I began following racing in earnest in '74. A friend of my dad's got me into the history of the game at that point. I read about top 2yo's like Nashua, Tom Fool, Native Dancer, Buckpasser, Northern Dancer etc who all became top 3+ racers. I saw horses like Secretariat, Riva Ridge, Affirmed, Foolish Pleasure, Honest Pleasure, Alydar all have full 2yo season and then return as top class 3yo's.
Today, a horse who's a stakes winner at 2-3-4 is a rarity, if he runs in top class competition. I am not sure the cause of the trend. Relative newcomers see the trend and assume that it's "the way it's always been done" and that's what they do. I think that several factors have influenced the breed.
1.) The Breeders' Cup-a great day of racing but overall it has a negative effect on the season.
2.) Breeding to sell-when a higher % of breeders were producing animals to race in their name and then enter the gene pool in their name, long term soundness was more important than commercial viability.
3.) Medication-lax medication rules has allowed horses who were dependent upon meds to succeed into the gene pool. Lasix and other meds have allowed horses which a couple of generations ago wouldn't have been stakes winners to reproduce at a sometimes alarming rate. Thirty years ago a 40 mare book was huge.

These 3 all work together. For example. Forty or so years ago a horse like Ghostzapper would not likely have been bred to a full book his first year. He would not have been considered sturdy enough. A horse that could only race 4x a year would have been a turn off to breeders at any price. The decreasing season produced by "pointing for the Cup" is now accepted and no one sees 'Zappa as weak because of his few starts.
Generations 'Zappa might have bred some mares but no one was covering 100+ mares a season. As such there was more balance in the breed. More sirelines represented meant a sturdier breed.
Using 'Zap is a prime example of meds as well. He raced on Lasix (and surely other meds) and while obviously very fast he was surely quite fragile. Like Unbridled's Song, he'll have many fast but fragile offspring to continue thwe downward spiral of avaerge races per season.

I don't know whats so hard to see about the Breeders Cup having an overall devestating effect on racing indirectly.
The way it works now is to win the BC and be a champion most of the time. Those honors lead to huge revenues in the breeding shed.
WHy beat up your horse all year long only to lose a championship if you don't win the Cup?
The true problem is the bozos who are given votes in the matter. They simply(most) don't follow the sport enough all year long to detremine who had the better year and vote for Cup winners.
Each year Crist or Watchamker do a column after the voting and point out some hysterical(pathetic is more like it) votes that people made. One year a guy voted for a horse owned by Charles Cella(owns Oaklawn) Northern Spur, as a champion and when asked about his vote, turned out the guy was from Arkansas and voted for the horse he said because Cella was a friend of his.
This happens every year.
Trainers have to point for the BC now. Leads to less starts and abbreviated campaigns.
The Bc is a great day and we all love it, but I don't think that it was conceived with the idea that it would ruin grade one racing the rest of the year.
Unfortunately, I don't see things ever going back to the way that they were. So looks like we are stuck. But you certainly can't blame the owners and trainers for playing the game by the new "rules" that they have been given.

What if Belmont ran a "Summer" Breeders Cup-type event in late June or in July with purses close to or at the BC level?

Paid for by whom?


And, to be honest, NYRA already does this....it's called Saratoga.