Derby replaces graded earnings with point system

[Linny]

Clearly, unless a filly has taken on the boys in prior starts, we won't be seeing any fillies in the Derby. That's too bad. The "Oaks or Derby" speculation seems to create some interest in years when there is a very good filly or two around.

I guess I can see why they are not including any sprints (Hopeful, DM Futurity or any short early season races like the Hutchison) but horses like Trinniberg and other sprinters who have run in the Derby have added interest and PACE to the race.

I realize that the BCJ has historically not been a bellwether for Derby success, but to rank it as on par with the Withers or the Delta Jackpot or the El Camino Real seems ... well... strange.

It appears to be an attempt and "manufacturing" the "proper" Derby field rather than allowing it to develop in a more organic fashion.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Linny

It appears to be an attempt and "manufacturing" the "proper" Derby field rather than allowing it to develop in a more organic fashion.

While this year he had every right to contest the race, a fast sprinter like Trinniberg in the 10 furlong Kentucky Derby doesn't sound too organic to me.

[slotdirt]

I think there will be a few years in the near future where the field doesn't get anywhere close to 20.

[Calzone Lord]

Arazi was a 4-to-5 favorite in the Kentucky Derby. I believe he was the last odds-on Derby favorite.

That would be hilarious if a would-be odds on favorite can't get into the race because of how they fixed something that truthfully wasn't broke.

Who are the horses who would have got in under this silly point system, that were otherwise excluded from the Derby because of lack of earnings?

Rachel Alexandra opted for the Kentucky Oaks -- but she is another who would have been excluded.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Arazi was a 4-to-5 favorite in the Kentucky Derby. I believe he was the last odds-on Derby favorite.

That would be hilarious if a would-be odds on favorite can't get into the race because of how the fixed something that truthfully wasn't broke.

Who are the horses who would have got in under this silly point system, that were otherwise excluded from the Derby because of lack of earnings?

Rachel Alexandra opted for the Kentucky Oaks -- but she is another who would have been excluded.

IMO this looks like a way to make the major contenders race against each other so people become familiar with them and rivalries are formed. It also is an attempt to get rid of the hopeless sprinters and the Delta Jackpot winner.

One tweek should be to let the top 2 fillies enter the derby if they meet certain criteria.

[slotdirt]

3YO's going the two prep route are going to be up against it, that's for sure. Win the Sam Davis and finish third in the Florida Derby? Good luck in the Jim Dandy.

[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.

[Calzone Lord]

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.

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

[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?

[10 pnt move up]

Maybe with a system like this it also pushes trainers to start running their horses a little more often, a two prep season where maybe you have a couple troubled starts after a successful two year old season won't get you in.

[South Beach Luv]

I like the filly angle. Why should graded earnings against only other fillies count towards a race dominated by colts. If you have a good filly and want a shot at the Derby run against the boys to get there.

Azeri and any other filly of years past would of or could have been campaigned differently to get in.

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.!!

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Linny

Clearly, unless a filly has taken on the boys in prior starts, we won't be seeing any fillies in the Derby. That's too bad. The "Oaks or Derby" speculation seems to create some interest in years when there is a very good filly or two around.

I guess I can see why they are not including any sprints (Hopeful, DM Futurity or any short early season races like the Hutchison) but horses like Trinniberg and other sprinters who have run in the Derby have added interest and PACE to the race.

I realize that the BCJ has historically not been a bellwether for Derby success, but to rank it as on par with the Withers or the Delta Jackpot or the El Camino Real seems ... well... strange.

It appears to be an attempt and "manufacturing" the "proper" Derby field rather than allowing it to develop in a more organic fashion.

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.