Should the Breeders’ Cup follow through with ending the rotation of host tracks?
The Breeders’ Cup announced the primary goals of what they are calling its new “strategic initiative” last week. The long-term objective is to increase the viability of the organization, lure additional foreign participation and encourage more nominations amongst breeders by looking critically at its nomination process.
The first component listed, however, created the most buzz. It read: Explore the feasibility of a single permanent host site location for the Breeders’ Cup World Championships.
Less than two months after using Santa Anita as a back-to-back host for the Breeders’ Cup, the board is now looking into holding the event at one location for many years to come. Initial reactions from racing fans on the web were mostly negative while some industry theorists understood the thought process. Steve Crist aptly wrote how a civil war could easily break-out should the site be either Belmont Park or Santa Anita, leaving Churchill Downs as the likely alternative.
The Breeders’ Cup always feels warm and fuzzy about Churchill Downs because on the spreadsheet Cup’s at Churchill Downs consistently out-performed other venues when the event was held on a single afternoon. There should be no surprise in those numbers, however, because Churchill Downs is in the heart of horse country and already has a massive, core fan base from the Kentucky Derby to call upon.
From an operations standpoint a permanent host site would eliminate a lot of the planning and leg-work necessary for setting-up the event at a new venue every year. Furthermore, a site like Churchill Downs already has the facility to handle a lot of the forgotten “must-haves” such as media resources and spacing.
From a marketing standpoint a permanent site would offer consistency and a way for the Breeders’ Cup to try new things and exploit the advantage of not having to create a new and local marketing plan each and every year. Long-term ticket sale plans (a favorite component of big event marketers) would be easier to establish. Furthermore, I’m sure financial arrangements with the host track would make it a win/win for both parties.
From a horseplayer perspective it eliminates the question marks of changing surfaces or the various quirks rotating tracks create (such as Lone Star’s short stretch). A site like Churchill Downs can also handle all of the current distances associated with the Cup.
Overall, the concept would allow the Breeders’ Cup to gain momentum and re-develop an already strong foundation into something bigger and hopefully better. All benefits which are hard to argue against.
But still, something doesn’t feel right…
Part of the appeal of the Breeders’ Cup is its exposure to various markets and racing fans around the nation (and Canada). Right now, it seems as though the rainy weekend at Monmouth Park left a sour taste in everyone’s mouth, but changing to a permanent venue because of weather is silly, and would only be a variable if the board was considering Santa Anita as their first choice.
I appreciate the event’s ability to bring itself to people who support the game daily – from the racing fans on the Jersey Shore to the racing fans in the heart of Texas. I’m not sure the Breeders’ Cup would achieve the exposure racing needs if it stopped moving around the country and it would definitely lose some of its freshness.
If the US Open were held at the same golf course every summer, would the event be as big as it is? (I asked myself this same question the other day, but then thought about the Masters, which has been at Augusta National every year since golf balls were invented. But the longevity of the tournament, I think, cancels it out). What if the Olympics were in the same country year-after-year? Food for thought.
And above and beyond all of this is the racing surface. Synthetic surfaces were a game changer in the big picture of horse racing. It completely changed the landscape this year when Rachel Alexandra opted-out of the Cup because of the surface. It’s like moving the Daytona 500 from a paved racing surface to dirt. It’s not necessarily good or bad, it’s new and different, so we have to expect new and different things, such as decisions to skip the Breeders’ Cup Classic because the race is not on dirt.
So does the Breeders’ Cup invest its time, energy and money into a single surface for the rest of time? To me, that seems risky. For one, dirt horses are having very limited success on the surface, which means less-and-less will be willing to participate. As their participation weakens, turf horses and foreign competitors should increase, but that seems empty when you consider the majority of our marquee races are still on dirt. This same argument could also be made the other way. If Zenyatta did not handle dirt, would she have run if the race were at Churchill Downs?
Finally, and realistically, the Dubai World Cup, with a $10 million purse, is always going to out-draw foreign competition than a $5 million Classic. So is it time the Breeders’ Cup re-considered its long-term objective. Perhaps giving-up on the world concept and scaling-back to a Ryder Cup-like Europe versus America message would make more sense, an angle ESPN really played well this year.
Ultimately, there is definitely a lot to think about and consider when it comes to such a drastic change in the structure of the Breeders’ Cup. The key encouraging aspect is the Breeders’ Cup seems to be the most well-positioned organization in horse racing to make moves and make things happen. On the board are savvy business people who get the big picture and will hopefully do a fine job of translating that to the Breeders’ Cup.
12/17/09 6:01 pm
The rotation was good. It kept the Breeders’ Cup at the level of a world class event like the World Cup, Olympics or Super Bowl. The rotation made the home market of the Breeders’ Cup a national market. Louisville is a hard place for many people to get to. There is limited air service to SDF, this closes off the event to out of town people that would fly in from Europe, NY or Cali.