|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
11-10-2006, 06:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
The Health Vs. The Handle
I see so many articles about the handle being the important thing when discussing the health of the industry. I don't know that I share that belief. Simply based on increases in income over time and more wagering outlets, you'd expect to see increases in overall handle, especially for the Breeders Cup. When I go to the track what I see is an aging population of horse players. I don't see any young people and the ones I do see go to the free concerts or go to Preakness day to get hammered and bet 2$ at the window. This is a simulcast sport and the typical bettor will be dead in 30 years if not sooner (tongue in cheek). But honestly, I think handle is not the best way to talk about the health of the industry. And please don't tell me the 0.7 rating wasn't bad. It was awful considering the great promotional hump job that ESPN did for weeks.
|
|
#2
11-10-2006, 07:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Totally agree, I love racing as much as I love college football,
college b-ball and high school sports. As a frequent visitor of our local OTB I notice that 2/3 of the people are over 50. The younger crowd seems to be brought into racing by their relatives. I would say 60% of the people don't have a racing program or the form. To these people racing is just a lottery/numbers game by just picking random numbers and making bets. These people to me are just DG's, they just have to make a bet because they sickos. They are also constantly trying to borrow money from each other to fees their sickness
|
|
#3
11-10-2006, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
a lot of folks haven't moved into the modern era and gotten cable or a dish, so anything not on a network will suffer.
speaking of which, how's monday night on espn faring compared to on abc? i have no idea. obviously if football is doing better, than my attempt at explaining the severe drop in viewership is off the mark.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#4
11-10-2006, 08:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
11-10-2006, 08:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
hmmm
only ratings i've heard on any of the games is the pats vs the colts, supposed to have been highly rated.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#6
11-10-2006, 08:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Not to digress, but NBC has a much better deal than ESPN. NBC can pick up until ten days in advance what game they want, and CBS and FOX can only protect one game apiece.. MNF has to strike a deal like that if they ever want to get ratings back, but obviously changing from Sunday to Monday is tougher logistically than changing from Sunday to Sunday night. That doesn't excuse MNF for some of the awful games they've chosen this year which LOOKED AWFUL BEFORE THE SEASON. Honestly, they thought Packers/Eagles or Raiders/Seahawks were going to be big games?
|
Hybrid Mode
