Rock Hard Ten only had 20 points under the current system -- even Optimizer and his 23 points would have trumped him.

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

Who Cares!
 

Who cares who wins in IL.?minor leage horse racing:eek:

What's the idea?

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.

I can see where you would want to craft a cutoff, say for the sake of argument, October - to eliminate sprints from consideration. I think most of the classic distance runners start short early and should be handling 2 turns October. Eliminating the Saratoga Special, the Sanford and the Hopeful - as well as the Dmr Futurity is fruitless, and may impact how trainers of potential Derby contenders approach both meets.

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.

Roman Downs just implements things they know is right. It will be fine.

Hey Roman guards! (80 year olds working on the cheap) Detain that fiend who is trying to watch a race live without paying for a seat! There aren't enough seats! If he sits for free then it's chaos!! Thousands more watching the race live for free instead of inside on a t.v.!!

i like the idea. anything that persuades more starts is a good thing. anything that keeps a horse from hitting the board in one lucrative race and coasting in is also beneficial.
they may need to add/subtract some races, but i think it's a step in the right direction, and is something that the bc should consider. scrap 'win and you're in' with A race. win a series and you're in! quit rewarding one big race, start encouraging face-offs in several races.

This point system will not persuade more starts...I'm not sure how that conclusion is reached.

well, i guess i'm hoping there will be a minimum point level you'd need to reach?

Where is this 40 pt barrier coming from that's setting off hysteria about the number of horses who would not have made the field in prior years? I see no way that the minimum would be around 40 pts.

Probably around 23 to 25 points.

A horse like El Padrino had 53 points after he won the Risen Star. On the point system, he's a lock to get in.

On the Graded Earning system he was only 23rd on April 15th even after he added $50,000 more in the FLA Derby.

The way Pletcher is going with his layoffs ... it's only a matter of time until he wins the Tampa Derby or Risen Star and skips a major prep to come into the Derby "fresh"

i think they also need to pare the field size down. but then i've been saying that for some time. that would also force a need to run more to make the field.

There is no minimum level, it's just the top 20. Just like using graded earnings, the cutoff if dependant upon what others do. Forty was bandied about as being a probably minimum.

But, the thing about that is, a number of the races that were used by horses who were ahead of him on the earnings list at that point don't matter anymore. Sabercat was ahead of him at that point, as were Liaison and Rousing Sermon.

Discounting the 2YO races is a good idea IMO, but the Juvenile should have been given more weight. While he was certainly an exception, Action This Day probably would have not made it into the 2004 Derby field under this system.

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.

The part that's most puzzling to me is how they think this will help make new fans of horse racing or increase interest in the event.

I can understand a point system during the triple crown series. I can understand a point system during the season to crown divisional champions or a Horse of the Year.

From a gimmicky marketing angle -- that might be a good idea...and it might get the affect they're looking for.

oh, i see.
well, i think they should institute a minimum, and i think the other two spring classics should consider something like this as well.
they also need to try to get a sponsor for a bonus involving the three races, something to encourage more horses to run the series. only one horse 'ran' in all three this year, optimizer.