Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
The fact that tracks focus strictly on field size without regard to the quality of the racing at their meet tells you all you need to know about racetrack management. Sure field size is an important facet in the big picture but it is not nearly as important as they are stressing it to be. Because if you have a 12 horse field with 5 no hope 40-1 shots, how is that better than an 8 horse race where they all have a shot? It is like after 100 years they have discovered this magic formula. I suppose it is an easy way for track management to deflect blame when the handle is off.
|
Chuck, I agree with you completely. My question, while somewhat rhetorical in nature, should should shed light on the fact that -- as you said -- field size is not the end all, cure all; and it can't be looked at myopically. Thus, this entire solution is alleged at best, and might be an alleged solution to a problem that really doesn't exist, isn't important, etc.
I think field size can be addressed in a variety of other ways (also as you said). I read condition books constantly. I read some, and then see races that don't go, and I am shocked that race offices don't see the writing on the walls. Put 14 or 15 races in the book every single day. Have multiple duplicates two out of three or four days, with similars as well. No wonder why races don't go. And race offices are hustling to get 6, or maybe 7 with a scratch.
Personally, I think PJ Campo has done a great job with the cards he's been dealt. However, I don't understand why a losing proposition won't allow someone to say "Hey, maybe we should be looking at 10 races a day instead of 11" (or 9 instead of 10 for that matter).
What monster are you feeding here.
Eric