![]() |
ESPN Dropping More Horse Races
|
I guess the NTRA is too busy certifying tracks as "safe" to worry about minor issues like national television coverage.
|
I use TWINSPIRES and can watch (and BET on) just about any race I want. I got it good.
Whether there's a large (national or otherwise) audience watching along with me is neither here nor there. It's about betting and winning money. And, it's not like anything ESPN has to offer enhances my ability to win. All the other **** is irrelevant. Especially given those funky ass camera angles and the retarded commentators. EDITED: |
Quote:
If ESPN drops races it is a possible indicator of popularity of an event. Part of this audience could certainly take up wagering and contribute to your production of Fat Charts. You could take more money from the ignorant. Kinda like you are about pool size. For a guy that analyzes races as much as you do... man you are short term. You are sucking on a sick resource. If there were a large number of people that really cared about racing you would have 20 cameras at every position possible like other popular sports. You could have all the data you wanted if more people cared... its called demand. |
Quote:
|
I didn't even know ESPN still televised the Preakness undercard...and after finding out I can't believe it took them this long to drop it.
NT |
Quote:
|
Horse racing has the unbelievable advantage of having its own network... times two! While HRTV is not quite as widespread as TVG, horse racing should be taking advantage of it. The prudent thing to do would be for the industry to buy TVG and then we'd have our own NFL or MLB network type setup...
|
Quote:
Who exactly is " the industry? " |
Tvg- Hrtv etc..
many people cannot afford to purchase these telecast, so cancellation of any racing either cable or regular tv will keep some racing from public view. let me add i would love to see live full-day radio broadcasts from race tracks like in the hey day of racing
|
Quote:
NT |
Quote:
|
ESPN could care less about horse racing, they are passé like MTV
|
I enjoy ESPN . Regardless, I'm looking forward to the NYRA specials on MSG+ from Saratoga .
|
Quote:
Even if some national racing entity bought TVG, how will that dramatically change anything? I just don't believe that some stakes races without much context on ESPN does much of anything. I don't think it increases handle or a fan base that is going to wager. In previous years, they showed the Murmur Farms Maryland Starter Handicap. A $35,000 restricted overnight race. For what? Hours and hours of live TV is dramatically expensive and while I cannot quantify it, my personal opinion is that it does relatively little to impact the national awareness of racing. After several years of showing plenty of coverage on ESPN and its family of networks, if they've said - "the heck with it" - so be it. |
Just reading about the problem with racing on TV.
Help me out. First, is TVG owned by Fox? Second, Like the NFL and MLB they all have one Commissioner. The horse racing industry has too many different "Commissioners". Help me out. |
Quote:
And a huge racing company did just buy TVG. Betfair is no joke, and I expect they'll be making noise here in the States before too long. |
Considering the quality of the coverage ESPN had, this might be a good thing.
|
I think that eventually after all the contracts run out ESPN will end up with
the whole triple crown. Then they will jump at all the major preps leading up to the Derby and Breeders cup. With ABC/ESPN they can promote much better than all the others. Don't get me wrong, on a daily bases TVG does a great job. The works is one of the best inside tracks you can get. They can still play a major roll. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
context and consistency. When TV has something they think will be of interest, they go with it. Horse racing fills a few gaps in time. It is a curiousity now, like some wood chopping event on the Wide World of Sports. |
Quote:
If they don't buy a racetrack pretty soon I would be surprised. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You actually, in a way, support my theory by saying it's "dramatically expensive/little impact". A horse racing TV channel run by horse racing dramatically change things in numerous positive ways including, but not limited to, exposure, general marketing of the sport, specific marketing of the sport, open content, big race coverage, consistent coverage, live coverage, industry-wide support versus fragmented portions etc. etc. etc. For example, imagine this: An "industry" run not-for-profit ADW which uses a wide-spread network to broadcast/show races. The NTRA buying TV time on ESPN ultimately just gives people a reason to complain about unique and exciting camera angles. The goal going in is question -- increase exposure? Create interest? The problem is there is no specific way to gauge whether or not it works. There are no metrics for which to measure its success. And does a few hours here or there really move people to join the game? Doubtful. If the goal is to just keep horse racing mainstream and give the perception it's still a player in the major sports world, it makes more sense. I would counter-argue, however, that a 24-hour well-run industry network with 35% reach would speak more to potential customers than a few hours on ESPN with 100% reach. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Obviously it's not good for the sport to lose exposure, but I personally don't think that it's really a big deal. Really, how many non betting/novice people are sitting there watching the continuous coverage of the undercard? Lets face it for every hour of coverage, what do you get 3-4 minutes of actual racing? They are going to sit there for all those great features? If they are interested they will tune in for the big race, but to think these people will go out of there way to be there/watch a race on the undercard is crazy. The regulars or anyone who plays on any sort of regular basis has their setup on how they watch and wager, so they aren't going to be affected. It's just not that big of a deal.
|
I enjoyed the all day coverage. Easier for a group of people to gather around a T.V. than a computer screen. Plus lots of time between races to grill up some chow. My friends and I would sometimes go to a neighborhood bar and commandeer the T.V. there. What races are they cutting out of the Derby telecast?
|
more people would bet races if the television told them to.
we need regular prime-time coverage (night racing) for the best tracks and races. There has to be an integrated Phone and Computer ADW system along with the mass media broadcast. the more money in the pools, the better |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You're speaking of "if" and the "industry" but are forgetting about the people who are in charge of the game right now. Oh wait, that's right, no one is in charge of the game. It is a system of state-by-state governing bodies that have differing opinions on safety, wagering, takeout, and many other issues. Expecting, or even dreaming that somehow someone (and we don't even know who because we have quotations around there supposed name) is going to come along, scoop up all the fragments of this game, build something sophisticated like a racing network and a not-for-profit ADW has as much chance of happening as Jorge Chavez starting at Center for the Knicks next year. NT |
Quote:
But you're right... and I'm speaking optimistically obviously. |
I will add this though... as a pure spectator sport in that 15,000 will show up for races consistently definitely not. But, horse racing is far from dead. And there are ways to fix it, it will probably requires lots of outside the box thinking, and some fairly obvious stuff as well.
|
we know how great the sport and the game is
|
Quote:
|
Honestly I can't blame the networks. The sport did this to itself. Since stud careers is so important and the horses of today are so brittle their are no stars in this sport to relate to on a long term basis.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.