The Great Derby Paradox

[asudevil]

I'm sitting here and reflecting upon yesterday. Great story lines, the winning connections, etc. and all that despite a horrific weather day. I digress....kudos to those here who scored big. MMSC and Point come to mind with the Oaks/Derby punts. I believe I'm one of the many who said after the race, "if I only put Golden Soul in the 2nd position, as well as 3rd and 4th."

Today the data has been pouring in. Second largest handle ever (good weather would have pushed it to a record). Best NBC ratings in 21 years. Good pub earlier in the week from two 60 Minutes segments. You know where I'm going with this. Why then does the sport continually have challenges throughout the year? Obviously I'm not including BC, Saratoga, Del Mar, and I guess Keeneland to some extent. The marketing of the Derby has certainly helped widen the appeal. The purists may not love the celebs, red carpet, the mansion, etc...but it is sure working to the event's advantage. Apart from this, I guess the derby is part and parcel to what's become an ADHD society. The need for star studded events with a splash of instant gratification. Who knows if that's it?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by asudevil

I'm sitting here and reflecting upon yesterday. Great story lines, the winning connections, etc. and all that despite a horrific weather day. I digress....kudos to those here who scored big. MMSC and Point come to mind with the Oaks/Derby punts. I believe I'm one of the many who said after the race, "if I only put Golden Soul in the 2nd position, as well as 3rd and 4th."

Today the data has been pouring in. Second largest handle ever (good weather would have pushed it to a record). Best NBC ratings in 21 years. Good pub earlier in the week from two 60 Minutes segments. You know where I'm going with this. Why then does the sport continually have challenges throughout the year? Obviously I'm not including BC, Saratoga, Del Mar, and I guess Keeneland to some extent. The marketing of the Derby has certainly helped widen the appeal. The purists may not love the celebs, red carpet, the mansion, etc...but it is sure working to the event's advantage. Apart from this, I guess the derby is part and parcel to what's become an ADHD society. The need for star studded events with a splash of instant gratification. Who knows if that's it?

Because the sport is on 7 days a week 365 days a year and wipes out the folks who love it enough to engage it daily.

[blackthroatedwind]

I'm not sure this is a paradox. The Derby is mainstream Americana. A lot of effort was made to publicize it. People are attracted to things that celebrities are doing. Handle in horse racing has been going up ( despite the cries to the contrary by the ill-informed naysayers ).

We still need to educate the public about what is fascinating about this great game if we expect to create viable new fans. I'm not saying I have the answers as to how to do this, but I would say that identifying your potential new fans correctly, or responsibly, is probably a good place to start. I do, however, think ignoring the gambling aspect of the game is not likely to allow you to turn the casual viewer into a productive participant in the game.

I should hope that the marketers behind major productions like the Triple Crown races know how to attract peoples' attentions. My question is whether or not you think the celebrity/human interest stories are being effectively counter balanced with some sort of productive fan education elements. I can't offer any specific thoughts in this instance, as I did not see any of the NBC coverage. I am actually curious.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I'm not sure this is a paradox. The Derby is mainstream Americana. A lot of effort was made to publicize it. People are attracted to things that celebrities are doing. Handle in horse racing has been going up ( despite the cries to the contrary by the ill-informed naysayers ).

We still need to educate the public about what is fascinating about this great game if we expect to create viable new fans. I'm not saying I have the answers as to how to do this, but I would say that identifying your potential new fans correctly, or responsibly, is probably a good place to start. I do, however, think ignoring the gambling aspect of the game is not likely to allow you to turn the casual viewer into a productive participant in the game.

I should hope that the marketers behind major productions like the Triple Crown races know how to attract peoples' attentions. My question is whether or not you think the celebrity/human interest stories are being effectively counter balanced with some sort of productive fan education elements. I can't offer any specific thoughts in this instance, as I did not see any of the NBC coverage. I am actually curious.

Despite some of the usual fluff, I thought NBC continues to improve the telecast. Racing regulars must keep in mind that the network has to keep it real simple (dumbed down) for the general public. Their informational graphics, for instance, are always improving. Example...A side by side explanation of who has run in the slop and who's pedigree favored off tracks was very clean and easy. Hammond, Bailey, and Moss look very comfortable. Although some may find her annoying, Michelle Beadle's piece on race calling was great. Folks got to see the perspective from Larry's booth where they actually had him calling a live race. I do agree that a little more gambling education, incorporated into the broadcast, could be a facilitator for potential players.

[rpncaine]

I also enjoyed the NBC coverage (sans Costas). My mom, wife and son didn't even bitch about it being on every TV in the house :-) and were invested in the races all afternoon. I noticed several Facebook friends that I never thought would be interested that also enjoyed/commented about the race. Some even said my posts and also the wife's posts peaked their interest. One actually opened a Twinspires account and hit the exacta. Not to jinx it, but if Orb can make a Triple Crown run, it will really peak the interest. Hell I sit on an isle at work with a lot of traffic and I get people who stop by that I don't know who want to talk horses. The interest is there in a lot of folks, we just have to mine it.

[10 pnt move up]

I thought Bailey was better this time around.

I do not remember seeing much of Randy Moss until the actual Derby telecast, which was surprising.

It seems to me NBC is moving further and further away from the handicapping/gambling aspect of the game and focusing on the pageantry of the event.

Even in Fridays telecast they spent much less time covering the races than in the past, it would be all Derby stuff, then two minutes before post they would go to the upcoming stakes race.

[Clip-Clop]

We have an Irish pub in town that became an OTB about three weeks ago. Owner told me that it had been very quiet until Saturday. People were outside waiting at 10am and stayed/wagered all day. Tellers were having to explain how to bet to a lot of people but he said they did about 24K over 6 hours. Not too bad for a city where almost no one knows we have a track!

[pweizer]

It was a huge plus that they actually showed the Woodford reserve Turf Classic this year.

The big minus was not playing up the fact that the current horse of the year was participating. That was a real missed opportunity to show casual fans that racing exists at a high level beyond just the Derby.

Paul

[Cannon Shell]

I think that on marquee days the everyday issues that plague the sport just aren't apparent. We have big crowds, big pools and big, competitive quality fields. Most days we have small crowds, small pools and small, non competitive lacking in quality fields.

Some of the underlying issues in the sport that aren't being addressed are we have track ownership in many area's that is looking to marginalize their racing operations to the point where you have to question how long they until they try to separate themselves from it. Ironically CDI is one of those companies. Greenwood and Penn Nat'l gaming or Delaware or MNR have no love for pari-mutual gambling or racing. Hollywood is already doomed. Who knows what the plan for the Stronach tracks are post-Frank. This is a core issue that the average viewer watching the Derby telecast would find hard to believe.

The day to day fields in most locations are just not that good. There are a number of reasons for this and foal crop seems to be the favorite excuse but of course that is a weak argument being that this trend started long before a huge drop off in the numbers.

Takeout/pricing is still out of whack compared to competing forms of gambling.


I think that racing made huge mistakes in the late 80's/early 90's when simulcasting took off. What full card simulcasting did was take racing from a regional sport to a national sport and the truth is that the game never really learned how to adjust.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that on marquee days the everyday issues that plague the sport just aren't apparent. We have big crowds, big pools and big, competitive quality fields. Most days we have small crowds, small pools and small, non competitive lacking in quality fields.

Some of the underlying issues in the sport that aren't being addressed are we have track ownership in many area's that is looking to marginalize their racing operations to the point where you have to question how long they until they try to separate themselves from it. Ironically CDI is one of those companies. Greenwood and Penn Nat'l gaming or Delaware or MNR have no love for pari-mutual gambling or racing. Hollywood is already doomed. Who knows what the plan for the Stronach tracks are post-Frank. This is a core issue that the average viewer watching the Derby telecast would find hard to believe.

The day to day fields in most locations are just not that good. There are a number of reasons for this and foal crop seems to be the favorite excuse but of course that is a weak argument being that this trend started long before a huge drop off in the numbers.

Takeout/pricing is still out of whack compared to competing forms of gambling.


I think that racing made huge mistakes in the late 80's/early 90's when simulcasting took off. What full card simulcasting did was take racing from a regional sport to a national sport and the truth is that the game never really learned how to adjust.

What mistake was that? What do you think they should've done?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that on marquee days the everyday issues that plague the sport just aren't apparent. We have big crowds, big pools and big, competitive quality fields. Most days we have small crowds, small pools and small, non competitive lacking in quality fields.

Some of the underlying issues in the sport that aren't being addressed are we have track ownership in many area's that is looking to marginalize their racing operations to the point where you have to question how long they until they try to separate themselves from it. Ironically CDI is one of those companies. Greenwood and Penn Nat'l gaming or Delaware or MNR have no love for pari-mutual gambling or racing. Hollywood is already doomed. Who knows what the plan for the Stronach tracks are post-Frank. This is a core issue that the average viewer watching the Derby telecast would find hard to believe.

The day to day fields in most locations are just not that good. There are a number of reasons for this and foal crop seems to be the favorite excuse but of course that is a weak argument being that this trend started long before a huge drop off in the numbers.

Takeout/pricing is still out of whack compared to competing forms of gambling.


I think that racing made huge mistakes in the late 80's/early 90's when simulcasting took off. What full card simulcasting did was take racing from a regional sport to a national sport and the truth is that the game never really learned how to adjust.

Pretty much nails it. I'm not sure what the fix is, other than less racing. There aren't enough horses, and the horses we have don't run enough, to support all the race dates we have. Takeout is bad, but could probably live with it IF fields were better and more competitive.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jms62

What mistake was that? What do you think they should've done?

They completely underestimated it. The bigger tracks stupidly more or less gave away their product for close to nothing and the smaller tracks were naive enough to not think that their fans eventually wouldnt rather bet on the better product rather than the inferior live product.

That is the obvious flaw. What is less obvious is that at the point when it became inevitable that simulcasting was going to change the game, the tracks and horsemen and regulators failed to adopt similar rules and regulations so that the same $ increments were used universally, that stewards were using the same rules in making DQ's, that wagering rules regarding scratches, late scratches, shoeing changes, etc. were basically the same. It would have been easier to do it then than now and a lot of these things still aren't fixed.

In 1985 it didn't matter for the most part what happened in other jurisdictions. Now 90% of the handle coming from places other than the actual racetrack.

[justindew]

I don't think the issues are as in-depth as some might suggest. It's really pretty simple. The takeout, combined with the perception on the part of the public that if you don't know who is cheating you are at a disadvantage to those who do know, give the casual gambler the impression that there are easier ways to win money.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by asudevil

Despite some of the usual fluff, I thought NBC continues to improve the telecast. Racing regulars must keep in mind that the network has to keep it real simple (dumbed down) for the general public. Their informational graphics, for instance, are always improving. Example...A side by side explanation of who has run in the slop and who's pedigree favored off tracks was very clean and easy. Hammond, Bailey, and Moss look very comfortable. Although some may find her annoying, Michelle Beadle's piece on race calling was great. Folks got to see the perspective from Larry's booth where they actually had him calling a live race. I do agree that a little more gambling education, incorporated into the broadcast, could be a facilitator for potential players.

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Pretty much nails it. I'm not sure what the fix is, other than less racing. There aren't enough horses, and the horses we have don't run enough, to support all the race dates we have. Takeout is bad, but could probably live with it IF fields were better and more competitive.

I dont buy the less horses matters that much. There are certainly less owners but there are a lot of horses out there.

Less racing doesn't work on its own. Racing Secretaries have painted themselves in a proverbial corner by writing far too many conditioned claimers. They know it too but all say the same thing (at least in the mid-atlantic) hat they would change it if the other tracks would too.

This allows claimers to be campaigned like allowance horses which is not how it is supposed to be. Rather than race the horse and move them up and down in class based on results, everyone wants to wait for their condition. When you have 5000 nw2, 5000 nw3, 5000 nw4, 5000 nw1 in 6 months, 5000 nw2 in 6 months, 5000 nw1 year going short and long for colts and fillies divides up a huge class of horses that used to be known as 5000 claimers. In effect you have created 24 classes of 5000 claimers. The same thing exists for higher priced claimers as well. Is it any wonder why they don't get full fields? Owners and trainers will wait for the exact condition they are eligible for. It might come in a week or it might come in 5 weeks depending on what fills. When your cheapest horses are waiting 5/6 weeks to run, you will have issues. The claiming ladder is gone because the higher claimers mostly have conditions attached as well. So if you claim a 5000 nw3 horse that gets beat a nose you are either going to wait out jail (30 days) or try a 7500 nw3 whenever that race may go. By dividing up claimers into so many different classes it dilutes the pool as a whole which really makes their jobs harder.

As for the big tracks the disparity between haves and have nots grows wider every day. Until that is addressed I can't imagine how the cards could possible improve.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well.

Very true. Football is anything but dumbed down on TV. I would argue football is even harder to understand than horse racing when you factor in the terminology the analysts frequently use.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

I agree with alot of what you are saying but my question is how much control of the content of the show do racing people have and does NBC (or another network potentially) care enough about racing to consider trying it? It isn't like they don't have 1 1/2 to kill anyway.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I 100% disagree with the highlighted part. NBC chooses to dumb it down. In my opinion, this is the exact opposite of what we should be doing as an industry. John Madden explained football to the masses. We could do that as well. A ten minute segment, with a telestrator, taking apart key points of the Derby preps, would have greatly enlightened viewers, and enhanced their viewing pleasure by making them understand what was going on. The most interesting part of our game are the actual races, which is especially true of a 20 horse KY Derby, yet we don't even give the audience a chance to understand what they are watching.

Is the concept that a fast pace hurts the horses up front, and thus helps the horses from way back, too difficult for viewers too understand? I don't think so, but unless we take the time to explain this, and demonstrate it, we won't even get the audience thinking about it. In my opinion, we waste a lot of time by both incorrectly identifying our potential audience, and failing to take any advantage of the opportunity to educate them. We will never truly grow our fan base in a meaningful way by continuing in this direction.

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by MaTH716

While I totally understand your point, I feel like there is a huge segment of the audience that just doesn't care about the nuts and bolts of the racing. They pick their favorite names, jockeys and colors. They play their kids birthdays, addresses and favorite numbers. These people just want the fluff pieces and pagentry. Even if someone paid attention and picked something up, there is no way that they can capitalize on it because their bets are already in.

Maybe NBC should dedicate 2 channels for the pre-race show. One could be the nuts & bolts handicapping, with pace discussion, track bias talk other race on the card talk, etc. Then you have the fluff show for the people who bet their dogs name and are at a party watching the race. You would think that this would be a win win situation for everyone. The bettors/people looking to learn, might pick something up and still have the ability to get a wager in. While the fluff crowd could learn how to make the perfect mint julip.

It wouldn't be the first time that some people didn't pay attention to part of a television broadcast, but you might be surprised how many in a captive audience might have their attention grabbed.

Once again, I completely disagree with this mentality. In fact, I basically base my professional life, which every day seems to be more of my entire life, on this concept. If we want people to become more interested in our game we need to at least offer them the opportunity to understand it.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont buy the less horses matters that much. There are certainly less owners but there are a lot of horses out there.

Less racing doesn't work on its own. Racing Secretaries have painted themselves in a proverbial corner by writing far too many conditioned claimers. They know it too but all say the same thing (at least in the mid-atlantic) hat they would change it if the other tracks would too.

This allows claimers to be campaigned like allowance horses which is not how it is supposed to be. Rather than race the horse and move them up and down in class based on results, everyone wants to wait for their condition. When you have 5000 nw2, 5000 nw3, 5000 nw4, 5000 nw1 in 6 months, 5000 nw2 in 6 months, 5000 nw1 year going short and long for colts and fillies divides up a huge class of horses that used to be known as 5000 claimers. In effect you have created 24 classes of 5000 claimers. The same thing exists for higher priced claimers as well. Is it any wonder why they don't get full fields? Owners and trainers will wait for the exact condition they are eligible for. It might come in a week or it might come in 5 weeks depending on what fills. When your cheapest horses are waiting 5/6 weeks to run, you will have issues. The claiming ladder is gone because the higher claimers mostly have conditions attached as well. So if you claim a 5000 nw3 horse that gets beat a nose you are either going to wait out jail (30 days) or try a 7500 nw3 whenever that race may go. By dividing up claimers into so many different classes it dilutes the pool as a whole which really makes their jobs harder.

As for the big tracks the disparity between haves and have nots grows wider every day. Until that is addressed I can't imagine how the cards could possible improve.

I probably don't pay enough attention to this situation but your post makes some sense.