| Higuy2347 |
| ||
|
I personally think somewhere during the 70s around Pre's time? Then Maybe a slight comeback in the late 90's early 00's? When Do you think the next comeback is gunna happen and what do you think would be able to spark that up? |
| runnerer |
| ||
Nowhere in history have as many hobbyjoggers been running marathons and local 5ks,10ks,15ks,4 milers,half marathons, etc, so its peaking as we speak. If you're talking XC and T&F at the highest level (college, pro), I don't think it'll 'spark' because it doesn't have the right coverage nor the same frequency (how many pro-track meets are in NY compared to Mets and Yankees games?) |
| Running on Empathy |
| ||
|
Most universities used to give out 7 full rides just for cross country back in the 1960's. Then Title IX came along ........ |
| Higuy2347 |
| ||
|
I'm not stupid.. I know it's not and it'll never be as popular as Football, Baseball, Basketball etc. I'm just asking in general public interest which isn't insanely high but still has viewers and followers |
| Randy Oldman |
| ||
|
- since the sport went professional the big money has been in Europe where fast tracks and big crowds led to fast times and World Records - improved drug testing has led to the impression that all runners are drug cheats (baseball handled it much better) - lack of big personalities since the days of Carl Lewis - domination of distance events by "anonymous" Africans - appalling TV coverage, where distance events are interrupted by 3 minutes of car commercials - big names not taking part in every event, unlike in other individual sports such as tennis and golf - terrible marketing. Baseball crowds have gone up 66% in 20 years. Most MLS stadiums are > 90% full with Seattle attracting average home attendances of 40,000. Even Portland in OREGON!!! is averaging over 20,000. Btw, if the Golf Channel can stay in business showing European events during off-peak hours, why can't there be a dedicated T&F channel? |
| Iffley Road |
| ||
|
Btw, if the Golf Channel can stay in business showing European events during off-peak hours, why can't there be a dedicated T&F channel?[/quote] I'm with you Randy. That would be great if there was a running network of some sort. One can dream... |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Who's going to pay for it? You? You talk about baseball attendance rising but don't mention the fact that networks pay lots of money to have the rights to show games, while track and field producers need to buy the airtime to have the meets on tv. |
| O.o |
| ||
|
Force all the running websites into a more narrow range of sites, pool the money together, start hiring people to video these meets and start playing them on the internet. Once you start getting enough traffic you can eventually charge money or cram 1000 ads into it. Start turning a profit, get a big network to eyeball you and eventually 400 years down the line a popular series of channels. 1 channel for all distances run 400 and below 1 channel for all distances 800-10,000 1 channel for all field events 1 channel for all other road racing and promotional runs like tough mudder,color runs, marathons blah blah blah. |
| mtk013 |
| ||
|
Running is really the only sport where people who love to do it themselves generally have no interest at all in following the professionals |
| pv runner |
| ||
|
If you are talking about T&F as a spectator sport, the greatest general interesting in the US was probably in the 60s and 7s when the US v USSR dual meets were running. There were reportedly 105,000 attending the meet in LA Coliseum in 1964 when Gerry Lindgren beat the Russians, and the attorney general Robert Kennedy attended. I used to go the USC/UCLA dual meets in the early 70s, which also were held in the LA Coliseum due to the big crowds they attracted. They had world class athlete on the teams then like Don Quarrie and John Smith. My guess from memory was that there would be maybe 25,000 in the crowd for some of those? What do they get today? Don't know, 2500? |
| Cowboy bob |
| ||
You really need to go back a bit further as to when track and field would fill up stadiums and indoor arenas. Try the 30's through the 50's when track meets were consistently viewed by full houses and reported on the front sports page, right up there with baseball and basketball. Keep in mind none of the professional teams (football, basketball and baseball) were as popular today. So there was room for other sports and track and field was quite popular with actual beat writers that followed the sport from one coast the the other. The meets in the late 60's between the US and Russia were popular and newsworthy, but far and few between. College track was still filling some stadiums, but that was pretty limited to UCLA, USC, Tennessee and a few others. Penn Relays is much more popular today, while the Texas Relays, Kansas Relays and Drake Relays (the big three) were more popular back then. Participation, on the other hand, is much greater today than at any other time in recent history, despite the loss of some college men's programs. High School track and field with the inclusion of women, as well as women's track and field in college has helped promote participation. Cross Country on the other hand, has pretty much always been a stepchild to track and field. Although there were some outstanding competitors and great teams over the years, I think there is more interest in cross country today than at any time in the last 50 years. Just my own observations over the years. |
| Guilty Mom |
| ||
|
Right now. |
| luv2run |
| ||
Do me a favor and look up the number of colleges that offered XC and track and total scholarships allowed in 1968 v now. I bet there are MORE total scholarships awarded. (They might be spread out amongst more people). BTW, NCAA allows 12.8 for men and 18 for women. |
| Running on Empathy |
| ||
Do me a favor and look up the number of colleges that offered XC and track and total scholarships allowed in 1968 v now. I bet there are MORE total scholarships awarded. (They might be spread out amongst more people). BTW, NCAA allows 12.8 for men and 18 for women.[/quote] Do us a favor and give us even one good reason why women should have 50% more track/XC scholarships than men. We'll wait ..... In terms of track/XC garnering popularity among the masses, men SHOULD lead the way per the sport since they run faster, jump higher, jump longer, aka MEN ARE BETTER AT ALL ASPECTS OF TRACK & FIELD AND CROSS COUNTRY. Ergo, men should have greater access to track/XC scholarships than women. When the men's side of the sport is denegrated, it hurts the sport overall. Make no mistake about it - Title IX killed track/XC at the collegiate level relative to it's popular potential. |
| Numbers don't be a lyin |
| ||
|
By all indications T&F is more popular today in the United States than it has ever been before. |
| nuggy11 |
| ||
|
I attended all of the Soviet/USA T&F meets and the crowds at those evenys were tremendous. THe attendance at Stanford and LA were second to only Olympic crowds. |
| Nick Carbone |
| ||
Do me a favor and look up the number of colleges that offered XC and track and total scholarships allowed in 1968 v now. I bet there are MORE total scholarships awarded. (They might be spread out amongst more people). BTW, NCAA allows 12.8 for men and 18 for women.[/quote] Do us a favor and give us even one good reason why women should have 50% more track/XC scholarships than men. We'll wait ..... In terms of track/XC garnering popularity among the masses, men SHOULD lead the way per the sport since they run faster, jump higher, jump longer, aka MEN ARE BETTER AT ALL ASPECTS OF TRACK & FIELD AND CROSS COUNTRY. Ergo, men should have greater access to track/XC scholarships than women. When the men's side of the sport is denegrated, it hurts the sport overall. Make no mistake about it - Title IX killed track/XC at the collegiate level relative to it's popular potential.[/quote] Women are incompetent..... In the work place. |