Quote:
|
Originally Posted by miraja2
In my opinion, eliminating the Breeders' Cup would be a wonderful thing for the sport of horse racing. It was a terrible idea in the first place, and the last five years have merely highlighted the stupidity of the event. This should not be a sport designed around one freaking day (or two), and as connections attempt to win championships off of one race instead of a body of work, the summer and fall meets across the country suffer. The BC obviously isn't the only factor in this development, but it sure hasn't helped. I think the sport would be healthier now if there had never been a Breeders' Cup, but by how much it is impossible to know.
But, even with all that being said, isn't it EXTREMELY unlikely that the BC will actually be going away any time soon....if ever? Instead of going away, the damn thing keeps expanding.
As for the Saratoga thing, I am glad to see people take a 'who cares' attitude about the BC. That is what it deserves. Half of the racing days at the Spa will be more interesting than the BC anyway, so who cares what races the Saratoga winners 'qualify' to run in?
|
Without a BC there is no way in hell Bernardini, Invasor, and Lava Man would have all met up. I find it completely pointless to watch a sport where the top contenders don't meet so in that regard the BC is a good thing. Unfortunately the last two years on the synthetic has ruined it because we don't see the best horses match up and even when they do (like with Curlin against the Euros) the result feels cheapened.
The BC isn't the problem, the problem is the rest of the season. Do away with voting for the Eclipse Awards and go to a point system in each division that uses your top six races each year. Give people an incentive to race their horses all year instead of just trying to get them to peak on BC Day knowing that a win there will net you an Eclipse.