Derby replaces graded earnings with point system

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I ask this every year, but what surefire Derby winner was excluded from the Derby because of the earnings system? The only answer anybody ever has is Rock Hard Ten, and he wasn't winning the Derby.

This whole system goes way beyond who gets into the Derby. It's a bigger idea than just that.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

This whole system goes way beyond who gets into the Derby. It's a bigger idea than just that.

What's the idea?

[Calzone Lord]

I only wish this system was in place in 2002 so Perfect Drift would have won the Kentucky Derby...and I could have cashed my bets on him.

The top 2 finishers in 2002, War Emblem and Proud Citizen, had a COMBINED 20 points going into the Derby.

Or, 3 points less than Optimizer's 23.

[rpncaine]

That everybody know what the criteria is going in and should adapt to it in their campaigns. It will most likely be tweaked before they start, but just like the NastyCar point system, you know what to expect and need to adjust to it.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by rpncaine

That everybody know what the criteria is going in and should adapt to it in their campaigns. It will most likely be tweaked before they start, but just like the NastyCar point system, you know what to expect and need to adjust to it.

I don't really see where anyone is going to do much adjusting because of it.

The point system basically just hurts accomplished 2-year-olds who struggle in the preps at age 3 (Giacomo, Mine That Bird, Liason types) , and eliminates emerging star fillies (Rachel Alexandra, Rags To Riches, and Eight Belles) from having an option to run if the connections want.

Basically ... it won't make a difference most years other than like My Adonis (who never was anything) possibly getting in with 23 points at the expense of Liaison (who at least was a Grade 1 winning router as a 2yo) missing out with 12 points.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

What's the idea?

The graded stakes system was never really broken in terms of keeping horses out. No "worthy" horse, at least that I can think of, was ever kept out because of the graded stakes approach.

The build-up to the Kentucky Derby, however, has become somewhat fragmented. Massive purses in November for 2yo's, races like the Hopeful losing their grade, an influx of 2yo turf racing in the summer/fall etc. all have played a role. Those changes have distracted, in some ways, the lead-in to the Derby.

It was also imperfect in terms of how it valued races. Simply put, a turf race in November for 2yo's should not count toward qualifying a horse for the Kentucky Derby, or at least nearly as much as say a 2yo dirt race the same month. And both shouldn't count as much, if not more than, a 3yo race in March going long on the dirt.

It also allowed for a lot of hopeless entrants. That challenge, however, will never go away because the Derby will max out at 20 for a long time because of how big it has become.

So, I think there are two ways to look at this..

- A better way of qualifying horses for the Kentucky Derby.

- A better way of marketing the build-up to the Kentucky Derby, creating more excitement and structure to which fans can better understand what's happening while also bringing added attention to the individual races within the series.

As for the first point: I think this new approach is better, as it will help to make sure the horses going to the gate belong. Will a hopeless sprinter find its way here or there? Sure. Is it perfect? No. But neither was using graded stakes. In fact, any system is going to have flaws.

The latter, however, does a lot more for promoting the sport and growing the race and races surrounding it. NBC has something they can talk about now that makes sense to people outside of horse racing, or those on the fringes.

I know a lot of people laughed at the "Win And You're In" with the Breeders' Cup, because a horse who wins a race like the Whitney is already in, regardless of whatever marketing gimmick is in place. But when you attach the the BC logo and brand to a race three months out, it does an awful lot toward branding, building excitement and interest. It gets people thinking about Breeders' Cup three months before it's even run. Same idea here.

Are the "phases" the right way of describing this? I don't think so. Should the Illinois Derby be on the list? Probably. Should the BC Juvenile be worth more? Yeah, I think so. But ultimately, from a high level, there is a lot of good that can come from this when you step outside the mindset that it's about picking-out the right 20 horses for the race.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

The latter, however, does a lot more for promoting the sport and growing the race and races surrounding it. NBC has something they can talk about now that makes sense to people outside of horse racing, or those on the fringes.

Is the point system really going to be that much easier to follow and explain that the Graded Stakes system?

Are people going to care about who makes the cut between horses like Liason and My Adonis?

I'll tell you what does generates a great deal of interest and new fans -- fillies who beat males in big races. Rags To Riches got a ton of attention for the sport. Rachel Alexandra got a ton of attention for the sport. Zenyatta got a massive amount of attention.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Is the point system really going to be that much easier to follow and explain that the Graded Stakes system?

Are people going to care about who makes the cut between horses like Liason and My Adonis?

I'll tell you what does generates a great deal of interest and new fans -- fillies who beat males. Rags To Riches got a ton of attention for the sport. Rachel Alexandra got a ton of attention for the sport. Zenyatta got a massive amount of attention.

that's what i'm not so sure about, the part where fillies don't get points unless run in open company. points earned in open count towards the oaks-but what if owners decide to play it safe, and just head to the oaks? they could end up in neither if they try open racing beforehand and have a less than stellar showing
genuine risk ran vs males once before the derby, in the wood memorial. if memory serves, she finished third. where would that put her? probably not making the cut. at any rate, some tweaking necessary.

[slotdirt]

So at first I was thinking the Illinois Derby thing was an oversight, but after more thought, it's basically a way for CDI to put Hawthorne out of business. And it's pretty shameful.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

So at first I was thinking the Illinois Derby thing was an oversight, but after more thought, it's basically a way for CDI to put Hawthorne out of business. And it's pretty shameful.

or are they just looking at historical value of the race? this years renewal didn't do much...i think war emblem is the only ky derby winner to ever come thru there.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

So at first I was thinking the Illinois Derby thing was an oversight, but after more thought, it's basically a way for CDI to put Hawthorne out of business. And it's pretty shameful.

Obviously it was designed to hurt Hawthorne and to try and make the Illinois Derby irrelevant.

Sweetnorthernsaint was the post time favorite for the Kentucky Derby -- took more money from bettors than Barbaro.

He had 10 points and never would have got into the Kentucky Derby.

[10 pnt move up]

Kinda like the idea of a minimum point entry, and if that excludes a few worthy horses, so be it. Anything to get these trainers to run their horses more often is a good idea to me.

[Danzig]

or they could always just make it an invitational-wonder what that would accomplish??