HORSE-racing is also the only sport wherein the object of award and honors is the horse, a non-human.
One simply cannot make horses run in every event. They do not know what is happening, that there may be a schedule to hold, nor can they tell you if they just aren’t right. It is not at all the same as any other sport which involves humans or even other horse sports where the human gets the credit.
This silly proposition means every Belmont will be 3 horses because they cannot all hold nor can any organization tell a horse he must run, risk of injury be damned.
The Triple Crown is a mere icing on the cake. It is an artificial construct that grew out the importance of 3 stakes which happened to run annually near in time, and a desire to copy the English construct. Each is important in itself.
Horses are chosen for annual awards by polls of fans and journalists. There simply is no play-off system. Nor is there one for the college football either. Not only can you not compare horses to humans, but you most definitely cannot compare it to team sports. Racing is a pure sport, being individual rather than team, even then it cannot be compared to human athletics.
When talking about physical requirements, fatigue, etc., one can most certainly compare horse racing to human sports (we are both animals who are bound by our physiology). In all human sports we have found it useful to have all teams, individuals, etc. compete after being exposed to as identical physical requirements as possible (especially when competing for the top prize, championship, etc.)
Given that physical preparation is (likely) the most critical aspect of horse racing, it is odd to me that horse racing has not adapted (as every other sport has) and tried to equate, as closely as possible, the physical state of the horses running for the sport’s top honor.
Horse racing is in decline. It surely won’t attract new fans if, when they watch, all they see is people trying to be the “spoiler.” For example, between 1948 and 1973 (the time between Citation and Secretariat winning the TC), there were 7 years (out of 25) in which a horse won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but lost the Belmont. An almost identical (but slightly elevated) pattern happened in the 25 years following Affirmed winning the TC (9 years with a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont). However, the majority of these happened in the later half (last 8 years) of the 25 year period. In the last 8 years of the 25-year period, there were 5 years (out of 9 - just over 50%) in which a horse won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness and lost the Belmont. For an equal comparison, looking at the 8 years prior to Secretariat winning the TC, there were 4 years (out of 7 - just over 50%) with a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont occurred in this 17 year period, BUT, when that happened in the 1960s and 1970s, the increase in rate of first-two race winners predicted a TC.
Today, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Since the end of the 25 year period, we are averaging a horse winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness but losing the Belmont every third year - a rate of 33% compared to a rate of 28% in the period between Citation and Secretariat winning the TC. Combine a lack of seeing the “big championship,” the TC, and the possibility of owners trying to be the “spoiler” (which reeks of selfish interest and lack of loyalty to the sport - loyalty seems to be one of the most important things to fans), and it’s not hard to see why people are becoming disillusioned and disinterested.