I believed I offered a reasonable aternative in the original post. Please, enlighten me as to why a pts system like I proposed would not work?

I just picked some horses from this year 3 year old crop and applied my pts system. Again, this would change if my pts system was in place. Anyway...

Scat Daddy - 70
Circular Quay - 60
Stormello - 57
No Biz - 52
Street Sense - 48
Cowtown Cat - 32
Teuf - 27
Curlin - 22
Storm In May - 22
Sightseeing - 21
Tiago - 16

Clearly no system is perfect, but your system treats, for example, winning the G2 Hutcheson and the G2 Arkansas Derby as equals. That to me, just doesn't make sense. A horse that wins a 9f G2 in April deserves more "credit" than a horse that wins a 7.5 furlong race in March. Under the current system that horse gets that "credit" because the Arkansas Derby is a million dollar race while the Hutcheson is a $150,000 race. I think the current system works better than the system you propose because the 9f April preps - the ones which are probably the best indicators of who "belongs" in the Derby because of the distance and timing of the races - also happen to be the 3yo races with the largest purses.
Your system seems to treat the Kentucky Derby as a 3yo Hall of Fame, and that getting into the race should be some sort of lifetime achievement award for consistent performance. Admirable sentiment to be sure, but I would rather see horses that have the best chance of actually winnng the race included. I think the current system ensures that to a higher degree than your points system.

With rare exception, I think that the right horses generally get in. It is no one's responsibilty but the trainer's to assure enough earnings.

That said, how about a point system for graded earnings with 3yo races being worth 1.5 x any 2yo earnings and sprints being valued at 1/2 those of routes.
The concern I see with my own idea is that races like the Derby require some of those "sprinter-miler" types for the benefit of the pace. Teurflesberg keeps coming up on this thread and while I like the colt, I think he has no shot in the Derby. Why do I still think he should run? If the owners want to and he's eligible, he should run. We need him for some pace and his connections have done what is required to get there. If he "keeps out" a horse that someone deems "more worthy," the fault is with the excluded horse's connections for not getting him there. Either the horse was not good enough to get the $$$ or they tried to use 1 graded race and had back luck or something.

Part of the appeal of the Derby is that anything can happen. Most people would have said Giacomo shouldn't have even been in the gate, yet he won. As for "flukey" races, you cannot make any judgement about whether a race was a fluke until horses start to run back. Charismatic was considered a fluke until he won the Preakness. War Emblem was a fluke until he followed up with the Preakness and Haskell.

I've posted this before but I think it is relevant here. I think this system would work very well, it may need a little tweaking but overall it would be just fine. It does benefit you to run in a lot of races but at the same time would make sure the best horses get in with a good finish in a major prep:

Race - Points
4/30 THE SNOW CHIEF (HOLLYWOOD PARK) 5-3-1
4/29 WITHERS STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
4/29 UNBRIDLED STAKES (CALDER RACE COURSE) 3-2-1
4/29 DERBY TRIAL (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
4/22 FEDERICO TESIO STAKES (PIMLICO RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
4/22 COOLMORE LEXINGTON STAKES (KEENELAND) 10-8-6-4-2
4/15 TOYOTA BLUE GRASS STAKES (KEENELAND) 20-16-12-8-4
4/15 THE NORTHERN SPUR BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 3-2-1
4/15 ARKANSAS DERBY (OAKLAWN PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/9 LAFAYETTE STAKES (KEENELAND) 3-2-1
4/8 WOOD MEMORIAL (AQUEDUCT PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/8 SANTA ANITA DERBY (SANTA ANITA PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
4/8 ILLINOIS DERBY (HAWTHORNE RACE COURSE) 10-8-6-4-2
4/8 BAY SHORE STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 3-2-1
4/1 WINSTAR DERBY (SUNLAND PARK) 5-3-1
4/1 FLORIDA DERBY (GULFSTREAM PARK) 20-16-12-8-4
3/25 RUSHAWAY STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
3/25 LANE'S END STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE TAMPA BAY DERBY (TAMPA BAY DOWNS) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE SAN FELIPE (SANTA ANITA PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 THE REBEL STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/18 GOTHAM (AQUEDUCT PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/11 CALIFORNIA DERBY (GOLDEN GATE FIELDS) 7-5-3-1
3/4 SWALE STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 3-2-1
3/4 SANTA CATALINA STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
3/4 JOHN BATTAGLIA MEMORIAL STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
3/4 FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 10-8-6-4-2
2/26 BORDERLAND DERBY (SUNLAND PARK) 5-3-1
2/25 THE SOUTHWEST STAKES (OAKLAWN PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/18 THE SAM F. DAVIS STAKES (TAMPA BAY DOWNS) 7-5-3-1
2/12 SAN VICENTE STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/4 SHAM STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 7-5-3-1
2/4 HUTCHESON STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 3-2-1
2/4 HOLY BULL STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 7-5-3-1
1/29 EL CAMINO REAL DERBY (BAY MEADOWS) 5-3-1
1/21 CRESCENT CITY DERBY (FAIR GROUNDS AT LOUISIANA DOWNS) 3-2-1
1/14 SAN RAFAEL STAKES (SANTA ANITA PARK) 5-3-1
1/14 RISEN STAR STAKES (FAIR GROUNDS AT LOUISIANA DOWNS) 5-3-1
1/7 AVENTURA STAKES (GULFSTREAM PARK) 5-3-1
12/9 DELTA JACKPOT (DELTA DOWNS) 5-3-1
11/25 REMSEN STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
11/25 KENTUCKY JOCKEY CLUB (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
11/4 BREEDERS' CUP JUVENILE (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 10-8-6-4-2
11/3 NASHUA STAKES (AQUEDUCT PARK) 5-3-1
10/29 IROQUOIS STAKES (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 5-3-1
10/8 NORFOLK BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (OAK TREE AT SANTA ANITA) 7-5-3-1
10/7 LANE'S END BREEDERS' FUTURITY (KEENELAND) 7-5-3-1
10/14 CHAMPAGNE STAKES (BELMONT PARK) 7-5-3-1
9/30 KENTUCKY CUP JUVENILE STAKES (TURFWAY PARK) 5-3-1
9/23 FUTURITY STAKES (BELMONT PARK) 5-3-1
9/10 ARLINGTON-WASHINGTON BREEDERS' CUP FUTURITY (ARLINGTON PARK) 5-3-1
9/6 DEL MAR FUTURITY (DEL MAR) 7-5-3-1
9/4 SAPLING STAKES (MONMOUTH PARK) 3-2-1
9/4 LAFAYETTE STAKES (EVANGELINE DOWNS) 3-2-1
9/4 I'M SMOKIN STAKES (DEL MAR) 3-2-1
9/4 HOPEFUL (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 7-5-3-1
8/17 SARATOGA SPECIAL BREEDERS' CUP STAKES (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
8/13 BEST PAL STAKES (DEL MAR) 5-3-1
7/27 SANFORD STAKES (SARATOGA RACE COURSE) 5-3-1
7/8 BASHFORD MANOR STAKES (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 3-2-1
7/4 TREMONT (BELMONT PARK) 3-2-1
7/4 HOLLYWOOD JUVENILE CHAMPIONSHIP (HOLLYWOOD PARK) 3-2-1
5/4 KENTUCKY BREEDERS' CUP (CHURCHILL DOWNS) 3-2-1

I like that Sniper. I really think we should value the horses who race as well as trying to find a way to include the late bloomers. I think we could come up with a better way of doing this than relying soley on Graded Earnings.

DOes it really encourage horses to race less often? It could equally be argued that it will encourage more horses to race, since those horses that haven race early in the season or have had poor results early on would be DISCOURAGED to try once more.

You have dug in your heels on this, but I am not sure it is as certain as you are making it out to be. I see your logic vis a vis the problem, but disagree w/ the conclusions you draw here.

Why not weight the earnings: 100% for GIII and GII; 60% for GI and 30% for ungraded stakes?

The only aberration in this years field that I see is BirdBird getting $600,000 for that Boyds Delta River Jackpot whatever. Not a good field, run at a slow time of year, etc.

why not graded stakes earnings? it's uncomplicated and everyone knows the rules going in.

the only arguement i can see against this system is someone might occasionally get a burr under their saddle about the perfectly servicable winner of a grade 1 race making the starting gate and knocking out a less qualified horse.

the graded stakes system works. you are twisting yourself into a pretzle trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

This year it has worked quite well. Keep in mind though that Birdbirdistheword, Pirates Deputy, and Xchanger could all be entering that starting gate if they wanted to. Jack Junior would have a guaranteed spot if he wanted it. Once the BC Turf Juvenile gets graded status the top two or three horses would be able to get in. Take away a Notional injury, throw in the horses I mentioned above, point a Sightseeing to the Derby and suddenly we'd be looking at a scenario where Any Given Saturday doesn't get in.

does a rube goldberg points system or weighting stakes races solve this? or does it just create a more complicated less understandable system?

i think it's great that people put thought into solving a difficult problem with innovative solutions and usually hate the a-holes that shoot down every suggestion with "that won't work". but you have to have an actual problem first.

there is no problem. everyone understands how this works. some years people responsible for choosing where a horse runs make a puzzling choice and the horse doesn't get in the gate. that will still be the case in any of the proposed "solutions". only everyone who doesn't pay close attention to boards like this will have no idea what is going on.

"he has more stakes $ but some of it is reduced because we only apply 60% for a grade 2" or "he got less points for winning his $1 million stakes at 2 than a horse that finished 3rd in a 750,000 stakes at 3".

simple is good. tiago deserves a spot because his connections were smart enough to run him where they did. anyone who misses the gate should have thought about running at santa anita the first week of april.

no one has to learn calculus to understand that.

Actually I think a points system is far more simple to understand than using graded stakes earnings. It is a lot easier to show the point standings and how many points each finish in the race is worth to see how they will impact the standings. It would be a lot easier to add 8 points to 6 to see if Joe Got Even would get ahead of Teuflesberg's 15 points with a second place finish in the Lexington than it is to quickly add 20% of $325,000 to $56,445 to see if that is above $122,442 (it isn't). And that is assuming that there is no money added to the Lexington. If there were than it becomes even more difficult. It is a silly system and will get even more silly as more 2yo turf races get graded as preps for the BC Juvy Turf and count towards the Derby.

I see the graded earnings picture to become more convulted in the near future. Should a two year race count more than a three year old prep race. For example, the BC Juve has more of a purse than the Bluegrass. Should a Grade III count as much as a Grade I. The Delta Jackpot has a better purse than the Bluegrass. I agree that just assigning points is not the right thing to do, but a weighted system seems logical to me. I think races at age 3 should count more than races at age 2. And a Grade I should count more than a Grade III.

Not sure what the difference is between a pts system and an earnings system. Effectively they are the same thing yes? Even if earnings are weighted so are pts. I dont see any effective difference.

I agree that two year old races should not count the same as 3 yr.

The only major weird earnings is the Boyds Jackpot thing.

Dont understand the orginal poster claiming that it should be points with an emphasis on the age and/or distance. How would that prevent a Tiago result? He's complaining about Tiago w/ one good result, how would his system prevent that?

I also dont see how you claim Tiago was "lucky." What evidence is there that he was lucky?

For me the GS earnings system works. I'd tweak it by discounting 2yo earnings (50%?) and excluding mile races within 6 weeks of the derby and all US turf earnings.

Funny, Im watching "Lets Go to the Races" tv weekl wrap up show on late, from Philly Park. It's Dick Gerardi and another guy. So Gerardi says "ANd this graded earnings stuff has got to go...They've got Chelokee who might not get in. They need to go to a committee or something.."

Yeah. Like the Committee wouldnt make a billion more mistakes. WHose to say the Committee picks Chelokee?

"...or something." Got any more bright ideas?:p