Race dates: less is more in New Jersey

We are in mid-year, with the 2010 race date application process well behind us and with months to go until racetracks and horse people here in Ontario present their submissions to the Ontario Racing Commission in respect of 2011 race dates. Nonetheless, an article in the Daily Racing Form last week prompted me to think about the race date issue and whether or not we might be able to glean anything from a report from south of the border on the thoroughbred side.

For 2010, Monmouth Park has shortened its season to 50 dates from the 93-day season it ran last year. The 50 dates are organized around a Friday through Sunday schedule. It is an experiment that the track calls its “Elite Summer Meet”, with purses averaging $1 million per day for the duration of the meet, which began on May 22 and runs until Labour Day. So far, the experiment seems to be working. The Daily Racing Form reported that, for the first five days of the 2010 Monmouth Park meet, average handle was up 122 per cent compared to the corresponding dates last year, attendance was up 86 per cent, and field sizes have also increased.

Certainly, the numbers are eye-catching. However, what caught my attention was an observation by Dennis Drazin, formerly the president of the New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and one of the major proponents of the new schedule and purse structure. Drazin was quoted in the DRF article as saying that “People who haven’t been coming for years are showing up. And people who used to say that Monmouth was unbettable are now saying we’re the best product out there”.

The idea of reducing race dates has been discussed right here on Trot Blogs. Owner and fan Mark Hetherman wrote a Trot Blog last November in which he set out an elaborate example of how a track could operate with fewer dates, using a hypothetical schedule for Flamboro to illustrate his point. Mark’s blog focused on the benefits of having fewer race dates with more races on each card, which in his view would include reduced operating costs, less local competition and better simulcast business.

Unlike New Jersey, Ontario does not need to reduce race dates as a means to increase average purses. The success of the slot program here and its impact on purses is well documented. However, one benefit that may result from a slight reduction in race dates, whether or not each date consists of more races, is that the dates that are raced may see an increase in live attendance, particularly if the dates are conveniently timed for those who wish to attend in person, as is the case at Monmouth.

Another benefit may be an increase in the quality of fields. Horse people and more seasoned fans may be in a better position than I am to evaluate whether that would be the case, but as a fan I like seeing full, well-matched fields of fresh horses, and it may not always be possible to assemble such fields at all times of year. The reduction in race dates has led to an increase in the quality, or at least the perceived quality, of racing at Monmouth, and could have a similar effect here.

It may or may not be practical to replicate the Monmouth experiment in Ontario. Horse populations, the market for a track’s simulcast signal, coordination among tracks within a region and other considerations may impact the decision that the management of a track may make with respect to race dates. However, it is encouraging to see that Monmouth is having success with its schedule, particularly given the state of horse racing in New Jersey and the factors affecting the health of racing in the Garden State.

The race date application process for 2011 is still months away, and the action at most Ontario racetracks is now on the racing strip itself. However, this is as good a time as any to take a look at what is working in another jurisdiction and see if there is anything we can take from it.