|
"However, he doesn't offer any good solutions to help grow the racing game."
And neither do you.
As I have commented previously all your "solutions" basically come down to the basic, well known idea, that bigger fields is good for racing. None of what you have proposed actually addresses the whole question of why field sizes are falling.
You had your earlier rant on "socialism" for owners. If the purses were so good and returns so great form all these short fields why aren't there more owners and more horses? Why is someone like Jacobson getting out of the industry citing the lack of return when he should be best positioned to take advantage of it?
All that your idea of fewer race days and handicap divisions will do is further reduce returns to the owners, and accelerate the decline, we'll end up at a similar level to where we are now just with fewer races.
Removing raceday medications, while a noble step, in the short term will reduce the number of starts per runner.
More turf races has been recognized everywhere as an aid to field size. There are practical limits on how much more racing some tracks can take.
Owners and Handicappers for the main should expect to lose money on racing. It is basically discretionary spending, and people are deciding they aren't getting their money's worth and leaving the industry. Racing needs to improve the experience for both owners and handicappers to try and retain and build on who is there and this requires much larger structural changes to make it worthwhile for tracks to attempt than there is open t them at the moment.
Changes to host fees etc would be needed so tracks could see some realistic gain form the upside. The actual framework for races themselves isn't the problem, it is just where it manifests itself.
|
