Sally Bergesen of Oiselle - Nick Symmonds is a SPRINTER??!

He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.

kdk wrote:

He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.

while the 800 may be seen as a "long sprint" anyone who is knowledgeable of T&F knows the 800 is considered a middle distance event and that the sprints stop at 400

Hell calling the 400 a sprint is generous

the little flock of birds loves nick and wants to be his friend

garth wrote:

I expect this kind of mistake from a clueless media member, not from someone in the industry and claiming to be a big fan.

http://sallybergesen.tumblr.com/post/82929665147/why-23-more-years-of-nike-usatf-is-bad-for-our-sport

If calling him a sprinter gets more people to read and take to heart Sally's post, Nick Symmonds would be very pleased.

Who the hell cares

Dan vs. Dave was Reebok vs. Reebok not Reebok vs. Nike

Her entire blog is full of gaffes which indicated to me that she doesn't have a clue what she is talking about.

She's a latecomer to the sport, but runs pretty well. Top 20 or 25 at USATF masters XC. Indeed Symmonds is a mid-distance runner but no reason to get insulted by it.

"sprinter" means "fast person" in co-worker-around-the-water-cooler speak.

wow he runs the 5k so fast he's just sprinting the whole way!

SMR

Symmonds has not been with Nike for a few months now either.

you americans are dumb wrote:

kdk wrote:

He runs the 800. He is arguably a sprinter.

while the 800 may be seen as a "long sprint" anyone who is knowledgeable of T&F knows the 800 is considered a middle distance event and that the sprints stop at 400

None of that makes my statement wrong.

kdk wrote:

you americans are dumb wrote:

while the 800 may be seen as a "long sprint" anyone who is knowledgeable of T&F knows the 800 is considered a middle distance event and that the sprints stop at 400

None of that makes my statement wrong.

He is not 'arguably' a sprinter.

The 800 is not a sprint.

First, as I noted before Symmonds has not been with Nike for a few months now. She should have written that better and given Brooks credit where it is due. (Symmonds, then with Nike now with Brooks...)

As for her points, a lot has been written elsewhere and here. However, none of the people writing seem to have ever run for a position within USATF to make these changes.

1) The TFAA should not be involved in sponsorship/partnership discussions as each members has his/her own agenda. These sorts of negotiations always are done fairly quietly. What shoe or apparel company is going to be able to come up with the sponsorship dollars that Nike can come up with? Under Armour has certainly jumped into the apparel arena and has a few college football teams under contract, but you know what: more people probably watch a Maryland football game than any track meet outside the Trials. If Nike approached USATF with the offer, then USATF is smart to take the money on the table. There is no sign that track is going to get any better. It is not like the NCAA basketball tourney or the NFL where the projections are only for better and better ratings so you do a shorter deal. Also, it frees up marketing folks to find other sponsors for other categories (or in theory you could reduce the marketing staff).

2) I am not sure how USATF keeps sponsors from competing fairly for athletes aside from the logo restrictions. Oiselle has signed Fleshmann and Goucher who were with Nike. Brooks signed Symmonds (who apparently was offered a contract by Nike). To me it is the track athletes doing a poor job of marketing themselves. Yes, it would help if the sport were bigger and I will place some of that blame on USATF.

3)The comparison to the NFL and NBA to me is off. Those leagues have franchises. The track and field athletes could collectively bargain (although I think in general that is a bad idea). Track is basically an individual sport and even more so once one leaves college. If track had a league with teams like soccer, then the comparison might be apt. If by fair bidding process she means on things like the Trials Marathon okay.

4)We have had post-collegiate groups for a while now that had their own sponsors. I actually think USATF was smart to stay out of this mess. Let the market work. Athletes found groups and we have had a resurgence at least in distance running.

5) Yes drop logo restrictions, but this also has to be addressed at the IAAF level and even at the IOC level. I would argue the Olympics is where the logo restriction really needs to be changed. That is the biggest stage, but even then you are going to run into an issue with national team clothing.

6)The contract issues are not USATF's purview. The companies write the contracts and the athletes agree to them. The value is in getting your product recognized. I doubt running X time does anything to raise the profile of the sponsor. It is how many twitter followers and facebook likes one is getting and then getting those turned into customers. NASCAR was amazing. The brand loyalty to a driver was once so strong that if your favorite NASCAR driver switched from Tide to Cheer as a sponsor, a big chunk of his fans would switch too. THAT IS POWERFUL!

7) Yes, somehow track meets need to be faster paced and involve fans. Maybe hire some guy from minor league baseball as they have some great promotions and there is something between every half inning.

She also brings up the idea of beer gardens (which I agree with), but she conveniently forgets that the past 2 Olympic Trials (USATF/Nike) had a beer garden.

Wurzel wrote:

SMR

DMR has 400 and 800, if thats the point you are making

TAA wrote:

Hell calling the 400 a sprint is generous

You must have very little speed. Probably very little running ability at all if you don't think the 400 is a sprint.

not so wrote:

The 800 is not a sprint.

The WR is 2 50 second 400's back to back.

A 50 second 400 is a sprint. Go ahead, say it's not, see who doesn't laugh at you.

Fastest 800 runner ever could split sub 45 on a relay. Nobody on earth split sub 45 until the 60s. Sprinter may be applicable.