Graded Earnings: Is there an alternative?

[whodey17]

I see the graded earnings picture to become more convulted in the near future. Should a two year race count more than a three year old prep race. For example, the BC Juve has more of a purse than the Bluegrass. Should a Grade III count as much as a Grade I. The Delta Jackpot has a better purse than the Bluegrass. I agree that just assigning points is not the right thing to do, but a weighted system seems logical to me. I think races at age 3 should count more than races at age 2. And a Grade I should count more than a Grade III.

Not sure what the difference is between a pts system and an earnings system. Effectively they are the same thing yes? Even if earnings are weighted so are pts. I dont see any effective difference.

I agree that two year old races should not count the same as 3 yr.

The only major weird earnings is the Boyds Jackpot thing.

Dont understand the orginal poster claiming that it should be points with an emphasis on the age and/or distance. How would that prevent a Tiago result? He's complaining about Tiago w/ one good result, how would his system prevent that?

I also dont see how you claim Tiago was "lucky." What evidence is there that he was lucky?

[ceejay]

For me the GS earnings system works. I'd tweak it by discounting 2yo earnings (50%?) and excluding mile races within 6 weeks of the derby and all US turf earnings.

Funny, Im watching "Lets Go to the Races" tv weekl wrap up show on late, from Philly Park. It's Dick Gerardi and another guy. So Gerardi says "ANd this graded earnings stuff has got to go...They've got Chelokee who might not get in. They need to go to a committee or something.."

Yeah. Like the Committee wouldnt make a billion more mistakes. WHose to say the Committee picks Chelokee?

"...or something." Got any more bright ideas?