Well I thought you want to make a pt. about 1973 and closers in general when it seems the main pt. should have to do with all types of runners. Its possible to take the argument about Sec. and stand it on its head, if larger fields hurt closers they should help need to lead types...

Not INDIVIDUALLY but rather need to lead types on the WHOLE. Agree? So if this hypothetical large field, produces a need to lead type winner, then with another large field in hte Preakness perhaps it helps him as well. I just dont know if this argument about closers is all that relevant and it maybe a contradiction.

The main pt, is "yes" a large field should impact the odds of any SINGLE horse.

And if we are to imagine that one horse is really a "favorite" for that race, then a large field would hurt his odds. We speak of favorites all the time, but do we really know this for sure? Im Not sure it's possible to really know for sure one horse is favored but okay maybe...

But if we ask what are the chance of the public seeing a TC, then the argument is a little different.

See in your mind, if Alex does not win the first leg then in your opinion he was the best shot and now the odds of a TC go down.. But I am thinking well,the first leg will produce a winnner no matter what. So at least the public has a winner any winner. And he only has to win two legs now...

So..which is better:

The favorite wins leg one and then what are his odds of winning the next two OR....

Any old, mediocre horse wins leg one (the public will always get a derby winner no matter whtt) and can he win only two more? He only has to win two more whereas Alex (or the hypothetical favorite) has to win all three.

I dunno if we can answer that..