Those are all good points. I'd argue with you on #3 in the sense that the media coverage was lousy in Birmingham, Pittsburgh.
Those are all good points. I'd argue with you on #3 in the sense that the media coverage was lousy in Birmingham, Pittsburgh.
Sarcasm? wrote:
Those are all good points. I'd argue with you on #3 in the sense that the media coverage was lousy in Birmingham, Pittsburgh.
You are correct. However the main reason for going to New York was for the media. If it is not on the jumbotron on time square and the lead story on the 11 oclock new then we have been sold a bill of goods. And none of those things outweigh a November Trial. USATF is no different than any other organization. THEY CAN BE BOUGHT AND HAVE ON THIS ONE.
You guys are retarded. It is convenient to say that the money is linked to the trials. Lets be honest. Who is going to have better spectator numbers, create more of a buzz, bring in better media, etc?
My opinion is Boston should host both. New York would be my second choice. They are tested, tried and true. Go with a big event, get big results. They put on world class events regularly. A market like Akron, Twin Cities, etc might do a good job, but I just dont think they will be better than what a major event can bring to it.
So for all of you who bring in the development money from NYC. Twin Cities gave money... Does that make them a key candidate for the event? NO. What if Chicago, Boston, LA, Houston and Austin cough up a boatload of money? Will all of them host? I think the committees will do what is best to get the legit contenders to the line. I really believe that.
I don't think anyone should deny that money's involved. Money determines which network gets to televise every other sport. I don't see the negative. And the training groups got a bunch of help.
Being a year out from the Games may help the athlete determine their training focus. Maybe not. Central Park loops will be rough.
I like the Sunday before Boston idea.
scotth wrote:
And to quote from the final words of the Letsrun oath: '...and let the crying, whining, dissecting & finger-pointing begin!'
Those who made up the panel to select the Trials sites are a cross-section of current US elite athletes, past elites, a few from the leading media, a few from leading events, a few leading coaches who'll report to a committee of top USATF officials and others who've been around the running world block a time or three. I'm sure those on the panel will feel secure in their choices despite any complaining here...but that won't stem the erudite reaction of LR readers.
Carry on.
Why not post the sub-committee members? Could it be because they will have little say in where the trials will be held? Could it be that the sub-committee was not as large a group as yopu claim it is? could it be that the confidentiality signings are just an extension of this groups continuance to do things in secrecy without any real feedback from it's members? Why is it that a group, a disfunctional group at that, continues to make decisions for all of us?
The Saturday before Boston makes more sense. The 20,000 runners in town for the race aren't going to stand outside for hours (perhaps in the rain) the day before running their own marathon.
Uh, "Committee," for someone who signed a confidentiality agreement, you sure are chatty about this issue.
True. They'd make for the most passionate spectators. Central Park will draw thousands but most will be upset that they can't rollerblade or walk their dog.
...if the Trial is in November, who's going to run in Osaka for the US?
who cares?
It's not the end-all, but... wrote:
...if the Trial is in November, who's going to run in Osaka for the US?
USATF and the NYRR could care less. If they cared they would simply move the trials to March.
Why not have the Olympic trials athletes start 30 minutes before the first elites on the same course! Better TV coverage (they are going first) and the crowds will be there over the same course. The women get their own start in some races, why not the OT?
Boston for the women
New York for the men
Both on criterium courses before the feature event
Is that NYC in 11/2007? Does anyone else think that it's a little late to be saying that you only have 17 months left? Isn't that a short qualifying window?
Both NYC and Boston would draw large crowds. I live 2 blocks from the park so I'm partial to NYC. Both would have great media coverage but honestly I think NYRR would probably do the best job setting it up. I will def be calling in sick if it does happen in NY on a friday.
It still is amazing to me that the process for selecting athletes to race well in Beijing in August might involves racing in Boston in April or New York in November.
The climate is completely different, and that can make a huge difference to who will be the best three athletes to represent the U.S. in Beijing.
Climate? In 1996, the women's trial was warmer than normal for Charleston, and there was one big surprise (Spangler) and two prerace favorites (Lauck, Somers). The men's trial was freezing and the team was composed of prerace favorites (Kempainen, Coogan, Brantly).
In 2000 Charleston was hot and an Alaskan (Clark) won and PR'd in the OG, a respectable 2:31. Pittsburgh was broiling and the leading prerace favorite (DeHaven) won.
In cold weather trials in 2004, both teams (DeReuck- Kastor-Rhines and Culpepper-Keflezighi-Browne) were the clear class of the lot going in.
Generally speaking, the best rise to the top.
What Marathon Trials was held in Charleston..please check your facts...
Charleston or Columbia who cares?
non-member wrote:
Why not post the sub-committee members? Could it be because they will have little say in where the trials will be held? Could it be that the sub-committee was not as large a group as yopu claim it is? could it be that the confidentiality signings are just an extension of this groups continuance to do things in secrecy without any real feedback from it's members? Why is it that a group, a disfunctional group at that, continues to make decisions for all of us?
Need to amend my post to say the committee I described was to select the Men's site. Don't know what mechanism the women used to pick their site. Probably similar to the men.
To the above query: 1. The info was provided to me and I've elected to protect it as a private matter. 2. I would expect committee member's feelings would be respectfully considered by those making the final choice. I have no reason to think otherwise. 3. The sub-committees are as big as I described. I would think committee members were selected because they were capable of making sound decisions...and feedback from 'it's members' wouldn't be necessary. 4. The committees are hardly dysfunctional. All the names are well-respected members of the running community and, as I recall, part of a selection process unique in its makeup.