![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I agree as well. BC execs are concerned that the Cup never really caught on to the general public, like the Derby but making a 2 day spectacle doesn't seem to be the answer.
Churchill has developed the Oaks/Derby weekend into a great racing/social/corporate event. The Oaks is now one of the most important races for 3yo fillies. As little as 15 years ago it was a decent fixture for mostly midwest based fillies. However, the Oaks has played off the popularity in the general public of the Derby. Non racing folks all know about the Derby. Your grandmother knows about the Derby! It's easy to understand the Derby. It's one race. For most people, the details of nominations and eligibility are meaningless, they want to see the race. The BC has a problem amongst the general population in that it has so many divisions, that it's confusing. We segregate horses by age, gender, surface and distance. Within each age group, there are turfers, sprinters, turf sprinters, fillies, colts, etc. It's hard for general sports fans to translate all the divisions. Adding more divisions not only dilutes those that exist, it makes the novice all the more confused. I cannot see how dragging the event into 2 days makes it more appealing to the general fan. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Cannon, you are right. Yet every article I've read on the BC changes refers to further attemps to "reach out" to the sports fan who generally doesn't follow racing and get them to watch the Cup. I'm not a big baseball fan but I watch the World Series. Same with football and the Super Bowl. Everyone does. BC keeps saying that they want to to get the same "casual viewership" for the Cup but this doesn't help. Thus, I feel they should improve their program without bastardizing their own races.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() I have no problem with the BC expanding. Instead of having a decent card the day before, we will get top notch races and added exposure via ESPN. As far as the catagories the mile race seems to be a bit of overkill, the fillies sprint is great and the 2 yo turf may cause problems. The mile race will be a two turn event at some tracks and a one turn at others which really concerns me. Having a mile and 70 yrd race this year and a one turn mile at Churchill next year seems strange. I cant wait for someone to tell me that a horse that wins the BC mile deserves to be sprint champion, especially if it is a 2 turn year. Maybe it will take away from the Classic and will certainly hurt the Cigar Mile but eventually it will fit in ok. Despite the success of some great fillies over the years it is only fair to have a fillies sprint. I'm not sure why they want to have it at 7 furlongs but it is sure to be a good race. The 2 year old turf race is the one that troubles me the most. Being that there are virtually no graded turf stakes for 2 yos in this country to use for qualifing, how do we determine who gets in? I also hope they dont intend on running a 14 horse field in either of the new 2 yo turf races. That would be a certain disaster. The only down side I could see is the price of the weekend will be going up as Fridays tickets are now BCup controlled which means more expensive.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Unfortunately, the Cigar Mile will probably eventually be moved to a spot before the BC and serve as a prep race. I really hope that doesn't happen, but we've all seen it happen too many times already.
When are the Breeder's Cup people going to address the polytrack issue? Will they run on it and call them dirt races? |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
You're right...I see it mid September at Belmont now. So, instead of being one of the last interesting and meaningful races of the year it gets reduced to YET another meaningless prep. Who gave the BC the right to destroy all these races and render them close to useless? Maybe when NY gets slots they can make the Cigar Mile worth $3 Million and run it in direct competition with the BC Mile and 70. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I'm staying away from that obvious trap. |