Time For A Change

Every year the fans and professionals of racing engage in the speculation of who is the most deserving winner of the respective Eclipse awards. Every year we postulate and theorize, we debate and campaign for the causes of our favorites. All the while realizing that the fate of and responsibility for the year-end honors lies completely with those deemed worthy to be given a vote. We merely hope that the on track accomplishments of our favorites will be given due consideration. I think discussion is healthy and even a lot of fun, but given that one could vote for Cigar as the 2006 Horse of the Year without breaking any guidelines doesn’t it seem like time for a change?

Voting is generally considered to be the most democratic method of decision. Enlightened nations use this process to decide their leadership so it must be the truest and most accurate method right? So why are we the only major sport who uses a voting process to decide who is crowned champion?

There is a growing hue and cry for the reformation of the Eclipse voting process. At the very least there should guidelines made that govern the voting. It is my feeling that the year-end honors should be awarded to the horses in much the same way the Europeans have devised with the Cartier awards. The Cartier Awards are given out based on a combination of a point system and votes, 50% of the consideration is dedicated to each aspect. The champion is the horse who has the combined highest point total and voting support.

The Eclipse voting, as it is currently conducted, is done by many who do not follow the sport on a day to day basis. Consequently they rely on information provided to them at the beginning of December. Puzzlingly before the racing season is actually over. In fact most votes are cast well before the last of the meaningful races are contested because the voting deadline comes before the last G-1 races of the year! Why we persist to employ and except the results produced by this process is a great mystery. There are reasons to believe that even many of the voters do not take the process very seriously. Three hundred and twenty four people were recognized as eligible voters this past year yet only 80% of them bothered to cast a ballot. This was by no means a phenomenon of 2005 but is a consistent pattern. If nearly a quarter of the voters don’t think Eclipse awards are important enough to vote on why do we rely solely upon their opinions?

Racing unfortunately is not a sport with a static schedule. There are no mandatory games to be played and no playoffs to truly decide the worthy champion each season. However a nationally recognized point system would give proper credit to accomplishments on the racetrack.

The benefits of adopting a national point system are threefold.

First of all it gives relevance to the entire year. Currently if one who had no knowledge of racing wanted to, at a glance, get a feeling for who the most accomplished horses in the nation are, what are the options available? The only options, which can be found with a little searching, are the NTRA poll and the Watchmaker rankings. The NTRA poll is conducted weekly and voted on by an anonymous group based on criteria that has not been defined. The Watchmaker rankings which are a weekly feature are also often a puzzling assimilation which essentially amounts to a listing of his favorite horses from each division. If I wanted to find out who the top NASCAR driver was it’s a simple click away. The same is true of all the major sports including college sports where ranking is difficult because like racing the top teams don’t face each other often or sometimes at all.

Secondly a nationally accepted point system encourages owners and trainers to accomplish on the race track. This is in contrast the current Eclipse voting process which tends to lean the way of the brilliant or those highlighted on national television. The voting process has contributed to a decline in the campaigns for the upper echelon. Owners and trainers who are privileged enough to be involved with the stars of our game have been given clear signals by the voting system over the years. Success in the Breeders Cup or Triple Crown is all that matters and any success late in the year will be given preference over success earlier in the year even if the Grade of the races is identical. A point system simply encourages horses to run more often and achieve success all year long. A point system shifts the focus from the main events to the whole picture.

Thirdly a point system could be used by the Kentucky Derby and Breeders Cup selection committees to determine the entrants. The criteria for inclusion is coming under increasing scrutiny, particularly for the Kentucky Derby. If horses were already ranked based on their accomplishments as part of a national rankings system it would be easy to use the same system to determine the Derby field. One could even leave several spots open to be determined by committee, similar to the model I have suggested for the Eclipse awards process.

Many people have severe reservations about adopting a nationalized point system. First of all, because it takes the power away from those who currently have votes. It is unfortunately those same people who would have to get on board in order for a system to be accepted. Secondly, a point system does not take brilliance into account. There is a feeling that the best, or rather most visibly talented, horses may be slighted if they were to have an injury shortened or simply strategically shortened campaign. That is a valid concern, however when you have a proper perspective on how votes and point systems could work in harmony it is not a problem at all. Turf writers often give too much weight to the wrong attributes and not enough to the right ones just as point systems could. Turf writers value certain things and undervalue other things. Point systems will tend to value the things that Turf writers don’t give enough credit to, like consistency, full campaigns etc… While a point system does undervalue qualities like brilliance, doesn’t the marriage of a voting process and a point system sound like a perfectly balanced way of deciding?

So what is the point of this lengthy post? Why is it different than any other call to reform?
Well this year starting in January I'll be hosting the first annual TCR awards based on a model that I feel should be adopted for the Eclipse Awards. Complete details on how it will be run will be available in January but I will need everyone out there to vote. I really do believe that this can work and that it can make our sport better. Unfortunately what I believe is of little consequence. It will take the support of many to see this gain any momentum.