SIMMY Poll

[Chris Everett]

Secret Option C:

Use a committee, similar to the Eclipse process.

+1

A secret committee then no one can be blamed unless you let others know you were part of it. Which i doubt would happen.

[Paul Heinrich]

I overall lean toward the Steward choosing.

But does that mean there would be a winner for each category, end of story?

Or would there still be a list of nominees, or Honorable Mentions, or something of that nature?

Nominations aren't recorded anywhere in your barn or the horse's page now, so I imagine it would just be winners.

If the people can't vote, I don't see much of a point of having them at all. The SIMMYs will just become a gold star from the Steward; it doesn't mean anything if one person is responsible for the results. Besides, what criteria will be put in place for selecting the winner? Will the GI horse who spent two races in Africa get the SIMMY over a horse that's run consistently in listed stakes all year long?

Maybe we've reached a point where we should just disband the SIMMYs altogether.

I don't think eliminating Simmy's altogether is a good choice by any means. People like awards, and it's good for the game to have things like Simmy's for people to aspire to with individual horses.

That said, the sim has outgrown the voting process, with all the regions and divisions and breeds. I counted 96 horse awards to vote on last year (leaving out the regional HOTY, which is not voted on separately). If you spend just 5 minutes per category - which may not be enough to make a completely educated decision in every case - 96 categories is a full 8 hour day. It's not feasible for anyone with a job or a classload to make an educated vote on all the categories we have now. Leaving it for people to just vote in the categories they know or care about leaves an uneven (and I'd argue rather meaningless) result, skewed toward name recognition and personal biases.

A committee might not be a bad idea, if you could get a *committed* group of people - we're still talking about a large time commitment. And then we're back to the hard feelings and "backlash" of the subjective approach.

I think the answer is to simplify and automate an objective process. I wouldn't think it would be terribly hard to program (but of course I'm not a programmer, so I could be wrong) a system where the points of each stakes race on the schedule goes into a pot for certain simmy awards (obviously many stakes points would go into more than one pot, if they would factor in more than one simmy). Then there's no question about how to value that 3-time graded stakes winner vs. that one-off G1 winner. People still have simmy's to aspire to, regional racing is still meaningful, and no one can complain if they failed to pick up enough points to win a Simmy when everyone knows what the criteria are.

ETA - maybe the way then to allow those who like to vote to still have the feeling of contribution is to have actual votes on each region's HOTY, from the winners of the region's other categories. So instead of voting on all the sub-categories and automating the HOTY, you automate the sub-categories and let people vote on the HOTY. That cuts down the load from 96 to 14, which should be doable.

[Josh Lamp I]

Wow eight hours, that is crazy! I never fill out a full ballot, I am of the belief that no vote is better than an ignorant vote.

[Friedrich Barbarossa]

Listed schmisted. Consistent listed stakes runners shouldn't be winning simmys, that's practically allowance racing.

[Three Crowns Racing]

If the people can't vote, I don't see much of a point of having them at all. The SIMMYs will just become a gold star from the Steward; it doesn't mean anything if one person is responsible for the results. Besides, what criteria will be put in place for selecting the winner? Will the GI horse who spent two races in Africa get the SIMMY over a horse that's run consistently in listed stakes all year long?

Maybe we've reached a point where we should just disband the SIMMYs altogether.

Which is why it should be a committee of informed trainers voting; ideally made up of a one or two of each of the following enthusiasts/experts: Mixer, Sprint, Mile, Route, AW, 'Chaser; making up a committee of 8-12 trainers/owners who are informed and knowledgeable, headed by the Steward herself. Then it isn't a gold star from the Steward, it is a gold star from those that really follow the SIM most closely and are well informed.

As for criteria, what criteria is in place currently anyway? Some vote for a horse because it is the first choice, some pick a horse randomly, some pick a horse because they recognize the name, some because they simply like the name, some pick a horse because they like the trainer more than the others up for the award, and a few even try to pick the one they feel is most deserving based on merit. But even then, that merit is only what that particular person values. Maybe one thinks said G1 winner is most deserving, while another thinks it is the consistent listed stakes winner, while a third person thinks it is a horse who earned the most money/points in region, etc, etc.

[Charles Bunbury]

Oh for a computerised 'global/regional' handicapping system! That should stop all the arguments.
Maybe version 6?

[Katniss Evergreen]

If people aren't really looking at the horse and voting for the first one, that's not really a fair award for winner. I guess that it should be the steward.

[Madelene Gilbert]

I don't know if this was done in recent years (it might be electronic now), but I recall a group of people working to compile the list of nominations. One or two people would go through one region (like South America). If that's still in place, why don't they just vote on awards then instead of just nominations?

I like the idea of a group of people or committee simply so that Em doesn't have to wade through all the nominations herself. The only downside I can see with the committee is that, anonymous or not or "experts" or not, someone will always end up being unhappy with the system and someone will take the blame. If it's a random group, then someone will say "They didn't know jack **** about my division!". And if it's a group of experts/enthusiasts then someone will say "That's biased bull****! How come I didn't get picked! I'm an expert!"

So while it's a burden for Em, at least she's a figure of knowledge and authority in the SIM. And if she does end up choosing the awards, I also predict there won't be as much backlash regarding the awards as we've seen in the past.

[Jennifer Francis]

i say let em give the awards its to much arguing if u ask me. hell im just happy to get my horses nominated to have one win a simmy would be a dream come true. but i think em would be better fit to make a choice of who wins one.

[Lori Hamill]

I don't care either way. I didn't vote in the TB categories last year because I just didn't have the time to go through each one. So rather than just throw darts, I just didn't vote at all. I would be happy for Em to do the deciding but I really, really don't want her getting a lot of backlash and I don't see how it can be avoided. So I'm not voting in this poll either! Wanting Em to choose and not get any backlash seems like an impossibility and that's what I would prefer so I can't vote. Arrrrgh!

[Madelene Gilbert]

I just thought of this. What if we were to keep the "big" awards like Trainer, New Trainer, Breeder, Broodmare OTY, etc open to general vote and leave the rest to Em? Kinda like Hall of Fame? I think more people would be inclined to vote since 1) the ballot is a lot shorter and 2) these awards are more high profile than say South American Champion Sprinter.

And apologies if someone else mentioned this before, I haven't really read the whole thread.

[Erin Sanderson]

Just for the record, I really agree with the committee that Ali mentioned. First, that takes the time/stress burden off of Em. Second, it might open the awards up to potential discussion among the committee, depending how it's structured, which could help eliminate bias.

I also love the idea that Madelene posed about keeping a small amount of awards open to community voting. People would definitely be more inclined to vote without almost 100 categories to wade through.

Never voted for the mixer categories, there were just too darn many of them! And I don't think I've ever filled out a full ballot, just voted for the ones that I was most familiar with, usually route categories.

[Carolyn Eaton]

I don't think I spend eight hours, but I do spend several hours total in three installments writing down my picks. Having the Steward just give the horse with the most points the award is cool with me.

[Des Walker]

I think the Steward would make it more fair. Maybe there should be the Steward and a pannel of judges like 10 people that change every year and the steward chooses who they are. This will make it more fair i find. The people chosen would have to do there job and maybe the steward can give them GP or like 100k or something for the serves!

This definitely gets my vote.

A committee might not be a bad idea, if you could get a *committed* group of people - we're still talking about a large time commitment. And then we're back to the hard feelings and "backlash" of the subjective approach.

It IS a large time commitment, but people would be far more likely to want to put the time in if they know that their vote really will make a difference.

[Karl Smythe]

I voted 'yes' to vote as I enjoy going through the entire process, Mixers and Thoroughbreds.
That said, if it makes it easier for Em to do the votes, I would be fine with that.
Just make sure I get my vote back next season