New Kentucky Derby Points Schedule 2012-2013 vs. 2013 vs. 2014

[Man o Taz]

If they are hoping for a spot in the starting gate of the Kentucky Derby, then the trainer should know which races have points and which do not.  They announced what the point races for the 2014 Kentucky Derby were a long time ago.  If all Shared Belief can muster is a win in the CashCall Futurity, then he really shouldn't be in the starting gate anyway.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't care for the current point system.  I'm not exactly sure what would be better though.

I think Mr. Hollendorfer was well aware that the Hollywood Futurity did not come with Derby points. That is not the issue - the issue is whether the contraction of a G1 8.5 furlong race which had previously received points was appropriate.

Remember, while Shared Belief was coming off a graded stakes win prior to the HF, Mr. Hollendorfer likely wanted to see just how good he was - and also given his wins were over the cushion track surface he likely wanted to notch a G1 win - and he is also running a business - so a nice return is useful as well.

However, this was a quality field - and the HF usually secures a quality field year in and year out - and past participants have fared well in TC races - thus - with all these factors at issue - it seems small of Churchill Downs to eliminate this race from its derby preps which receive points.

I think the real justice would be if SB wins the Eclipse...and then the Kentucky Derby...providing further evidence that this race should receive derby points. 

I think Zenyatta's point was sarcastic in nature - suggesting why should anyone run in a race that did not have derby points in it after your statement regarding the connections...but she can speak for herself.

[The Tin Man]

Taz ... I confirmed with Dan The Man yesterday that ...

Shared Belief IS going the Robert B. Lewis and Santa Anita Derby route ... and Tamarando's next race is The California Cup Derby on January 25th.

I asked about Fury Kapcori's name and he said ... "Hmmmm ... it IS an interesting name ... But I don't know how they came up with it" ... sorry Taz ... 

[The Tin Man]

I think the real justice would be if SB wins the Eclipse...and then the Kentucky Derby...providing further evidence that this race should receive derby points. 

I think there's an outstanding chance he will do both.

I certainly haven't seen anything even remotely as impressive thus far on either coast.

Dan is ultra-impressed with Shared Belief's intelligence(Among other things, of course). Says he is so smart that he always puts himself in the right place and all you have to do is shake the reigns and he's gone!

[curtis]

If they are hoping for a spot in the starting gate of the Kentucky Derby, then the trainer should know which races have points and which do not.  They announced what the point races for the 2014 Kentucky Derby were a long time ago.  If all Shared Belief can muster is a win in the CashCall Futurity, then he really shouldn't be in the starting gate anyway.

Don't get me wrong though, I don't care for the current point system.  I'm not exactly sure what would be better though.

What would be better is nothing.  A system limiting the field to 20 was instituted after 23 horses ran in the 1974 centennial running.  The system was challenged in court in 1981--resulting in a horse being officially scratched from the Twin Spires Purse on the same card and entered in the Derby.  Two horses were allowed in because of the court siding with the connections.  Another unrelated horse was scratched bringing the final field to 21.  Since then, regulations to limit the field to 20 have been in place, I'm assuming sans any loopholes--first graded earnings and then the current point system, which has already been tweaked.  Churchill Downs wanted to limit the field because they feared that the race may need to be split.  I have always believed that the limit was an overreaction.  The field of 23 in 1974 was both due to owners and breeders wanting to have the winner of the 100th Derby and the fact that the crop of 1971 was one of the most mediocre in a long time.  Besides if you are limiting because of safety, the field should be limited to 14 or 16.  Since fewer horses are being bred now, I doubt that the field size would reach even the 1974 level and if it did it would be a rare occurrence.

[Man o Taz]

Taz ... I confirmed with Dan The Man yesterday that ...

Shared Belief IS going the Robert B. Lewis and Santa Anita Derby route ... and Tamarando's next race is The California Cup Derby on January 25th.

I asked about Fury Kapcori's name and he said ... "Hmmmm ... it IS an interesting name ... But I don't know how they came up with it" ... sorry Taz ... 

Thanks TTM.

What would be better is nothing.  A system limiting the field to 20 was instituted after 23 horses ran in the 1974 centennial running.  The system was challenged in court in 1981--resulting in a horse being officially scratched from the Twin Spires Purse on the same card and entered in the Derby.  Two horses were allowed in because of the court siding with the connections.  Another unrelated horse was scratched bringing the final field to 21.  Since then, regulations to limit the field to 20 have been in place, I'm assuming sans any loopholes--first graded earnings and then the current point system, which has already been tweaked.  Churchill Downs wanted to limit the field because they feared that the race may need to be split.  I have always believed that the limit was an overreaction.  The field of 23 in 1974 was both due to owners and breeders wanting to have the winner of the 100th Derby and the fact that the crop of 1971 was one of the most mediocre in a long time.  Besides if you are limiting because of safety, the field should be limited to 14 or 16.  Since fewer horses are being bred now, I doubt that the field size would reach even the 1974 level and if it did it would be a rare occurrence.

Thanks for the insights.

However, while I sympathize with Churchill wanting to deal with the over-subscription issue, I do not know how the point system is any better than graded earnings for determining which horses are best qualified to enter the derby.

It seems that the races chosen by Churchill for the Derby Points are in many respects arbitrary.

And as I noted elsewhere - War Emblem and perhaps other Kentucky Derby winners would have been excluded if the current point system were in effect when they were racing.

I think there should actually be many more races which provide points so that you can have the best of the best competing in the Kentucky Derby. I do not believe that that was the case last year.

Now, one result of the Derby point system should be that the Derby points schedule races should be oversubscribed themselves, but this is happening rarely.


Kentucky Derby Prep Season Schedule

9/7/13   Iroquois Stakes           10
9/28/13   FrontRunner                   10
10/5/13   Breeders' Futurity           12
10/5/13   Champagne Stakes             9
10/6/13   Grey Stakes                     4
11/2/13   Breeders' Cup Juvenile    13
11/16/13   Delta Downs Jackpot       10
11/30/13   Remsen Stakes             8
11/30/13   Kentucky Jockey Club         9   
1/4/14   Jerome Stakes                     8
1/4/14   Sham Stakes                     4

The Cash Call Futurity on the other hand had 12 horses in it.

It seems like for the most part there are good size fields. We'll see if that continues as the points rewards get more lucrative.

[Senator L]

an interesting article from Richard Eng on the subject:
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/eng-i-am-a-convert-on-derby-points-system/

[curtis]

Thanks for the insights.

However, while I sympathize with Churchill wanting to deal with the over-subscription issue, I do not know how the point system is any better than graded earnings for determining which horses are best qualified to enter the derby.

It seems that the races chosen by Churchill for the Derby Points are in many respects arbitrary.

And as I noted elsewhere - War Emblem and perhaps other Kentucky Derby winners would have been excluded if the current point system were in effect when they were racing.

I think there should actually be many more races which provide points so that you can have the best of the best competing in the Kentucky Derby. I do not believe that that was the case last year.

Now, one result of the Derby point system should be that the Derby points schedule races should be oversubscribed themselves, but this is happening rarely.


Kentucky Derby Prep Season Schedule

9/7/13   Iroquois Stakes           10
9/28/13   FrontRunner                   10
10/5/13   Breeders' Futurity           12
10/5/13   Champagne Stakes             9
10/6/13   Grey Stakes                     4
11/2/13   Breeders' Cup Juvenile    13
11/16/13   Delta Downs Jackpot       10
11/30/13   Remsen Stakes             8
11/30/13   Kentucky Jockey Club         9   
1/4/14   Jerome Stakes                     8
1/4/14   Sham Stakes                     4

The Cash Call Futurity on the other hand had 12 horses in it.

It seems like for the most part there are good size fields. We'll see if that continues as the points rewards get more lucrative.

That is my point.  When I said what would be better is nothing--I mean just that, I would do nothing to restrict the field size.  Both the graded earnings and point system were and are flawed.  At least the graded earnings didn't reek of any agenda.  Do you think that the Illinois Derby would be considered if it were run at Arlington as opposed to Hawthorne? 

[Flanders]

Over the past 15 - 20 years, the meaning of the Kentucky Derby has changed.  Everyone wants to own a Derby winner.  Most owners would say its because of the historic factor but I would venture to say this is because of the vast amounts of money made by selling a Kentucky Derby winning colt to stud.  Of course the geldings and fillies don't fit into this category.

The problem with having no requirements is, you will have fields of 20+ horses nearly, if not every, year.  Horses that have no right to be in the field, will be there because their owner or trainer just wants to make the walk over or they have stars in their eyes.   

I found the field size of the Derby from 1991 (the first year I could find info on without looking to hard) through 2013.  Keeping in mind that there wasn't an also eligible list until 2013, I have included the fields that would have been 20 horse fields, but weren't because of scratches, in the 20 horse field count.  Out of the past 23 runnings, 14 have had 20 horse fields.  The last 10 have had 20 horse fields and 12 out of the last 14(only 2001 and 2003 weren't 20 horse fields).  The 90s had 2 (1996 and 1999).

I personally don't want to see more than 20 horses in the starting gate.  I would be happier with a field less than 20, 14 or 16 is enough.  IMO, there does need to be some sort of qualification to make sure the right horses make the gate.  They current point system isn't right though and the graded stakes earnings was flawed too.   If they want to go with a point system, they shouldn't just pick and choose this race and that.  They need to have all the graded stakes, on dirt/all weather, be worth something, even minimal points or points only to the winners of certain races.  It would be a step in the right direction.  The thing I do like about the current point system is that 2yos races don't hold as much significance as they did when it was graded stakes earnings.  Obviously a good 2yo should be able to make the Derby based on the current point system but with the graded earnings, they were always near the top of the list.

[Man o Taz]

That is my point.  When I said what would be better is nothing--I mean just that, I would do nothing to restrict the field size.  Both the graded earnings and point system were and are flawed.  At least the graded earnings didn't reek of any agenda.  Do you think that the Illinois Derby would be considered if it were run at Arlington as opposed to Hawthorne?

I understand your point regarding a flawed system for determining the derby entrants and there is no doubt if the Illinois Derby were contested at Arlington it would be one of the races (and agree with them), but I am uncertain what the selection process has to do with the field size...

Certainly you are not suggesting that a field of more than 20 horses be allowed to enter the gate because safety-wise the current number of 20 is more than the more reasonable number of 14 so if we are not going to go with the safest method of holding the race entry wise - why have any safety parameters at all regarding field size?

Over the past 15 - 20 years, the meaning of the Kentucky Derby has changed.  Everyone wants to own a Derby winner.  Most owners would say its because of the historic factor but I would venture to say this is because of the vast amounts of money made by selling a Kentucky Derby winning colt to stud.  Of course the geldings and fillies don't fit into this category.

The problem with having no requirements is, you will have fields of 20+ horses nearly, if not every, year.  Horses that have no right to be in the field, will be there because their owner or trainer just wants to make the walk over or they have stars in their eyes.   

I found the field size of the Derby from 1991 (the first year I could find info on without looking to hard) through 2013.  Keeping in mind that there wasn't an also eligible list until 2013, I have included the fields that would have been 20 horse fields, but weren't because of scratches, in the 20 horse field count.  Out of the past 23 runnings, 14 have had 20 horse fields.  The last 10 have had 20 horse fields and 12 out of the last 14(only 2001 and 2003 weren't 20 horse fields).  The 90s had 2 (1996 and 1999).

I personally don't want to see more than 20 horses in the starting gate.  I would be happier with a field less than 20, 14 or 16 is enough.  IMO, there does need to be some sort of qualification to make sure the right horses make the gate.  They current point system isn't right though and the graded stakes earnings was flawed too.   If they want to go with a point system, they shouldn't just pick and choose this race and that.  They need to have all the graded stakes, on dirt/all weather, be worth something, even minimal points or points only to the winners of certain races.  It would be a step in the right direction.  The thing I do like about the current point system is that 2yos races don't hold as much significance as they did when it was graded stakes earnings.  Obviously a good 2yo should be able to make the Derby based on the current point system but with the graded earnings, they were always near the top of the list.

Fair points.

I agree. I would like a smaller field size as well. No more than 16 as you suggest. I would also like only 12 selected by a point system and the last 4 selected by an independent committee of retired Hall of Fame jockeys and trainers. However, is an "independent" commission a possibility?

This would allow the commission to substitute out the last four places if there happens to be a filly, or other horses that appear to be more deserving.

I always want the Derby to feature the best horses. As you and curtis aptly note, the present systems are both flawed. The independent commission would be a step toward eliminating those flaws. 

[curtis]

Over the past 15 - 20 years, the meaning of the Kentucky Derby has changed.  Everyone wants to own a Derby winner.  Most owners would say its because of the historic factor but I would venture to say this is because of the vast amounts of money made by selling a Kentucky Derby winning colt to stud.  Of course the geldings and fillies don't fit into this category.

The problem with having no requirements is, you will have fields of 20+ horses nearly, if not every, year.  Horses that have no right to be in the field, will be there because their owner or trainer just wants to make the walk over or they have stars in their eyes.   

I found the field size of the Derby from 1991 (the first year I could find info on without looking to hard) through 2013.  Keeping in mind that there wasn't an also eligible list until 2013, I have included the fields that would have been 20 horse fields, but weren't because of scratches, in the 20 horse field count.  Out of the past 23 runnings, 14 have had 20 horse fields.  The last 10 have had 20 horse fields and 12 out of the last 14(only 2001 and 2003 weren't 20 horse fields).  The 90s had 2 (1996 and 1999).

I personally don't want to see more than 20 horses in the starting gate.  I would be happier with a field less than 20, 14 or 16 is enough.  IMO, there does need to be some sort of qualification to make sure the right horses make the gate.  They current point system isn't right though and the graded stakes earnings was flawed too.   If they want to go with a point system, they shouldn't just pick and choose this race and that.  They need to have all the graded stakes, on dirt/all weather, be worth something, even minimal points or points only to the winners of certain races.  It would be a step in the right direction.  The thing I do like about the current point system is that 2yos races don't hold as much significance as they did when it was graded stakes earnings.  Obviously a good 2yo should be able to make the Derby based on the current point system but with the graded earnings, they were always near the top of the list.

The Derby has always been the biggest race in the country and any owner--who for many years were breeders as well--wanted to win it.  I don't agree that it has changed that drastically over the last 15-20 years.  As I stated earlier, that was illustrated in 1974 when 23 entered and ran hoping that they would be the owner of the winner of the 100th running.  One of the entrants that year was named Triple Crown.  If you look at history usually the field size is determined by the competition, as it is in any big race.  When the Derby had what looked like a standout, the field size would shrink.  I am a liberal Democrat who believes in big government but in this case I believe that less is more--as in regulations.  I'd also like you define what the right horses are.  Do you mean horses like Canonero II, Gato Del Sol, Charismatic, Mine That Bird, etc.? 

[Man o Taz]

Is field size determined by competition or by the first point you make where every owner wanted to get his horse in the gate for the 100th running?

Field size lately seems to be a result of people wanting to be in the gate.

I know of owners who did not make the top 20 who would have gladly races a horse as the 21st or 22nd entrant in the race.

And there are likely trainers who feel the same way.

The only factor that keeps them from doing it is the self imposed limit on entrants.

In the past, I do believe that field size was determined by competition.

However, lately I am not so sure. It seems that the prestige of having a Derby horse is more important than anything.

Your point regarding Canonero II, Gato Del Sol, Charismatic, and Mine That Bird is a fair one in some respects. However, Mine That Bird was the Canadian champion so the idea that he was not top competition I believe is

And look at Golden Soul last year - his best finish before the Derby was a 2nd in the Lecomte and 4th in the Louisiana Derby - but he finished 2nd in the Derby. Was he top competition? According to Churchill he was - he made the top 20 in points with 14.

Giant Finish was third in the G3 Spiral Stakes. Was he top competition?

The fact remains as we all seem to agree - that the points system is flawed. At least grades stakes earnings did not discriminate against where you earned your graded stakes money.

The points system does reduce the influence of 2 year old races - but not if a horse with 10-14 points makes it to the gate since there would be a slew of horses at this level who would make the gate after their running in 2012 even if they did not step on the track.

We'll see - its only the second year of the points totals. Hopefully, the horses will stay healthy and 25 points or more will be the cut off. However, in my mind, reducing the number of races that provide points is unlikely to increase the point totals of horses in the standings for the Kentucky Derby and for my that reduces the level of competition. The real result of the standings from my perspective is to assure that folks at Santa Anita, the Fairgrounds, Gulfstream Park, and Aqueduct get a slew of races for their fans which will feature eventual Kentucky Derby entrants. If you are near those tracks - then you benefit.   

[curtis]

I suppose it could be coincidental, but the points system was implemented not long after Mine That Bird's Derby win caused the Sunland Derby to become graded.  I'm sure Churchill officials were doing backflips over a Canadian Champion gelding who got his clock cleaned in the Breeder's Cup and couldn't win a prep in New Mexico being not only eligible for their signature race but making a shambles of the field.

And some of the horses who didn't make it in, like Rock Hard Ten in 2004, should have been the 21st or the 22nd entrant.  Was it 2002 that Baffert surprised everyone by entering Danthebluegrassman thus bumping a Team Valor horse?  Then Baffert had to scratch Dan because he tied up the morning before the race.  Neither he or the Team Valor horse ran.  Again I'd let anyone and everyone enter.  Increase the entry fee to discourage the owners who just want a box.  If too many enter still and the race is split than so be it.  I really don't think you will have 1974 numbers very often if at all.  One of the only handful of winners of the NYRA Filly Triple Crown, Chris Evert coincidentally in 1974, won a split first leg and I don't think that has diminished her legacy any.

I don't think Churchill cares one iota about safety.  If they did they would limit the field size to 14.  That being said, the point system is new and it will go through some tweaking before it stays relatively constant.  The idea is good as it puts more emphasis on what is done late as the horse is developing as opposed to rewarding precocity.  The Loan Shark (nee Hollywood) Futurity should have been and should be--if it is resurrected at Los Alamitos--included.  Given its relatively short history, it has produced horses that have done some good in Kentucky, e.g. Gato Del Sol, Desert Wine, Fali Time, Ferdinand, Alysheba, Best Pal, Real Quiet, Giacomo, etc.  Eventually, and I believe this has already begun, the points system will affect the fields of races not awarded points.  I don't believe the Futurity formally known as Hollywood was effected in this instance but if it continues and as such continues not to be included, it will have an effect and that will justify Churchill's action.

[Man o Taz]

Regarding the Sunland Derby - if Mine That Bird's win was a concern then it would not be one of the races that provides points.

I can agree that safety probably is not the greatest concern of the Churchill officials - but rather controlling the race and not having a split field might be.

They want a definitive winner for the top three year old race in the world..

And they likely want to control the boxes provided to owners...a split field with 28 entrants would cause them to have to provide that many boxes.

Evert's legacy was not diminished because she won the other legs. If that split race was her top victory - then it may have affected her legacy.

And the notion of having two Derby winners for a race other than by a dead heat would likely not sit well with Churchill Downs. 

As I said - I support a smaller field. I think 20 is too many - the large field forces luck to play too much of a role in the final outcome.

I would support a rule if more than 16 enter the race split the field. But Churchill will not. That is the real problem.

[curtis]

Regarding the Sunland Derby - if Mine That Bird's win was a concern then it would not be one of the races that provides points.

I can agree that safety probably is not the greatest concern of the Churchill officials - but rather controlling the race and not having a split field might be.

They want a definitive winner for the top three year old race in the world..

And they likely want to control the boxes provided to owners...a split field with 28 entrants would cause them to have to provide that many boxes.

Evert's legacy was not diminished because she won the other legs. If that split race was her top victory - then it may have affected her legacy.

And the notion of having two Derby winners for a race other than by a dead heat would likely not sit well with Churchill Downs. 

As I said - I support a smaller field. I think 20 is too many - the large field forces luck to play too much of a role in the final outcome.

I would support a rule if more than 16 enter the race split the field. But Churchill will not. That is the real problem.

I know the winner receives points but are the points earned commensurate with the purse?  This is the biggest inherent problem with the point system is that it dictates to a large degree where connections must campaign their horses.  It's too much like the old BCS system in college football.  I would be more in favor of going back to graded earnings if you can combine the allegedly good intentions of the point system.  To make that work, however, no two-year-old races should be graded until the Breeder's Cup. 

[Man o Taz]

I agree 100%. I would prefer the wide open graded stakes earnings system to the present points schedule system. I would support even a graded stakes earnings system which gave you $.50 on the dollar for 2 year old races.

I believe it serves no one's interest except the tracks hosting the derby points preps races to have a limited points system.

I had high hopes the points system would lead to more competitive races, and even more three year old races as horses wishing to enter the derby needed to gain at least 25-30 points.

We'll see how this year goes.