in this year’s Mile. That’s not racing, that’s a lottery.

As to the entries, that’s another good point. It’s hardly a world championship if the Aussies, the Japanese, HK and South Africa aren’t represented.

#140

[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;2771991]
They make an excellent point.
Can you imagine if the BC Classic was held on a 6f or 7f dirt track? There would be a mutiny among trainers and owners. Well that’s in effect what they are asking European horses to do when to hold the BC at small tracks. It’s especially ridiculous in the BC Mile, as many of the big Mile races in Europe are on straight, or one gentle turn, courses. The draw effectively killed Excellent Art’s chances in this year’s Mile. That’s not racing, that’s a lottery.

As to the entries, that’s another good point. It’s hardly a world championship if the Aussies, the Japanese, HK and South Africa aren’t represented.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree that “World Thoroughbred Championships” is a misnomer. But I think at the bottom of the debate is the fact that it is an American initiated and an American fueled event.

If there is one thing the American population cares about less than horse racing, it’s international horse racing. If we start moving it overseas, well shoot, the American fans will be gone. Just go ask the average American, horse person, bettor, or not, who won the Arc de Triomphe this year. Or the Dubai World Cup. You are going to get a lot of blank stares. And how many international races can you think of that are even broadcast on TV in the states (aside from TVG or HRTV)?

Another note- 7 of the races are on dirt. Where else in the world do they race on dirt to the extent we do? I really can’t see that many trainers/owners being willing to ship their horses overseas to run in something like the BC Juvenile Fillies. At the same time, what other countries are going to be able to fill those races?

I would rather them get rid of the silly “World Thoroughbred Championships” title and just call it the North American Breeders Cup. Or, they can keep the title, give it to the “world,” allow them to restructure it accordingly, and pretty much lose all involvement with it. But in the end, I would rather push to promote another great day(s) of American racing than a great day of international racing.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $29.99 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse