Improving the product

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by whodey17

If you cannot afford the $2 or $3 entrance fee, then you shouldn't be going to the racetrack. Horse racing isn't for the casual fan (with a couple of exceptions). Horse racing is for the person who enjoys gambling. Horse racing gets tons of competition from other sources--NFL, NBA, MLB, and casinos to name a few. In addition, horse racing is quite boring. The person has to enjoy the handicapping aspect and also the beauty of the horses racing. Not too many people have 3 hours before the card starts to handicapp and then another 4 hours watching and waiting for the races. Horse racing needs to speed things up a little. We have a generation of people who are young who expect and want things fast--they do not want to have to wait 30 minutes inbetween races. Also, horse racing has to do something to combat the negative connotation that the races are fixed. The NBA had the ref gambling, MLB had Pete Rose....but neither sport can prove that their actions caused teams to win or lose. When a story of a jock, owner, or trainer cheating then that builds upon the opinion that horse racing is fixed. When the casual fan cashes a ticket, I think he/she feels it was dumb luck and not handicapping skills. This is what I would do increase the take-out.

1) Change the negative image of racing
2) Make the time between races 10 minutes
3) I think racing should be a single owned entity (this will never happen).
4) There needs to be national laws governing racing--not at the state level.
5) Make the racetrack "the place to be" with agreassive marketing.

This is just a start.

Will we have 20 races a day? I understand the concern, but God knows I'm not going to go out to the track as often if I have to get all ready, drive over there to see live racing, spend all my time handicapping etc etc, and then get there, watch the races, and have to turn around and drive home 90 minutes later. No chance.

[hockey2315]

Originally Posted by whodey17

If you cannot afford the $2 or $3 entrance fee, then you shouldn't be going to the racetrack.

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not about the $3 entrance fee that people who go to the racetrack once a year have to pay - it's about the regulars who actually generate most of the handle and make real money for the tracks. The tracks are already getting 20% or so of what they put through the windows and then suck another $1000+ probably on admission. Not to mention the cost of PPs, food/drinks at the track, etc... People who play for a living shouldn't have to be subjected to all this unnecessary overhead when they're the ones generating the most handle.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Will we have 20 races a day? I understand the concern, but God knows I'm not going to go out to the track as often if I have to get all ready, drive over there to see live racing, spend all my time handicapping etc etc, and then get there, watch the races, and have to turn around and drive home 90 minutes later. No chance.

imagine how annoying the betting lines would be. I am not a serious horseplayer so I'll glance at the form the night before maybe but the majority of the time I just look that the form is in between races. Wouldnt have time for that if I immediately had to get in line after the last race ended.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Will we have 20 races a day? I understand the concern, but God knows I'm not going to go out to the track as often if I have to get all ready, drive over there to see live racing, spend all my time handicapping etc etc, and then get there, watch the races, and have to turn around and drive home 90 minutes later. No chance.

No have 9 or 10 races. You are thinking like a gambler. Think more like a casual fan. With the decrease amount of time it takes to run the races the race track would save 1000's in operating costs.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Who is investing? Who is going to pay TVG/HRTV to continue to broadcast and compensate their on-air talent while they are giving their product away for free, or on the flipside, who is going to compensate the cable companies who are apparently just going to flip the switch and give away channels for free after already paying for them?

I hardly think that Chef Tony and Billy Mays hawking their crap between races is paying the brunt of the bills...I would suspect that the networks (TVG/HRTV) exist to pimp their own AWD's and are additionally compensated by the tracks they cover. Maybe not...But the amount of revenue they recieve from your cable bill is inconsequencial. Offering the service free of charge is not as far off as one would think.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

Did you read the thread before posting? It's not about the $3 entrance fee that people who go to the racetrack once a year have to pay - it's about the regulars who actually generate most of the handle and make real money for the tracks. The tracks are already getting 20% or so of what they put through the windows and then suck another $1000+ probably on admission. Not to mention the cost of PPs, food/drinks at the track, etc... People who play for a living shouldn't have to be subjected to all this unnecessary overhead when they're the ones generating the most handle.

Why not? I don't understand this concept. And yes I read the post. I disagree 100% with giving people who play "regualry" free admission. And one who cares about the health of the sport should want to pay the admission fee, pp's, and food. I can get into Churchill and Hoosier free anytime I want, but I always pay the $2. I am happy to pay this. As a lover of the sport, I feel it is my duty to support the tracks.

[hockey2315]

You don't support the tracks with your $2 admission fees. . . You support them with bets. . .

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

imagine how annoying the betting lines would be. I am not a serious horseplayer so I'll glance at the form the night before maybe but the majority of the time I just look that the form is in between races. Wouldnt have time for that if I immediately had to get in line after the last race ended.

If a track ever had a problem with too many people betting, then I am sure they will be happy to come up with a solution.

[MISTERGEE]

how bout this idea

1-make it so there is almost no where to sit to see racing live

2-treat everyone like crap

3-make the experience extremely uncomfortable

4-rip everyone off

5-serve plenty of Franks energy drink

oops, damnit this has already been done--------GP 2008

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by hockey2315

You don't support the tracks with your $2 admission fees. . . You support them with bets. . .

I think it is a combination of both. I would love to find out what a place like Hoosier makes a year in admission fees. I think you would be surprised by how much they make. That money is important to off-set the operating costs.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by MISTERGEE

how bout this idea

1-make it so there is almost no where to sit to see racing live

2-treat everyone like crap

3-make the experience extremely uncomfortable

4-rip everyone off

5-serve plenty of Franks energy drink

oops, damnit this has already been done--------GP 2008

Most tracks already have these in place

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think all of your ideas are good except #4 which is a little too simplistic. If you eliminate a lot of tracks breeders will produce far fewer horses. Assuming that you would be in favor of eliminating the smaller tracks, you will be left with the bigger track horseman who are far more likely to not run or scratch than their cheap track counterparts.

#8 would be better dealt with more formal education of stewards rather than the 3 day course that now serves as accreditation. Also forcing them to make public the reasons behind the decision would be helpful. The rules are pretty much the same everywhere but allow for too much individual latitude.

#4, I did say at all levels of racing, meaning high level, mid level, and lower level tracks. There should be a pyramid no doubt. As for breeders producing far fewer horses, I'm not sure this is really a bad thing for anyone but breeders. With the foreign buyers now, I don't think it would hurt that much. I'm pretty sure the game will survive without Indiana, Ohio, and Texas bred horses and the like.

[whodey17]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

Is this the face you look at each night when you are down on your knees in front of your dad? Or is it the look you give to Zito. Speaking of Zito, I noticed he broke another one down today.

Dag nabit! I was hoping my Chuck E. Cheese post would go down as the most ridiculous post of the day.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

I love Chuck E. Cheese

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I hardly think that Chef Tony and Billy Mays hawking their crap between races is paying the brunt of the bills...I would suspect that the networks (TVG/HRTV) exist to pimp their own AWD's and are additionally compensated by the tracks they cover. Maybe not...But the amount of revenue they recieve from your cable bill is inconsequencial. Offering the service free of charge is not as far off as one would think.

But then it's all circular. There is still a substantial amount of money floating around between the groups.

If you're saying that TVG doesn't need the revenue that they get from providing their signal to a cable company, then that answers my original question: TVG and HRTV pay for it.

Because you better believe that no cable company is going to pay for a channel and then give it away for free, nor should they. It's bad business because the cost of all of these channels gets passed on to the customer. That's exactly why the Big 10 Network has been such a royal pain in the ass, because they want an amount equal to every customer that exists in a cable footprint, even when every customer is not watching. No cable company is going to pass that on to their customers for a niche network that has a high operating cost...at least they shouldn't.

[slotdirt]

I've been debating who will be up for DT Troll of the Year for 2008, and I would suggest it's a two man race at this juncture in the calendar year.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by whodey17

No have 9 or 10 races. You are thinking like a gambler. Think more like a casual fan. With the decrease amount of time it takes to run the races the race track would save 1000's in operating costs.

Damn right I'm thinking like a gambler.

And frankly, it would be a terrible idea that would likely bring in an insignificant amount of 'casual fans' while turning off a large segment of the industry's existing bread and butter. Trade gamblers for casual fans -- it doesn't make sense.

[slotdirt]

Honest question: how many "casual fans" who hit the track don't then gamble? I'd suggest somewhere between zero and zero.

The logistics of of trying to space races only ten minutes apart would be a complete nightmare.

How about all major tracks having free wireless internet?