Racing boost???

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Zippy Chippy

Fifty years later and we are still having this same debate: is it better for horse racing to lose a few bucks but gain much more exposure by giving the product away for free? Or should the industry squeeze every last penny out of its existing fan base and HOPE that a new generation will somehow become rabid about a sport it has largely been denied access to?

Fifty years ago, major league baseball and the NFL decided to "give their product away" and the short-term revenue they "lost" was made up by a massive increase in their sports' fan bases. It's crazy to think that the horse racing industry refuses to learn this lesson of history. The industry is making the same bad decision it made back in the 1950s despite all the proof that it was a bad decision

I think you make good points . However I think that TV was a new medium then just as the internet is now and even as Congress gave us internet betting on a silver platter the greed of the tracks has screwed that up. The insistence of a few of the bigger racetracks companies to do things their way on their terms with no thought to the longterm health of the industry (or shortterm for that matter) will cause disharmony for years to come.

[GenuineRisk]

Pmayjr,

No, it's not too much to ask, but you're right; it's a pipe dream. The two major influences in racing are gambling and breeding, and those two industries are completely independent of each other. The only way I can imagine the average fan influencing the decision of when horses should be retired is if every person who gambles on races (or at least a sizeable majority of them) agreed to unite and boycott all the big stakes races until the NTRA imposed some sort of nationwide rule about what age horses have to be to breed. Otherwise, it'll have to be up to the racetracks, if they ever start to care about declining attendence, to push for something like that, and I just don't see it happening. But I'm with you; it'd be a big deal. Heck, I'd push for 6 years old being the minimum age for a horse to breed.

Cannon is right; it's a gambling-driven industry with no money to be made in merchandising and licensing. As fans, we just don't have any economic clout to influence people to keep their horses in training. And gamblers are in it to pick winners and make money, and that has nothing to do with whether Street Sense runs at 4.

Though yeah, greedy tracks cutting the percentage they take would help, too. I also think a few months of the year where there is no horse racing would be good, too. It's harder to follow a year-round sport than one that runs a limited number of months per year.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Pmayjr,

No, it's not too much to ask, but you're right; it's a pipe dream. The two major influences in racing are gambling and breeding, and those two industries are completely independent of each other. The only way I can imagine the average fan influencing the decision of when horses should be retired is if every person who gambles on races (or at least a sizeable majority of them) agreed to unite and boycott all the big stakes races until the NTRA imposed some sort of nationwide rule about what age horses have to be to breed. Otherwise, it'll have to be up to the racetracks, if they ever start to care about declining attendence, to push for something like that, and I just don't see it happening. But I'm with you; it'd be a big deal. Heck, I'd push for 6 years old being the minimum age for a horse to breed.

Cannon is right; it's a gambling-driven industry with no money to be made in merchandising and licensing. As fans, we just don't have any economic clout to influence people to keep their horses in training. And gamblers are in it to pick winners and make money, and that has nothing to do with whether Street Sense runs at 4.

Though yeah, greedy tracks cutting the percentage they take would help, too. I also think a few months of the year where there is no horse racing would be good, too. It's harder to follow a year-round sport than one that runs a limited number of months per year.

Where evryone misses the boat on the retirement issue is that in many places that those retired early horses race, SAR, KEE, DEL MAR, T Crown, BCUP, attendance is been at record levels recently. The big events and big meets are doing just fine. It is the day to day attendance and weekends when there is no big races that are suffering. This is an apples and oranges argument.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where evryone misses the boat on the retirement issue is that in many places that those retired early horses race, SAR, KEE, DEL MAR, T Crown, BCUP, attendance is been at record levels recently. The big events and big meets are doing just fine. It is the day to day attendance and weekends when there is no big races that are suffering. This is an apples and oranges argument.

You're right, but I think the hope might be if the superstar horses would stay around long enough to generate some casual fan interest, then maybe the casual fan might go to the track on some of those other days because a day at the track can be a lot of fun in and of itself. Because, as long as OTBs and gambling via the Internet exist, there isn't any reason for the gambler to go to the track.

I think the tracks should try to get the TV coverage on the big days to include segments on Handicapping 101's- make it funny and informative and comprehensible and I think a casual viewer might get a little intrigued and want to test his or her luck at the track. But as much as gambling is huge business, on some level I think America still regards it as a bit dirty and sinful- we do it, but we don't want to talk about it. Like lots of other fun things, come to think of it...