Five New Grade I Races in 2007; Two Others Drop to Grade II

Originally Posted by oracle80

Your just not that bright if you cant see that fewer opportunities that mean anything means fewer races by top horses.
Supply isn't low, purse money is. Graded status is the only motivation they have to run at all, you take that away and you can just forget the whole thing.
You really don't get the business at all.

No obviously you are not very bright. The key is to spur competition all year long.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

I agree that the Breeders Cup weakens the racing year long. However, increasing purses to Grade I's is not the answer. Reducing the number of Grade I races is the key to spur competition in these races. Then you have to take these Grade I races and spread them throughout the year. Then you will have a horse in training all year long. Most trainers like to get 2 or 3 races into their horse before the Grade I event. If you have 3 Grade I's then each trainers wants to get 2 or 3 preps, then those horses are racing anywhere from 6-9 times per year which I am fine with because it is all year long. In addition, it will increase the field for each Grade I race.

No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.

Originally Posted by oracle80

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

You must be young, because you are wrong.
Not that long ago, a few decades ago horses ran against each other all year long. They had to in order to win titles.
They play keepaway now because they know they have the BC to settle it.
WIthout the BC, you'd see teh matchups all year. Unless you wanan explain to me that you are so smart that 85 years of history before the BC when thsi ALWAYS happened was an abberation, lol.

There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

There are plenty of examples in history that I'm sure you can cite where one horse dominated on the east coast and one on the west coast and they never squared off. Assuming that Invasor really did have to skip the JCGC for medical reasons what do you think would have been different about the campaigns for Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor this year from how they were? I think Bernardini would have retired after the JCGC and won HOY while Lava Man would have never come east. Invasor would have run in all the top east coast races without ever squaring off against Bernardini due to the illness in the JCGC. The BC is a major problem and incentives do need to be created to get horses to campaign year round but there is some value added by it such as assuring we got to see Lava Man, Bernardini, and Invasor in the same race this year.

How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.

Originally Posted by oracle80

No see, it wont.
What it will do is give owners even more limited opportunities to make money and send em all out of the game. All grade ones will be run as 14 horse fields with two betting interests. Coolmore/Pletcher and Goldolphin/Shadwell.
The only money in this game as it is is on the back end in the shed. You take away the chances at grade one status and you could pretty much kiss 50% of the players in the game goodbye. They might love the game and be willing to lose some cash to chase a dream, but they won't be willing to lose that much to chase a fantasy. Big difference there.
Like I said, you don't understand the business.

Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

The purse money doesnt matter - well it does but not that much. You have said plenty of times that trainers and owners want that GRADE I WIN for breeding purposes. If you have less Grade I races then you will have fewer opportunities to get that Grade I win. If you have fewer chances, then you will have larger fields. Spread those Grade I races throughout the year then you will have owners, trainers and horses competiting all year. What will increasing the purses do? The JCGC is $1mm and how manty times has there been a 12 horse field in that race?

So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.

Originally Posted by oracle80

Stupid logic.
They used to run it with very little purse money before the BC and always had great fields.
The Bc has changed it all.

You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Great, so we will have a 4 horse field with the betting interest being one horse---yeah that is totally brilliant. Plus that makes for real exciting racing. I love to see a 2/5 shot beat an overmatched field. I love it. Good idea.

This is what your idea would bring, not mine.
Fortunately your idea is so insane that it will never be considered for practical use.

Originally Posted by oracle80

So you are saying that 3 grade one shots each year with no purse money boost is what could work?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!
Dude even the Sheikhs might quit if that happened.

Heck make the three Grade I races worth $5mm each. But having 107 Grade I races is a total joke. Giving a horse a Grade I status like Wagon Limit and Seek Gold is ridiculous.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by oracle80

How do you know what the campaigns would have been without the BC that all pointed for?

Neither of us know so all we can do is speculate. What do you think would have been different? I think Lava Man would have stayed in California and cleaned up there and hoped Bernardini got beat in the JCGC. Bernardini would have retired right after the JCGC and neither Invasor or Lava Man would then have had a chance to beat him and take away HOY.

Like I said the BC does cause a lot of problems but the one thing that is does do is increase the likelihood that the top horses on both coasts will square off at least once. I think that is a big positive.

Originally Posted by oracle80

This is what your idea would bring, not mine.
Fortunately your idea is so insane that it will never be considered for practical use.

No my idea would increase year round racing and larger fields. We would see the stars compete against each other several times a year. However, your solution is to throw money out there. More money doesnt solve the problem. It takes a very immature mind and one without vision to use money as the sole problem solver.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

You didnt answer my question. When was the last time the JCGC had a 12 horse field?

How do I know?
It had to be quite a while ago, pre breeders cup or in the infancy stage of the BC.
I don't know if you can find charts that old or not.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

No my idea would increase year round racing and larger fields. We would see the stars compete against each other several times a year. However, your solution is to throw money out there. More money doesnt solve the problem. It takes a very immature mind and one without vision to use money as the sole problem solver.

And it takes a real genius to wanna reduce the number of big races. LOL!!
Competitive? how do you get competetive fields when all the ownesrs ay **** this and quit?
Stick to tires.

Originally Posted by oracle80

How do I know?
It had to be quite a while ago, pre breeders cup or in the infancy stage of the BC.
I don't know if you can find charts that old or not.

Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?

Originally Posted by oracle80

And it takes a real genius to wanna reduce the number of big races. LOL!!
Competitive? how do you get competetive fields when all the ownesrs ay **** this and quit?
Stick to tires.

Boy, you really dont get it do you. If you have less Grade I races, then you have less Grade I horses breeding. Therefor the breeding wouldnt be so expensive. I think it would attract more owners.

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Doesnt matter when. Now Imagine if that JCGC was only 1 of three Grade I races. Lets say the Breeders Cup was another. BC was run in Nov, the JCGC was run in sometime in the summer. Are you saying that we still would only have 4-6 horse fields?

Even fewer. You'd have no owners or breeders, seriously.
Whos gonna breed or own at the highets level when you turn a next to impossible situation(making money in the game) into a completely hopeless one.
You don't get it. You really don't. We can't get or keep new owners now, what the **** would they get in the game for or stay in the game for if you get three cracks a year at a grade one.
You really can't be that stupid can you?

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by eurobounce

Boy, you really dont get it do you. If you have less Grade I races, then you have less Grade I horses breeding. Therefor the breeding wouldnt be so expensive. I think it would attract more owners.

Wouldn't G2 winners just become more valuable? You'd probably have horses ducking the G1's then to try and get an easy win in a G2 when the top horses are all running in one of the G1s.

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Wouldn't G2 winners just become more valuable? You'd probably have horses ducking the G1's then to try and get an easy win in a G2 when the top horses are all running in one of the G1s.

In other words it would be a pointless move that would accomplish nothing?
Yeah Sniper, you got it.
Year round racing needs to matter again.