Each month, Noel Michaels will ask his blue-ribbon panel of tournament experts to respond to a timely Tournament Topic that is likely to be on the minds of tournament players everywhere. Check back every month for a new Tournament Topic.

QUESTION: Do you think the current widespread tournament trend is a passing fad within the horseplaying ranks, or do you see this segment of the horseplayer population continuing to grow indefinitely? If you do see tournaments continuing their recent upswing, in what ways do you think they can/will branch out in the future?

ANSWERS:

Ed De�Ath:

�The past 10 years have seen significant growth in handicapping contests. There is potential for huge sustained growth. The genesis of this growth will be the result of improved networking between various segments of the racing industry toward a common championship program of handicapping events.

Currently, the NTRA and the Coast Casinos appear to be the leaders in the field. The DRF/NTRA Championship has probably the greatest potential to grow into a multi-million dollar contest. The qualifying format would have to change significantly for this to happen. The most logical approach would be a tier format with elimination tournaments that reduce the final field down to a manageable and logical number of contestants. It�s not unreasonable to expect a purse total of $10,000,000 under this format. An example would be the World Series of Poker. It is a successful and useful model to follow.

Under the current DRF/NTRA set-up, the single greatest limiting growth factor is the ability of the Finals� venue to adequately handle more than 250 contestants. Another limiting factor is, and will continue to be, the amount of �hold� each hosting site removes from the entry fees. Although this is not a common practice, the belief in the world of the contestant is that it�s reasonable for ALL hosting sites to withhold an amount equal to ALL costs involved in sponsoring an event. The intent of contests is NOT to generate a revenue stream for a hosting site. If they provide a rewarding experience they will generate a positive expectancy from the players and gain the residual effect of increased handle on tournament days as well as in the future. Logic dictates that it won�t take long for horseplayers to recognize that a range of 15-25% take-out at the windows is a better option than the approximate 40% take-out similar to that of NHCQualify.com in their online qualifying contests. That is simply not an acceptable return on investment.�

Rich Eng:

�I think tournaments are beginning to plateau for a few reasons. The players are smart enough to know that in most tournaments they are playing only for their own money because few hosts include added money that give players the advantage of competing for a positive expectancy.

The host may counter by saying the added value comes from earning a potential seat in the NHC or HPWS. True, but like the cherry on top of the big sundae, one, two, or three people typically win those seats out of hundreds who play, and those free seats should be hard to earn.

Thus, I return to a point I made many months ago about the division of prize money. I think that more people should share in the prize pool versus top-heavy payments to a handful of the best finishers. I argue that the more times the horseplayers who play in these tournaments go home empty handed, eventually we�ll start losing them as tournament players altogether.

I suspect we�ll see a trend toward more bankroll tournaments where players keep their pari-mutuel earnings. At least that creates a third way of winning; 1) a seat in the NHC or HPWS, 2) money from the prize pool itself, and 3) cash in your pocket from a positive bankroll.

An untapped resource remains sponsorship money. Hopefully the tournaments will mature to the point where a sponsor can see the value of lending its name to an event. The only limit there is the creativity of the tournament host to give the sponsor a bang for his buck. Boosting the money with sponsor dollars should recruit more tournament players.�

Ross Gallo:

�Well this one is easy for me. I hired a crew to film and produce a show at my inaugural Ultimate Handicappers Invitational on Breeders� Cup Day in 2003 � two years before the NTRA tried the same thing with the NHC. Though it didn�t work out the way I�d hoped, you have to learn from your mistakes and move forward. Therefore, I continue to try to turn the UHI into something much bigger.

Obviously, my answer is that not only do I believe tournaments will continue to grow and flourish, I think they will be the vehicle that infuses much-needed new blood into our aging sport. Further, I believe the future is real-money tournaments, and that television will be the medium that brings them to the public on a grander scale. With that will come endorsements and celebrity status for many of our players, just as poker has made celebs out of some of their stars. My hope is that my Ultimate Handicappers Invitational and its exciting format will be the leader of the pack in the very near future.�

Dave Gutfreund:

�The growth of handicapping contests has actually been a bit of a disappointment to yours truly, as I would have thought we would have at least one million-dollar event by now, especially with the massive growth of poker tournaments as well as the recent growth of backgammon events. The stumbling block has been lack of television coverage. Those in that business have not yet figured out a way to make a very exciting event seem that way on TV. Also, the support within the mainstream horse racing business has been somewhat disappointing.

Nevertheless, we will be playing for the biggest purse of all in late January at Bally�s, and there is still potential for major growth in the future.�

Tim Holland:

�Tournaments have obviously grown enormously in popularity over the past few years. However, I do not necessarily expect this growth to go on indefinitely since along with the popularity has come competitiveness. With contests becoming much harder to win, it is less likely that newcomers that do not meet with immediate success are going to continue to enter tournaments, especially when some tournament organizers are already raising their entry fees. Thus, in years to come, I expect to see a large group of basically the same players dominating the contest scene. In order for the whole concept of contests to stay fresh and exciting, I think there will have to be a few innovations. I also see some kind of contest tour in the not-too-distant future.�

Eric Isaacson:

�First and foremost, as a general rule, I think the horseracing industry lacks vision, and the few individuals that have a vision run into road blocks with leaders that are afraid to take a chance.

I�ve had thoughts of sponsorships as far back as four or five years ago. Many people I�ve mentioned the idea to haven�t really believed it could work, but most of those are the type of people who focus on what they can�t do rather than what they can. I�ve only been handicapping for about nine years, and I�ve been playing in tournaments for about six. Having said that, I�ve had to try to build my resume to give potential sponsors a reason to believe they can get what they pay for by making an investment in me. I think we can definitely get there, but as it is we are moving at a snail�s pace and as always it�s going to be up to the players to help the industry leaders see the light and take us to the next level.

Based on this year, tournaments are definitely on a downward spiral. I send my thanks to The Horseplayer Magazine for taking steps to save tournaments, because the major sponsor of the National Handicapping Championship (Daily Racing Form) hasn�t even put in an effort to cover the tourneys this year. The coverage outside of Horseplayer Mag has gotten worse the last two or three years (at least they�re consistent, I guess). You�re going to try to tell me that it�s too hard to update the results throughout the year? No effort? Scrap the recaps? Fine, could you just throw us a bone and tell us who has qualified? Things like the DRF ignoring tournament results are going to discourage the fringe players who are looking to cross over into tournaments. Why should they invest their time and money if the lack of coverage makes it appear that tournaments might not even be around in a couple years? It is a totally different game than just playing the races afterall.

Cisco Systems, one of Silicon Valley�s largest companies, is going to spend about $120 million over 30 years to sponsor a new stadium. Hewlett-Packard spends about $3 million a year on the HP Pavilion in San Jose (the NHL�s Sharks). Do you have a computer? How about a cell phone? Have you ever eaten at KFC, Pizza Hut, Long John Silver�s or Taco Bell?  Yum! Brands, the sponsor of the Kentucky Derby, spent $739 million on advertising in 2004, and $788 million in 2005 from January through November. Do you think these companies can spend a thousand dollars or even five thousand on you are me or both of us? Maybe it�s a free laptop and you wear a shirt and/or hat to the tourney and thank your sponsor when you receive your check? Maybe they offer free chicken for a year? Whatever it is, it�s definitely out there. We just have to go and get it.

However, it all goes back to the vision, or lack thereof. Without the help of the powers that be, we�ll forever be stranded. Unless we find more individuals in the industry like Jeff Maday of Canterbury Park that understand the horseplayer and aren�t afraid to take a chance (they put up a $50,000 guarantee this summer for the Ultimate Horseplayers Invitational on Claiming Crown Day and gave away a $30,000 Dodge Charger as well as $17,000 in cash and $3,000 in gas cards in a November promotion), we�ll forever wonder what could have been.

If you don�t like what you�re reading, you probably need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you�re doing your part. Of course, the people that should care and who need to look in the mirror probably are wondering what I mean. This is evidenced by a letter I wrote a few years ago to Daily Racing Form and their friends (38 people were copied), in which I expressed a beef I had about a NHC qualifying tournament I had attended. I received a response from two people � one was a half-hearted �I�m sorry, please let me know if I can do anything for you in the future�, The other was Noel Michaels, who is the head of this panel and formerly was the point man for keeping us up-to-date on all the tournament happenings at DRF. (Again, thankfully The Horseplayer Magazine picked up the bouncing ball and Noel is back helping us stay on top of the action).

What is your idea? Lets do what we can to make it happen. I�m all in.�

Mike Labriola:

�I answer differently with my heart and with my head. With my heart, I think that tournaments are a great thing, and I want more than anything to see them succeed and grow. With my head, however, I don�t think they can reach the heights they should achieve until the powers that be really get behind them and commit to treating the tournaments and tournament players with the respect and recognition they deserve. Also, tournaments need to be lucrative for the people who run them, or else they will not continue to exist.

In the end, I think that tournaments are around to stay. It�s a numbers thing, and a demand thing. More and more people are playing, more and more people are trying to qualify, and as long as there are tournament players creating a demand, there will continue to be more and more contests for them to play in.�

Jeff Sotman:

�I would answer neither. I don�t think that tourneys are a fad, AND I don�t think that they are going to continue to grow. We (the industry) have had a horrible time trying to get sponsors and television coverage. You would be shocked at how bad the ratings were for the NHC on ESPN.

We continuously make excuses for why this is, but to be honest, what is appealing for a sponsor or a TV producer to televise out-of-shape, older, mostly white men hiding behind a mound of information doing secret cerebral things? That is why they always try to focus on the nutty and goofy behavior.

The other issue is, that like most gambling, most of the people lose. Dead money leaves. We have seen this in racing and it is already happening in poker. That leaves winners and/or non-losers fighting each other, which is a brutal equation.

Ten years ago, you knew that 80% of a given field could not win. That percentage is now down to about 50% in my opinion.

I�m scared to say that between what I said above, and the current situation with the tracks and the NTRA, we will be lucky to maintain the status quo in less than three years.�

Dennis Sudul

�The key to continuing the upswing in handicapping tournaments, is directly tied to the NTRA Finals. It has become every serious player�s YEARLY GOAL, their Mecca, to make it to those Finals. It drives most of us to travel near and far for the opportunity to qualify for �the big one�. The World Series is a nice tournament with a large payout to the top five players, but it lacks the special appeal that the NTRA Championship has.

You really have to earn your way into �the big show�. In order for the handicapping tour to grow, �the big show� must blossom further each year. Getting a sponsor is the first big step. I�d like to see several famous horseplayer/industry celebrities attend a Finals, with interviews between players and celebs. Have a Jerry Bailey go head-to-head with a player in the current top 10, giving opposing views on the same races. Get a sharp famous trainer who handicaps as good as he trains, and let him give toe-to-toe opinions with a front-running handicapper. There are several rock stars that do some heavy wagering at the major tracks. Wouldn�t they like to attend our �big show� and give their opinion on a race or two?

THEN, you can advertise your NHC Finals show on cable, and give a higher-profile appeal to an audience. You start your promos on Breeders� Cup weekend when your audience is at its maximum. Last time I looked, horses, trainers, celebs, and commentators numbered less than 1% of all the people at the track or watching TV. The other 99% were all handicappers and bettors, and they can view the past Handicappers of the Year, like young Wolfson, or a woman like Judy Wagner, or a minority like Herman Miller, and the others as people just like themselves who took a chance and made it to the top of the heap.

Tinker with the format after consulting with the players who have been around five to 10 years or more. Put all their solid opinions on a questionnaire form, and distribute those ideas at the different tournament sites. Putting all of our heads together, and keeping the ideas fresh and new will only add to the appeal of �the big show�. The NTRA Final is still in its infancy. As this tournament grows, so will the industry grow as well as all the tournaments around the country.�

Steve Wolfson Sr.

�All good things must come to an end. Though not desirous of raining on the tournament parade, I believe the upward spiral is headed for a major decline unless attention is paid to the basic tenets:

There must be a firm, solid foundation. Merely increasing prize money and the number of events will not suffice. Educating more fans and the public in general would be a good first step. Otherwise, tournaments will emulate Thoroughbred racing by only servicing and preaching to those in its ever-dwindling choir. A significantly more concerted effort has to be expended to educate the masses and broaden the base.

Greater consistency is a prime requisite. Entry fees and purse distribution vary much too much. Many tournaments allow multiple entries, which gives a distinct advantage to those who can spend more, or use �beards� to enhance their chances. I strongly urge players be required to sign a statement acknowledging they will be disqualified if they do this. Similarly, there should be more stringent policing and severe consequences for any undisclosed ownership interests and connections of horses in races used in tournaments. Also, no tournament should be sanctioned unless a minimum of 80% of its entry fees are distributed as prize money.

Prize structures and depth of payouts are too dissimilar. The number of qualifiers differing from locale to locale is ridiculous. Usually it�s three, sometimes one, but five, nine, twelve qualifiers? It�s Absurd!

There should be one basic format, not one emphasizing money management, another exotics, another the basics (win-pace), and still another multiplying collections times the number of winners selected. I believe formats should tie-in consistently with the national championship tournament. After all, isn�t the idea to determine who is best at picking winners? If the goal is to differentiate and reward those who are able to pick the most winners regardless of price versus those able to find value, then a two-tier structure could be offered whereby both types of handicappers are rewarded for demonstrating their prowess.�