Harness: Time to revamp the future Borgata/Matchmaker formats

There's no doubt that this year's MGM Borgata Series final proved to be the most competitive race in the six-week series. For some, that may give off the vibe that the rich event for older pacers meets projections as an early-year test for the best horses in competition. On the other side, slogging through five consecutive weeks of elimination races where horses earn points just by showing up and races often go single-file until the three-quarter pole, one has to wonder just what kind of return on investment the track and horsemen are providing those who watch and wager on the event?

Listening to various trainers over the years, there is always the recognition of how difficult the challenge is for them to send out horses perhaps six weeks in a row to race at the highest level. Many of those trainers recognize it is not always in the interest of the horse to meet the schedule demands of the series, but in fact necessary since the rules give a full 25 points to every horse that goes behind the gate each week. This, perhaps in early years, was a brilliant move to assure that the track and the series had enough horses each week to provide multiple races, yet over time it has simply worked as a tool to create too many six-horse fields with only one or two live choices.

From a betting perspective, the reality we have seen has been a multitude of $50,000 events at night lacking in any more intrigue than a qualifying race does in the morning. It's regrettable that so much money goes into funding these races without getting anywhere near the bang for the buck one tends to expect from a sport trying to showcase its best in stakes action.

I believe it is fair to say the structure of the Borgata, and in a lesser way the Blue Chip Matchmaker Series, has been broken for a long time and is in need of repair, or at the least some remodeling that will offer a better balance to the horsemen, the track and the betting public.

Perhaps the first order of business would reflect upon the number of legs and the time span of the series itself. There really is no justification to conduct any series in six consecutive weeks during the times we live in. While I can continue to marvel at the number of horses that can endure this schedule, I can also see what it does not just to the horses, but to the connections as well. Despite entering five consecutive weeks, few if any horses will be at 100 percent effectiveness on each occasion. This lends itself to many more boring events than the public should have to witness. Trainers will argue that if a horse misses just one week, it may mean it wouldn't qualify for the final. To me, the message this sends is contrary to how we should be addressing the public. There is simply no room any longer for points to be earned just for showing up to the event. A more positive approach would be to better recognize the horses that do perform at a high level each start. I think a revised point system for the series should remove any participation points and change the dynamic only, offering a 50-30-20 split to the top three horses in any division. Thus, instead of just rewarding those for showing up, give credit and earned points to those that provide the public with the winning exactas and triples, two pools that could benefit from the alteration.

From a scheduling standpoint there could be an argument either way about offering fewer rounds of elimination races. To me it's not the number of rounds that I find problematic, but that they come in consecutive weeks. What would be the harm in starting the series two weeks earlier and having weeks off in between? This way, horses, horsemen and the betting public are not subjected to horses needing rest while entered in the preliminary legs.

► Sign up for our FREE DRF Harness Digest Newsletter

With a remodeled series I can envision utilizing a concept that the NBA has used over the last couple of years, and that is the "Play-In Tournament." The concept used for this series would provide a gateway to the final for just two horses that are not among the top six point earners during the course of the preliminary events. Conduct the play-in races the week before the final, with two horses needing to win the race to get into the final.

There could be multiple variations to the play-in format depending on the actual number of horses that compete, but regardless, I would expect a lot more buzz and certainly betting interest on two races that have a "win or go home" feel to them.

There's another aspect to the MGM Borgata that needs to be addressed and modified, and that is the separation of horses from a particular stable in preliminary events. While I come from a time in this sport where it was essential to couple for wagering all horses owned in part by a particular person, group or from a specific trainer, those times have passed, and the sport and public have accepted multiple horses from the same trainer in many races as standard. Why then is it necessary to give larger stables the benefit of entering multiple horses and not racing against themselves? If in fact the larger stables have several top horses, or most of them as we've seen over the years, why not put them in against each other in preliminary races and thus give the bettors a more competitive event. Often, it's the very fact that these horses are split that allows five- or six-horse fields to exist. For my money the number of short fields needs to be reduced or eliminated to make the series work in a better way for the betting public.

[EDITOR'S NOTE: New York State wagering rules require a minimum purse of $100,000 in stakes races for common interest (owned and trained by same people) horses to be uncoupled in the wagering. In stakes races with purses of at least $25,000, horses trained by the same person and owned by different people may be uncoupled.]

It is not for me to say what the purse structure for the MGM Borgata or Blue Chip Matchmaker should be, but if a revised format allows for points to be earned by only the top three in each race, I could see a need to bump the purses in the preliminary rounds as an added incentive.

Quite often in our sport the balance of interest is weighted too heavily on one side of the ledger. Horsemen have enjoyed higher purses across the board by virtue of funding from slot machine revenue. This, in large part, is the reason races such as the MGM Borgata and Blue Chip Matchmaker have enjoyed a spot on the stakes calendar over the years. Providing both with a future that includes those purses but also boosts betting handle is more than a worthwhile experiment. It's a necessity to give the entire sport the return on investment we truly need.