Wothism

Tim Tebow As Religious Experience

2012-01-09T14:00:00.000-08:00

As an agnostic, I pride myself on being one of the few level-headed folks in the world who would correctly answer this question:

Is there a God?

Everyone has their own opinion, of course. We all have our own beliefs, and we’re all entitled to them.

But the only correct way to answer that question is this: I DO NOT KNOW.

(Other things I do not know include if life exists on other planets and what actual purpose the stock market serves.)

It’s 100 percent foolish to claim that you know there is a God, and it’s equally as foolish to claim that there is not. Every argument about lack of evidence on one side can be construed as evidence by the other, and vice versa. While deists might believe that the sun rising in the morning is God’s doing, atheists might argue that’s simply a result of the Earth spinning around its axis and has nothing to do with God, whereby deists can then argue that God either created the Sun and Earth to behave in this way … and the debate rages on.

The problem, of course, is that the argument lacks facts. There are no facts to refute and no factual refutations to make.

Another arena in which there are no facts is in the evaluation of NFL quarterbacks. A tall quarterback is not a good quarterback. A fast quarterback is not a good quarterback. A soft-throwing quarterback is not a bad quarterback. A poorly-testing quarterback is not a bad quarterback.

Enter Tim Tebow.

Your feelings on Tim Tebow roughly equate to whether you believe in God. This is not to say that you must believe in God if you believe in Tim Tebow, nor is it to say the opposite — that atheists must not believe in Tebow. It is simply to say that, in the absence of facts, you sometimes just have to believe in something.

And I believe in Tim Tebow.

Call me a religious convert. I never particularly liked Tebow at the University of Florida, where he was the ringleader of an insanely talented team that could even make a bowl game with me at quarterback. There was no religious experience occurring when the 6-foot 3-inch, 235-pound quarterback destroyed an undersized linebacker from Vanderbilt.

Since his arrival in the National Football League, however, Tebow’s unconventional throwing mechanics and outspoken views have earned him criticism (from many) and admiration (from few). After going 1-2 as a starter in his first season, he was the No. 3 quarterback breaking training camp this season and trade rumors swirled.

After a 1-4 start seemingly doomed the Broncos’ season, Tebow was inserted into the starting lineup and promptly played horrifically.

Tebow looked more like a plague upon the Broncos than their savior.

But a funny thing happened on the way to locusts and the deaths of our first-born children: Against all odds and bucking all conventional ways of thinking, the Broncos won six straight games by a total of 34 points, including three straight by a field goal. That just doesn’t happen. If there’s one fact in today’s NFL, it’s that you need to throw the ball to win … yet here was Tim Tebow, winning four straight without breaking 144 yards passing!

Then came that cold, harsh reality. Three straight losses to end the regular season. The Last Temptation of John Fox to pull Tim Tebow in favor of Brady Quinn.

Even as non-believers threw down the gauntlet and said, “WE HAVE SEEN NO FACTS TO PROVE THAT TIM TEBOW IS A GOOD QUARTERBACK” in the way that atheists might proclaim “THERE ARE NO FACTS TO PROVE THERE IS A GOD,” Fox kept the faith.

So did I.

Still, Tebow tested our faith once more, leading his offense to EIGHT yards in the first quarter. Only the true believers could still follow him.

Then, like any good savior, he made good on his promise.

Tebow exploded for 316 yards — yes, 316 as in 3:16 as in John 3:16, which he prominently wore on his eye black for every game he played while at Florida — and I couldn’t help but wonder if this was God — not Tim Tebow, no; God Himself — sending me a message from the other side.

Because if “God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life,” then maybe Tim Tebow was sent to us not as his son — not as The Jesus — but as an instrument of God’s Will to send a message to the non-believers in all of us.

And as ridiculous as it all may seem, that’s the honest-to-god (God?) truth.

And if Timothy Freaking Tebow can make me question all of that … I might just play it safe and go to church next Sunday.

The First Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part III)

2011-11-04T22:10:00.000-07:00

Although everyone seems ready to hand the
Breeders' Cup Classic to UNCLE MO or
HAVRE DE GRACE, TO HONOR AND SERVE is my
pick in the sport's biggest race.

Well, Breeders' Cup Friday didn't go exactly as planned.

It started off perfectly with SECRET CIRCLE topping SHUMOOS for a nice $28 exacta winner, but it got ugly from there.

The Euros failed to fire in the Juvi Fillies Turf as STEPHANIE'S KITTEN got up to score, and then MUSICAL ROMANCE ran huge to win the F&M Sprint ahead of my bet, the second place SWITCH, quickly submarining my Pick 4 in the first leg.

The Juvi Fillies went basically according to plan ... other than the fact that I DID take a stand against MY MISS AURELIA, who won ahead of my bets of GRACE HALL and WEEMISSFRANKIE.

Then PERFECT SHIRL pulled another huge upset in the F&M Turf ahead of my bet NAHRAIN.

Finally, ROYAL DELTA reeled in my bet IT'S TRICKY despite the latter getting first run.

In short, I had the second place horse in the final four races. Sonofa ...

Anyway, we move on. Saturday boasts a sick nine-race card that I remain extremely excited about despite today's less than stellar results.

Let's review Saturday's schedule (all times in CST):

(Dirt) Marathon -- 1 3/4 miles -- 12:20 p.m. -- TBD
Juvenile Turf -- 1 mile -- 1:02 p.m. -- ABC
(Dirt) Sprint -- 6 furlongs -- 1:37 p.m. -- ABC
Turf Sprint -- 5 furlongs -- 2:21 p.m. -- ABC
Dirt Mile -- 1 mile -- 3:01 p.m. -- ESPN
Turf -- 1 1/2 miles -- 3:45 p.m. -- ESPN
(Dirt) Juvenile -- 1 1/16 miles -- 4:25 p.m. -- ESPN
(Turf) Mile -- 1 mile -- 5:07 pm. -- ESPN
(Dirt) Classic -- 1 1/4 miles -- 6 p.m. -- ESPN

Breeders' Cup Marathon

1 Birdrun John Velazquez William I. Mott 7/2
2 Baryshnikov Mike Smith Michael J. Maker 12/1
3 Meeznah Tom Queally David Lanigan 12/1
4 Pleasant Prince Joel Rosario Wesley A. Ward 12/1
5 Giant Oak Shaun Bridgmohan Chris M. Block 9/2
6 Brigantin Julien Leparoux Andre Fabre 8/1
7 Harrison's Cave (GB) Ryan Moore Aidan P. O'Brien 30/1
8 Afleet Again Cornelio Velasquez Robert E. Reid Jr. 30/1
9 Cease Garrett Gomez Albert M. Stall Jr. 6/1
10 Eldaafer Javier Castellano Diane Alvarado 10/1
11 A. U. Miner Calvin Borel Clark Hanna 3/1

While this race has often been kind of a joke in past years, I'm actually fairly impressed with this year's field.

BIRDRUN has run well at distances of 1 1/4+ miles this year, claiming a win in the 1 1/2 mile Brooklyn and another win at 1 1/2 miles after A.U. MINER was disqualified in the Greenwood. I'm guessing 1 3/4 will be too much for him, though -- the pedigree suggests it, although, to be fair, the pedigree also suggests 1 1/2 would be too long.

The Euros can all run all day, but you're asking a lot for grass horses to handle kickback for the first time. Additionally, great closing speed is usually nullified at longer distances.

PLEASANT PRINCE is a horse a lot seem to like -- but he hasn't finished better than 9th in races longer than 1 1/8 and there's no guarantee he'll run to his distance-loving pedigree.

CEASE looked solid stretching out to 1 1/4 for the first time and fits the mid-pack profile that won this race last year. He should enjoy the extra distance and remains eligible to improve in just his seventh career start.

ELDAAFER, last year's winner of this event, seems to offer value at 10/1. The biggest concern is his potential fitness after sitting on the sidelines for 56 days and not running more than 1 1/2 miles since June.

A.U. MINER is probably a deserving favorite but only ran three times all year, finishing fifth in two of those races and DQ'ing in the one race he did win due to medication issues.

Summary: CEASE was supplemented to this field and, considering that means that the connections dropped $100k to enter him, they must feel pretty good about his chances. I do, too. At such a weird distance, anything can happen, so I'm just betting CEASE to win and being done with it.

Breeders' Cup Juvenile Turf

2 Fantastic Song Javier Castellano Chad C. Brown 20/1
3 Shkspeare Shaliyah Alex Solis Doodnauth Shivmangal 15/1
4 Farraaj (IRE) Neil Callan Roger Varian 15/1
5 Wrote (IRE) Ryan Moore Aidan P. O'Brien 12/1
6 Coalport Junior Alvarado Wayne M. Catalano 15/1
7 Caspar Netscher (GB) Kieran Fallon Alan McCabe 6/1
8 Majestic City Garrett Gomez Peter Miller 4/1
9 Daddy Nose Best Julien Leparoux Steven M. Asmussen 30/1
10 Animal Spirits Robby Albarado Albert M. Stall Jr. 8/1
11 Excaper Emma-Jayne Wilson Ian Black 30/1
12 Lucky Chappy (IRE) Joel Rosario H. Graham Motion 10/1
13 Finale John Velazquez Todd A. Pletcher 5/1
14 State of Play Ramon Dominguez H. Graham Motion 5/1
15 Tequila Factor Rafael Bejarano Wayne M. Catalano 30/1

Of the Euros, only CASPAR NETSCHER seems at all worthy of consideration. Seems iffy since he hasn't ever run at more than 6 furlongs, though the pedigree doesn't indicate this might be an issue.

MAJESTIC CITY is the morning line favorite despite never running on turf and not specifically seeming like any sort of turf monster in waiting. This sounds like a fine bet against.

ANIMAL SPIRTS won the G3 Bourbon his last out and has been training strongly in the morning. Might be a bit too short for him to be at his best, though.

FINALE would be a relatively easy pick if not breaking from post 13. Has won three straight -- two at the mile distance -- and showed the capacity to rate just off the pace in the last contest.

STATE OF PLAY is 2-for-2 in his career and beat a stronger field than others in a G2 on Sept. 1, but the speed figs have been awfully low.

Summary: All of my main contenders are breaking from out wide, which is a tough ask at this mile distance at Churchill. Therefore, I have to introduce COALPORT breaking from post 6. Beaten just half a length by ANIMAL SPIRTS in his last out, he was a winner in his debut in September. Appears green and has had "lackluster a.m. preps" according to the workout analysis, but his running style and the spot appears to fit. I would otherwise opt for FINALE ahead of the late-running ANIMAL SPIRITS.

Breeders' Cup Sprint

1 Euroears Rafael Bejarano Bob Baffert 4/1
2 Giant Ryan Cornelio Velasquez Bisnath Parbhoo 8/1
3 Aikenite Javier Castellano Todd A. Pletcher 8/1
4 Hamazing Destiny Robby Albarado D. Wayne Lukas 10/1
5 Jackson Bend Corey Nakatani Nicholas P. Zito 7/2
6 Force Freeze John Velazquez Peter R. Walder 10/1
7 Amazombie Mike Smith William Spawr 5/1
8 Big Drama Ramon Dominguez David Fawkes 5/2
9 Apriority Joel Rosario David Fawkes 30/1

A truly sick field in this one. Absolutely wide open. I barely even know where to start.

EUROEARS doesn't appeal too much due to some real inconsistencies. Even when you toss the Vosburgh, the last four six furlong dirt races have yielded two wins, a third and a sixth. He's a need-the-lead type that will have plenty of competition for it.

GIANT RYAN is 3-for-3 on off tracks like the one he won the Vosburgh on, but he has been good on everything for a while, going 6 for his last 6. It's truly a remarkable turnaround for the previously very average 5-year-old. Still, the Vosburgh was his first G1 win and it was probably track-aided, so I'm tossing.

JACKSON BEND is a horse I've been fond of for quite some time, and while I wish this race were at 7 furlongs, he is 2-for-2 lifetime at 6 furlongs and has led both of his 6 furlong races at the top of the stretch, so I feel good about his closing kick into what should be a strong pace.

FORCE FREEZE looks like a potential monster at 10/1. Spent a lot of time in Dubai before coming to America and putting up back-to-back 107 speed figs in a first in the Teddy Drone and second in the Vosburgh. Absolutely has to be considered a threat.

AMAZOMBIE looks tough on dirt with three wins and one second in four recent tries.

BIG DRAMA has too many questions at too low of odds -- fairly flat effort in his September prep was his only race since January and he's not training well.

SUMMARY: I'm having a hard time deciding between JACKSON BEND, FORCE FREEZE and AMAZOMBIE. I think they're all capable of laying off a pace set by EUROEARS, BIG DRAMA and GIANT RYAN, but I think AMAZOMBIE might lack the requisite brilliance to win at this level. I'll probably end up betting both JACKSON BEND and FORCE FREEZE because while I like JACKSON BEND more, FORCE FREEZE seems to offer great value.

Breeders' Cup Turf Sprint

1 Grand Adventure Javier Castellano Mark R. Frostad 20/1
2 Holiday for Kitten Joel Rosario Wesley A. Ward 30/1
3 Broken Dreams Garrett Gomez Thomas F. Proctor 20/1
4 Perfect Officer Kendrick Carmouche Michael Pino 12/1
5 Great Attack Jeffrey Sanchez Wesley A. Ward 20/1
6 California Flag Patrick Valenzuela Brian J. Koriner 15/1
7 Hoofit (NZ) Edgar Prado H. Graham Motion 15/1
8 Regally Ready Corey Nakatani Steven M. Asmussen 3/1
9 Rapport Brian Hernandez Ronny W. Werner 30/1
10 Havelock Robby Albarado Darrin Miller 9/2
11 Country Day James Graham Stephen R. Margolis 20/1
12 Camp Victory Julien Leparoux Mike R. Mitchell 12/1
13 Caracortado Joe Talamo Michael Machowsky 4/1
14 Chamberlain Bridge Jamie Theriot W. Bret Calhoun 5/1

Might as well just roll the dice with these turf sprints a lot of times. They're always huge fields and it's almost impossible to recover from any mistake.

PERFECT OFFICER is coming off back-to-back second-place finishes in G3 races, both of which were triple digit speed figs and the latter of which he was just a length back of 9/2 Havelock. At 12/1 seems to offer value.

REGALLY READY is obviously logical but at 3/1 is highly questionable after tossing in a clunker 10th-place a few races back.

HAVELOCK had a nice win last out but that was at 5.5 furlongs and hasn't been quite as good at 5 furlongs.

CARACORTADO is a classy horse that hasn't run at less than a mile since last December. Curious race choice.

Summary: Nobody really knows in the Breeders' Cup version of bumper cars. At double-digit odds, PERFECT OFFICER seems as good a choice as any.

Breeders' Cup Dirt Mile

1 The Factor Martin Garcia Bob Baffert 7/2
2 Shackleford Jesus Castanon Dale L. Romans 7/2
3 Tapizar Garrett Gomez Steven M. Asmussen 20/1
4 Tres Borrachos Joel Rosario Martin F. Jones 30/1
5 Wilburn Julien Leparoux Steven M. Asmussen 4/1
6 Irrefutable Rafael Bejarano Bob Baffert 12/1
7 Jersey Town Cornelio Velasquez Barclay Tagg 15/1
8 Caleb's Posse Rajiv Maragh Donnie K. Von Hemel 5/1
9 Trappe Shot John Velazquez Kiaran P. McLaughlin 3/1

This race may be even more difficult to handicap than the Turf Sprint. As mentioned in Part I, this is probably the most evenly matched and deeply talented field from top-to-bottom.

Here's my attempt to make sense of it:

I'm OK with tossing the longshots TAPIZAR and TRES BORRACHOS. IRREFUTABLE is stretching out to a mile for the first time on dirt, and since a similar experiment on turf did not go well, I can toss him as well.

The other longest shot, JERSEY TOWN, has one win, one second and two thirds at the mile distance. He was soundly defeated by UNCLE MO on a muddy track in the Kelso last out, but won the Cigar Mile last November over HAYNESFIELD, so he's capable of beating top-grade horses. If he approaches 20-1, he becomes very interesting.

THE FACTOR is an absolute speedball and will undoubtedly go straight to the front from the rail. It's very interesting that SHACKLEFORD is right next to him in post No. 2 -- it just reeks of a speed duel that will bury both horses. SHACKLEFORD is a solid horse that is pure grit, but he hasn't won since the Preakness upset and just doesn't seem good enough against these, but I do believe he will melt THE FACTOR. Cutting back to a mile might be just what SHACKLEFORD needs, but he was even beat by WILBURN at 1 1/16 in his last out.

WILBURN has won three straight and the $625,000 colt is finally living up to his considerable promise after flounder earlier this year in the Matt Winn and Long Branch. His last score was huge and dominant against SHACKLEFORD and CALEB'S POSSE, but those horses don't strike me as the class of the field, anyway, and I believe WILBURN could bounce.

I might have picked the sprint for CALEB'S POSSE. His two biggest speed figs came when he upset UNCLE MO in the King's Bishop at 7 furlongs and in the Amsterdam at 111 and 108, respectively. At a mile and up, he hasn't come close to those numbers.

TRAPPE SHOT has been favored in 9 of his last 10 starts -- delivering wins in 6 of those races -- and that appears to be the case once again here. He has focused solely on 6 furlongs this year, though, and hasn't run a mile since last August. He's almost definitely the most talented colt and should be fine with the distance overall, but it poses an important question at odds of 3/1.

SUMMARY: This is a fascinating race with a lot of really talented horses. I really like JERSEY TOWN, who I believe can sit off the pace from post No. 7 and pounce at the top of the stretch. Failing that, the amount of pace in this race really would seem to benefit CALEB'S POSSE running late.

Breeders' Cup Turf

1 St Nicholas Abbey (IRE) Joseph O'Brien Aidan P. O'Brien 9/2
2 Sarafina (FR) Christophe Lemaire Alain De Royer-Dupre 5/2
3 Dean's Kitten Ramon Dominguez Michael J. Maker 10/1
4 Stately Victor Mike Smith Michael J. Maker 30/1
5 Teaks North Javier Castellano Justin Sallusto 20/1
6 Await the Dawn Julien Leparoux Aidan P. O'Brien 7/2
7 Sea Moon (GB) Ryan Moore Sir Michael R. Stoute 4/1
8 Brilliant Speed John Velazquez Thomas Albertrani 20/1
9 Midday (GB) Tom Queally Sir Henry Cecil 4/1

The British are coming! While it would be an absolute shocker if an American horse won this one, the same was true of the Filly & Mare Turf -- and PERFECT SHIRL came home at 30ish/1 in that one today. Still, the only impact that result really has in my mind is that we might see slightly better odds on the Euros.

SARAFINA had won three straight before floundering to a seventh-place finish in the Arc last out. Worrisome is that she comes from well back and would have a lot of work to do on the Churchill Downs stretch, which is short by European standards.

AWAIT THE DAWN had won four straight before a third-place finish last out, but his competition was a good deal worse than SARAFINA's.

SEA MOON gets to carry four pounds less than his elders and is yet another Euro who had won three straight -- including an 8 length romp against a G2 field two races back -- before a third-place finish at 1 3/4 miles. This race is still a step up from that G2 field, though.

BRILLIANT SPEED has become a decent turf horse and, if I had to bet on an American horse, this would be the one in hopes of a continued improvement from the three-year-old. Still, I don't have to bet an American.

MIDDAY opted for this race over the F&M option, and why not! She may have lost a step from last year, though, and was also beaten by St. Nicholas Abbey at this distance in June.

SUMMARY: MIDDAY seems to be the choice among many of my sources, but I'll side with SEA MOON as an improving three-year-old in great shape. MIDDAY is a close second choice.

Breeders' Cup Juvenile

1 Take Charge Indy James Graham Patrick B. Byrne 30/1
2 Dullahan Kent Desormeaux Dale L. Romans 8/1
3 Crusade Julien Leparoux Aidan P. O'Brien 12/1
4 Drill Martin Garcia Bob Baffert 8/1
5 Hansen Ramon Dominguez Michael J. Maker 10/1
6 Prospective Luis Contreras Mark E. Casse 30/1
7 Creative Cause Joel Rosario Mike Harrington 7/2
8 Speightscity Corey Nakatani Gary Contessa 20/1
9 Alpha Garrett Gomez Kiaran P. McLaughlin 15/1
10 Union Rags Javier Castellano Michael R. Matz 2/1
11 Daddy Long Legs Ryan Moore Aidan P. O'Brien 12/1
12 Fort Loudon Luis Jurado Stanley Gold 20/1
13 Optimizer Robby Albarado D. Wayne Lukas 15/1

People like to get excited about this race because it's really all about the next big thing. UNCLE MO won this race last year and look where he's at now.

UNION RAGS is everyone's clear-cut favorite after laying three straight beatdowns on talented fields. He won his debut on July 12 by 1 3/4 lengths, then a G2 by 7 1/4 lengths on August 15 and then at a mile by 5 1/4 lengths on October 8 in a G1. He doesn't need the lead. There is little to poke holes in here.

DRILL looked like the main contender in this race until getting soundly beaten by CREATIVE CAUSE in his last out at 1 1/16 miles, which was also his first try on dirt. Until further notice, I'm going to say he's not quite as good on dirt as he is on an artificial surface. CREATIVE CAUSE, on the other hand, solidly won that race has popped off two bullets in the past few weeks.

HANSEN is the most intriguing option to me. Two races. Two 94 speed figs. Two wins by a combined 25 1/2 lengths. He hasn't really faced anyone but that second race was at a 1 1/16 and saw splits of 23 2/5 and 46 2/5 -- very honest -- and still spurted away down the stretch.

ALPHA was soundly beaten by UNION RAGS in the Champagne but has speed figs of 96 and 92 in two races to date.

SUMMARY: HANSEN may very well be a freak, but there's a lot of early pace here that will press him harder than he ever has been pressed before. If he runs huge like he has and wins it, I'll drop my jaw in awe and applaud. UNION RAGS is a deserving favorite, but I don't rate him that highly above CREATIVE CAUSE to justify the lower odds. but even more than that, ALPHA seems to offer outstanding value. This BERNARDINI colt should appreciate a bit of extra distance and has the running style I'd prefer against these. ALPHA it is.

Breeders' Cup Mile

1 Goldikova (IRE) Olivier Peslier Freddy Head 7/5
2 Zoffany (IRE) Ryan Moore Aidan P. O'Brien 20/1
3 Courageous Cat Patrick Valenzuela William I. Mott 8/1
4 Mr. Commons Mike Smith John A. Shirreffs 20/1
5 Gio Ponti Ramon Dominguez Christophe Clement 4/1
6 Get Stormy Garrett Gomez Thomas M. Bush 15/1
7 Jeranimo Martin Garcia Mike Pender 20/1
8 Byword (GB) Maxime Guyon Andre Fabre 12/1
9 Court Vision Robby Albarado Dale L. Romans 30/1
10 Sidney's Candy John Velazquez Todd A. Pletcher 15/1
11 Strong Suit Richard Hughes Richard Hannon 10/1
12 Compliance Officer Alex Solis Bruce Brown 50/1
13 Turallure Julien Leparoux Charles Lopresti 8/1

Rumors of Goldikova's demise may be greatly exaggerated. Sure, she has won only two of five starts this year, but she finished second in the three others by a combined two lengths and a head. One loss came to CANFORD CLIFFS -- who some thought was the best horse in the world before he suffered an injury that ended his career -- and another came to IMMORTAL VERSE, another heck of a horse. The final loss came to DREAM AHEAD, which would give me more pause if the race wasn't run at only 7 furlongs -- definitely shorter than GOLDIKOVA' preferred one-mile distance. Has she lost a step? Maybe. Does it really matter?

ZOFFANY ran second to the amazing FRANKEL in June but hasn't won since last August and is definitely off form with 8th and 12th place finishes in her last two out.

COURAGEOUS CAT gave GOLDIKOVA all she could handle in 2009 but hasn't appeared special since February 2010 and was second to TURALLURE in his last out.

MR. COMMONS is pretty interesting at 20/1 coming off a 105 speed fig in his last out. He should only be getting better as a 3-year-old and is worthy of consideration at this price.

GIO PONTI finally won for the first time in nearly a year in his last out. This horse is nothing but consistent and shows up all the time, but the speed figs this year are down from last year and I think, like GOLDIKOVA, he may have lost a step.

GET STORMY finished just behind GIO PONTI and provides much better value at 15/1. The big worry is that she was a well-beaten 11th in this race last year.

JERANIMO ran huge last out to beat MR. COMMONS but had only won 2 of 13 prior races and is much easier to dismiss.

BYWORD is coming off of two straight wins and is 3 for 4 lifetime at the mile distance but finished 7 lengths behind GOLDIKOVA at 1 1/8 miles in May.

SIDNEY'S CANDY should get a fairly easy lead and could be dangerous if it's too easy.

COMPLIANCE OFFICER has won five straight against better-than-you-think competition. Another interesting longshot proposition.

SUMMARY: This is what people like to call a great betting race. You've got the big name, probably overbet favorites in GOLDIKOVA and GIO PONTI, and then a host of other possibilities. I find MR. COMMONS to be the most interesting longshot option of those mentioned above ... he's an improving colt that could be sitting on a big one. Period.

Breeders' Cup Classic

2 Flat Out Alex Solis Charles L. Dickey 6/1
3 Drosselmeyer Mike Smith William I. Mott 15/1
4 Ruler On Ice Garrett Gomez Kelly J. Breen 30/1
5 So You Think (NZ) Ryan Moore Aidan P. O'Brien 5/1
6 Ice Box Corey Nakatani Nicholas P. Zito 30/1
7 Rattlesnake Bridge Calvin Borel Kiaran P. McLaughlin 30/1
8 Game On Dude Chantal Sutherland Bob Baffert 10/1
9 Stay Thirsty Javier Castellano Todd A. Pletcher 12/1
10 Havre de Grace Ramon Dominguez J. Larry Jones 3/1
11 Headache Paco Lopez Michael J. Maker 30/1
12 Uncle Mo John Velazquez Todd A. Pletcher 5/2
13 To Honor and Serve Jose Lezcano William I. Mott 12/1

I find it very easy to toss out four horses right off the bat: ICE BOX (hasn't actually ever won a race of consequence), HEADACHE (ditto), RATTLESNAKE BRIDGE (again), DROSSELMEYER (hasn't won anywhere but Belmont).

RULER ON ICE will end up attracting more attention and probably will go off at closer to 20/1, but his one big win came on an off track against distance-challenged and far inferior colts at Belmont. Impossible to support as a win candidate, but he could hit an exotic if you're looking that way.

So there are seven horses to more seriously consider:

FLAT OUT is a horse that finally won a big race in his last out -- but he beat DROSSELMEYER and STAY THIRSTY. I'm sorry, but that doesn't impress me much. I love the story of his trainer coming out of retirement and guiding this fragile horse to the sport's pinnacle, but FLAT OUT's other win was ahead of Hymn Book and Rodman. He hasn't proved enough to me and I don't see him as talented enough to beat this field.

SO YOU THINK's connections obviously think he will handle dirt just fine ... but at 5/1, I can't see how you could bet on this one over other horses that you KNOW can handle dirt.

GAME ON DUDE will certainly shoot to the lead and has to be on the pace. That strategy could work in this race, but with his biggest wins coming over distance-challenged TWIRLING CANDY, I have a hard time believing this colt is special enough to win the sport's biggest race.

STAY THIRSTY gives me the same feeling that GAME ON DUDE does ... he's going to give it his all and he's a fine horse, but you have to be great to win this race. I don't believe STAY THIRSTY is ... at least not away from his beloved Saratoga.

UNCLE MO poses the same general question that arises with SO YOU THINK applies here -- we don't know if UNCLE MO can actually get this distance. His pedigree would indicate he can not. His history would indicate that he can not. He's almost certainly the most talented horse in the field and he would have almost boringly romped in the dirt mile -- so you can't fault the connections for taking a shot -- but at 5/2, you're making a big assumption.

HAVRE DE GRACE has already beat FLAT OUT by 1 1/4 lengths, so there's that. That race was at 1 1/8, though, and, quite frankly, even though her only two races at this distance have been amazingly tight second-place finishes with the incredible BLIND LUCK, I think this is longer than she wants. She's not bred for this distance.

TO HONOR AND SERVE has questions of his own. But at 12-1, they are questions I'm willing to live with. He was the "other" Uncle Mo, if you will, back in January after some stellar wins last fall. He took down two Grade 2 races with ease before taking a break and coming back in February and April with two relatively lackluster third-place performances -- one was his first race off a break, so really nothing to be ashamed of -- and then he was injured in the second race. He returned to training in June and his first race back in August was the Amsterdam at 6.5 furlongs -- certainly too short for him -- and clearly needed a race as he finished sixth. Since then, though, he destroyed an optional claiming field at 1 1/8 miles on August 26 by 8 lengths and destroyed another field in the Pennsylvania Derby (including RULER ON ICE and RATTLESNAKE BRIDGE). Now, again, those horses weren't special ... but he led by five at the top of the stretch after a sweeping move and set a stakes record despite essentially being geared down. Out of BERNARDINI, he's absolutely bred for the distance. We obviously don't know if he can beat horses of this quality, but he's by far the best bet in the field if he goes off at greater than 10/1.

SUMMARY: The most interesting part of this race to me is the lack of TRUE speed. There are a lot of supposed early and pressing style runners, but GAME ON DUDE is the only horse that's really going to WANT that lead. That makes things pretty interesting. Does UNCLE MO try to go with him? (I can't see it at the distance.) I don't think HAVRE DE GRACE will.

Todd Pletcher was pleased to be outside the early speed -- you never want to be pinned down inside early speed when they cut over in front of you -- but I'd almost feel better about TO HONOR AND SERVE if he were inside and could keep GAME ON DUDE wide. As it is, if UNCLE MO shows any speed at all -- which he almost certainly will -- TO HONOR AND SERVE will have to either expend a lot of energy early getting in front of UNCLE MO or be content sitting at least two and potentially three or four wide into the first turn ... and possibly throughout. Then again, that's the exact route he took in the Pennsylvania Derby and it obviously didn't bother him there, so maybe that's OK.

However I look at this race, I come back TO HONOR AND SERVE. The one worry is that he carried 10 pounds less than Ruler On Ice in the Pa. Derby and only beat him by 2 lengths, but I feel fairly certain he was barely asked in that race. I think he has a lot more left in the tank and is capable of being special ... he's the clear pick.

My biggest worry at this point is that I wrote the above a few nights ago and then, today, all I heard on the broadcast was TO HONOR AND SERVE this and TO HONOR AND SERVE that. I'm more than a bit worried that he'll end up going off at much lower odds than 12/1.

Well, that's it. Let's hope Breeders' Cup Saturday is more profitable than Breeders' Cup Friday -- you may just want to bet all of my win bets to place.

The First Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part II)

2011-11-04T07:53:00.000-07:00

IT'S TRICKY is my pick to win
the Breeders' Cup Ladies' Classic.

It's finally here! Breeders' Cup Friday!

Armed with Brisnet's fantastic Breeders' Cup Handicapping package, I spent most of last night delving into the PPs.

We get six races today, all of varying intrigue. As a fan, I'm not tremendously excited about the juvenile races today ... but they offer some good betting opportunities. Each race has its own unique appeal.

Without further ado, here's your Breeders' Cup Friday rundown:

Juvenile Sprint:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    Seeker    Julien Leparoux    Steven M. Asmussen    4/1
2    Sum of the Parts    Rajiv Maragh    Thomas M. Amoss    15/1
3    Blacky the Bull    Patrick Valenzuela    Jeffrey L. Bonde    20/1
4    Trinniberg    Cornelio Velasquez    Bisnath Parbhoo    9/2
5    Shumoos    Garret Gomez    Brian Meehan    15/1
6    Secret Circle    Rafael Bejarano    Bob Baffert    6/5
7    Holdin Bullets    Jeffery Sanchez    Wesley A. Ward    15/1
8    Jake Mo    Mike Smith    Allen Milligan    20/1
9    Vexor    David Cohen    John C. Kimmel DVM    5/1

Although officially six furlongs, the configuration of this course at Churchill Downs means this race is actually more like 6.25 furlongs.

SEEKER has been beaten by VEXOR at both 5.5 and 6 furlongs. Has looked good in the morning but unless the track comes up sloppy, PASS.

SUM OF THE PARTS hasn't won since his debut and was fourth and fifth in two grade 3's. PASS.

BLACKY THE BULL appears outclassed but is one of the few to go 6.5 furlongs and win. Ability to come off the pace is also somewhat interesting, but a poor Sunday morning makes this a PASS.

TRINNIBERG has finished second in his last two races, a G2 and a G1. Though beaten 3/4 of a length by VEXOR, must be considered as he appears to like Churchill Downs. In multi-race tickets, INCLUDE.

SHUMOOS is a shipper who won his only race off the turf in Europe. At $375,000 SHE is more than double the next most expensive horse in the field. This trainer won with a horse at 10-1 last year in the Turf, but my international analysis doesn't think too highly of her. Either way, she looks very healthy and I say you have to INCLUDE.

SECRET CIRCLE is a deserving favorite after two huge speed figs of 103 and two huge wins by 5 and 7 lengths in his first two starts. The most promising part to me is that he sat third in his last race before exploding to the finish.

Not needing the lead is huge in this type of race at this level, and you can't help but make this a WIN BET.

HOLDIN BULLETS had a promising debut back in April but hasn't raced since. Has worked well but it seems like an awfully big jump to make from the sidelines to the winner's circle here. PASS.

JAKE MO won a very weak maiden race in monstrous fashion with a 94 speed fig and a 9 length margin, but was third behind SUM OF THE PARTS in second in his last out. The pedigree isn't particularly strong and the morning activity has been unimpressive. PASS.

VEXOR has beaten SEEKER twice and TRINNIBERG once (while getting bested by TRINNIBERG once as well) and his last two non-slop starts have been wins with speed figs of 98 and 93, respectively. Still think he's pretty clearly outclassed by SECRET CIRCLE but you must INCLUDE.

WIN BET: SECRET CIRCLE
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS (in order of preference): VEXOR, SHUMOOS, TRINNIBERG

Juvenile Fillies Turf:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    My Gi Gi    Rafael Bejarano    Brian J. Koriner    20/1
2    Dayatthespa    Ramon Dominguez    Chad C. Brown    12/1
3    Up (IRE)    Ryan Moore    Aidan P. O'Brien    20/1
4    Stopshoppingmaria    Javier Castellano    Todd A. Pletcher    8/1
5    Stephanie's Kitten    John Velazquez    Wayne M. Catalano    12/1
6    Sweet Cat    Garrett Gomez    Todd A. Pletcher    10/1
7    Royal Bonnie    Cornelio Velasquez    George Weaver    30/1
8    Hard Not to Like    Mike Smith    Gail Cox    15/1
9    Pure Gossip    Ryan Curatolo    Philip M. Serpe    12/1
10    Elusive Kate    William Buick    John H.M. Gosden    2/1
11    Ann of the Dance    Corey Nakatani    Martin D. Wolfson    30/1
12    Dear Lavinia    Christophe Lemaire    Jean-Claude Rouget    30/1
13    Customer Base    Julien Leparoux    Thomas F. Proctor    12/1
14    Somali Lemonade    Alex Solis    Michael R. Matz    3/1
AE    Bourbonstreetgirl    Joe Talamo    Gary Contessa    30/1
AE    Karlovy Vary    Garrett Gomez    George R. Arnold II    30/1

MY GI GI appears to lack the class needed in this spot. PASS.

DAYATTHESPA was second in a grade 3 at Woodbine on Sept. 17 with a speed fig of 97. Given that the par is 94 and she's going well, it's hard to keep her out of contention. INCLUDE.

UP is apparently the smallest thoroughbred ever and she won her last race ... on an artificial surface. Was 11th against a weak field in her only turf try to date. PASS.

STOPSHOPPINGMARIA hasn't run on turf yet, but she's absolutely bred for it. A second-place finish in the G1 Frizette as the favorite and speed figs of 96-105-93 make this one a true contender. WIN BET.

STEPHANIE'S KITTEN is another that figures to be better on turf, though she won her last race on the polytrack at Keeneland with a speed fig of 96. In her one real test on turf to date, she ran a speed fig of 95 in a third place finish behind DAYATTHESPA. Did not seem to relish the Churchill grass when running here on Oct. 29 so I think this is a PASS.

SWEET CAT was second in a G3 last out, beaten by Somali Lemonade. She stalked the pace and was clear before being run down, so I don't see how you could toss this one. INCLUDE.

ROYAL BONNIE is making a huge step up in class even though she was second in a weak grade 3 to PURE GOSSIP last out. Too much to ask. PASS.

HARD NOT TO LIKE is actually sort of hard to like. Although she had an excuse -- bumping -- in her fifth place finish in her only G3 try, it came against largely inferior competition at Woodbine. I think this daughter of HARD SPUN will actually end up on dirt someday. PASS.

PURE GOSSIP won the G3 Miss Grillo by 6 lengths at 23-1 odds, but the field was undeniably weak and the course soft. She might very well be the real deal, but this is another one who will probably end up on dirt. PASS.

ELUSIVE KATE is pretty easily the horse to beat. She has now won four straight, including a G3 and her first G1 by three lengths at 1 mile in her last out. Given that Euros have had a clear upper hand on turf in just about every division for quite some time, it's hard to pick against her. WIN BET.

ANN OF THE DANCE tries her first on grass and does have license to improve with a grass-favoring pedigree ... but her only wins so far have come in a maiden and optional claimer. No chance. PASS.

DEAR LAVINIA is another Euro invader that has three wins in five starts. ELUSIVE KATE beat her by 2.5 lengths back on July 30, but it would be impossible to not include her in some fashion. WIN BET.

CUSTOMER BASE tries turf for the first time after two wins from two starts in a maiden and allowance race on the dirt. Appears very sharp right now after firing a bullet on Halloween, but this trainer doesn't have a good record with horses trying turf for the first time. PASS.

SOMALI LEMONADE is America's best hope against the Euros. Her two wins, though, were against inferior competition and they weren't exactly easy. She has made great sweeping moves in her two wins from deep, which should help her, but I don't see her kicking hope with enough gusto to beat out the Euros. INCLUDE.

WIN BETS: ELUSIVE KATE, DEAR LAVINIA, STOPSHOPPINGMARIA (this seems like a good race to NOT make a win bet on)
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: DAYATTHESPA, SOMALI LEMONADE, SWEET CAT

Filly and Mare Sprint:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    Irish Gypsy    Martin Garcia    Bob Baffert    20/1
2    Great Hot (BRZ)    Chantal Sutherland    Antonio C. Avila    20/1
3    Turbulent Descent    David Flores    Mike Puype    6/5
4    Champagne d'Oro    Corey Nakatani    Eric J. Guillot    30/1
5    Musical Romance    Juan Leyva    William A. Kaplan    20/1
6    Switch    Joel Rosario    John W. Sadler    3/1
7    Tar Heel Mom    Alex Solis    Stanley M. Hough    12/1
8    Tanda    Joe Talamo    Mike R. Mitchell    20/1
9    Golden Mystery    Kendrick Carmouche    Juan Carlos Guerrero    20/1
10    Tamarind Hall    David Cohen    Jeremiah C. Englehart    20/1
11    Her Smile    John Velazquez    Todd A. Pletcher    15/1
12    Pomeroys Pistol    Javier Castellano    Amy Tarrant    6/1
13    Shotgun Gulch    Garrett Gomez    C. R. Trout    30/1

IRISH GYPSY did win a G2 at this distance in July at Del Mar, but she's only cracked a speed fig of 100 once -- and that came at 5 furlongs back in May. Also comes off a layoff since August. Just asking too much against these. PASS.

GREAT HOT won a G2 at Keeneland on Oct. 22, but the speed fig was only 91. Too many other much better horses are set up to come from off the pace here. PASS.

TURBULENT DESCENT has lost just two races this year: To the very talented ZAZU back in February and then 1 mile Acorn on a muddy track to IT’S TRICKY in June. She ran huge back in August with a speed fig of 108 in the 7 furlong Test as the even money favorite. At 6/5, though, I don't think she offers enough value. We can do better. Still, INCLUDE.

CHAMPAGNE D'ORO was favored in this race last year! She finished fourth and hasn't done better than third since. Kind of sad, really. PASS.

MUSICAL ROMANCE is a quiet name who only first ventured out of Calder on September 11th to win a G2 at Presque Isle and then finished second in a G2 at Keeneland. She has run big before but I think this is longer than she wants. PASS.

SWITCH has spent much of the year running at much longer distances, but the cutback here makes sense. She has two wins, two seconds and one third in five lifetime races at this distance, and her most recent three were a second in last year's F&M Sprint here at Churchill and two wins last December and January at Santa Anita. Those wins were dominant, by the way, and against G1 competition. WIN BET.

TAR HEEL MOM was kind of a cute quiet success story for quite a while. She won a G3 in January, then a G2 in August when people started to realize she might be for real. She caught a bad break in the G1 Ballerina and stumbled at the start, but she was well-beaten by HILDA'S PASSION. I don't see a ton of pace pressure here so I could see her hanging on for a piece. INCLUDE.

TANDA has been OK. She has won three grade 3s and hasn't fared better than third in a G2 or G1. There's a reason for that. PASS.

GOLDEN MYSTERY makes a big jump in class. Speed figures dictate that she could hang just fine, but she has never once run in graded company. Like TAR HEEL MOM, she could benefit from not a lot of pace ... but this is asking a lot. PASS.

TAMARIND HALL ran huge at the 7 furlong distance back in July at Belmont, posting a 109 in her 5 length win of a G3. She has been second (to POMEROYS PISTOL) in a G2 and third (behind TAR HEEL MOM) since. Must INCLUDE.

HER SMILE has fooled me before with sharp works, but not this time from an outside post. I like to root for Bobby Flay's horses (because I hit a nice winner with one of them once, mainly), but she's in deep here. PASS.

POMEROYS PISTOL is one tough customer. She definitely lacks the background of many of these other gals, but she hasn't finished worse than second in four races since May, winning two of those. Her G2 win last out was by a solid four lengths over TAMARIND HALL and she has plenty of versatility to claim a piece here. INCLUDE.

SHOTGUN GULCH managed to win a G1 back in April at Keeneland at this very distance. She hasn't won since and has finished 5th-7th-3rd-6th. PASS.

WIN BET: SWITCH
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: TURBULENT DESCENT, POMEROYS PISTOL, TAR HEEL MOM, TAMARIND HALL

Juvenile Fillies:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    Questing (GB)    William Buick    John H.M. Gosden    20/1
2    Candrea    Martin Garcia    Bob Baffert    6/1
3    Rocket Twentyone    Eddie Razo    W.T. Howard    20/1
4    Miss Netta    Rajiv Maragh    Kiaran P. McLaughlin    15/1
5    Grace Hall    Ramon Dominguez    Anthony W. Dutrow    4/1
6    Self Preservation    Joel Rosario    Ben D. A. Cecil    15/1
7    Putthebabiesdown    Alan Garcia    Kenneth G. McPeek    30/1
8    Homecoming Queen (IRE)    Ryan Moore    Aidan P. O'Brien    15/1
9    My Miss Aurelia    Corey Nakatani    Steven M. Asmussen    5/2
10    Northern Passion    Luis Contreas    Mark E. Casse    12/1
11    Weemissfrankie    Rafael Bejarano    Peter A. Eurton    4/1
12    Frolic's Revenge    John Velazquez    Milton W. Wolfson    30/1
13    Say a Novena    Elvis Trujillo    Edward Plesa Jr.    30/1
14    Awesome Belle    Luis Jurado    Stanley Gold    20/1

QUESTING is another Euro invader, only this time trying dirt for the first time. A somewhat curious decision on the face, but as a daughter of HARD SPUN, I expect her to improve here. Still, too many questions, including if she can get the distance. PASS.

CANDREA was second in the G1 Oak Leaf but the amount of early speed in this race basically makes all of these types a toss. PASS.

ROCKET TWENTYONE has two wins in two starts but seems better suited to shorter distances. PASS.

MISS NETTA was third in the G1 Frizette and tossed up a huge workout on Oct. 29 -- something she hasn't done in the past. Impossible to ignore. INCLUDE.

GRACE HALL is undefeated in three starts, including a 2 length win in the G1 Spinaway. The fact that she came off the pace in that one is a huge plus to me. WIN BET.

SELF PRESERVATION was fifth in her last similar race -- the G1 Oak Leaf. No way. PASS.

PUTTHEBABIESDOWN has yet to run on dirt and doesn't seem to particularly love or hate it. Lacks the class and pedigree of many of the others. PASS.

HOMECOMING QUEEN is a Euro invader who should be much better on turf, so it's curious that they're trying her on dirt here. Third and sixth in past artificial surface starts. PASS.

MY MISS AURELIA has won all three starts, including the G1 Frizette, with speed figs of 101-99-99. She's in real trouble, though, in my opinion. She needs to basically be right on the lead and that is going to be an absolute bear of a task in this race. You probably have to include her in multi-race wagers in case she's just that good, but I'd be OK taking a shot against her and skipping her in exotics. INCLUDE.

NORTHERN PASSION should be running in the turf race. Tossed up a 99 in winning a G3 last out on turf. She has done fine in lower-level artificial races, but this is just a silly shot to take in my opinion. PASS.

WEEMISSFRANKIE won the G1 Oak Leaf I keep referencing, but the speed fig was a blah 94. Still, he's undefeated, and this one can really come from off the pace. Appears to be training stronger than ever, so WIN BET.

FROLIC'S REVENGE really has no business here. PASS.

SAY A NOVENA is another horse that figures to get caught in a speed duel and has never raced this far. PASS.

AWESOME BELLE will be gunning for that lead and hasn't raced against graded company yet. PASS.

WIN BETS: GRACE HALL, WEEMISSFRANKIE
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: MISS NETTA, MY MISS AURELIA

Filly and Mare Turf:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    Dubawi Heights (GB)    Joel Rosario    Simon Callaghan    8/1
2    Stacelita (FR)    Ramon Dominguez    Chad C. Brown    2/1
3    Harmonious    Martin Garcia    John A. Shirreffs    30/1
4    Cambina (IRE)    Garrett Gomez    Jeffrey L. Bonde    30/1
5    Nahrain (GB)    Frankie Dettori    Roger Varian    7/2
6    Announce (GB)    Maxime Guyone    Andre Fabre    9/2
7    Aruna    Julien Leparoux    H. Graham Motion    6/1
8    Perfect Shirl    John Velazquez    Roger L. Attfield    30/1
9    Shared Account    Edgar Prado    H. Graham Motion    30/1
10    Distorted Legacy    Rajiv Maragh    Angel Penna Jr.    30/1
11    Dynaslew    Corey Nakatani    Seth Benzel    30/1
12    Misty For Me (IRE)    Ryan Moore    Aidan P. O'Brien    10/1

DUBAWI HEIGHTS has claimed two G1 wins this year and one G3, but would seem to be better at a shorter distance than the 1 3/8 here. That said, with basically no pace in the race ... definitely could hold on for a piece. INCLUDE.

STACELITA is the best (now) U.S. based turf horse we have, but I'm worried about her ability on firm ground. Her last two smashing wins have come on yielding turf and, while it won't be rock hard Saturday, it should be fairly firm. She was third the last time she ran 1 3/8, although that certainly is not a limiting factor for her. I just think this race is too wide open to have this heavy a favorite. Can't recommend going all-in here -- but INCLUDE.

HARMONIOUS hasn't shown much since October 2010. She's winless since then. Hard to believe she can bounce back against these after finishing 10th here at 5-1 last year. PASS.

CAMBINA won a G1 in July by a head but has been fourth and fifth in a pair since. Worked poorly, as well. PASS.

NAHRAIN is an interesting option with four wins in four starts. Apparently looks great at Churchill, too. It's always somewhat hard to tell with Euros but this three-year-old looks to be the real deal and will run with Lasix for the first time. WIN BET.

ANNOUNCE lost by just a nose to NAHRAIN so you could potentially say she offers better value. However, she'll carry four more pounds (carried five more in the last race, so there's no big change there) and will not be adding Lasix. She has successfully won at 1 1/2 whereas NAHRAIN has been limited to 1 1/4 so far, but I'll rank her just a notch behind. INCLUDE.

ARUNA hasn't finished worse than second in five graded starts this year, but one of those wins was on the artificial stuff at Keeneland. Her second in the Diana was impressive due to traffic, but I have fairly serious doubts that she can get the distance here. PASS.

PERFECT SHIRL hasn't won since July 2010. PASS.

SHARED ACCOUNT won this race last year at odds of 46-1. Then she ran twice this year and finished fourth and sixth. Maybe she just loves this distance and course ... but I don't see it at all. PASS.

DISTORTED LEGACY finished second to STACELITA in her last out but had run her previous three on dirt. She has never won on turf in seven starts. PASS.

DYNASLEW has some potential pace advantage factors and ran a 103 speed fig at this exact distance in a September G3 at Saratoga. But she hasn't won since August 2010 and trained poorly recently. PASS.

MISTY FOR ME has won two G1s in Europe and might actually be a better value than the other two tough Euros here. She beat the fabulous MIDDAY by six lengths at 1 1/4 miles in June but was fifth at 1 1/2 miles in her prior start. On soft ground, she gets a major upgrade; otherwise, I'll take the advice of the workout reports and stay away since she looks stiff. PASS.

WIN BET: NAHRAIN
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: ANNOUNCE, STACELITA, DUBAWI HEIGHTS

Ladies' Classic:

Post    Horse    Jockey    Trainer    ML
1    Miss Match (ARG)    Garrett Gomez    Neil D. Drysdale    10/1
2    Pachattack    Rajiv Maragh    Gerard A. Butler    12/1
3    It's Tricky    Ramon Dominguez    Kiaran P. McLaughlin    5/1
4    Satans Quick Chick    Edgar Prado    Eric R. Reed    30/1
5    Ask the Moon    Javier Castellano    Martin D. Wolfson    6/1
6    Royal Delta    Jose Lezcano    William I. Mott    5/2
7    Ultra Blend    David Flores    Art Sherman    8/1
8    Plum Pretty    Rafael Bejarano    Bob Baffert    2/1
9    Medaglia d'Amour    Patrick Valenzuela    Ben D. A. Cecil    30/1
10    Super Espresso    John Velazquez    Todd A. Pletcher    20/1

MISS MATCH hasn't shown much of anything since winning a G1 in May. Her best finish since then was a third in a G1 in June. Only 2-for-8 lifetime at this distance and is probably better at shorter.

PACHATTACK is an interesting option. After a career spent primarily on turf, she has found dirt and synthetic to be rather inviting, winning two of four tries this year. With all the attention on the big three of IT'S TRICKY, PLUM PRETTY AND ROYAL DELTA, this old lady could crash the party. INCLUDE.

IT'S TRICKY has been beaten by each of her main competitors here today in her last out -- one at a slightly longer distance and one at a slightly shorter distance. Her speed figures certainly label her a contender with figs of 106-98-101-109, but she was WELL beaten in both of those last two starts. Of course, she beat those same two at this very distance back in July. What a mess! Her ability to sit just off the pace is a major plus. At 5/1, I just think she offers better odds than ROYAL DELTA. WIN BET.

SATANS QUICK CHICK isn't quick enough to compete here. ROYAL DELTA beat her by six lengths in her last out and she hasn't won since January. PASS.

ASK THE MOON figures to go nuts after the lead and really muck things up for PLUM PRETTY. She has run huge before -- this mare put up a 107 at this distance in a five length G1 win in July -- but she absolutely needs the lead. PLUM PRETTY will almost certainly not allow her to have it, and I think that sets up poorly overall. PASS.

ROYAL DELTA lost nothing in losing to HAVRE DE GRACE by 8 lengths in her last out on a muddy track at this distance. After winning the Black Eyed Susan on Preakness Day, she has alternated between winning and not. She could be due here, and she can sit back. Huge plus. But I'd rather take IT'S TRICKY at 5/1 than ROYAL DELTA at 5/2. INCLUDE.

ULTRA BLEND might be the biggest beneficiary of the likely quick pace up front in this one ... but she has never run further than 1 1/16th before and grabbed a quarter in her last work. PASS.

PLUM PRETTY is going to have a hell of a time. She destroyed IT'S TRICKY in her last out, but she seems pretty intent on needing that lead -- and I think ASK THE MOON will force her to exert herself too much to do that. Maybe she can put her away and hold off these others, but I really think she's horrible value to win at 2/1. INCLUDE.

MEDAGLIA D'AMOUR spiked a fever and has been scratched. PASS.

SUPER ESPRESSO is owned by Bobby Flay! She won on Preakness Day in a great performance that netter here a 105 speed figure but has disappointed since and appears to be falling out of form. Has been beaten by ASK THE MOON and PACHATTACK twice each in her last four races. PASS.

WIN BET: IT'S TRICKY
INCLUDE: ROYAL DELTA, PACHATTACK, PLUM PRETTY

So, to review:

Juvenile Sprint:
WIN BET: SECRET CIRCLE
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS (in order of preference): VEXOR, SHUMOOS, TRINNIBERG

Juvenile Fillies Turf:
WIN BETS: ELUSIVE KATE, DEAR LAVINIA, STOPSHOPPINGMARIA (this seems like a good race to NOT make a win bet on)
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: DAYATTHESPA, SOMALI LEMONADE, SWEET CAT

Filly and Mare Sprint:
WIN BET: SWITCH
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: TURBULENT DESCENT, POMEROYS PISTOL, TAR HEEL MOM, TAMARIND HALL

Juvenile Fillies:
WIN BETS: GRACE HALL, WEEMISSFRANKIE
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: MISS NETTA, MY MISS AURELIA

Filly and Mare Turf:
WIN BET: NAHRAIN
EXOTICS/MULTI-RACE BETS: ANNOUNCE, STACELITA, DUBAWI HEIGHTS

Ladies' Classic:
WIN BET: IT'S TRICKY
INCLUDE: ROYAL DELTA, PACHATTACK, PLUM PRETTY

That's it for Part II of the inaugural Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview.

Check back tonight and tomorrow morning for the THRILLING conclusion and a recap of today's action.

The First Annual Wothism Breeders' Cup Preview (Part I)

2011-11-03T16:58:00.000-07:00

HAVRE DE GRACE hopes to become just the
second-ever filly to win the Breeders' Cup Classic.

I've been putting together an annual Kentucky Derby preview for the past three years now (and I finally a picked a winner this year with 20-1 ANIMAL KINGDOM), but this is the first year that I'm tackling on the Breeders' Cup.

Since this guide is primarily geared toward casual fans or even outright non-fans, I'd like to run through a few frequently asked questions about the Breeders' Cup:

Question: What the hell is the Breeders' Cup?

Answer: The Breeders' Cup is a 15-race event that takes place on the first Friday and Saturday in every November and is essentially the world championship for horse racing. The Breeders' Cup Classic is truly the Super Bowl of horse racing -- the best of the best.

Question: Uh, isn't the Kentucky Derby the Super Bowl of horse racing?

Answer: No. I mean, kind of. The Kentucky Derby has more pomp and circumstance, but the Kentucky Derby is a race limited to only three-year-olds. The Breeders' Cup Classic is an event with no age limits on any races except for the four races limited to just two-year-olds. In other words, while the Derby winners are the horses who will be remembered by the general public, the winners of the Breeders' Cup races -- particularly the Classic -- are truly the best in the world.

Question: So, why the hell do they need 15 races to figure this out?

Answer: It's a question many people much smarter than you or I have asked. The simple answer is: More races = more handle = more money. But many of the races make good sense, especially when you consider that many horsemen simply don't like to run females against males if at all possible (you can draw your own sexual bias conclusions here, but the general feeling is that the ladies are often too stubborn and push themselves harder than they ought to, which leads to more injuries ... which is obviously the worst case scenario in horse racing). For instance, while the Classic is run on dirt at 10 furlongs (1 1/4 miles) -- the classic distance and what most folks in the industry believe is a true test of champions -- some horses simply weren't built to go that far or to race on dirt. So there are turf races (at varying distances) and dirt races (at varying distances) so that all types of horses have a chance to prove their mettle. Some races -- the Breeders' Cup Marathon, in particular -- are widely panned by critics as being unnecessary or even entirely meaningless, but most of the races make good sense and help to settle scores that may have not been settled throughout the year. (In horse racing, one of the most fun/irritating points of contention is East Coast vs. West Coast -- due to the amount of strain travel can impose on horses, some horsemen will only bring their horses East or West for the Breeders' Cup races, so it can help settle the score of who's the best.)

Question: OK ... when are these races and when can I see them?

Answer: Here's the list of post times (listed in CST ... because that's what I prefer, damnit) and the accompanying television coverage:

FRIDAY:

(Dirt) Juvenile Sprint -- 6 furlongs -- 3:10 p.m. -- ESPN2
Juvenile Fillies Turf -- 1 mile -- 3:50 p.m. -- ESPN2
(Dirt) Filly & Mare Sprint -- 7 furlongs -- 4:30 p.m. -- ESPN2
(Dirt) Juvenile Fillies -- 1 1/16 miles -- 5:10 p.m. -- ESPN2
Filly & Mare Turf -- 1 3/8 miles -- 5:50 p.m. -- ESPN2
(Dirt) Ladies' Classic -- 1 1/8 miles -- 6:30 p.m. -- ESPN2

SATURDAY:

(Dirt) Marathon -- 1 3/4 miles -- 12:20 p.m. -- TBD
Juvenile Turf -- 1 mile -- 1:02 p.m. -- ABC
(Dirt) Sprint -- 6 furlongs -- 1:37 p.m. -- ABC
Turf Sprint -- 5 furlongs -- 2:21 p.m. -- ABC
Dirt Mile -- 1 mile -- 3:01 p.m. -- ESPN
Turf -- 1 1/2 miles -- 3:45 p.m. -- ESPN
(Dirt) Juvenile -- 1 1/16 miles -- 4:25 p.m. -- ESPN
(Turf) Mile -- 1 mile -- 5:07 pm. -- ESPN
(Dirt) Classic -- 1 1/4 miles -- 6 p.m. -- ESPN

(As an aside, I just have to comment that I find it pretty foolish for ESPN to be showing the prime races and ABC to be showing races that basically will only appeal to hardcore fans. Even I have a hard time being excited about the Juvenile Turf, and the Turf Sprint is only slightly more appealing. The Sprint will be a solid race, but that's probably only the fifth or sixth most interesting race of the day. What a shame for a sport that really needs to grow its fan base.)

Question: My God, that's a long time to watch horses intermittently run around the track ... which races might actually be worth watching?

Answer: Pretty easy answer. The Classic is, without a doubt, the race to watch if you're only going to tune into one. Fortunately, the Breeders' Cup came up with a schedule that made sense this year and packaged the one other race that is REALLY worth watching right before the Classic. The Mile and Dirt Mile (the naming conventions in this event really irritate me -- observant readers will have noticed that there was a Sprint and then a Turf Sprint ... and now there's the Mile and the Dirt Mile ... even I can't give you a good answer as to why they don't just use Dirt and Turf in front of all the races) are the two other stellar events with a ton of tremendous horses ready to battle it out. I also have to mention the Juvenile (for two-year-olds on dirt) and the Ladies' Classic (on Friday) as noteworthy.

HAVRE DE GRACE. That's the easy angle. Then you have the woman jockey taking on the men on GAME ON DUDE. And you have UNCLE MO's stablemate, STAY THIRSTY, trying to top his buddy in the biggest race of them all. You must watch. I implore you. As heartbreaking as it is to share this video: Zenyatta just misses history, watch it and feel the excitement. That's what you'll see again this year. It gets no better.

The (Turf!) Mile is the other race that will probably most appeal to the average viewer, as the legendary GOLDIKOVA comes returns to the race in search of her fourth straight Breeders' Cup victory. However, she's coming off a two-race losing streak over in Europe, so there are signs of chinks in the armor. She's now six years old and this will be her last race -- win or lose -- so there's a great "human interest" element at play here. The old champ returns for one final shot at immortality. As hard as it is to not pull for her, betting against her might be hard to pass up as the last two runners-up in this race (GIO PONTI and COURAGEOUS CAT) return to take one last shot at the old gal.

As for the Dirt Mile, there is no field in the entire Breeders' Cup draw that looks more evenly matched and deeply talented from top-to-bottom. This year's Preakness winner SHACKLEFORD takes on a field of mostly older horses in an attempt to prove his merit after a campaign that has disappointed since the Preakness. CALEB'S POSSE nipped the possibly great UNCLE MO in the King's Bishop back in August, and those two will have to deal with the immensely talented TRAPPE SHOT and the immensely speedy THE FACTOR, two horses that have plenty of raw tools to win here. And that list doesn't even include WILBURN, a horse that beat CALEB'S POSSE in his last out. It's a loaded field.

The Breeders' Cup Juvenile is (again, not coincidentally) will showcase the main threats to win next May's Kentucky Derby in UNION RAGS, CREATIVE CAUSE and DRILL. There are so many unknowns/less story lines in this race, but it gives you a peek at the stars of tomorrow (UNCLE MO won this race in a romp last year). HANSEN is one in particular that remains an unknown after facing weaker competition and could turn out to be an absolute monster.

Finally, as mentioned, the one Friday race that strikes me as mention-worthy is the Ladies Classic. It's lacking a bit of the star power we had hoped it would have at the start of the year with BLIND LUCK taking a break after a horrific last start and HAVRE DE GRACE taking on the boys, but there are still plenty of talented ladies ready to slug it out in the Friday nightcap. In the field of 10, there are really only two that I'd feel comfortable throwing out right off the bat ... so it's pretty wide open in my estimation.

So, in short, the casual fan should plan on tuning into ESPN at 5 p.m. on Saturday and watching Goldikova make her run at history, spend the next 45 minutes watching some pre-race stories about the horses in the Classic, and then watch the grandaddy of them all (unlike The Rose Bowl, nobody actually calls it this).

That's it for this part of the preview. In parts 2 and 3 (to come tomorrow), I'll break down Friday and Saturday's races.

Bill Barnwell Bothers Me

2011-10-31T13:20:00.000-07:00

(NOTE: I wrote the following email to Grantland last week and shared it with a few friends, as well. They so delighted in it that I thought it apt to share with the public at-large.)

I'm sure Bill Barnwell is a fine and very intelligent individual. It's clear that he knows a great deal about football and has a solid understanding of statistics.

However, he appears to know very little about gambling and continues to make elementary mistakes while providing the public at-large with horrible advice.

Allow me to count the ways in his article from last Wednesday, Oct. 26: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/7807/the-hedge-the-tease-and-the-life-of-the-nfl-bettor:

1. "My best estimate on the initial bet before the game was that the Ravens would cover the 1.5-point spread 73 percent of the time."

Where did that estimate come from? That might have been the case when the line was 7.5, but when the line was 10? The probability of the Ravens covering the 1.5-point spread was AT LEAST 74.5% (per http://wizardofodds.com/sports/sports_apx10.html) and, since it was crossing the crucial 7 and 3 (while that chart looks at all sides), I think AT LEAST 76% is a much more realistic estimate. Another way to consider this is to look at the moneyline, which Bill said later in the column was +475 on the Jags.

I don't have access to the actual closing Hilton lines, but sportbet.com had -578/+472, so even though Hilton likely had -600 (or even higher)/+475, I'll use -580/+475. The "fair" price would be (580-475)/2 = 52.5 + 475 = 527.5. It should follow, then, that 527.5/627.5 = 84.06% is the frequency with which the Ravens were expected to win the game outright. So even using 76% would seem too low unless you really believe the game will be decided by 1 point more than 8% of the time. Bill himself even uses an estimate of 1.8% for a one-point win later in the column, which is probably about right, and would of course peg the true likelihood of the Ravens winning at roughly 82%. But I'll go with 76% to be conservative here.

So, this ridiculous guess of 73 percent throws off the math in the whole column, of course ... we'll get to that.

2. "Estimated Value (EV)"

EV = EXPECTED Value. Not ESTIMATED Value. Again, this is an elementary concept for experienced gamblers.

Additionally, it's not even properly used. When Bill says the estimated value is, for instance, $33.83, that's simply incorrect. Expected value calculations need to include the original bet amount so you can properly indicate ROI ... but since Bill would probably think that ROI stands for Return on Interest rather than Return on Investment, maybe this is for the best. (OK, low blow. Sorry.)

3. "So if we bet $100 on our teaser at -120"

Who does that? Anyone with half a brain is betting $120 to win $100 rather than giving the house even more edge with breakage. This is ABSURD.

4. "JAGUARS BETTING BREAKDOWN" table

Using even the low estimate of 76% for the Ravens to cover the 1.5 point teaser, the math on Bill's teaser (as an aside, anyone betting -120 teasers is making it extremely hard on themselves) is as follows:

Ravens win by 2+ points = 76%; Return when win = $183.33; Expected return= $139.33
Jags win/tie/lose by 1 = 24%; Return when loss = -$100; Expected return=$0
EXPECTED OVERALL RETURN = $139.33

This obviously blows Bill's ridiculous hedging middle idea to pieces straightaway, but this is nothing new -- his ridiculous practice of diluting a good bet and middle for the sake of middling was well-established in his "How to Find the Creamy Middle on an NFL Bet."

5. "That was the worst scenario imaginable, but I still saved some money. With my hedge, I'd spent $160 and ended up with $117.14, a loss of $42.86. If I hadn't hedged my Ravens bet, I would have lost $100."

Horrible results-oriented justification of a bad bet.

6. "On Monday night, a bettor at the Hilton could have bet on the Jaguars to win at +475 odds, a line that suggests that the Jaguars would win outright just 16.7 percent of the time."

I racked my brain for a while trying to figure out where this was coming from until I figured out that Bill was implying the Hilton was dealing a -525/+475 spread on this game. In other words, the book's hold would be only 525/625 - 500/600, or .84 - .833 -- less than 1 percent. Right.

As mentioned earlier, I don't have access to the actual closing Hilton lines, but sportbet.com had -578/+472, so I'll repeat this again: "even though Hilton likely had -600 (or even higher)/+475, I'll use -580/+475. The "fair" price would be (580-475)/2 = 52.5 + 475 = 527.5. It should follow, then, that 527.5/627.5 = 84.06% is the frequency with which the Ravens were expected to win the game outright."

That, of course, means the Jags should win outright just less than 16 percent of the time. There is a definite and important difference.

7. "Over the past five years, though, home teams that are underdogs getting between 7.5 and 10 points have won outright 34.3 percent of the time, more than twice that listed price. Our estimate split the difference and suggested that the Jaguars would win outright 25.5 percent of the time."

HORRIBLE HORRIBLE HORRIBLE. I cannot stress enough just how horrible this is. I don't have access to Spreadapedia, but I can again see from this site (http://wizardofodds.com/sports/sports_apx10.html) that the TOTAL number of away favorites in the point range from -7.5 to -8.5 from 2000 to week 4 in 2010 was 48! So, less than five per season.

Bill's stat quotes half that time period and includes favorites of up to 10 points. I'd still gander that we're talking about a subset that occurs less than ten times per season, or a total of 50 times in the past five years.

Does Bill realize that the difference from the correct percentage of roughly 16% to the observed percentage of roughly 34% is 8/50 vs. 17/50? Does Bill realize how statistically insignificant that is?!?

To make the general claim that "our estimate split the difference" is HILARIOUS. I've tried to refrain from being over-the-top/too incendiary in this email, but does Bill realize what he's implying here?

If true, this claim amounts to saying Vegas is purely wrong with these lines. In other words, Bill Barnwell apparently has figured out how to DESTROY VEGAS, everyone! Just bet on all home dogs from 7.5 to 10 points and you will make a KILLING!

This is terrible, terrible data mining at its very worst.

8."JAGUARS-RAVENS HEDGE-TEASER COMBO PLATTER"

Doing the real-world math here isn't even necessary based on all of the above, but I'd just like to point out the absurdity of switching the Ravens' win percentage from 73% in his first table to 72.6% in this table.

Again, I have nothing personal against Bill Barnwell and actually feel badly that he's in over his head here. And, on one hand, I'm OK with the misinformation he's spreading -- it makes my job as a handicapper and gambler easier when a guy who's obviously knowledgeable about football tries to write with authority on gambling and leads the public astray.

But, on the other, it irritates me to no end. Grantland is a great site that deserves better.

Charter's Customer Service is THE BEST

2011-08-26T10:39:00.000-07:00

About a week ago, I contacted Charter Customer Service via their web chat in order to "re-up" my promotion with them. Although Charter is an awful company, we have a lot of TVs around the house and Charter is much, much cheaper than any of the alternatives due to the need for so many receivers with other providers.

Anyway, I had the following chat with them, which I found funny enough to copy and share with a number of my friends and family. Obviously, I'm kind of being an over-the-top, pompous "nice guy" throughout ... but the way it gets dished back to me is hilarious.

Due to the reaction from the friends and family I already shared this with, I figured I would post it publicly and allow others to enjoy the comedy. Here goes:

You have been connected to DAC Rio .
DAC Rio : My name is DAC Rio. Thank you for contacting Charter Chat Sales, I’ll be taking care of you today! How can I help you?
Bob Wothe: Good morning.
DAC Rio : Morning.
Bob Wothe: I'm currently a customer and have on my calendar that my current promotional pricing runs out next month, so I wanted to check to see what else Charter can offer.
DAC Rio : I would be happy to see what we have going on right now.
DAC Rio : To get started, may I have your full address including zip code or the account number to bring up your account?
Bob Wothe: XXXXXXXXXXXX
DAC Rio : Thank you very much for that information. Please bear with me just a moment.
DAC Rio : Thanks Bob. If I may access your account, could I please have the security code (4 digit code found on upper right corner of your statement) or the PIN (4 or 5 digit code that you chose as a personal identifier when starting your services)?
Bob Wothe: The account number is XXXXXXXXXXXX
DAC Rio : Thank you.
DAC Rio : Might I ask what you are currently doing for phone service?
Bob Wothe: We do not have a home phone, nor are we truly interested in one.
DAC Rio : Not a problem.
DAC Rio : I deeply apologize for the inconvenience, but being in Charter's New Sales Department, I am unable to apply new sales codes to an account. Would it be alright for me to transfer you to a Specialist in our Customer Care Department so you will receive the most accurate assistance? They will be able to read through our chat transcript so you do not have to repeat yourself.
Bob Wothe: Sure! Thank you.
DAC Rio : My pleasure, one moment please.
DAC Rio has left the session.
Please wait while we find an agent from the CHAT - MDVL - RETENTION department to assist you.
All agents are currently busy. Please stand by.
You have been connected to TTM Rhonda .
TTM Rhonda : Hello, my name is Rhonda. Welcome to Charter's Live Online Chat.
Please give me a few moments to review the chat notes and your account. Thank you.
Bob Wothe: Good morning! Thank you.
TTM Rhonda : I would be concerned with the billing also,
I will be more then happy to see what we can do with your bill.
TTM Rhonda : Please hold while I check on this account. Thank you.
TTM Rhonda : I have this promotion available.
TTM Rhonda : Our $89.98 24 month price guarantee includes Digital Home (expanded basic and a box),
12 meg Internet, and wire maintenance. With this the price will not change on the package
for 2 years. Please keep in mind this does not include the Internet modem $7.00
or any of the extras that you may have on the account.
This does involve a service agreement, I will send you the terms
Bob Wothe: That sounds like a good start. I don't think we'll need the wire maintenance, though, so we can take that off, but we do want to keep our DVR and HD service.
Bob Wothe: (We also own our own modem, FYI.)
TTM Rhonda : This is the plan as is.
TTM Rhonda : No substitutions or changes.
Bob Wothe: So we're being forced to pay for wire maintenance and can't get DVR or HD?
TTM Rhonda : You asked for the plan and this is the plan.
Bob Wothe: I appreciate that.
Bob Wothe: I'm just looking for clarification: Can we keep our DVR and HD?
TTM Rhonda : Yes. you can.
Bob Wothe: But we can't remove the wire maintenance, correct?
TTM Rhonda : correct.
Bob Wothe: Very good, thank you. So, we'd be paying $89.98 for the expanded basic + Internet + wire maintenance. What would the total monthly charges come to, then, if have DVR and HD as extras?
TTM Rhonda : This information can be found on page 3 of your bill.
Bob Wothe: Oh, I'm sorry, I don't have that in front of me. Could you please assist me with that?
TTM Rhonda : 89.98 + 15.00 (DVR) + 10.00 sportsview
TTM Rhonda : But you supplied your account number.
TTM Rhonda : Before taxes and fees.
Bob Wothe: I'm OK with dumping the sportsview to save $10/month.
Bob Wothe: Is there no longer an HD charge?
TTM Rhonda : As long as you have the DVR HD will be free.
Bob Wothe: Oh, very nice.
TTM Rhonda : This is also on page 3 of your bill.
TTM Rhonda : You have not been paying for it.
Bob Wothe: So, $89.98 + $15 for the DVR = $104.98 per month before taxes and fees
TTM Rhonda : Yes.
Bob Wothe: And that's good for 24 months? No early cancellation fees would apply?
TTM Rhonda : Here are the terms.
TTM Rhonda : 1. You have selected the Charter Bundle Package with the 24–month Price Guarantee.
2. You agree to subscribe to the entire package and make timely payments for 24 months beginning on the first day
you receive High Speed Internet service under this offer.
3. If you cancel ALL OR PART of this package you will be subject to an early termination fee of up to $150 during
the two year service agreement and the price guarantee discount will no longer apply.
The early termination fee will decrease by $5 for each month you have successfully fulfilled the agreement.
4. Fees for additional services, EQUIPMENT, and installation may apply.
5. Charter’s standard service terms and conditions also apply.
6. After the 24-month period expires, standard rates apply.
7. This Package is offered with Charter's standard 30-Day Money Back Guarantee.
TTM Rhonda : I have set up the 24 month guarantee as you requested. You will need to be called to go through the 3rd party
verification. Please be advised that if this is not complete, you will be charged the regular monthly rate for all services.
Bob Wothe: Wow, I'm not interested in that if there's an early termination fee.
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: Yes, I'm not interested in a package with an early termination fee.
Bob Wothe: What other options are there?
TTM Rhonda : Ten dollars of cable and ten dollars off Internet. This will be for 6 months to a year promotion.
Bob Wothe: Ten dollars off of what price?
TTM Rhonda : The regular price of those services.
TTM Rhonda : $59.99 cable.
Bob Wothe: What is the regular price of those services?
TTM Rhonda : $44.99 Internet.
TTM Rhonda : Would you like that promotion?
TTM Rhonda : Would you like to go to billing?
Bob Wothe: No, you're being very helpful, thank you.
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: So, really, I'd be paying $49.99 for cable and $34.99 for internet, which comes out to $84.98. And there's no early termination on that, correct? And then I'd include the $15 DVR for a total price of $99.98, yes?
TTM Rhonda : Is this what you would like me to add to your account?
Bob Wothe: If what I stated above is accurate, yes please!
TTM Rhonda : Please hold while I set up these promotions.
TTM Rhonda : sportsview for $10.00 will be on the total amount.
TTM Rhonda : And HD ultraview for $5.00.
Bob Wothe: I thought there wasn't an HD charge if I have a DVR?
Bob Wothe: And I'm OK with removing the sportsview tier.
TTM Rhonda : There isn't.
TTM Rhonda : to make this change will be a onetime fee of $1.99.
Bob Wothe: Wait, what change?
TTM Rhonda : [10:31:01] Bob Wothe: So, really, I'd be paying $49.99 for cable and $34.99 for internet, which comes out to $84.98. And there's no early termination on that, correct? And then I'd include the $15 DVR for a total price of $99.98, yes?
TTM Rhonda : [10:31:37] TTM Rhonda : Is this what you would like me to add to your account?
[10:32:04] Bob Wothe: If what I stated above is accurate, yes please!
TTM Rhonda : [10:34:33] Bob Wothe: And I'm OK with removing the sportsview tier.
Bob Wothe: Is there an easy place to locate what's on the Sportsview and Ultraview tiers?
TTM Rhonda : please hold.
Bob Wothe: Nevermind, I found it. You can remove Sports View and Ultraview.
TTM Rhonda : 300 Fox Soccer

301 Fox College Sports - Atlantic

302 Fox College Sports - Central

303 Fox College Sports - Pacific

304 ESPNews

305 Fuel TV

306 CBS Sports Network

307 Mav TV

309 The Sportsman Channel

310 ESPN U

311 Outdoor Channel

312 ESPN Classic

313 The Tennis Channel

314 World Fishing Network

321 BTN - Extra1

322 BTN - Extra2
Bob Wothe: Thank you.
Bob Wothe: So, yes, as previously stated, I'm on board with paying $49.99 for cable and $34.99 for internet, which comes out to $84.98. And then I'd include the $15 DVR for a total price of $99.98.
Bob Wothe: And is that a 6 month or 12 month promotion, then?
TTM Rhonda : 12 months. Your new billing will be $101.13 before taxes and fees for the next year.
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: Perfect. Thank you for your assistance.
Bob Wothe: And there's no change fee then, correct?
TTM Rhonda : [10:34:53] TTM Rhonda : to make this change will be a onetime fee of $1.99.
TTM Rhonda : [10:34:53] TTM Rhonda : to make this change will be a onetime fee of $1.99.
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: I would appreciate it if you could waive that change fee, please.
TTM Rhonda : I made a change to your account and it is $1.99.
Bob Wothe: Could you please waive it?
TTM Rhonda : • A standard Change of Service fee applies to all* No Truck/Office Only upgrades, downgrades, and sidegrades.
• Agents must inform the customer of the one-time transaction fee related to administrative costs associated with any upgrade, downgrade, or sidegrade of services
Bob Wothe: In the past, agents have waived this fee for me. Could you please do the same?
TTM Rhonda : Please read the policy as stated above.
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: I understand; I just have had the fee waived in the past and would appreciate it if you could do the same.
TTM Rhonda : [10:45:51] TTM Rhonda : • A standard Change of Service fee applies to all* No Truck/Office Only upgrades, downgrades, and sidegrades.
• Agents must inform the customer of the one-time transaction fee related to administrative costs associated with any upgrade, downgrade, or sidegrade of services
Bob Wothe: OK, I see that you're not budging.
TTM Rhonda : I cannot budge, I have a policy to follow. You did make changes to your account.
Bob Wothe: Anyway, last question, I promise: How do we get from $49.99 for cable + $34.99 for internet + $15 for DVR, which equals $99.98, to $101.13 per month?
TTM Rhonda : TV tax of 1.16
TTM Rhonda : Is there anything else I can help you with?
Bob Wothe: That will do. Thank you for your time and patience. You have a wonderful day, now.
TTM Rhonda : I will notate your account of our chat today about your services. Thank you for entrusting me with your concerns.
For all other Charter inquiries please chat back in. You may visit our website anytime at
www.charter.net to manage your account, make payments as well as review all our wonderful products.
If you require further assistance, go to www.charter.com/contact
Your session has ended. You may now close this window.

A treatise on my health (or lack thereof)

2011-08-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

Because it's kind of becoming a pain to explain it to everyone individually.

Here's the short version:

I have syringomyelia (also known as syringohydromyelia). You can read more about it here if you'd like, or you can just take me at my word when I say it's a cavity in my spinal cord that is filled with brain fluid. As a possible cause or result of this condition, I also have six bulging or protruding discs and some bone spurs in my neck.

After a battery of tests that included an EMG on my right arm and MRI's on my brain, neck and spine, I am now heading to see a neurosurgeon at the UW Hospital in Madison.

Now here's the long version:

Ever since I was in high school, I've had some sort of right wrist pain. I always chalked it up to frequent computer use and assumed I had carpal tunnel.

In the past few years, it has gotten worse. While my wrist had always been the primary source of pain, my right fingers and hand have gotten very stiff and painful, and my forearm got to the point where it constantly throbbed. It got bad enough at some point last year that I bought a wrist brace to wear at night, and I frequently even wear it around the house during the day.

Still, I never really thought much of it. The only thing that really crossed my mind was, "Eh, I have carpal tunnel. That sucks, but I'm not going to pay for surgery, so what's the difference?"

Anyway, Clara was born in January, so it didn't take long for us to hit our insurance deductible. Since I haven't had a physical since 2007 and the prevailing thought is that you ought to get two physicals in your 20s, I scheduled one in June with a physician I'd never met before.

Of course, I mentioned that I had hand/wrist/forearm pain and that I figured I had carpal tunnel. The doctor quickly shot down that notion due to the location of the pain. He folded and bent my arm in a few different directions, tapping on my arm all the while. When he folded it back toward me, my fingers felt kind of numb. He asked if they were numb, I responded in the affirmative, and I was diagnosed: Ulnar nerve entrapment.

I was a little bit confused because it didn't explain my forearm pain at all -- it's a totally different nerve that runs through my forearm where the pain is. That said, he recommended some physical therapy, and I started that in mid-June. Initially, I thought it was helping. Although my forearm was becoming more sore, I thought the wrist and fingers were a bit more limber if not less painful.

However, whatever progress I thought I was making disappeared fairly quickly. By my seventh appointment or so, my pain was way up -- I had started describing the pain as a "3 or 4" and had shot up to a "6 or 7." My right hand grip strength, which had started weak at 75 pounds (the male average for the dominant hand is 110 pounds, and my left hand was 100 pounds), was down to 65 pounds.

My forearm was atrophying.

My physical therapist asked another therapist what she thought I ought to do, and her recommendation was to contact my doctor and get referred to a physiatrist for an EMG to test the nerves in my arm.

I wasn't thrilled about this, but hey -- I figured it was progress toward nailing down the problem.

So I went to see the physiatrist -- Dr. Walby -- on July 22.

I described my symptoms and she immediately shook off the ulnar nerve entrapment diagnosis. This was no surprise.

I was surprised, though, when I left her office a few hours later without getting an EMG. Instead, I had an order for an MRI of my brain and neck. If she had to guess that day, her diagnosis would have been a brain tumor!

I had to wait 10 relatively nerve-racking days just to get the MRI, and then it was four more days to get the results.

As it turned out, I did not have a brain tumor. (Whew.) I was just happy that it wasn't the worst-case scenario.

Instead, I was shown MRI pictures showing something strange running down the middle of my spinal cord. As it turned out, this was syringohydromyelia (again, a.k.a. syringomyelia). I also was shown six bulging or protruding discs in my neck and upper back.

Anyway, as Dr. Walby explained it at the time, my symptoms were probably being caused by some combination of these two things -- the pressure from the syringomyelia pushing outward and the pressure from the discs pinching down on the nerves as they protruded.

Still, again, this was generally good news. It sure beat a brain tumor. That's not even close to the end of the story, though, because I needed another MRI, this time on my T-spine, to determine how deep the syringomyelia went -- the brain/neck MRI set only showed down to my T-2 vertebrae, and it went at least that far. They also wanted to look for anything -- like a tumor, again -- that might be causing it.

I didn't have to wait as long for the MRI this time -- only three days -- but in the meantime, I was prescribed a painkiller (Tramadol) to dull the pain. I also did some research on syringomyelia.

Syringomyelia is pretty rare -- only 8.4 cases per 100,000 people. Most of these cases are a result of something called Chiari malformation, which is essentially where the bony space at the rear of the skull is smaller than normal and brain tissue actually gets pushed downward into the spine.

I, however, do not have Chiari malformation. With that ruled out, the other possibilities are that it's caused by genetics (highly unlikely), a tumor (unlikely), nothing (idiopathic -- somewhat likely), or trauma (most likely).

In my case, trauma is most likely because, well, I have the upper back and neck of a 60-year-old. Those six bulging or protruding discs in my neck and upper back, along with the handful of bone spurs in my neck, are unlikely to have come from nothing. Whether it was a lifetime of football, a baseball to the back of the head, or screwing around in the ocean in Australia, I can think of a fair number of trauma events to my head and neck that could have easily been the start of all this. I've never thought I have any particular neck or back pain, but pain is a funny thing -- you just get used to a lot of things. I can't believe the pain I feel, for instance, when the painkillers I'm now on wear off.

Anyway, after the MRI, I had to wait eight more days to get back into my doctor while wondering if I had a tumor in my back.

Fortunately, the result was, once again, no tumor. As for the syrinx (the term for a fluid-filled cavity within the spinal cord), while syringomyelia comes in all different shapes and sizes, my particular case extends all the way down my spine to my T-12 vertebrae and is about 1-2 mm.

Dr. Walby finally gave me the EMG I never got a month ago, and as she initially suspected, it came up clean. As of 5 p.m. yesterday (Aug. 16), the plan was to wait until November to get another MRI to see if it the syrinx was changing in any fashion. That would determine, theoretically, if they would operate on it to stop it from doing any more damage, or if they would continue to just keep an eye on it and medicate me to relieve some of the pain.

This approach was frustrating, but I understood why she was taking it. Depending on what you read or who you talk to, syringomyelia is either not a huge deal or completely life-changing. Some people have syringomyelia forever and never even notice it. However, when you have symptoms like I do, it's more toward the completely life-changing end of the spectrum.

Anyway, I also mentioned at the appointment yesterday that I've been having some additional symptoms in the past week or so. I've been frequently dizzy -- which isn't necessarily a surprise since it's a common side-effect of Tramadol -- but I've also had a lot of twitching muscles all over my body. Probably like anyone else, I've gotten twitches and minor spasms occasionally throughout my life, but in the past 3-4 days especially, something is twitching literally every couple of minutes.

My doctor seemed somewhat perturbed by these reports, and said she would run them by the neurologist at Agnesian after I left. She thought the neurologist at Agnesian might want to see me in the interim (before the November MRI) or even run some diagnostic tests right away.

Well, my doctor and the neurologist reviewed all of my symptoms and MRIs once more. As it turned out, they both advised that I ought to go ahead right away and get a surgical opinion on it from a neurosurgeon at the UW Hospital in Madison.

The nurse reported that instead of the bulging discs being evidence of trauma that may have caused the syringomyelia, the neurologist posited that they could be bulging because of the outward pressure the syrinx is applying from inside my spinal cord.

Anyway, it's obviously all guesswork, and you could certainly take this as either good or bad news. From my perspective, I think it's good news because we're taking active steps to solve the problem now rather than taking a wait-and-see approach. The worst part, so far, is that I was told I can't lift more than 50 pounds. I'm not yet sure if I'm going to abide by that or not.

That brings us to the here and now. I'm not yet sure of when my appointment with Dr. Robert Dempsey at the UW Hospital will be -- didn't get a call back from the clinic yet -- but hopefully it's not too far down the road.

At this point, my understanding is that the operation would insert a shunt in the back of my skull that would drain the brain fluid into my abdominal cavity. Dr. Walby has been making this sound like a fairly simple operation, and in some ways I guess it is, but I'm also reading that you have to lie flat on your back for 24 hours following the operation. Even after that, it appears that you're stuck in the hospital for 3-7 days afterward! Great!

Other possible surgical options would appear to consist of some sort of decompression, but that hasn't been mentioned yet. If Dr. Dempsey decides not to operate at this point -- and that's still certainly a possibility because these shunts carry plenty of risks with infections and blockages -- my understanding is that they would basically just keep me on a steady cocktail of drugs and a steady diet of MRIs to make sure nothing is changing.

So, that's that. You can still feel free to ask questions ... I've just grown weary of telling that entire story to each new person that finds out.

The Wothism Belmont Preview

2011-06-08T13:57:00.000-07:00

These hounds would approve of
my pick to win the Belmont Stakes.

Once again, we enter the Belmont Stakes without a Triple Crown on the line.

Fret not, though: This is the most legitimately exciting Belmont Stakes since at least 2008 -- when a Triple Crown was on the line for Big Brown -- and, quite honestly, even longer than that.

The lack of quality in that field was such that it was almost deemed a foregone conclusion that Big Brown would win it. There was a buzz like there is around any potential Triple Crown winner, but it was far from a big showdown situation.

It's actually the first year since 2005 that the Derby and Preakness winners have met in the Belmont. It's absolutely great for racing to have this type of "rubber match." A Triple Crown on the line is far better, for sure -- people tune in just to "not miss it" -- but in terms of those actually interested in the racing itself, this field has the highest quality depth I can recall competing in the Belmont for quite some time. Eight horses that ran in the Derby -- including the top seven finishers -- are in this field. They're not all great horses, but they're all pretty darn interesting.

At the very least, it's about 100 times better than last year's field ... which was unfortunately when I decided to attend the Belmont Stakes. Gah.

Anyway, down to brass tacks:

The Belmont is not unlike the Derby in that it is further than any of these horses have ever run before, but it's also certainly further than any of them will run again. In today's racing world, it's a true dinosaur of a race. At 12 furlongs (1.5 miles), it is, as one Daily Racing Form writer put it, 6 furlongs + 6 furlongs. In other words, twice the distance of the most "normal" race in North America today.

I would posit that it doesn't take a special horse to win the Belmont as much as it takes a "different" horse -- a horse that is bred differently than most horses are these days. Speed is king in modern-day racing, and the stamina to get 1.5 miles is simply not in the DNA of most top-flight horses these days.

So, examining any distance limitations in the pedigree is paramount. That's one key theme.

Another key theme is that Belmont is a weird track. For one thing, it's ENORMOUS and has long turns, but it also is known as BIG SANDY for its high sand content. Some horses love this and some horses can't stand this. So the other "big picture" item we'll take into account is the past success/failure of horses who have run or worked out on this track.

Finally, we have to upgrade horses that are close to -- but not on -- the pace. It seems almost counter-intuitive -- that horses who run their best late in races should love the extra distance to "catch" the frontrunners -- but that's usually not the case. Instead, they've usually used up more of their energy just to "keep up" earlier in the race, so they lack that big closing kick they're able to display in shorter races. Take the following stats from the Daily Racing Form:

"• From 1979 to 1991, if your horse was in front after the opening mile, it was better than a 50-50 proposition to hold on. Seven of 13 winners fit that profile, including Conquistador Cielo, Swale and Danzig Connection – three of Woody Stephens’s five consecutive Belmont winners from 1982-86.

• Since then, however, only two of the last 19 winners led after a mile – Point Given (2001), probably the best modern-day horse not to win a Triple Crown, and Da’ Tara (2008), who wired the field as the rank outsider while 3-10 favorite Big Brown was eased."

So, if we can find it as we look through the 12-horse field, we're looking for a horse that has run well at Belmont, shouldn't mind the 12 furlong distance, and has shown the proclivity for rating just off the pace.

1. MASTER OF HOUNDS (10-1): My knee-jerk reaction is that this is the horse to bet on in this race. Put in a better-than-it-looks fifth-place finish in the Derby and has a pedigree similar to Animal Kingdom's in that he should be able to run all day -- the dam is from Great Britain and had an average winning distance of 10.6 furlongs, while the sire was Kingmambo, whose average winning distance was 8.5 furlongs. The question marks are: 1. How much does taking three trips across the Atlantic in less than six weeks drain a horse? 2. How will he take to the Belmont track? This is still a horse that ultimately figures to be better on turf, but he got over it just fine at the Derby. He did show the ability to sit right off the pace in the UAE Derby two starts back, so I'm not worried about him being too far back. I'm worried it's going to be a "trendy" pick and therefore get bet down, but he's still definitely under serious consideration.

2. STAY THIRSTY (20-1): I'm a little surprised they wheeled STAY THIRSTY back out for this one, but I guess when you spend $500,000 on a horse, you want to give it every opportunity to prove that it was worth the investment. Coming off a flat Florida Derby effort, I thought he offered some value in the 25-1 or 30-1 range for the Kentucky Derby. He never got close to that, thankfully, and I saved some money as the 17-1 shot ran an uninspired 12th. At this point, I'm inclined to say he's just not good enough, but on the other hand, he still is well-bred and he has been ripping it up at Belmont. Four furlongs in 47.4 was good for 2/72 on May 22, and he then went 6 furlongs in a blistering 1:12 on for 1/4 on May 29 and 5 furlongs in 1:00.4 for 3/15 on June 5. He was second in his lone start -- his first ever -- at Belmont last July. He might actually really like this track. Worthy of consideration.

3. RULER ON ICE (20-1): Third in a better-than-it-looked Sunland Derby wasn't bad, but a second-place finish in a $50,000 stakes race at Pimlico the last-out was kind of embarrassing. I'm not quite sure why this horse is here, especially given the lack of pedigree (AWD of 6.7 and 6.6, respectively) and a lifetime high speed fig of 93. Hard to justify putting any money down on this one.

4. SANTIVA (15-1): I liked SANTIVA in the Derby and he ran reasonably well, finish sixth 5.5 lengths back of ANIMAL KINGDOM. Like NEHRO, he has taken a break since. The pedigree bodes well (ADW of 8.5 and 7.3) and I still like his mid-pack style/ability to rate. He beat Astrology, who ran a strong third in the Preakness, last November. As I mentioned in AK's writeup, if you put stock into horses that look strong after the wire, SANTIVA wanted more in the Derby as he was gaining at the end. (Again, I don't, but ... ) I do wonder at this point if he's just a good -- not great -- horse. But at 15-1 and up -- which I think it will be due to the bigger names in this race -- he looks good.

5. BRILLIANT SPEED (15-1): His connections thought a seventh-place finish in the Derby was worthy of giving him another shot in the Belmont. I don't. This is still a turf horse. A couple Belmont workouts have resulted in times of 1:00 (third of eight at the distance) and 1:03 (third of three). Not too impressive. His one race on the Belmont main track was his first, where he put up a speed fig of 74 and finished fourth. The pedigree is the one plus here, but that's not enough.

6. NEHRO (7-2): Trendy pick in the Derby figures to be a trendy pick again, but I still say this horse isn't a winner. He's been second in three straight races to Pants On Fire, Archarcharch and Animal Kingdom. Not much shame in the second-place run against AK, but the other two are questionable. He'll be overbet and his 4 furlong work of 50.8 seconds was 30/33 at the distance on June 6. Makes me wonder. On the other hand, he'll be fresher than many of his main competitors. The pedigree suggests this distance won't be too bad, but AK is a much, much better bet than Nehro at this point.

7. MONZON (30-1): I'm just scratching my head. This horse has been sixth, fifth and sixth in three graded stakes starts, and now he's in the final leg of the Triple Crown. Best speed fig was 95 in his last-out (at Belmont in the Peter Pan), but seeing as how it was a sixth-place finish, it's hard to give much credit for that. Definite pass.

8. PRIME CUT (15-1): Ran third here in the Peter Pan last out, so that's a plus. 2-2-2 in 7 lifetime starts is solid enough. Sold for $475,000 back in 2009, so the breeding is there. I think he'll like this distance less than many others, though, and he hasn't shown that he can beat the best yet -- Alternation is a fine horse that decided to pass on the Belmont, so there's not much shame there, but he was also beaten by Derby Kitten in the Lexington. If you want to take a shot in the dark with a longer odds horse, you could do worse.

9. ANIMAL KINGDOM (2-1): As it turned out, a slow break and a slow pace in the Preakness (after that blistering first quarter, I was still f'ing right about the pace being slow!) ultimately did Animal Kingdom in. Some people like to think it matters if a horse that's closing passes another horse after the wire -- as if that shows the measure of willingness or "how much the horse has left" -- and if you're one of those people, you won't like that Animal Kingdom never did pass Shackleford. I am not, however -- the jockeys are pulling up, the horses know the race is over ... so what's the difference? Anyway, this is the type of "different" horse that I was talking about. With German blood on the dam's side and Brazilian on the sire's side, this horse should be able to run all day. The average winning distance for the sire was 7 furlongs -- not great, but OK -- and the dam was 10.5 furlongs -- really, really great. In his one workout at Belmont, he turned in a bullet of :47.6 seconds, so the track doesn't seem to bother him at all. His run in the Preakness says otherwise, but he was midpack in most races before that (including 12th of 20 at the Derby). A very deserving favorite.

10. MUCHO MACHO MAN (10-1): If MMM was going to win a Triple Crown race, it was going to be the Preakness. However, he lost a shoe (AGAIN!) and finished sixth. This horse is also making me scratch my head. Why run him again? His pedigree suggests that this is much too far for him, and as well as he ran in the Derby, he still has only won two of 10 lifetime starts. That said, his lone work on the Belmont main track was 5 furlongs in :59.4, which was best of 15 at the distance. Still, at 10-1, I can find better uses for my money.

11. ISN'T HE PERFECT (50-1): But ... but ... why is this horse here?!? Finished ninth in the Preakness ... and that was after he got this comment from me before the race: "Amazingly irrelevant. I'm not sure why he's here. He hasn't finished better than fifth in three graded races. Figures to sit mid-pack and just hang out there for the whole race. I would be absolutely floored if this horse won." Obviously, this horse is not worthy of anything.

12. SHACKLEFORD (9-2): It's not that a frontrunner can't win this race -- as the stats show, that was actually a big advantage for a time. It's that I'm not sure THIS frontrunner can win this race. He has such heart and that race he ran in the Preakness was simply inspiring, but his pedigree indicates this is going to be a tough distance for him. I do believe he'll get SOME pressure on the lead from PRIME CUT, so it's not going to be the walk in the park that the Preakness ultimately was. That said, even if it is, I don't think Animal Kingdom will be as far back as he was last time. Shackleford won't get away with holding off Animal Kingdom, a horse that was 14 lengths back at the first call in the Preakness. And he's going to have to hold it longer. Trainer Dale Romans says Shackleford has a "high cruising speed," which, if true, would make him an idea Belmont candidate. I just think, based on the pedigree, the way he dropped off in the Derby is indicative of what will happen in the Belmont. Especially in this race, with so many reasonably solid horses around, you have to make some tough decisions to avoid betting the whole bunch. I can't advise a bet on Shackleford at anywhere under 8-1.

----

I have a good bit of distaste for a number of horses in this field.

At this point, I'm considering:

MASTER OF HOUNDS
STAY THIRSTY
SANTIVA
PRIME CUT
ANIMAL KINGDOM

Could maybe consider:

SHACKLEFORD

Per usual, here's my tiered breakdown of where I expect horses to be:

FIRST TIER: SHACKLEFORD, PRIME CUT

SECOND TIER: MASTER OF HOUNDS, STAY THIRSTY, MUCHO MACHO MAN, NEHRO, SANTIVA

THIRD TIER: RULER ON ICE, ANIMAL KINGDOM

FOURTH TIER: BRILLIANT SPEED, ISN'T HE PERFECT, MONZON

SHACKLEFORD, breaking from Post 12, will be sent hard to get that early lead. There's literally no other true early speed in the race, BUT ... since PRIME CUT is breaking from Post 8 and SHACKLEFORD will be breaking down hard inside, PRIME CUT almost has no choice but to go with him. PRIME CUT is not an on-the-lead horse, but he's a right-there horse -- he has never been further back than two lengths at the first call. Unless he wants to jump SHACKLEFORD's heels, I think he gets sent hard enough to keep SHACKLEFORD off of the rail entering the first turn.

MASTER OF HOUNDS, NEHRO and ANIMAL KINGDOM have all shown tactical speed in their races, and I think NEHRO will roughly duplicate his Derby race -- press the pace from about three lenghts off of it. ANIMAL KINGDOM will not be as far back this time out. I would be downright shocked if he is. Everything I saw in the Preakness and everything I hear from Graham Motion about it being a "tactical" race tells me he'll be closer up -- more mid-pack, six lengths off like he was in the Derby. MASTER OF HOUNDS remains the toughest to figure, but his UAE Derby race was run nearly on the lead throughout and I expect his connections to also send him a bit harder than the Derby, when he was eight lengths back at the second call. Breaking from the rail will also necessitate a bit more early speed.

As they turn for home, SHACKLEFORD and PRIME CUT continue to battle it out. SHACKLEFORD should ultimately put PRIME CUT away, though, but neither of these horses has the ability to get the distance.

As he did in the Derby, NEHRO is the first to strike the front, but MASTER OF HOUNDS looms large behind him on the outside. MUCHO MACHO MAN is out of gas and fades. SANTIVA and STAY THIRSTY stay on steadily but don't have the run that MASTER OF HOUNDS does.

Meanwhile, it's ANIMAL KINGDOM moving the best of all. With less than a furlong to go, MASTER OF HOUNDS passes NEHRO and only has to hold off ANIMAL KINGDOM for 100 more yards to win the Belmont Stakes.

It's tight at the wire. ANIMAL KINGDOM was flying but MASTER OF HOUNDS showed no signs of letting up. In the end, it is ANIMAL KINGDOM by a nose to claim two of the Triple Crown's three legs. MASTER OF HOUNDS is second.

In the other races, I felt like I had some semblance of the order they'd come home in. This time ... it's just a mess. I can't see SHACKLEFORD completely falling apart, but there are a lot of pressers that I like in this race. Here's my stab at it:

ANIMAL KINGDOM, MASTER OF HOUNDS, NEHRO, SHACKLEFORD, SANTIVA, STAY THIRSTY, BRILLIANT SPEED, PRIME CUT, MUCHO MACHO MAN, MONZON, RULER ON ICE, ISN'T HE PERFECT

---

Now, ALL OF THAT SAID ... I would only be betting ANIMAL KINGDOM AT 2/1 to finance my other bets. I like him, I like his connections, I think he's a great fit for this race ... but 2/1 doesn't offer much value here. A lot of things can go wrong.

CURRENTLY WORTHY OF WIN BETS:

MASTER OF HOUNDS (10-1)

POTENTIALLY WORTHY:
SHACKLEFORD (NEED 8-1)
ANIMAL KINGDOM (NEED 4-1)
SANTIVA (NEED 18-1)
STAY THIRSTY (NEED 24-1)
PRIME CUT (NEED 30-1)

HORSES I WON'T BET:
NEHRO
BRILLIANT SPEED
MUCHO MACHO MAN
MONZON
RULER ON ICE
ISN'T HE PERFECT

And that's it. As with my other previews, I will likely update at a later date below.

Good luck!

----

UPDATE 6/11, 3:50 P.M.: I am AMAZED that SHACKLEFORD is up at 9-1. Especially on a sloppy or even muddy going, that is a massive, massive overlay. OK, maybe not massive, but it's a great bet. Far better, in fact, than my "pick" to win in Master of Hounds at 9-2. That's just silly. I don't like hardly any of these horses on a sloppy going, but SHACKLEFORD is one that figures to benefit from it -- not only because of his Tomlinson figure of 419 (a figure that measures a horse's likely success on mud and the best in the field) -- but also because of his front-running style: generally, this helps frontrunners as speed carries better.

He also won't have to deal with mud in his face, which is a big question mark for other horses in this field.

Really, this sloppy/muddy going just MUDDIES things up entirely. MUCHO MACHO MAN is the only one that figures to really "get better" on the mud, but I never liked him to begin with and I still don't see it. MONZON figures to be about the same, but yeah -- don't see that one, either. I think NEHRO gets a major downgrade in the slop, so I'm actively betting against him in every possible way.

BRILLIANT SPEED should also be mostly unaffected on the slop, but he's a hard one to like, too, especially at the same price as SHACKLEFORD.

SANTIVA might be worthy of a slight upgrade on the slop -- he ran third in his only start on an off track, and that was his first race ever. Ditto on STAY THIRSTY -- he was second on an off track in his first start and figures to not be tremendously worse.

A sloppy track is bad news for ANIMAL KINGDOM and MASTER OF HOUNDS. It works against them in every possible way. I can't bet either of them at this point.

Based on current odds, my final plays will be:

SHACKLEFORD 8-1
SANTIVA 13-1
STAY THIRSTY 15-1

The Wothism Preakness Preview

2011-05-19T13:53:00.000-07:00

Animal Kingdom was one of my top three picks in the
Kentucky Derby two weeks ago. Will he be a pick again?

I should have gloated more.

After ANIMAL KINGDOM won the Kentucky Derby at 20-1 as one of my top three picks, I should have been trumpeting my prowess at this game.

But it felt a bit hollow. Even though I had correctly called ANIMAL KINGDOM, SOLDAT was my top pick, and he floundered late despite a perfect trip to finish outside of the top 10.

Oh well. The Preakness field was drawn yesterday and I have another chance to prove just how intelligent I am. Here we go:

Many people try to say that the Preakness is SO MUCH different than the Kentucky Derby. It's really not that different. The Derby is perceived as SO CHALLENGING for horses who have never run 1 1/4 miles in their lives. The Preakness is indeed shorter ... but only one-half furlong shorter. It's still 1 3/16 miles. It's still further than most of these horses have run before, and it's still further than many will ever run again.

The other comment overplayed comment about the Preakness compared to the the Derby is that the turns at Pimlico are tighter than the turns at Churchill Downs. Not true. They SEEM tighter because there's less banking (aka wide trips are harder on horses because their speed wants to carry them out wider), but they're actually not tighter turns.

So we WILL downgrade outside posts and horses that will have wider trips, but not much. It's just an extra thought in the back of our minds as we look at the 14 horses in the field one-by-one.

NOTE: This will not be nearly as long as the Derby preview. You can all thank me later.

1. Astrology (15-1 ML): Interesting in the sense that there's a pattern of steady improvement this year. His first start off the layoff produced a 93 speed fig and his second produced a 98. The Preakness average winning speed fig is 107, but that's not a huge jump to take for a three-year-old. Having the rail and early speed could be huge. Should love the distance. Beat TO HONOR AND SERVE, perhaps a better horse than any other in this field, in a maiden race last summer. Hasn't finished worse than second in races at more than a mile and appears classy enough. Interesting prospect at 15-1.

2. Norman Asbjornson (30-1 ML): Finished second in the Gotham to Stay Thirsty before finishing fourth in the Wood this year. Speed fig left something to be desired in each (91/92), and now he's off a pretty big layoff. Don't think the distance fits. Breeding is pretty underwhelming. Definite pass.

3. King Congie (20-1 ML): Ah, another turf horse trying the dirt. He finished third in the Blue Grass behind Derby also-rans BRILLIANT SPEED and TWINSPIRED, but we're throwing that race out, anyway. Beyond that, he's won three turf races (ended up third in one due to disqualification). Distance could be an issue. Class could be an issue. Performance is a definite issue. No thanks.

4. Flashpoint (20-1 ML): This horse could be a legendary sprinter or miler one day, but this is probably too much for him. He's actually the top-ranked horse in the Brisnet's Prime Power Ranking (a composite ranking the horses in the field from top-to-bottom), but he faded late in the Florida Derby in his only try at more than a mile. He's now off a layoff since that race on April 3, and it's hard to believe he'll be fit enough to finish this longer race out.

5. Shackleford (12-1 ML): I won't be able to pass him up, but I'm hearing that he doesn't look nearly as good as he did before the Derby. He has no works since then, which certainly isn't a surprise -- needs the rest -- but it's worrisome. On the other hand, running half a furlong less would seem to be just what this horse needed in the Derby -- he didn't give way to NEHRO or ANIMAL KINGDOM until pretty darn late. The other way to look at it, of course, is that he has never been able to hold off late runners in any graded race ... but I won't take that chance. SHACKLEFORD will be on my radar.

6. Sway Away (15-1 ML): Of the horses coming out of the Arkansas Derby in this race, this wouldn't be my pick. He did post a 103 speed fig at 7 furlongs in his debut this year, but was sixth in the Rebel and then fourth in the Ark. Derby. He did have a bit of trouble in both races, though, so this is one to keep an eye on. A quick early pace would be useful for this one. More on how SWAY AWAY fits in this race later.

7. Midnight Interlude (15-1 ML): Some really interesting thoughts on this horse's inclusion in the race. Either it's trainer Bob Baffert's ego or the horse really simply did not like Churchill Downs. Word on the street is that MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE is doing much better now that he's no longer at Churchill, but even so, I'm not sure he seems worthy here. Even if you throw the 16th-place finish at the Derby out, there are only three maiden races and a second-place finish a narrow win in a weak Santa Anita Derby to go on. Too many questions on this one.

8. Dance City (12-1): A horse with early speed who I would like more if not for SHACKLEFORD's presence. Distance should be OK, breeding is good, a reluctant third-place finish in the Arkansas Derby was good, a May 15 workout was great ... there's not a whole lot to not like. On the other hand, even if going off at 30-1 (which I bet) in the Ark. Derby was too high, this field is much stronger than that one. Does 12-1 make sense after being 30-1 in a worse field? Interesting horse but questionable value.

9. Mucho Macho Man (6-1): I was hoping that NEHRO would enter because I would feel more comfortable fading him as the second or third choice than I do MUCHO MACHO MAN. There's the sense that this horse is only going to keep improving as he's not even 3 years old yet, and an improvement off of the third-place Derby finish would probably put him in the winner's circle here. The 102 speed fig he put up there was pretty good for a horse running off a pretty lengthy layoff, so the question now is if he'll bounce off of that huge effort (regress) or continue on that trajectory. Off of his previous two layoffs, he had promising results: improving from a 97 speed fig to a 101 speed fig in the first set, and improving from a fourth-place finish to a first-place finish in the second. And yet ... I don't know. This horse seems to have a case of not-quite-good-enough. The best horse he beat to win a race was SANTIVA. That's not a terrible horse, but he finished sixth in the Derby and isn't here today. I think others are probably better, but this is a major player, regardless.

10. Dialed In (9-2): Ugh, these outside posts are giving me a headache. My initial reaction to this line was, "OH BABY, GIMME SOME DIALED IN!" And then I thought ... "WAIT A MINUTE. I THOUGHT HE WAS WAY OVERVALUED IN THE DERBY, AND NOW I WANT TO BET HIM AT 9-2?" Like MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, there are two lines of thinking for this horse. The first is that he's not as good as was advertised before the Derby, and that he's only running because he's eligible for a $5.5 million bonus if he wins (thanks to his previous Florida Derby win). The second is that his trainer, Nick Zito, never wanted to win the Florida Derby in the first place -- $5.5 million is a lot of ching, and this race was the one he was aiming for. In fact, those that believe the second line of thinking believe that he USED THE KENTUCKY DERBY AS A PREP RACE. An interesting line of thinking, to be sure. I'm going to say no. If he was really aiming at the Preakness, why even run a grueling race like the Derby two weeks prior. There were other options. Additionally, lots of horses win both legs of the Triple Crown, so there's no reason to not take both seriously. He was no doubt a victim of the slow early going in the Derby, and he certainly did close with aplomb from well-back. If the pace is really fast here, he could win ... but I'll stay away again. Other folks are saying he just looks flat-out sore, so I'll go back to what I said in the Derby preview: "In (his) three wins, the pace after half a mile was 45.4 seconds, 46.2 and 46.2. In the loss, which came against much lesser competition, the pace after half a mile was 49.4 seconds. As previously stated, I think this race will have a pretty blistering early pace, so the fractions will almost certainly be closer to 46 than 49. However, even with fast early fractions (half mile in 46.2), DIALED IN was barely able to overtake front running longshot SHACKLEFORD in the Florida Derby win. I like SHACKLEFORD a lot and Gulfstream Park (where the Florida Derby is contested) favors frontrunners, but that makes you wonder just how good DIALED IN actually is."

11. Animal Kingdom (2-1): After popping off a 105 speed fig and winning the Kentucky Derby in impressive fashion, ANIMAL KINGDOM is a deserving favorite. He closed on leaders that really "shouldn't" have been closed on due to the slow early fractions. He has one of the most likable trainers in the game. And, man, I would be beyond happy if he wins again and we have another potential Triple Crown winner. But at 2-1, I absolutely can not include him as worthy of a bet. 2-1 implies that he will win this race once in three runnings. With at least five other pretty darn good horses and 14 animals total, that's a pretty big leap of faith. I think ANIMAL KINGDOM is good ... I'm still not sure that he's great. Everyone wants to bet on the potential of greatness in this race. I want to, but I won't.

12. Isn't He Perfect (30-1): Amazingly irrelevant. I'm not sure why he's here. He hasn't finished better than fifth in three graded races. Figures to sit mid-pack and just hang out there for the whole race. I would be absolutely floored if this horse won.

13. Concealed Identity (30-1): Probably the least well-bred horse in the field, but at least this one has a fairly strong history of four wins in eight starts. Of course, all of his races have come against fairly poor competition. This is also a hometown favorite-type horse with all of his races to date having come in Maryland. In five non-graded stakes races, he has won two and finished out of the money in three others. Did post a 96 in his last start and has gone 92-89-94-92-96, but it's hard to imagine this one winning.

14. Mr. Commons (20-1): This is the only horse above 15-1 on the morning line that I think might have some chance. That said, his breeding is fairly suspect, and I think the distance might be a bit much. On the other hand, his trainer, John Shirrefs, is really quite averse to shipping horses out of his homebase in California, so there's the idea that he really thinks Mr. Commons has a chance. But ... no. He's on the outside, which is doubly bad, and I'd be surprised if he wasn't pressing the pace from be wide throughout. I'm tossing this one, as well.

Lots of carnage in my picks for this race. I'm crossing out a good bit of the field straight away.

The horses I'm considering at this point are:

ASTROLOGY
SHACKLEFORD
SWAY AWAY
DANCE CITY
MUCHO MACHO MAN
DIALED IN

I'll add the caveat that if ANIMAL KINGDOM were to be sent off at above 3-1, I'd take a piece of that.

Anyway, here's how I expect the race to play out:

FIRST TIER: DANCE CITY, FLASHPOINT, SHACKLEFORD

SECOND TIER: ASTROLOGY, MR. COMMONS

THIRD TIER: MUCHO MACHO MAN, NORMAN ABJORNSON, CONCEALED IDENTITY, MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, ISN'T HE PERFECT

FOURTH TIER: ANIMAL KINGDOM, KING CONGIE, SWAY AWAY, DIALED IN

The expected pace duel never arose in the Derby, and I frankly think it's less likely to happen in this race.

SHACKLEFORD has been a stone-cold frontrunner in his last two races and I don't expect that to change. DANCE CITY and FLASHPOINT will provide some semblance of pressure, but I don't think FLASHPOINT, in particular, wants to go out too hard -- if he's going to have any hope at the end, it'll have to be a slow pace. I'll call for a first half-mile of :47.4 -- not as slow as the Derby's :48.6, but still pretty leisurely. The one wild card in all of this is how ASTROLOGY breaks from the rail -- he's going to want to break sharply, but not so sharply that he heads out to the lead. If that happens, I would expect SHACKLEFORD to press him hard and that could lead into a bit of a meltdown situation up top. I don't think it's likely, but you never know.

One other note on the tiers in general: After the poor showing from DIALED IN in the Derby, I would expect him to be closer up today and really try to stay right with ANIMAL KINGDOM.

Anyway, as the field hits the top of the stretch, I see FLASHPOINT falling away as SHACKLEFORD and DANCE CITY press on. ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN loom large in behind them, and SWAY AWAY is coming through near the fence while ANIMAL KINGDOM and DIALED IN are moving almost as one around the outside of the pack.

SWAY AWAY encounters some trouble, though, and he's essentially done. ANIMAL KINGDOM and DIALED IN are closing nicely, but they're still well-back of SHACKLEFORD, who puts away DANCE CITY with a furlong to go.

SHACKLEFORD is far from in the clear, though, as he's tackled by ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN. These three battle heads apart as DIALED IN and ANIMAL KINGDOM continue to close.

With 100 yards to go, SHACKLEFORD gives way. ASTROLOGY and MUCHO MACHO MAN are noses apart as the line approaches. Meanwhile, the crowd roars as ANIMAL KINGDOM is getting the best of DIALED IN as these two continue to close from just a few lengths back.

ASTROLOGY is edging clear of MUCHO MACHO MAN, but just barely. Meanwhile, it's ANIMAL KINGDOM a neck ahead of DIALED IN as these four approach the wire.

It's too close to call at the line. ASTROLOGY and ANIMAL KINGDOM finish noses apart, while MUCHO MACHO MAN and DIALED IN weren't much more than a neck back of those two.

In the end, it's ASTROLOGY edging ANIMAL KINGDOM, with MUCHO MACHO MAN third and DIALED IN fourth.

In closing:

HORSES CURRENTLY WORTHY OF WIN BETS:
ASTROLOGY 15-1 ML

POTENTIALLY WORTHY:
SHACKLEFORD 15-1 ML
DANCE CITY 12-1 ML (NEED 20-1)
DIALED IN (NEED 6-1)
ANIMAL KINGDOM (NEED 4-1)
MUCHO MACHO MAN (NEED 10-1)
SWAY AWAY (NEED 15-1)

HORSES I WON'T BET:
NORMAN ABJORNSON
KING CONGIE
FLASHPOINT
MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE
ISN'T HE PERFECT
CONCEALED IDENTITY
MR. COMMONS

And that's that. Frankly, I wouldn't be at all surprised if any of the top 7 horses won this race. Somehow, even with five less horses, this race seems tougher to handicap than the Derby.

I have a definite feeling that ANIMAL KINDOM or DIALED IN will be hard-pressed to catch whoever emerges out of the top five or six horses early. Routes at Pimlico are won in the middle part of the race. It's going to be tough for late horses, no doubt.

I'm still praying for a Triple Crown, and I think ANIMAL KINGDOM is extremely well-suited to winning the Belmont Stakes should he get this one. He's just going to be up against a slow pace and a speed-favoring racetrack that will make continuing his quest past Saturday will take something really special.

UPDATE 5/21/11: Everyone and their mother seems to believe that this is actually going to be a relatively fast pace. In fact, I was reconsidering that I might be downright wrong with my take until I saw Jerry Bailey give the same take that I had -- mid-47 seconds. He sees roughly the same race shape as I do, with the exception being that FLASHPOINT will go straight to the front and SHACKLEFORD will be the horse off the pace.
I don't know that I agree there -- despite claims to the contrary, SHACKLEFORD seems to be a need-the-lead type -- and if FLASHPOINT does go straight to the front, then I think we do have the speed meltdown that everyone is calling for.

As another point: we're only four races in, but every race (including a turf race, so we can disregard that one) has been won from off the pace. DIALED IN and ANIMAL KINGDOM are looking better and better.

If I'm taking a stand against one horse today, it's MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE. Bob Baffert is still saying he expects much better, but I see little to no chance of this horse competing. If he does, I'll be hurting by 6 p.m.

The Wothism Kentucky Derby Preview

2011-05-05T16:52:00.001-07:00

Soldat is my pick to win The Run for the Roses this year.

Welcome to the third annual Wothism Kentucky Derby Preview. I like to tell myself that the preview just keeps getting better with each passing year, but the truth is probably that it just keeps getting longer without adding any real substance.

The truth is, however, that I've learned a lot in these three years. In the past year alone, I've read a handful of handicapping books and nearly ended up giving my daughter the middle name "Zenyatta" (yes, her name would be Clara Zenyatta Wothe if Zenyatta had gotten past Blame in the Breeders’ Cup Classic last November). I watch as many stakes races as I can, and I watch far more bottom barrel races than I care to admit.

As for the horses in this year's Kentucky Derby, I've known about most of them since they debuted last summer or fall. I've seen the majority of them run live multiple times, and I've watched replays of the few I haven't.

All of which is a short way to say that I FEEL like I should have a fairly good grasp on these horses and what they're capable of.

And all of which is a short way to say that I probably don't.

In fact, my increased knowledge probably only serves to make this preview harder to read for others. I'll talk about speed figures and pace and rating and splits and it will absolutely confuse most of the people who read this. So, in an effort to combat that, allow me to give a brief overview of SPEED FIGURES, PACE and WEATHER:

SPEED FIGURES: There are a few different sources for speed figures, but I use BRISnet's numbers. Speed figures exist to represent how fast a horse ran in a given race based upon how fast all other races at that track were run that day. Confused yet? Well, they exist because running one mile in 1:36 might actually be more impressive than running one mile in 1:35 depending on the track. For instance, Animal Kingdom won a race at Turfway Park at 1 1/8 miles in a time of 1:52 and received a speed figure of 97. Meanwhile, at Santa Anita, Anthony's Cross (a horse that ultimately didn't make the trip for the Derby) won a race at 1 1/8 miles in a time of 1:48. Yet Anthony's Cross had a speed figure of just 93! How can this be? Well, the Turfway track is just that much slower than Santa Anita. Speed figures allow us to account for the fact that some tracks are faster or slower than others on given days or all days depending on what the track consists of, how hot or cold it is, etc. The caveat with these figures is that they can sometimes be controversial (different methods for calculating them exist and don't always paint the same picture) and overemphasized by the public, but they give you at least a reasonable idea of how a horse performs on a race to race basis. The average winning speed figure in the Kentucky Derby is 107, which is in elite territory. To really over generalize, anything above 100 is great. 90-99 is good. 80-89 is OK. 70-79 is below average, and below 70 is generally garbage.

PACE: You may have heard the expression, "Pace makes the race." As it pertains to horse racing, we're talking mainly about early speed -- which will get to the front first, and how fast will they run for the first half of the race? Think of it this way: Imagine you have a friend who is a great sprinter and will always beat you in a 100 meter dash. But by yourselves, this same friend's best mile time is 9 minutes, whereas you can run it in 8 minutes. So you challenge your friend to a mile race. If you keep pressing his pace -- in other words, forcing him to continue to run fractions of two minutes per quarter mile -- he's going to wear out, and you'll eventually pass him around the 3/4 mile mark. However, if you lay back and let him run each fraction at 2:15, meaning that you've still got ground to make up at that 3/4 mile mark ... you're screwed. You're not going to outsprint your friend to the finish line. The same concept applies in horse racing. If you let a fast horse get away with an easy lead ... you're screwed. That fast horse will get to the lead, and then his jockey will pull him back to keep his lead within a length of the next horse -- the slower the better. That forces the horse to save his energy for the stretch run, and if he can save enough -- if nobody's pushing him along -- he's going to win. So, if there are a lot of fast horses in the race vying for the lead, that usually means one thing: they're all going to wear themselves out! Finally, I'll mention the opening quarter mile and half mile times often. Use the following as a frame of reference on a fast track: For the first quarter mile in a race at 1 1/4 miles, 22 seconds is blazingly/suicidally fast, 23 seconds is pretty quick, 24 seconds is probably slightly on the slow side, and 25 seconds would be pretty darn slow. For the half at 1 1/4 miles, 45 seconds would be ridiculously fast, 46 is quick/grueling, 47-48 is rather neutral and 48+ is pretty slow. Fast early splits favor closers, and slow early splits favor frontrunners.

WEATHER: Do I really need to define weather for you? In this case, yes. The Derby is fairly like to come up with a wet track on Saturday, and there are a few tools to handicap such a possibility. One is Tomlinson figures, which "rate a horse's off-track potential based on progeny of the sire and maternal grandsire. The higher the number, the better. A rating of 320+ means the horse merits further consideration as one that could run particularly well over a wet track."

Based on the Tomlinson figures, there are quite a few horses you could reasonably upgrade if it's raining in Louisville. Twice The Appeal is best in the field at 423, and he's followed by Uncle Mo at 419, Shackleford at 418, Mucho Macho Man at 415, Soldat at 407 and Watch Me Go at 402.

The lowest ranked runners in the field are Animal Kingdom at 260, Decisive Moment at 262, and Comma to the Top at 305.

All others are sandwiched between 398 (Archarcharch) and 334 (Master of Hounds).

Another way of approaching the weather is to use BRISnet's pedigree ratings to compare a horse's past performances on a fast track to what they might do on a wet track. Using this approach ...

Horses expected to improve on a west track are: Mucho Macho Man

Horses expected to fall off at least slightly are: ArchArchArch, Twice The Appeal, Decisive Moment, Dialed In, Derby Kitten, Twinspired, Master of Hounds, Santiva, Shackleford, Midnight Interlude, Animal Kingdom, Nehro, Watch Me Go

All others are expected to be no better or worse.

So, as you can see, this is far from an exact science. BRISnet would expect Twice The Appeal, the best Tomlinson-rated horse and a horse that has already won his only race on a wet track, to actually not do as well on an off track as he would on a fast track.

And just when you might be ready to throw out Animal Kingdom, note that some people expect him to improve on a wet track due to the clay content of the Churchill Downs strip giving off less kickback (which could be a problem on dry dirt) when it's wet. Yeesh.

All that considered, I would upgrade/downgrade horses on a make on a wet track as follows. If they're not mentioned, I either don't think they're necessarily better or worse on one or the other or I simply don't know.

Upgrade: Soldat, Mucho Macho Man, Pants On Fire, Stay Thirsty and Shackleford

Downgrade: Nehro, Santiva, Master of Hounds, Derby Kitten, Dialed In

So, keep all of that in the back of your mind as you read on. And, if the track comes up fast, forget about this portion entirely.

OK, enough of that. I'll sum up how I think the race will play out at the end, so if you want to skip the horse-by-horse breakdown, start scrolling. And scroll some more. And keep scrolling. Because this is LONG.

The one note I will make now about the complexion of this race is this: There are a number of horses in this race who seem to be unable to win from more than a length or two off the pace -- in other words, they're essentially NEED THE LEAD types. My belief is that there will be a number of horses gunning for that early lead, which would seem to indicate a pretty good possibility of a pace meltdown, not too unlike the Breeders' Cup Classic last year where four horses went nuts on the lead and all ran each other into the ground. So, keep that in mind as I break down the contestants.

FINALLY, before I get started: I opted to use odds from thegreek.com first (which are probably more accurate due to the fact that they have at least been determined through somewhat of a marketplace as opposed to one man's opinion) followed by the morning line. So, Archarcharch is 16-1 at Greek and 10-1 on the morning line.

Here we go:

1. Archarcharch (16-1/10-1): One of the few horses that should love the distance, ARCHARCHARCH has probably the perfect running style. He has won from close up and far back, so he should offer a fair amount of versatility. In three graded stakes tries, he has two wins and one third. The one subpar speed fig -- a 69 -- on his resume can be thrown out due to some dense fog that makes you question why they were even racing. Other than that, he's went 89-96-93-98-99. This is a game horse that seems to be on the uptick. There are two question marks. The first is the post position: Last year, the favorite, LOOKIN’ AT LUCKY, got hammered around as the rest of the field crashed over on him to get to the rail. ARCHARCHARCH probably won't try to be as forwardly placed, so that might help, but the one hole is pretty darn tough. The other big question I have is if ARCHARCHARCH is capable of the greatness that winning a Kentucky Derby requires. We know he's a solid horse, but that's all he may be -- he may lack that special IT factor. He's bred well enough, but he just hasn't submitted any eye-popping performances. Still, I can't find anything wrong here. I won't be betting him to win at this price, but he could round out some exotics.

2. Brilliant Speed (30-1/30-1): This horse won the Bluegrass on April 16, but man, that race was a joke. It played out like a turf race -- :50.2 for the first half mile -- and considering that BRILLIANT SPEED has made five of his eight career starts on turf, that's probably why he won it. He's bred for turf and is only in the Derby due to it being the Derby. The 97 speed fig in the Bluegrass was nice, but his only two actual dirt starts yielded speed figs of 74 and 60, which resulted in well-beaten 4th and 7th place finishes. This is one I feel pretty darn comfortable throwing out altogether.

3. Twice the Appeal (40-1/20-1): It took this horse SEVEN tries before he won a race. That’s a pretty bad sign. In his three-year-old season, though, he has two firsts and one second, all on dirt. That’s a pretty bad sign. In his three-year-old season, though, he has two firsts and one second, all on dirt. That’s more than you can say for many of the horses in this field. HOWEVER, the competition was surely the worst of any horse in the field. If the competition in the Derby is like the NFL, then the competition that most horses faced was like the SEC ... and TWICE THE APPEAL was playing Sun Belt teams. Or something like that. It's a huge class jump, and just because you can beat the Florida Atlantic's and Middle Tennessee's of the world does not mean you can beat the Florida's and Tennessee's. That's basically what you're looking at with TWICE THE APPEAL. The speed figs aren't great, but they do show steady improvement since he finally won -- 86-88-86-95 -- so you can make the argument that he's capable if he runs his best race. He has a favorable running style for the Derby, as he's rallied from fourth or worse in all of his wins. And the X factor for this horse is that Calvin Borel has the mount. Borel, as even my grandma knows, is the master of the Kentucky Derby. He has won three of the last four runnings of the Derby, including with MINE THAT BIRD in 2009. Both MTB and TWICE THE APPEAL came out of the Sunland Derby, a generally overlooked prep race. But TWICE THE APPEAL actually WON that race, while MTB finished fourth. Believe it or not, though, that's exactly why I won't bet TWICE THE APPEAL. The public knows Borel and will overbet him. I would bet that, as the morning line indicates, this closes under 30-1 simply due to the Borel factor. And so an intriguing longshot will lose all of its value.

4. Stay Thirsty (22-1/20-1): Horse racing is a funny game. When Mike Repole dished out $500,000 to buy STAY THIRSTY in Feb. 2010, he thought he was buying the next Derby winner. The only other horses that were purchased for more than $200,000 were UNCLE MO and DIALED IN ... you know, the two favorites. STAY THIRSTY even has the same trainer as UNCLE MO: supertrainer Todd Pletcher. He's regally bred by BERNARDINI and has the finest trainer money can buy. And somehow he's been totally average. Two wins and two seconds in six starts isn't bad, but his flop in the Florida Derby was pretty pathetic -- a 7th place finish and an 82 speed fig. He was also an even 5th at last year's BC Juvenile, and considering that those two races are the most indicative of the competition he'll face in the Derby, it's hard to believe he'll become the first horse since 1957 to finish worse than fourth in his final Derby prep to win the Roses. On the other hand, he has the pedigree. He should love the distance. He rallied from 4th to win the Gotham over TOBY'S CORNER. He has been working extremely well at Churchill Downs in the past week. I'm not sure I like it in the 20-1 range, but STAY THIRSTY could be an interesting longshot at 25-1 or 30-1.

5. Decisive Moment (60-1/30-1): A speedball who figures to go out for the early lead and not much else. If COMMA TO THE TOP doesn’t drive him into the ground by the half mile, another horse will run by him after that. DECISIVE MOMENT did run a solid second in the Spiral, but that was on the fake stuff. His most Derby-like race to date was the Risen Star, where he finished fifth, well-beaten by MUCHO MACHO MAN and SANTIVA. I don’t see how he belongs in this field at all.

6. Comma to the Top (30-1/30-1): I took a chance on a horse like this last year -- CONVEYANCE. Like CONVEYANCE, COMMA TO THE TOP will almost absolutely make the lead early and set a blistering pace. CONVEYANCE led at the midway point, and even at the 3/4 mile mark. And then he fell apart. COMMA TO THE TOP sure appears to be the exact same kind of horse, and he is 100 percent bred for sprint races. On top of that, quite frankly, COMMA TO THE TOP isn't even that well-bred in the grand scheme of things. COMMA TO THE TOP has shown some grit in past races and might have a BIT more fight in him than CONVEYANCE, but seeing as how he was stopping badly in the Santa Anita at 1 1/8, I see absolutely no way he gets 1 1/4.

7. Pants On Fire (35-1/20-1): At first glance, PANTS ON FIRE seems rather overlooked to me. He beat NEHRO and MUCHO MACHO MAN in the Louisiana Derby while nearly on the lead with some pretty fast fractions. So, naturally, part of you says, well, if you like NEHRO or MUCHO MACHO MAN, why not take a horse that beat both in his last race and has a better price? The speed figs are strong enough: 102-91-92-89-97. I start to get excited. Then I consider the negatives. He WAS beaten by MUCHO MACHO MAN in the Risen Star, and it was so soundly, at 7 1/4 lengths back, that it's hard to give him any benefit for being extremely wide in both turns. There's also a concern about PANTS ON FIRE's layoff, as that Louisiana Derby win came all the way back on March 26. Then there's my real concern: He hasn't really passed horses since his first-ever race. If you look at his first call position (after two furlongs in sprints – less than a mile – and four furlongs in routes – more than a mile) to his finishing position in each of his eight races, it's a bit sobering: the first race, he moved up from 7th to 2nd. Second: 4th to 4th. Third: 1st to 1st. Then 1st to 2nd, 1st to 3rd, 1st to 2nd, 7th to 6th, and 2nd to 1st. In other words, he just doesn’t pass other horses late in races. He does his best early and then holds on. So, realistically, we know this colt is going to have to be on or almost on the lead for 1 1/4 miles to win -- and he hasn't run for quite a while, so it would seem he might not be as sharp as a horse that ran more recently. And in a race with pace like this one figures to have, not being quite as sharp as perhaps he could be and then trying to run on the lead just seems nearly impossible. Finally, he's also not as well-bred as many others in the field, and it's just really hard to envision PANTS ON FIRE getting the race he needs to win. Women should note that the jockey for PANTS ON FIRE is a female. A woman has never won the Kentucky Derby, but they also rarely get a chance to ride -- Rosie Napravnik is just the sixth female jockey to ever get a Derby mount and the first since 2003. It should also be noted that the best finish by a female jockey in six starts to date (Julie Krone had two mounts) is 11th. That said, my second biggest problem with this horse is the fact that he has a female jockey, and it has nothing to do with sexism. Rather, it’s because I would expect your average female fan to find out that there's a woman jockey and say, "Hey, there's a girl in this race? Let's bet on her!" It happens with fillies in the race every year, and a jockey will likely be much the same. Combined with the apparent inability to pass horses, this might not be great value.

8. Dialed In (4-1/4-1): This horse has done nothing wrong, and yet has proven nearly nothing. His best speed figures of 101 and 104 are among the best in the field, but with just four races under his belt, there are plenty of questions. He beat a few good horses in winning the Florida Derby (SOLDAT, TO HONOR AND SERVE and SHACKLEFORD), but the race absolutely couldn't have set up better for him. DIALED IN is a closer that will be well back early and needs a quick early pace to run into, so he does at least have that going for him. In four lifetime starts -- three at a mile or longer -- he has won three, with the lone loss coming on March 6 at 1 1/8. The difference between that race and his three wins? The early splits. In the three wins, the pace after half a mile was 45.4 seconds, 46.2 and 46.2. In the loss, which came against much lesser competition, the pace after half a mile was 49.4 seconds. As previously stated, I think this race will have a pretty blistering early pace, so the fractions will almost certainly be closer to 46 than 49. However, even with fast early fractions (half mile in 46.2), DIALED IN was barely able to overtake front running longshot SHACKLEFORD in the Florida Derby win. I like SHACKLEFORD a lot and Gulfstream Park (where the Florida Derby is contested) favors frontrunners, but that makes you wonder just how good DIALED IN actually is. They say you can't fault a horse for winning, but that doesn't mean you have to bet on an overbet favorite. I might use DIALED IN on the bottom of some exotics, but there’s too much traffic to negotiate in the Derby to play a closer at this price.

9. Derby Kitten (52-1/30-1): Considering that this horse only got into the field with the defection of TOBY’S CORNER, a horse that would have been a fairly legit contender but was withdrawn with an injury, it's hard to give him DERBY KITTEN much consideration. DERBY KITTEN’s lone career race on real dirt resulted in a speed fig of 68 and a seventh-place finish. This looks like a potentially decent turf horse, and his win on the fake stuff in the Lexington on April 23 serves to bolster that theory. The one good thing I can say about this horse is that he shouldn't have a problem with the distance. That's all.

10. Twinspired (52-1/30-1): Since we decided we’re throwing out the Blue Grass (see BRILLIANT SPEED) TWINSPIRED’s other best speed figure is among the worst “bests” in the field at 90 … and even that was on the fake stuff. His lone dirt start came against pretty weak competition back in December, and he posted a speed fig of 80 while finishing eighth. As for the Blue Grass, you do have to say that he lost it in fairly impressive rallying fashion … but whatever. It was just a joke 100 times over. And-considering that it was TWINSPIRED’s best performance – his other was a well-beaten third place finish in the Spiral Stakes, where he was bested by Animal Kingdom and Decisive Moment – you can’t hang your hat on the Blue Grass at all. This is another one that should like the distance better than many of the other horses in the field, but it’s asking way too much to think Twinspired could win. Forget about it.

11. Master of Hounds (14-1/30-1): Certainly the hardest read in the field, as past performances tell us little to nothing in the first place -- he's a shipper from England, so the usual data about splits and positions is not on the past performance sheets -- and even less about this horse's ability to handle dirt, as he's never run on the real stuff. His only non-turf start was actually quite impressive: a second-place finish in the UAE Derby, which is run at 1 3/16 miles and contested over the Tapeta surface in Dubai. The tough thing with this horse is that he has TONS of class in his bloodlines, so there's something to be considered here. Normally, a Euro shipper can be pretty much summarily tossed – no Euro invader has ever won the Derby – but he’s pretty easily the classiest horse in the field. Additionally, we CAN tell from the notes that he will likely be placed anywhere from 3rd to 8th or so, which I still do believe is theoretically the best spot to be in the Derby (I prefer mid-pack to way back because of the myriad traffic issues in this race). So these are all positive things. In watching the UAE Derby, though, it becomes obvious that it was run completely differently than the Kentucky Derby will be. The first quarter was run in TWENTY SIX seconds! Truly slow. You can't entirely discount his second-place finish, but he was basically jogging around out there in a forwardly-placed position in third, about a length off the lead. It set up perfectly for him. So it's not quite as impressive as it would be at first glance. Additionally, this is a horse with just one win in seven starts. In his lone U.S. start to date, the BC Juvenile Turf last November, he was sixth, beaten by SOLDAT on a surface that he really SHOULD be better on. At 14-1, I’ll probably pass. At 30-1 like the morning line indicates? Uh, yes, please.

12. Santiva (32-1/30-1): For the last time: Let's just agree to toss out the Blue Grass as a race that can teach us anything. And if you ignore that ninth-place finish as a favorite, SANTIVA is an interesting horse. He ran a pretty impressive race in finishing second in the Risen Star – and if he hadn't given up so much ground going 4-5 wide in both turns, you can definitely argue that he would have beaten MUCHO MACHO MAN. SANTIVA is pretty well-bred and should love the Derby distance. The biggest concern with this one would be the lack of an eye-popping speed figure, as his best was 96 in the Risen Star. I also have concerns about the light race schedule, but that’s not so unlike many others in this field. Finally, SANTIVA has shown the ability to rate (sit back behind other speed horses rather than just go all out early trying to beat them), and he also showed early speed and the ability to carry it through 1 1/16 in the Jockey Club at Churchill last November. I love that versatility in this race. Ultimately, the only race I really care to draw any conclusions from is the Risen Star. And given that long route he took around both turns, I would posit that SANTIVA is around the same level as MUCHO MACHO MAN, a horse you’ll read more about in a minute. MUCHO MACHO MAN is in the 12-1 to 14-1 range. At 20-1 or better, SANTIVA is worth a look.

13. Mucho Macho Man (14-1/12-1): This horse is tough to figure for a few reasons. MUCHO MACHO MAN has only two wins in eight starts despite not always facing the greatest competition, and he has already been beaten by PANTS ON FIRE, NEHRO and DIALED IN. On the surface, it's hard to envision that third win coming against the Derby field. I’m not terribly impressed with his breeding and I don't think the distance is his forte. Finally, this is the youngest horse in the field. All horses age another year on January 1 – so even if a horse is born in the summer or fall, they turn 1 year old at the New Year. Because of that, most Derby horses are foaled early in the year, or at least spring. This one is a June colt. Even a non-fan could look at MUCHO MACHO MAN next to some of the other horses here and notice that he looks young and a bit undeveloped physically. That said, the speed figs have been consistently good since last November -- 97-101-98-97-96 -- and he's a near-the-lead-but-not-on-it type that figures to do well here. In all of his starts in 2011, the PP comments indicate at least mildly troubled trips: "Bumped hard chute" "3-4 w2nd trn" "3w turns." That makes me interested. I like horses that have experienced some trouble but still performed well. And yet … in his two wins, he was within a length and a half of the lead the entire race. That’s going to be too close in this race. Can he rate and come from 5-8 lengths back? I’m not betting on it unless I can get 20-1 or higher. That said, if MUCHO MACHO MAN does happen to win the Derby, look out -- he's only going to mature and get better.

14. Shackleford (12-1/12-1): Argh. 12-1?!?!? Even just last week, the “predicted” morning line for SHACKLEFORD was 40-1. I LOVED that idea. At 12-1, my whole approach to writing this horse up has changed. In his first actual dirt start, he broke his maiden at Churchill last fall with a speed fig of 93 at 25/1. After winning an allowance race at 1 1/8 miles in his first start of the year off the layoff (speed fig 94), SHACKLEFORD didn't get much respect in the Fountain of Youth (he was sent off at 17-1) and eventually finished 5th in a race that Soldat won. SHACKLEFORD only turned in a speed fig of 77 there after running a very pedestrian race. In the Florida Derby, he impressed the hell out of me, though. At 68-1, he ran a ridiculously great race on the lead and was only narrowly beat by DIALED IN at the wire. The fractions were quite honest in that race, too -- 23.3 for the quarter and 46.35 for the half -- and yet he just kept pushing on and put away other competitors at the top of the stretch. He should love this distance. He has looked amazing in his tune-up workouts for the Derby. On the other hand, Gulfstream was a frontrunner’s paradise and that Florida Derby performance may be more of an indictment of DIALED IN than anything. He was sent off at 68-1 in his last race against overall competition much worse than this. The betting public is often wrong, but THIS wrong? I don’t think so. I need at least 25-1 and I’m praying that I get it.

15. Midnight Interlude (8-1/10-1): I'm pretty sure that all of the California runners are frauds this year, and MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE was 11-1 in the Santa Anita Derby before winning it by beating COMMA TO THE TOP in somewhat hilarious fashion – COMMA TO THE TOP was basically falling all over himself trying to get to the line, and MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE almost ran him over from behind before being sharply corrected mid-stretch and nosing him out. The speed figs are OK at 83-93-92-98, but that first race came on January 11, and I have to wonder if this horse couldn't use a break at this point. In any event, expecting Midnight Interlude to ship across the U.S. and beat far better horses than he's ever faced at less than 10-1 is silly. (I will now guarantee that this horse wins after I totally dismissed him.)

16. Animal Kingdom (25-1/30-1): One of the most lightly raced horses in the field with only four career starts, ANIMAL KINGDOM appears to be quite well-bred, and the speed figs are strong at 70-93-96-97. I like that show of steady improvement, and he is coming off a win at 1 1/8 miles in the Spiral. So why is he here at 25-1? Well, three of the four starts -- and all of the 90+ speed fig starts -- came on polytrack or turf. That's a definite concern and question mark, but he did handle the dirt well in a 6 furlong work last Saturday in 1:13. His running style seems to fit the preferred profile, as he has been 10th, 2nd, 4th and 7th at the first call in his starts before rallying for 2nd, 1st, 2nd and 1st. He also looked extremely visually impressive in winning the Spiral, where he defeated TWINSPIRED and DECISIVE MOMENT. But if you’ve been paying attention, you already know that's the problem: beating those two doesn’t say much, and those are the best that ANIMAL KINGDOM has faced. So even if you’re comfortable declaring that he's obviously better than those two, it's a long leap to say that this apparent turf horse can win this race. Then again, the competition is not exactly stout this year, and the same legitimate questions apply to MASTER OF HOUNDS. As with MASTER OF HOUNDS, 30-1 with this horse is a yes, please.

17. Soldat (14-1/12-1): If I could make just one bet in this race, it would be on SOLDAT. After one bad race after he washed out (got extremely hot and sweaty) pre-race as the favorite in the Florida Derby (over DIALED IN, by the way), SOLDAT is up here at 12-1 or 14-1? I love it! So that I don’t get too over-exuberant, I should note that SOLDAT didn't have much of an excuse for his fifth-place finish in the race itself. He had no problems with the trip, had room to run at the top of the stretch ... and just didn't. So, that's a concern, but all indications are that this horse LOVES the cooler weather in Kentucky and looks like a million bucks. My other semi-concern with SOLDAT, once again, is that this may actually be a horse that’s better on turf! He ran second to PLUCK in the BC Juvenile Turf last year. The fact is, though, that SOLDAT has proven himself on dirt. He was favored in each of his last three races, and went on to win two of them with extremely impressive speed figs of 104 and 108. In eight career starts, he has three wins and four seconds. All that said, I do have one major worry: those two huge speed figs came in front running efforts, and he hasn’t shown the ability to pass horses late on dirt. And I don’t want anything to do with frontrunners in this race. The real question is this: If SOLDAT is cool on Derby day, can he sit fifth like he did in the Florida Derby, but this time explode home when he’s called upon? That remains a pretty big question, but sometimes you just have a hunch. I don’t love the post position, especially if Uncle Mo gets the jump on him and gets in front of him, but I don’t think there’s a horse in the field that has proven more in his three-year-old season to date than SOLDAT. That’s a risk I’m willing to take at 12-1.

UPDATE 5/6: UNCLE MO HAS BEEN SCRATCHED (See end of post for details)! 18. Uncle Mo (5-1/9-2): There is now some doubt whether UNCLE MO will even make the start on Saturday, adding to the intrigue with this horse. Last fall, he looked like the next great horse. UNCLE MO won every race he ran last year (he ran three), including the Breeders Cup Juvenile, by at least four lengths (including his maiden by 14 lengths). Then, he debuted in 2011 with another comfortable win, although it was only by 3 3/4 lengths. And then came his collapse as a 1-10 favorite in the Wood Memorial. Later, it came out that he had an infection -- at least according to his connections. So, is he SECRETARIAT or just a horse that everyone else caught up to? His speed figures went from 110-102-110 in his sophomore year to 95-96 this year. Was he sick in the Wood? Maybe, maybe not. Does he have the highest ceiling in this field? Probably. If he can give his best (accusations of pin firing this horse and medications are swirling like crazy), he should win. That’s something you can’t discount, and his last workout at Churchill Downs was outstandingly good. The issues are that we don’t know if he can give his best. Despite the big speed figs at more than a mile last year, 1 1/16 is a whole different game than 1 1/4 in horse racing, and UNCLE MO isn’t bred for this distance. Additionally, even if he can make the distance, he’s either been on the lead at the first call or in second in every race he’s ever ran. Can he battle with COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT and SHACKLEFORD, put them away, and still have enough left in the tank to hold off DIALED IN and NEHRO? That’s a darn tough sell at 5-1 with the distance and health questions. There’s a part of me that is screaming that this horse could absolutely destroy this field. And he could. But I have too many questions to bet this horse at single digits.

19. Nehro (14-1/6-1): People are in love with this horse, and I just don't see it. NEHRO didn't run at all until December, and then finished fourth and tenth in his first two starts. He finally won his third start before closing like a freight train in his past two starts to finish second by a neck both times. But that's just it -- SECOND. His speed figures have been 80-57-88-96-99. So, sure, you see the improvement. I suppose you could argue that if he keeps improving, he’ll run in the 105 range and be right there. He is fairly well-bred and should like the distance, and it’s easy to see why folks think he’ll only get better with more room to run. But that usually doesn’t happen in the Derby. I used to be smitten by horses like these -- the TIAGO's and PYRO's of the world that came with tremendous runs late from deep in the pack -- but there's so much traffic in the Derby that it's really asking a lot for a deep closer to get there. ICE BOX closed like no other in last year's Derby and just ran out of time. NEHRO can hit the board, for sure, but he'd have to get awfully lucky to get the win.

20. Watch Me Go (102-1/50-1): Last May 22, this horse put up a 100 speed fig in its first start and appeared like it might be one to watch. Instead, it's a performance that simply hasn't been matched. Since that maiden win, WATCH ME GO has three wins in nine starts, with the most impressive coming in the Tampa Bay Derby at odds of nearly 44-1. That race at 1 1/16 aside, though, this looks like a sprint horse to me. Every other win came at 6 1/2 furlongs or less, and a fading sixth place finish at 1 1/8 in the Illinois Derby, hardly a hotbed for Derby talent in the first place, seems to bolster that view. Finally, much like Twice the Appeal, Watch Me Go is making a big class jump. I'm pretty comfortable tossing this one out.

----------

Whether you’re still with me or just skipped ahead, I appreciate it. So where does this all leave us? Let’s break this down by where I expect certain horses to be at the first call of the race:

PACE SETTERS: COMMA TO THE TOP, DECISIVE MOMENT, SHACKLEFORD

SECOND TIER: UNCLE MO, SOLDAT, PANTS ON FIRE

THIRD TIER: MUCHO MACHO MAN, MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE, SANTIVA, MASTER OF HOUNDS, STAY THIRSTY

FOURTH TIER: WATCH ME GO, ANIMAL KINGDOM, TWICE THE APPEAL, ARCHARCHARCH

WELL BACK: TWINSPIRED, BRILLIANT SPEED, DERBY KITTEN, DIALED IN, NEHRO

It’s tough because many of the horses in that second and third tier could be sent forward based on past failures to rate. Or they could be held back because everyone knows COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT are just cheap speed in this race. Frankly, I think it’s suicide for horses to get involved in that early duel, and I think most of the connections realize this.

As the field hits the final turn and things start to happen, I expect COMMA TO THE TOP and DECISIVE MOMENT to make fairly quick exits, with SHACKLEFORD getting tackled by UNCLE MO and SOLDAT. PANTS ON FIRE won’t be much of a match as MUCHO MACHO MAN, SANTIVA, MASTER OF HOUNDS and STAY THIRSTY begin to roll.

Somewhere along the way as some of these early pacesetters fall back like they’re dying, one or more of that fourth tier or the closers is going to be forced to check and ruin their momentum. In that moment, their race will be lost.

SHACKLEFORD gets overtaken by UNCLE MO and SOLDAT midway through the turn and begins his own descent back in the field.

At the top of the stretch, I expect UNCLE MO, SOLDAT, SANTIVA and MUCHO MACHO MAN to be the clear contenders heading the field with ANIMAL KINGDOM and ARCHARCHARCH looking like the main threats to run them down from behind.

As he did in the Wood Memorial, UNCLE MO will be asked for more and come up empty. MUCHO MACHO MAN will continue to run hard but lack that extra kick. SANTIVA will soldier on for home with vigor, but SOLDAT will begin to pull away.

ARCHARCHARCH will run past a few of the fading horses but lack the full closing ability to make up the gap. ANIMAL KINGDOM will be closing furiously, but SOLDAT will stay on as the wire draws near.

I’m truly assuming that either DIALED IN or NEHRO, or both, will run into serious traffic issues. That said, the early pace should set up well for them and I think they can certainly make it interesting late with a huge late run, a la ICE BOX last year.

With a looping run, DIALED IN or NEHRO will enter the picture on the outside and threaten late, but it’s SOLDAT holding off one of that duo and ANIMAL KINGDOM to win the Kentucky Derby.

At least that's how I roughly expect it to play out. Last year, I was pretty close to spot on with Noble's Promise striking the front as the field turned for home ... only he hung as Super Saver rolled by him on the inside. So close.

Anyway, taking ALL of the above into account, my HOTLY ANTICIPATED picks are:

Currently worthy of win bets:
SANTIVA
ANIMAL KINGDOM
SOLDAT

Close to worthy:
MASTER OF HOUNDS
STAY THIRSTY

I’ll consider these if prices change significantly:
PANTS ON FIRE
MUCHO MACHO MAN
ARCHARCHARCH
TWICE THE APPEAL
SHACKLEFORD
UNCLE MO

Horses I won’t bet under any circumstances:
WATCH ME GO
NEHRO
DIALED IN
MIDNIGHT INTERLUDE
TWINSPIRED
DERBY KITTEN
BRILLIANT SPEED
DECISIVE MOMENT
COMMA TO THE TOP

I don't much get into the idea of exotics in a 20-horse race, but for the hell of it, my superfecta is SOLDAT-ANIMAL KINGDOM-DIALED IN-ARCHARCHARCH.

And after writing more than 7,100 words and filling 13 pages of a Word document, that's all I've got. I have bestowed every bit of my useless insight unto you. You can now regale other people who don't care about horse racing with your newfound knowledge.

If you're betting on the race, good luck. If you're betting on any of my selections, you'll need even more luck.

Finally, remember: Derby Day is the best day of the year. Live it up!

UPDATE 5/6: UNCLE MO has officially scratched. That's actually kind of too bad, as he was certain to attract plenty of money just for being the biggest name in the Derby. On the other hand, that's one less big question mark we have to deal with. I like SOLDAT even more now, however. As I mentioned, I felt he was the most talented colt in the field other than UNCLE MO. The health question that hung over UNCLE MO made me a bit hesitant: If he was healthy and at his best, he could take down SOLDAT. Now, I think if SOLDAT gets his trip, he's the best colt here.

UPDATE 5/7: The forecast is for scattered showers throughout the day at Churchill Downs, but Track Superintendent Butch Lehr says that he should be able to keep the track labeled FAST if the predicted amount of precipitation is what actually falls. I love SOLDAT regardless, but some would argue he's only deserving of an upgrade if the track comes up sloppy.

The other thing of note is that the odds are unbelievably nutty. TWICE THE APPEAL is at 9-1 currently. PANTS ON FIRE is at 7-1. I sort of liked PANTS ON FIRE at 15-1 or 20-1, but my goodness. Hilarious. Now at 22-1, I'll likely take a shot on SHACKLEFORD.

SANTIVA remains juicy at 32-1 and SOLDAT is currently at 14-1. ANIMAL KINGDOM, unfortunately, has been bet down a bit to 20-1.

Those are my final four, though: SOLDAT, SANTIVA, ANIMAL KINGDOM and SHACKLEFORD.

The bets on SANTIVA, ANIMAL KINGDOM and SHACKLEFORD will be relatively small.

In a 20-horse field, nothing is a sure thing. Far from it. But I just love SOLDAT. Yeah, he might not win. He might not even come close. But I feel really good about this one. In year's past, I've ended up with a good bit of action in the Derby based on matchups, exactas, trifectas, etc. This year, I'm skipping all of that. It all goes to SOLDAT.

Are things really that bad?

2011-04-22T07:37:00.000-07:00

A new national poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News reveals that 70 percent of Americans feel that "things in this country ... have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track."

Lordy loo.

I get pretty upset about certain things quite a bit, but is it really THAT bad?

If you believed these polls, you would come to the conclusion that the economy is getting worse. I think pretty much every indicator I've seen recently states that is not the case.

Funniest of all is the idea that a major reduction in the annual federal budget deficit would create jobs. SPLIT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE! I suppose the people that believe this are operating under the idea that if the deficit went down, taxes would go down, people would spend more money and businesses would be free to hire more people. It's semi-plausible, but it's more likely that businesses would keep making it work with less staff, making more money for the top percentage of earners and only further stratifying America.

Frankly, while I'm certainly not thrilled with everything President Obama has done, he really has started to get the wheels turning in the past year. Health care reform, while far from perfect, was a necessary first step. Despite the 75 percent of Republicans that believe health care is not something the government should be involved in, the majority of Americans are on board with it. So far, he has walked a fine line with the budget crisis.

I wouldn't say that Obama has necessarily delivered the CHANGE that he promised, but he has delivered PROGRESS. And, my God, that's a lot more than we've been able to say since 2000.

Still, an overwhelming percentage of Americans believe the country is SERIOUSLY on the wrong track. How? Why?

I think, frankly, most Americans are painfully uninformed about what's going on. The union busting tactics in Wisconsin were quite absurd indeed, but the whole process is still playing itself out. Besides, I would be shocked if Democrats weren't elected in the next cycle and restored most of the power to the people.

But people see that on the news or hear that from a neighbor and are PISSED. THINGS ARE GOING TO HELL, they say. And, you know, maybe they are. But as much as I hate the concept of patriotism in general, if these 70 percent of people ever had the opportunity to travel to another country, they would be singing a different tune.

It's still pretty good here in America.

At least if you're college-educated and white.

Mr. Krugman? Back on my good side

2011-04-15T17:40:00.001-07:00

I'll write up a fuller explanation of this at some point next week, but this is SPOT THE F ON:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15krugman.html

Ralph Nader was right. Kind of.

2011-04-06T11:37:00.000-07:00

It's an argument that Outside The Lines seems to cover every other day. It's an argument that you've probably had with your Uncle Joe a few times.

Should college athletes be paid?

It seems there's a new allegation every other day that college players are ALREADY being paid, only under the table. The Cam Newton storyline dominated the college football landscape last fall.

So, what's new? Well, Ralph Nader got involved.

Regardless of your political leanings and his 2000 Presidential candidacy allowing George W. Bush to be elected (I'm still bitter), it would be hard to argue that Nader has affected a lot of good changes in America.

Nader calls for doing away with athletic scholarships and replacing them with need-based aid.

The idea is pretty sound. He's on the right track. He just doesn't get all the way there.

It's time to do away with athletic scholarships, yes. And athletes should be eligible for need-based aid when the situation calls for it.

But what we really ought to replace it with is full-on pay for play.

Yes, this runs counter to Nader's main argument -- that we need to stop professionalizing college sports.

That's just silly, though. Aside from the quaintness of the idea, there really is no logical reason that we continue to uphold this virtue of amateurism as so important. Collegiate athletes -- even those in sports that you don't ever hear about -- devote an insane amount of time to their sports. They deserve compensation just like any other student that works a job in college.

For their part, the NCAA keeps sticking its head in the sand. The NCAA keeps playing the part of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, standing and screaming ALL IS WELL as their fantasy world of amateur sports is crumbling around them.

For example, NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said "that referring to college athletes as professionals defies logic."

"They are students, just like any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship," he said.

Right, except that any other student on campus who receives a merit-based scholarship receives that scholarship due to their merit AS A STUDENT.

One of the main problems with athletic scholarships is that they're not equal across the table. The value of an education at, say, Notre Dame, is not equal to the value of an education at Purdue or Indiana. This may not seem to be that big of a deal, but the end result is that there are situations where kids have to choose one school with a lesser education because that's where they can get a scholarship. They end up going to a school they don't really want to attend because it's the place they've been offered a scholarship. Is that fair to the kid? Is it even fair to the school?

Notre Dame is a more prestigious academic institution than Indiana, and while they do hold even their athletes to strict academic standards, they certainly offer athletic scholarships to kids who would never get merit-based academic scholarships. The end result is that Notre Dame is slighting itself as an academic institution.

So, what's the solution? Consistent PAY rates across the board at institutions by division. Minnesota, for instance, would pay a Division I basketball player the same rate as UC Santa Barbara. Appalachian State would pay a Division II football player the same rate as James Madison. And so on.

I hear you crying already (I'm good at foreshadowing like that). "But wait, Bob! Texas football makes A LOT more money than Troy State football! Why pay them the same? WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE WHEN SOME INSTITUTIONS MAKE BIG BUCKS AND OTHERS LOSE MONEY?"

OK, you might be right.

The 2004-2009 NCAA Division I Intercollegiate Athletics Programs Report (available here) stated that:

A total of 14 athletics programs in the FBS reported positive net revenues for the 2009 fiscal year, which represents a decrease from the 25 reported in 2008. The gap between the “profitable” programs and the remainder continued to grow, however a bit more slowly.

Just 14 of 119 FBS programs reported a profit in 2009! INCREDIBLE.

Furthermore:

In all three subdivisions, athletic aid and compensation are the two largest expense items. In the FBS, athletic aid as a percentage of total operating expenses remained at 16 percent in 2009. FCS schools also stayed steady at 28 percent. The same ratio for DI without football increased from 28 percent in 2008 to 29 percent in 2009, which is a reduction from the 2004 ratio of 30 percent. Total compensation as a percentage of total operating expenses has remained stable for all subdivisions, although the FBS saw a slight increase from 33 to 34 percent and DI without football increased from 32 to 33 percent.

So, clearly, scholarships are costly. Paying coaches and AD's and support staff is even more costly.

If you feel like taking a look at that monster of a PDF file the NCAA released, Page 21 of 105 is the most interesting. The fifth item on the chart is "Generated Revenues as percentage of total athletic expenditures (self-sufficiency).

Quite frankly, it's even worse than I thought. FBS schools had athletic programs that were just 71.9 percent self-sufficient in 2009, and "the median big-university subsidy from general funds to sports is $10 million per school, the NCAA found," according to Gregg Easterbrook's article here.

How do you explain that? If you had to explain that arrangement, where the everyday student and/or the taxpayer is paying to support a sport like, say, women's golf at a university, how would you do it? How would you explain the reasoning behind a university paying for sports that can't support themselves?

It's what everyone fears and abhors as "communism." (This is not accurate nor true communism, but that's for another time.) It's what so many people hate about welfare, only this is worse -- it's not a life-or-death, quality of life situation. It's taking from the rich and giving to the slightly less rich.

Now, I should note that boosters are HUGE in most of these non-revenue sports. I don't have the numbers to support this claim, but I'm sure many of the non-revenue producing sports out there will tell you that they're self-sustaining not because of revenue, but because of their boosters that donate funds to build new facilities and provide new equipment.

Still, that $10 million a year from general funds to support athletics doesn't lie. If a sport isn't able to sustain itself from a combination of boosters and other revenue, it shouldn't exist. Taxpayers and particularly other students should not be responsible to prop up these sports. If these kids want to play their sport, there are plenty of club teams at universities (yes, I realize these are often supported by the university as well, but at a much smaller price).

In the end, you just have to ask yourself: Is it really worth it? Do academic institutions really need to be involved with athletics at all?

While there's certainly something to be said about the student experience of going to high-profile sporting events, the majority of students at most schools don't take part. And they certainly don't take part in the lower profile sports like ... well, let's pick on men's tennis this time.

The bottom line is that athletic scholarships need to go. We need to pay coaches less. We need to do away with sports that can't support themselves. I'm proud of kids like those at the University of New Orleans, who said enough is enough.

And we need to, above all, pay kids who do produce money for the university. They put in the time, they make the money -- let's compensate them accordingly. If boosters start throwing bigger money at the kids, what's the problem?

In fact, that may be the best way to tackle the differing compensation rates that I discussed earlier. Boosters may be best able to pick up the slack for paying better players at bigger schools. Why not? If there's an equal "minimum wage" for paying kids in sport X in Division I, Division II, etc., but some schools can afford to pay more ... why not? Explain to me why this would be a bad idea.

After all, with the hours these kids put in, these sports ARE like a job.

And as long as a student -- any student -- does the work in the classroom, they're free to work wherever they please outside of the classroom.

If that so happens to be as a football player, what's the difference?

In defense of the GOP

2011-03-31T14:05:00.000-07:00

You won't read those words often here.

Wothism generally stands in direct opposition to the Grand Old Party. I certainly don't hold all of the Democratic Party's ideals near to my heart, but I usually don't vehemently disagree with what the party does. That's usually not true of the GOP's actions.

For the first time that I can remember, though, here I am, defending those bastards.

On Monday, Paul Krugman wrote this piece for The New York Times. Most days, I find Mr. Krugman to be dead-on with his assessments. Monday was not one of those days.

If you're not familiar with the situation between UW-Madison professor William Cronon and the state government, here's a quick rundown:

Recently William Cronon, a historian who teaches at the University of Wisconsin, decided to weigh in on his state’s political turmoil. He started a blog, “Scholar as Citizen,” devoting his first post to the role of the shadowy American Legislative Exchange Council in pushing hard-line conservative legislation at the state level. Then he published an opinion piece in The Times, suggesting that Wisconsin’s Republican governor has turned his back on the state’s long tradition of “neighborliness, decency and mutual respect.”

I loved Mr. Cronon's piece in The Times. It was astoundingly good and spot-on, pointing out the absolute lunacy of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's recent moves. He summed up Walker's "ram it through" philosophy nicely when he wrote:

I have found myself returning over the past few weeks to the question posed by the lawyer Joseph N. Welch during the hearings that finally helped bring down another Wisconsin Republican, Joe McCarthy, in 1954: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

Comparisons of Gov. Walker to Joe McCarthy aside, Mr. Cronon's article was actually fairly balanced. He describes himself as a lifelong independent, and he writes as a historian more than anything.

Still, the GOP didn't like it. It made the GOP look bad, and the GOP doesn't ever take too kindly to that. Their response really should have been expected:

(The GOP issued a) demand for copies of all e-mails sent to or from Mr. Cronon’s university mail account containing any of a wide range of terms, including the word “Republican” and the names of a number of Republican politicians.

In his article, Krugman excoriates the GOP for undertaking this type of action in an attempt to publicly smear those that dare to criticize them.

I'm not writing to condone smear campaigns, though.

I'm writing to say that accessing someone's publicly available records in the interest of doing ANYTHING isn't something to criticize.

What bothers me most is the final paragraph of Mr. Krugman's column:

What’s at stake here, in other words, is whether we’re going to have an open national discourse in which scholars feel free to go wherever the evidence takes them, and to contribute to public understanding. Republicans, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, are trying to shut that kind of discourse down. It’s up to the rest of us to see that they don’t succeed.

It's unclear what kind Mr. Krugman thinks "the rest of us" should do to see that Republicans don't succeed in shutting discourse down, although we can infer from a few paragraphs prior that he doesn't think the open records laws should apply to scholars.

Mr. Krugman thinks that scholars will be "deterred from even doing research on topics that might get them in trouble." This, apparently, is because scholars will be scared of facing "witch hunts whenever they say things the G.O.P. doesn’t like."

PUH-LEASE.

Is that really any different from any other part of life? Whenever you make a true stand for something you believe in, you're bound to face criticism and you're bound to be closely scrutinized.

Most of all, let's be fair to the law and the public -- the public that pays Mr. Cronon's salary and pays for the computer he uses and the network he uses his computer on. Anyone -- from Joe Smith down the street to the GOP -- has an unalienable right to access his emails. Mr. Cronon, to his credit, is no dummy and said he has always been careful not to use his university email for personal reasons.

If anything, Mr. Krugman's idea that "the rest of us" need to do something to stop this would lead to LESS discourse and LESS openness.

Public records are public. Period.

Perhaps the most interesting part of it all is that Mr. Cronon even wrote this in his original column:

Among (Wisconsin's) proudest traditions is a passion for transparent government that often strikes outsiders as extreme. Its open meetings law, open records law and public comment procedures are among the strongest in the nation.

And it should stay that way.

An intrepid reader adds a wrinkle

2011-03-30T14:13:00.000-07:00

Reader David McCoy has done the unthinkable by combining the best portions of the Wothism proposal and the best portions of the current system. As he explains:

My own personal belief is that 64 teams is perfect. The first two days of the tournament, when there are 32 games, those are the two best sports days of the year. It's marvelous. And let's not discount how much fun the bracket pools are. Going down to 32 removes a whole round of fun.

I can't help but agree. Once it's down to the round of 32, that means eight games a day, and it's just not the same. If only there were a way to keep the 64-team format intact ... David continues:

First, we include all regular season conference winners, AND all conference tournament winners. I like this because if you have a great regular season and win your regular season title, but slip up in the conference tourney, you still get in. It rewards you for being good all year. But also, if you have a rough start, or a key player misses a bunch of games, you've still got your shot in the conference tourney. That fixes the issue that you brought up before, about waning interest when a team is eliminated. With my method, nobody is eliminated until their season is over.

Boom. That was indeed one of my biggest problems with my own proposal -- once a team was mathematically eliminated from winning their conference, their season became almost entirely meaningless. Keeping the tournaments as an avenue to get in means there's always a light at the end of the tunnel and is a reason for these teams to stay sharp and fans to stay interested.

So far, I'm feeling this.

David's next step is where I start to question the methodology just a bit. If not even one conference were to have the same regular season and conference tournament champion, there would be no at-large bids. I'm OK with that. However, at-large bids "open up," for lack of a better term, when a team wins both the regular season and tournament conference crown.

The ideology here, I think, is that if a team wins both the regular season and the conference tournament, you can't really say it was a fluke or that another team deserved to make it. That's fair. Where I get a little bit bothered is that this will only serve to prop up the participation from the BCS conferences because of David's methodology for picking at-larges:

At-large bids awarded according to strength of conference; according to regular season conference standings. Conferences with .9xxx receive one more bids than conferences with .8xxx and so on. First teams selected for auto-bids will be second-place regular season finishers. If that (second-place) team already has auto-bid due to conference tourney title, third place team is NOT selected until other conferences fill their bids.

The reference to ".9xxx" and ".8xxx" is from the same source that I culled my conference rankings earlier -- the esteemed Dr. Po-Po, Ken Pomeroy. I think the end result is that it ends up giving too many at-large bids to the best conferences.

David put together the following list to explain how the idea would have looked this season:

Big Ten: Ohio State (Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois)

Big East: Pittsburgh, U-Conn (Notre Dame, Syracuse, Louisville)

Big 12: Kansas (Texas, Kansas State)

ACC: North Carolina, Duke (Florida State)

Pac 10: Arizona, Washington (UCLA)

SEC: Florida, Kentucky (Alabama)

MWC: BYU, SDSU

CUSA: UAB, Memphis

A10: Xavier, Richmond

MVC: Missouri St., Indiana St

Colonial: George Mason, ODU

Horizon: UW-Milwaukee, Butler

WCC: St. Mary's, Gonzaga

WAC: Utah St.

Ivy: Princeton

MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter’s

Big West: Long Beach St., UCSB

MAC: Kent St., Akron

Summit: Oakland

Southern: College of Charleston, Wofford

ASun: Belmont

OVC: Murray State, Morehead State

Big Sky: Northern Colorado

Patriot: Bucknell

Northeast: Long Island

Sun Belt: FAU, UALR

Big South: Coastal Carolina, UNC Asheville

Southland: McNeese St., UTSA

America East: Vermont, Boston U

MEAC: Bethune Cookman, Hampton

SWAC: Texas Southern, Alabama State

Auto: 53

At large: 11 - Purdue, Notre Dame, Texas, Wisconsin, Syracuse, Kansas St, Florida St, UCLA, Alabama, Illinois, Louisville

Anything bother you? I'll tell you what bothers me: the fact that some conferences get punished for having one very strong team that stands above the rest.

Let's call it the "Memphis Problem." From 2006-2009, Memphis lost a TOTAL of 14 games. FOURTEEN! Some other teams in the conference were pretty darn good -- UAB comes to mind in a few of those seasons -- but their chances of an auto bid under David's system were nearly null and void, and the conference as a whole was too far down the list for consideration under the .9xxx or .8xxx rules. As it stands under David's solution, the WAC, for instance, only gets one team despite being a much stronger conference than the SWAC, which gets two teams.

I know, it kind of feels like grasping at straws. And I can see the other side of the argument -- if a league doesn't have another team that's capable of knocking off that top team, that top team is the only truly deserving squad. That's all well and good, but when we take bids away from these smaller conferences and give them to the bigger conferences, we're still rewarding mediocrity in those larger conferences!

Finally, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if some of these cash-strapped conferences have more of an incentive to "throw" the conference tournament to a team that hadn't won the regular season tournament, thereby pushing two teams through and getting a bigger piece of the NCAA tourney cash pie. (Mmmm. Cash pie.)

So, what's the solution? I think a more level distribution of the at-large bids is the ticket. David's method clustered the bids at the top due to the .9xxx and .8xxx idea.

I think if we apply one of David's own clauses to the entire nation rather than just the best conferences, we can fix this: "First teams selected for auto-bids will be second-place regular season finishers. If that (second-place) team already has auto-bid due to conference tourney title, third place team is NOT selected until other conferences fill their bids."

There were nine conferences with just one auto bid under David's system: Big Ten, Big 12, WAC, Ivy, Summit, ASun, Big Sky, Patriot, Northeast.

My adjustment to what David did is as follows: distribute at-larges in a top-to-bottom (in order of conference strength) fashion.

So, starting at the top, we get Purdue, Texas, Boise St., Harvard, Oral Roberts, East Tenn. St., Montana, American, Quinnipiac. Now, every conference has an equal amount of bids and we can start back at the top, awarding the final two spots to the top two conferences: the Big Ten and Big East. Wisconsin and Notre Dame are the final two teams into the tournament.

The teams that David had in that I would be leaving out are: Syracuse, Kansas St, Florida St, UCLA, Alabama, Illinois, Louisville. Since only one (Florida St.) of these teams made it to the Sweet 16, I don't think we're losing much. (Kansas St. lost in the second round -- the real second round, not the third round like the NCAA and CBS want us to believe -- UCLA lost in the second round, Alabama didn't make it at all, Illinois lost in the second round and Louisville lost in the first round.)

So, here's how my modified David field looks:

Big Ten: Ohio State (Purdue, Wisconsin)

Big East: Pittsburgh, UConn (Notre Dame)

Big 12: Kansas (Texas)

ACC: North Carolina, Duke

Pac 10: Arizona, Washington

SEC: Florida, Kentucky

MWC: BYU, SDSU

CUSA: UAB, Memphis

A10: Xavier, Richmond

MVC: Missouri St., Indiana St

Colonial: George Mason, ODU

Horizon: UW-Milwaukee, Butler

WCC: St. Mary's, Gonzaga

WAC: Utah St. (Boise St.)

Ivy: Princeton (Harvard)

MAAC: Fairfield, St. Peter’s

Big West: Long Beach St., UCSB

MAC: Kent St., Akron

Summit: Oakland (Oral Roberts)

Southern: College of Charleston, Wofford

ASun: Belmont (East Tenn. St.)

OVC: Murray State, Morehead State

Big Sky: Northern Colorado (Montana)

Patriot: Bucknell (American)

Northeast: Long Island (Quinnipiac)

Sun Belt: FAU, UALR

Big South: Coastal Carolina, UNC Asheville

Southland: McNeese St., UTSA

America East: Vermont, Boston U

MEAC: Bethune Cookman, Hampton

SWAC: Texas Southern, Alabama State

Auto: 53

At large: 11 - Purdue, Texas, Boise St., Harvard, Oral Roberts, East Tenn. St., Montana, American, Quinnipiac, Wisconsin and Notre Dame

We're still acknowledging the better overall strength of the top conferences without bowing down to their greatness. I LIKE IT!

Finally, one other topic to tackle is the number of empty seats at many of these sites. Does anyone go to these games?!?!?

The best solution is to structure the tournament in legitimate geographic terms and actually make it possible for more fans to take in a game. I'm sure UConn fans love their team and would love to see them play -- only they were out in Arizona this year!

Now, in the current NCAA format, it wouldn't work because we'd have one region with 11 Big East teams.

Under the Wothism/McCoy format, though, we don't have to worry about that since each conference has at most three teams. David's seeding method was as follows:

Teams are seeded in reverse, starting with the 16s (weakest teams from weakest conferences). At-larges are seeded according to conference strength, in reverse order. All at-larges will be seeded BEFORE any auto-bids from conferences that have an at-large team in the field. After non-at-large conference teams are seeded, then at-large teams will be seeded (in reverse order, weakest to strongest), then conference tournament winners are seeded in reverse order of conference quality. Then regular season winners are seeded in reverse. THEN, teams that won both their Regular Season and Conference Tournament will get a one-seed advance (i.e. a 16 according to conference quality gets bumped to 15.)

I will follow that guideline with one exception: I will regard regular season champions as more worthy than their equivalent conference tournament champions. So, the 16 seed line will consist of the bottom four conference tournament champions. The 15 seed line will consist of the bottom four conference regular season champions. (Note: In some cases, I will expand this to five conferences if it keeps one team significantly closer to home. Care was also taken to avoid second-round matchups between teams from the same conference.) FINALLY, when two teams on the same seed line are roughly the same distance from a site, the higher-regarded team will stay closer to home, even if it means a slightly lower seed.

Here goes!

MIDWEST (Chicago): 16) Hampton, 15) McNeese St., 14) UALR, 13) Oakland, 12) East Tenn. St., 11) Morehead St., 10) Murray St., 9) Harvard, 8) Kent St., 7) Gonzaga, 6) UW-Milwaukee, 5) Memphis, 4) Xavier, 3) Wisconsin, 2) Purdue, 1) Ohio State

NORTHEAST (Newark): 16) Boston, 15) Vermont, 14) Quinnipiac, 13) American, 12) Long Island, 11) Bucknell, 10) College of Charleston, 9) St. Peter's, 8) Princeton, 7) Butler, 6) ODU, 5) George Mason, 4) Richmond, 3) Notre Dame, 2) Connecticut, 1) Pittsburgh

MOUNTAIN (Denver): 16) UTSA, 15) Texas Southern, 14) Montana, 13) Northern Colorado, 12) Oral Roberts, 11) UCSB, 10) Long Beach St., 9) Boise St., 8) St. Mary's, 7) Utah St., 6) Indiana St., 5) San Diego St., 4) Washington, 3) BYU, 2) Arizona, 1) Kansas

SOUTHEAST (Atlanta): 16) Alabama St., 15) Bethune Cookman, 14) NC Asheville, 13) FAU, 12) Coastal Carolina, 11) Wofford, 10) Belmont, 9) Akron, 8) Fairfield, 7) Missouri St., 6) Kentucky, 5) Florida, 4) UAB, 3) Duke, 2) Texas 1) North Carolina

(You do not want to know how long that took or how tedious that was.)

So, here's the final result. It doesn't get any better than this.

1	OHIO ST.
16	HAMPTON

8	KENT ST.
9	HARVARD

5	MEMPHIS
12	EAST TENNESSEE ST.

4	XAVIER
13	OAKLAND

6	WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE
11	MOREHEAD ST.

3	WISCONSIN
14	ARKANSAS LITTLE ROCK

7	GONZAGA
10	MURRAY ST.

2	PURDUE
15	MCNEESE ST.

	MOUNTAIN
1	KANSAS
16	TEXAS SAN ANTONIO

8	ST. MARY'S
9	BOISE ST.

5	SAN DIEGO ST.
12	ORAL ROBERTS

4	WASHINGTON
13	NORTHERN COLORADO

6	INDIANA ST.
11	UC SANTA BARBARA

3	BRIGHAM YOUNG
14	MONTANA

7	UTAH ST.
10	LONG BEACH ST.

2	ARIZONA
15	VERMONT

	NORTHEAST
1	PITTSBURGH
16	BOSTON U

8	PRINCETON
9	ST. PETER'S

5	GEORGE MASON
12	LONG ISLAND

4	RICHMOND
13	AMERICAN

6	OLD DOMINION
11	BUCKNELL

3	NOTRE DAME
14	QUINNIPIAC

7	BUTLER
10	COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON

2	CONNECTICUT
15	VERMONT

	SOUTHEAST
1	NORTH CAROLINA
16	ALABAMA ST.

8	FAIRFIELD
9	AKRON

5	FLORIDA
12	COASTAL CAROLINA

4	UAB
13	FLORIDA ATLANTIC

6	KENTUCKY
11	WOFFORD

3	DUKE
14	NC ASHEVILLE

7	MISSOURI ST.
10	BELMONT

2	TEXAS
15	BETHUNE COOKMAN

How to fix the NCAA tournament

2011-03-28T22:03:00.001-07:00

The first non-introductory Wothism post created a lot of debate and drew even more criticism.

I couldn't be happier.

While many of you already hate this idea, I want to take it one step further and detail just exactly how this year's NCAA tournament would have looked under my methodology.

To clarify, the basic tenets are:

1. Only regular season conference winners qualify

AND THAT'S IT.

The caveat with this year's results is that not all conferences have truly balanced schedules (two games between each two teams, one home and one away), so a regular season champion may not always be truly fairly determined. That said, because there's no other real option, I am assuming that all conference schedules WERE truly balanced.

Without further ado, this year's 32 33 bids would go to:

Big Ten: Ohio State

Big East Football (splitting into two 8-team subdivisions -- one for football members ... ): Pittsburgh

Big East Non-Football (and one for non-football members): Notre Dame

Big 12: Kansas

ACC: North Carolina

Pac 10: Arizona

SEC: Florida

MWC: BYU

CUSA: UAB

A10: Xavier

MVC: Missouri St.

(UPDATE 3/30: MISSED) CAA: George Mason
Horizon: UW-Milwaukee

WCC: St. Mary's

WAC: Utah St.

Ivy: Princeton

MAAC: Fairfield

Big West: Long Beach St.

MAC: Kent St.

Summit: Oakland

ASun: Belmont

Southern: College of Charleston

OVC (goofy since some teams play 19 conference games and other teams play 18): Murray State

Big Sky: Northern Colorado

Patriot: Bucknell

Northeast: Long Island

Sun Belt: FAU

Big South: Coastal Carolina

Southland: McNeese St.

America East: Vermont

MEAC: Bethune Cookman

Great West (Currently not an auto bid conference): Utah Valley

SWAC: Texas Southern

I like seeding in order of overall conference quality, as broken down by KenPom.com here.

(UPDATE 3/30: Since I somehow missed the CAA and George Mason the first time around, these would be altered a bit. I would either leave the Great West as a non-auto bid conference -- it was really only cobbled together a few years ago -- or put Utah Valley and Texas Southern into a play-in game. In the end, it's not really going to materially affect the below results.)

So, your 2011 NCAA bracket would look like:

EAST REGIONAL:

No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 16 Texas Southern

No. 8 Princeton vs. No. 9 Kent St.

No. 5 UAB vs. No. 12 Bucknell

No. 4 Florida vs. No. 13 FAU

No. 6 UW-Milwaukee vs. No. 11 Murray State

No. 3 North Carolina vs. No. 14 McNeese St.

No. 7 Utah St. vs. No. 10 Belmont

No. 2 Notre Dame vs. No. 15 Bethune Cookman

WEST REGIONAL:

No. 1 Pittsburgh vs. No. 16 Utah Valley

No. 8 Fairfield vs. No. 9 Long Beach St.

No. 5 Xavier vs. No. 12 Northern Colorado

No. 4 BYU vs. No. 13 Long Island

No. 6 St. Mary's vs. No. 11 College of Charleston

No. 3 Arizona vs. No. 14 Coastal Carolina

No. 7 Missouri St. vs. No. 10 Oakland

No. 2 Kansas vs. No. 15 Vermont

Now THAT is a fun and fair tournament. It has all the intrigue of the current tournament with none of the selection committee garbage. There can be no griping about not being included. If your team was truly deserving of competing to be the best team in the nation, why couldn't it even win its own conference?

Based on my own set of proprietary numbers (quite similar to KenPom's numbers), the likelihood that each team would win this tournament are as follows:

OHIO ST. 44.82

KANSAS 28.01

PITTSBURGH 11.03

NORTH CAROLINA 4.22

BRIGHAM YOUNG 3.48

NOTRE DAME 3.31

FLORIDA 1.88

UTAH ST. 0.8

BELMONT 0.7

ST. MARY'S 0.64

ARIZONA 0.41

XAVIER 0.31

UAB 0.09

COASTAL CAROLINA 0.09

OAKLAND 0.09

MISSOURI ST. 0.03

PRINCETON 0.02

FAIRFIELD 0.02

MURRAY ST. 0.01

COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON 0.01

LONG BEACH ST. 0.01

KENT ST. 0

LONG ISLAND 0

BUCKNELL 0

NORTHERN COLORADO 0

VERMONT 0

WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE 0

FLORIDA ATLANTIC 0

MCNEESE ST. 0

UTAH VALLEY 0

TEXAS SOUTHERN 0

BETHUNE COOKMAN 0

Now, I can hear some of you already. "BUT BOB, THE NUMBER OF BAD TEAMS INCLUDED IS APPALLING! HECK, 25 OF 32 TEAMS -- 78.125 PERCENT (YOU ADD CONDESCENDINGLY) -- HAVE LESS THAN A 1 PERCENT CHANGE OF WINNING! WHY EVEN INCLUDE THEM IF THEY HAVE LITTLE TO NO CHANCE OF WINNING?!?"

As it turns out, the current format is very similar. In this year's 68-team tournament, 52 of those teams had less than a 1 percent chance of winning it all at the tournament's outset -- 76.47 percent. So, despite any claims you might have wanted to make about a watered down field, it's really quite similar. (Amazingly, Kentucky had a 2.6 percent chance of winning this year's tournament, but no other team in the Final Four was above 1 percent -- UConn was just below that mark.)

The biggest differences of course, are at the top. I had Ohio State winning 27.4 percent of the time before this year's 68-team tournament -- using this method, the Buckeyes leap to 44.82 percent. Kansas was at 18.4 percent in this year's field -- under my method, the Jayhawks jump to 28.01 percent.

It seems fair to me to reward outstanding regular seasons with a better chance of winning it all. Call me crazy (and I know some of you will), but the only real difference between how it's done now and how I would do it is that you have to prove it every step of the way in my format.

If you're not the best in your conference throughout December, January and February, you don't get in.

If you're not the best in March, you don't win it all.

It almost makes too much sense, doesn't it?

Why the NCAA tournament is a joke

2011-03-27T21:17:00.000-07:00

While Virginia Commonwealth coach Shaka
Smart (right) and point guard Joey Rodriguez (left)
have captivated the nation, the Rams don't
belong among college basketball's elite.

Most people will tell you that the great thing about the NCAA basketball tournament is its unpredictability. Most people love a Cinderella run deep into the tournament by an unheralded squad that gets hot at the right time.

I am not one of those people.

I'm not against the idea of playoffs in general. There IS something to be said for coming up big when it matters most.

What I am against is the rampant expansion of playoffs in every sport that renders the regular season all but meaningless for far too many teams.

There are 343 Division I basketball teams this year. Sixty eight of them made the tournament. That's about 19.8 percent.

That's not so bad, you might say. In the NFL, 12 of 32 teams make the playoffs for a whopping 37.5 percent. In Major League Baseball, it's eight of 30 for 26.7 percent (this is perhaps the biggest farce of all due to the length of the season, but that's for another time). In the NHL and NBA, it's truly out of control -- even after playing 82 games each, 16 teams make the playoffs in each 30-team league. Yup, that's 53.3 percent.

So, let's be fair: You can actually make the case that the NCAA tournament is the most palatable playoff of any major sport in America. (This obviously does not include the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision. Believe it or not, though, I think the FBS is closer to correct than any other sport in America -- since only two teams make it, every single game is of the utmost importance. It does need to be SLIGHTLY expanded to account for the unbalanced scheduling, but this is another discussion for another time.)

In Europe, major soccer leagues like the Barclays Premier League in England and Serie A in Italy use an aggregate points table. You get three points for a win, one point for a draw, and zero points for a loss. The schedule is balanced, meaning you play each other team in the league twice -- once at home and once on the road. The team with the most points at the end of the season wins the league.

Nothing could be fairer.

In those 20-team leagues, using a playoff would be a true travesty. In this country, with our larger leagues and unbalanced schedules, you can make the argument that we need playoffs in order to give each team a fair chance. For example, crowning Ohio State as the best team in the nation without giving Kansas a chance to topple them wouldn't be right.

That said, the majority of teams in this year's NCAA tournament weren't even the best team in their conference -- so why do we give them a chance to be the best team in the country?

Kansas proved itself worthy of a shot to be crowned the nation's best team by winning 32 of 34 games and the Big 12. Connecticut proved itself worthy of a shot because ... they lost half of the games they played in the Big East? What? They don't even belong in the same tournament as a Pittsburgh or a Notre Dame, schools that finished 15-3 and 14-4 in the Big East, respectively.

Furthermore, it's simply not fair that Virginia Commonwealth, the fourth-best team in its conference after playing a truly balanced schedule, made the tournament and had the opportunity to knock off Kansas. They simply did not deserve it. The same is true of Butler, which finished in a three-way tie atop the Horizon League but was swept by UW-Milwaukee and therefore finished second.

If you argue that it is fair, then let's just throw out the regular season altogether and play a 343-team tournament. It would only require three extra rounds! When fourth-place teams from ANY conference are getting into a nationwide playoff, something is wrong.

You can make "body of work" arguments all you want, but the bottom line is that the college basketball season is severely cheapened when you have teams like Connecticut, Butler and Virginia Commonwealth in the Final Four.

You'll notice I left out Kentucky. That's because I actually do believe Kentucky is one of the best teams in college basketball -- I had them ranked seventh entering the tournament. But even though my own metrics disagree with this example, the fact is that Kentucky didn't prove it on the floor when it mattered, and the Wildcats truly have no more of a place in the tournament than any of the other three teams. After going 10-6 in the SEC East and finishing three games back of champion Florida, why did Kentucky get essentially the same shot at winning the title as Florida? After all, finishing three games worse in a 16-game schedule is a performance disparity of nearly 20 percent -- pretty darn significant.

And yet here's Kentucky, along with Virgina Commonwealth, Butler and Connecticut, on the doorstep of what passes for greatness. Meanwhile, more worthy teams such as Ohio State (lost to Kentucky on Friday) and Kansas (lost to Virginia Commonwealth today) are out of the running because they slipped up for just the third time this season at the wrong time.

The runs that this year's Final Four teams have made, while laudable, are proof of nothing. As Big East Commissioner John Marinatto said in a story the New York Times ran last week, "In the tournament, you have to get lucky, you have to be fortunate. Everything has to come together."

Everything has indeed come together so nicely for Butler, Connecticut, Virginia Commonwealth and Kentucky. When one of these teams wins the title eight days from now, history will remember them as this year's best college basketball team.

Most people will love it.

I am not one of those people.

Welcome to Wothism

2011-03-24T22:46:00.000-07:00

What is Wothism?

Well, let's see. It's like communism, only better. It's like Catholicism, only without the dogma. It's like Darwinism, only without the scientific process.

Wothism is, in short, awesome(ism).

Doesn't make sense? That's OK. Stick around and you'll figure it out after a while.

I'm not a bad writer as far as bad writers go. I've won a few awards from a few organizations, which is apropos of the fact that I'm awfully self-aggrandizing. (Oh, get used to that -- I think pretty highly of myself. Parentheticals, too.)

Wothism is far-reaching and oft-rambling, so post content and frequency is completely TBD.

Email me at wothism@gmail.com. Follow me on Twitter @Wothism.

Most of all, come back often. You have a lot to learn.

(Effective immediately, my personal blog will be moving to an undisclosed address. Should you care to continue reading it, please send me an email and I will provide you with the link.)