Final Furlong Forum
Final Furlong
Nov. 19, 2021 1:38am

Final Furlong Forum - BC Nominations?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 19, 2017, 05:38:42 AM

Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
Final Furlong Forum  |  Racing  |  General/Questions  |  Topic: BC Nominations?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [All] Go Down Print
Author Topic: BC Nominations?  (Read 2348 times)
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« on: January 09, 2005, 01:34:49 PM »

 OK, so I've been looking

into how I want to set up race nominations for FF.  In real life, the Breeders' Cup races

require a one-time nomination when the horse is a weanling.  However, the horse's sire must

be nominated as a BC sire.

So, I'm thinking we can either:
1. Keep with that trend.  I

am assuming each stud would need to be nominated each year in order for that year's foal

crop to be eligible. (So if you nominate your stud for 2009, any foals bred in 2009 - born in

2010 - would be eligible for the BC races).  Then when your foal is a weanling, you pay a

nomination fee to actually get to race it.  I assume the stallion nomination would be

something in the range of $25,000-$100,000 per year, but I'm not sure what exact

price yet.  Weanling nomination would probably be $1,000 - $5,000 range.

2.

Nominate each horse each year.  So if you have a 4yo who sucked as a 2- and 3-year old, you

pay a nomination for the BC once when he's 4, and that's it.

Which would people prefer?  

Obviously stallion owners may have a rather different perspective on this.  ;)
Logged
Edgewood Stud
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2005, 01:49:40 PM »

 I would go with number 1. I

like the idea the most out of the two of them. I think the higher quality stallions with the

better race record and number of mares bre should determine what price they should pay for

the BC nominations.        Thanks, Brianna-Edgewood Stud
Logged
hollyh1125
Guest
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2005, 02:45:00 PM »

 I like option 2.  Not

because I own a stallion because I could pay the fee if I had to but because it is just less

compicated. You wouldn't have to check back for all your foals if the stallion is nominated

and you have the power to choose which of your stock gets to be eligable.  Also, didn't we

already talk about how if we nominate a foal group we have to nominate and pay for the entire

group?  That wouldn't work if we had to nominate stallions and some didn't get nominated.  

But anyway yeah I like option 2 if I'm reading it right.  :)
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2005, 03:25:45 PM »

 No, nominating the entire

group thing is for the Breeders' Stakes Series (the 14 sets of Triples).  This is for the

Breeders' Cup races, run in October.
Logged
Augie1125
Guest
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2005, 03:39:59 PM »

 Option 2 is closest to what

occurs in real life.  I like this option.  
Logged
shamrockisles
Guest
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2005, 04:17:46 PM »

 I think I like Option 2 the

best.  
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2005, 04:22:27 PM »

 Actually, Dan, Option 1 is

what happens in real life, according to the Breeders' Cup website.  IRL, each stallion must

be nominated for that year's foal crop (nom. fee = his stud fee).  Then each foal may be

nominated for its lifetime to the BC for a fee of $500.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2005, 04:28:17 PM »

 And, just as another

note...even if we go with option 1, there will be an opportunity for you to retroactively

nominate your current horses.  (If there wasn't, we wouldn't have any BC fields until

2011).

To recap: Option 1 = Stud owners nominate their stud every year, Foal owners

nominate once as a weanling for lifetime nomination
Option 2 = Horse owners nominate their

horses every year for each BC race.  (This would be significantly more pricey than option 1)

Logged
Andrea
Guest
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2005, 04:30:06 PM »

 Hmm, this is odd b/c I'm a

stud owner, but I'd probably say option 1.  For one thing, I imagine the nom fee would be

lower if studs were also contributing nomination "money".  For another, we don't want every

single horse nominated to the races b/c only 14 will run per race.  So foals by nice studs

(ie Worth, Lonesome Glory, etc) will get an edge on sales prices b/c they have this option.  

While some of the 1k stud fee stallions foals will stay cheap b/c they won't have the option

of running in the races.  

Part of my logic for this is it's frustrating trying to make

any money off breeding horses at the moment ;).  Very few foals go for more than their stud

fees.   Hopefully the chance to nominate them for BC races would hike that.  Plus, it gives

you more of something to work towards.  So new players come in and can (almost) immediately

start placing/winning in Claimers/low allowances and then work their way up more.  

I

dunno, 's my .02 ;)
Logged
JasonCameron
Guest
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2005, 05:52:00 PM »

 That's a hard one... I like

#1 'cos of the quality it will make the races. But #2 is a lot easier.

So with #1, if we

nominate the foal, is it nominated every year even if it runs for 5 years??

Option 2 I

think for me.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2005, 10:31:44 PM »

 Yes, Jason, if you nominate

the horse as a weanling, it is eligible to run in any BC race it qualifies for (points-wise)

for its entire career.
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2005, 10:32:28 PM »

 And I think I may make an

executive ruling and go with #1.  I like it, Andrea likes it, and it's easier to code

(hopefully :P).  Plus, it potentially raises the value of foals, which is the entire point of

the Breeders' Cup.
Logged
hollyh1125
Guest
« Reply #12 on: January 09, 2005, 11:56:34 PM »

 Yeah now that I see option

one in that light I like it much better.  Switching to option 1 for me.  
Logged
CricketHill
Beta Testers
Race Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,186
Stable Name: Cricket Hill

Cricket Hill: Established 2006

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2005, 12:21:37 AM »

 To play devil's

advocate.

Say I'm a stallion owner, and my stallion has not produced anything TOO pretty,

and therefore I decide not to nominate.  However, surprise, surprise, my boy sires an AMAZING

runner.  However, due to my belief that my boy sucks, this runner cannot be run in either

event.  That would suck.

But I could be completely wrong, and life sometimes does suck.  

YAY!
Logged
Shanthi
Administrator
Kentucky Derby Winner
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,687
Stable Name: Stillwater Farms


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 10, 2005, 12:45:57 AM »

 This is true, Cat, but I'm

sure it happens in real life, too.  Plus, there're 850ish stakes races throughout the year,

so any/all horses will have plenty of opportunities to win stakes races, even if they have no

nominations.  :)
Logged
Andrea
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 10, 2005, 04:33:20 AM »

 And once that one foal does

do well, you can nominate your stud for future foal crops.  So only one or two foals would

get penalized for stud owner mistakes.  Not like you have to pick for your stud when he's a

weanling or anything :)
Logged
CascadeJade
Guest
« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2005, 06:33:09 AM »

 I like Option 1 too. Just

thought I'd say that even though its already been decided ;) lol

Also, I've heard of

really good horses who weren't nominated as weanlings to the BC races being given the chance

to pay a supplemental fee(I think thats what its called) which is always VERY expenive-as in

$800,000 or so just to enter the race. But if their owner thinks they're good enough

some owners choose to gample the 800k. Maybe we could have that option?  
Logged
JasonCameron
Guest
« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2005, 05:43:42 PM »

 Yeah I see the point, option

1 is better for me seeing as I have the studs, the mares, and the racers! :P
Logged
shamrockisles
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2005, 10:01:30 PM »

 Bridgette changes her vote

to #1!!
Logged
Cheq
Guest
« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2005, 11:45:13 PM »

 Okay so I'm going to show

my total lack of knowledge :P  What the heck is the big deal about cup races anyway? And I'm

not looking at theory here. To me if the stud is a dud (couldn't resist the rhyme :rolleyes:

) , and by that I really mean an inconsistant producer, I'm not likely to pay more for one

of his offspring because he maybe able to run in a cup race.  So

is there a giagaintic payoff that you can't get anywhere else or ...... just bragging rights

:)  
Logged
hollyh1125
Guest
« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2005, 11:48:43 PM »

 Well yeah the Cup races have

some of the biggest purses in the game with the Breeders Cup Classic purse being

$4,000,000.  It's deffinatly a huge thing if you win the Breeders Cup Classic and any

other Breeders Cup at that.  
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All] Go Up Print 
Final Furlong Forum  |  Racing  |  General/Questions  |  Topic: BC Nominations? « previous next »
 
SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Final Furlong Forum, BC Nominations? - Theme by Mustang Forums