Idea for Post Position

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why not just let the Derby winner have a head start?
Why not give the Super Bowl winner the number 1 pick in the draft?

Why stop there, why not just let the Derby winner win? This way we will always have a triple crown on the line!

But then, why not just let them win the Belmont too?

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by pointman

Why stop there, why not just let the Derby winner win? This way we will always have a triple crown on the line!

But then, why not just let them win the Belmont too?

Horses from the West Coast should only have to win the Derby and Preakness to be considered Triple Crown winners. Flying over the Rockies ought to count as the first leg of the Triple Crown for them.

[Danzig]

hell, just present the horses and let everyone vote. top vote getter wins. that way peta gets off racings back too. and every ticket would be a winner. yay, everyone wins!

[miraja2]

I don't like the idea and wouldn't support changing anything. Its a horse race and I think it is best to just select the post positions as they do in every other race.

But, that being said, the reaction to the suggestion here seems a bit over the top. Let's say they did make the change suggested....who cares? It wouldn't affect much. How often does post position really play a big role in the Preakness? We aren't talking about a 9f race at GP, or the 20-horse field of the Derby, where post position is often determinative.

So, there's no real point in doing it, but there's no real harm either.

[HaloWishingwell]

People get so desperate for a Triple Crown winner they come up with the craziest things. Why try to water down the achievement or the challenge? Let them earn it the traditional way like everyone else did. Orb flat out lost. He ran a great and his best race in the Derby. But it was just one race and the Preakness was a totally different condition in many ways.

[casp0555]

There is an old sayin' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". I am a newbie no doubt but post selection has been a part of this game and handicapping for a long time. Why should a process be modified to possibly increase the chances for a participent to gain an advantage.

It is supposed to be tough to win these things, regardless of the luck of the draw............... that's why they are called CHAMPIONS when they win.

[MaTH716]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't like the idea and wouldn't support changing anything. Its a horse race and I think it is best to just select the post positions as they do in every other race.

But, that being said, the reaction to the suggestion here seems a bit over the top. Let's say they did make the change suggested....who cares? It wouldn't affect much. How often does post position really play a big role in the Preakness? We aren't talking about a 9f race at GP, or the 20-horse field of the Derby, where post position is often determinative.So, there's no real point in doing it, but there's no real harm either.

[Ogygian]

The only change in post psoition draws I would support would be draw the Derby from highest points down...the horse that finishes with the most points leading up to the Derby has first draw, the 20th horse has last. IMO, it shouldnt be "luck of the draw" in the Derby...
Leave the Preakness and Belmont alone...post draw there isnt as significant...

[jms62]

There is quite a bit of chatter about post having little to do with the Preakness. Would a .018 winning pct from the 1 hole in the last 53 runnings (That is 1 out of 53) indicate that only horses that werent good enough have drawn that number? That is mathematically astounding.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I don't like the idea and wouldn't support changing anything. Its a horse race and I think it is best to just select the post positions as they do in every other race.

But, that being said, the reaction to the suggestion here seems a bit over the top. Let's say they did make the change suggested....who cares? It wouldn't affect much. How often does post position really play a big role in the Preakness? We aren't talking about a 9f race at GP, or the 20-horse field of the Derby, where post position is often determinative.

So, there's no real point in doing it, but there's no real harm either.

I disagree and think it is really logical why this would be a problem. Inevitably, whether you agree or not, there will be those who will claim when the next triple crown winner comes around that they had an advantage that the previous triple crown winners did not, that the accomplishment is watered down and should come with an asterisk.

It seems like every year when people realize that there will not be a triple crown winner the calls come for changes to the rules. Winning the triple crown is an accomplishment that only the best horses can attain, they are the horses that can win despite whatever may be thrown at them. It is what makes the accomplishment so difficult and special.

I wanted Orb to win the Preakness, but at the end of the day, for whatever reason, whether it was the dynamics of the race, the fact that certain horses IMO were not run in the manner that gave them the best chance to win, or whether he simply is not good enough, Orb does not deserve to be amongst that elite group since he could not overcome the adversity thrown at him on Saturday.

I am glad that Lukas won the Preakness, maybe it will be a wakeup call to all trainers that the most likely way someone can accomplish this is by racing their horses into experienced horses that can handle adversity instead of babying them and keeping them in the barn when they should be racing on the track.

[Danzig]

and i think most of the reaction here was posters building off previous posters comments, not the original idea itself.

but i don't agree that the derby winner should get first pick.