World XC In United States

For one thing, I've never heard Spokane brought up in the same breath as Boulder or Eugene as the running capital of America, even if it has one good race like Chicago, which incidentally is a different animal altogether since people will travel to event marathons if they're event-spectacles like New York, London, Berlin, and Chicago. Boulder offers tourists the Rockies and jump off points to maybe the Tetons, Aspen and Vail. Eugene, points north like Seattle or south, the coast. Spokane? I guess it's a gateway to Montana or the Cascades and Olympic Mountains but I think that's about it, or maybe a quick jaunt to Vancouver, otherwise, not much. If I'm plunking down a few grand to come to the US, I want a great race, with a great crowd, some good restaurants and some great attractions. As for local or US attendants. I think those traveling nationally want the same sort of things too, but maybe will be a little more tolerant since they don't have to cross oceans to get here Remember, we're talking about a World Championship, not a national one. I'm with you on the Midwestern tradition on running, and that may be fine for nationals at Terre Haute, but only the super die-hards, the runners themselves, their families, and people living within a few state range go. The reason I think is because it is in the middle of nowhere.

Skating began in the streets and skate parks around the country. Los Angeles has played host to the X-Games and centralized that sport in a major city. Foot Locker in San Diego has been institutionalized somewhat in that town. Let's see if Nike Nationals destroys that. Eugene should be expected to put on good races and support them, but I wonder still if our sport relies too much on die hard fans to keep it alive. I think this may be a poor approach.

It was great seeing Worlds in Mombasa, on TV not in person, and see the wild crowds and frankly a great event. The ingredients: a knowledgeable supportive crowd, an intrinsically interesting tourist venue, and spectator friendly venue (wasn't it 6 2k laps). Do something like that in the US when it comes here and we may have something good on our hands and not blow it like we do every time.

The marketing and siting of events in our sport is atrocious and does nothing to increase the interest of the average sports fan. It's as if the 'leaders' in our sport do everything they can to put this sport underwater. Most of our athletes are milquetoasts and boring as hell on camera. Coverage is awful (I was walking on campus at UCLA the otherday and didn't even know there was a track meet going on--I heard some yelling as Laef Barnes ran his sub-4, but hell, we need a centralized national calendar [how about that Wejo? you're well enough known you could put the word out to athletics/event directors nationwide to submit their event listings]). Anyway, we can do better.

I know I stand ready to volunteer and help.

DUELIST wrote:

For one thing, I've never heard Spokane brought up in the same breath as Boulder or Eugene as the running capital of America, even if it has one good race like Chicago, which incidentally is a different animal altogether since people will travel to event marathons if they're event-spectacles like New York, London, Berlin, and Chicago. Boulder offers tourists the Rockies and jump off points to maybe the Tetons, Aspen and Vail. Eugene, points north like Seattle or south, the coast. Spokane? I guess it's a gateway to Montana or the Cascades and Olympic Mountains but I think that's about it, or maybe a quick jaunt to Vancouver, otherwise, not much.

I will say this the legacy left behind by Gerry Lindgren, Pat Tyson and soon the Ferris coach is something that every person in Spokane is aware of. What you don't realize is that cross country in Spokane is a big deal and if it's a big deal for high school the people of Spokane will come out to see the world's best. Your argument for Eugene over Spokane is retarded Seattle is just as close to Spokane as Eugene. Spokane offers days worth of outdoor activities and the nightlife of Spokane is sure to please even the most ambitious drinkers. Also learn the geography of Washington and Spokane's relative location to other cities before stating an argument against it.

You really think more than half of the Bloomsday runners are traveling to Spokane from outside the area for the race? If that's correct, it means that in addition to having the logistical support to put on a race of that size, there would be ample beds and restaurants for travelers. If it isn't, then that means Spokane has an even healthier running community than the other assumption implies despite the lack of publicity about it. What does Boulder have? One good race that's an event-spectacle. Boulder is known as a nice place to train, but when it comes to world-class racing there's only one show in town. Eugene is basically the same, with teh Pre Classic.

Aspen and Vail, sure, but look at a map sometime and you'll see that the Tetons are basically equidistant between Spokane and Boulder. And it's a short flight or a manageable drive from Spokane to Seattle and the Cascades or Vancouver and Whistler.

Eugene is no closer to Seattle than Spokane is, but I don't know why you even bring up Eugene since it hasn't been mentioned as a legit possible bidder. If we're just bringing up places we wish would bid, I'd think that Austin, Nashville, Dallas, or Atlanta would be better choices for that type of event at that time of the year than Eugene.

That'd be as 'convenient' to Spokane as it would be to Boulder, and it would be even more convenient to Chicago.

Not just the tradition but the fan base within reasonable driving distance. Boulder has it over Spokane there even though Boulder and Colorado have no answer to Mead H.S. Chicago, though, has it all over Boulder and Spokane both combined. As someone has already mentioned, people in Milwaukee, Madison, Indy, St. Louis, Detroit (not to mention all of the smaller cities and towns between) could make that drive to Chicago for the meet, supposing it was publicized well enough for them to all know about it.

Eugene plays their strong suit as Tracktown. When was the last time they played host to US XC nationals or even NCAA XC nationals? That's not to say that they couldn't do it, it just seems to imply that they don't care to. I agree, catering to the die-hards, the ones who will travel to the meet no matter where it's held, at the expense of exposing the product to a much wider audience is not the best ploy. I'd rather see track nationals and track Olympic trials in Portland, at the very least.

I'd imagine that the crowds in Mombasa were mostly knowledgeable and supportive only to the point of knowing that their country had a shot at titles. World XC and XC nationals in the US has been done on 2K loop courses for a while now, it's not a format that's unique to Mombasa.

That's great and you're probably right to some degree. USATF and even the IAAF don't have a lot of motivation to do more for XC since media outlets aren't clamoring to cover it. They focus their big efforts on what'll gain the most media exposure for their sponsors. I doubt the average sports fan has ever shown much interest in XC or distance running and now there are more sports than ever being played on a high level in the US. USATF's model has failed to compete, whether it's because of the nature of the sport and society or because of USATF's ineptitude. Holding XC nationals in Boulder is a prime example of what you decry, what did it really do to further the sport? Locals showed up to cherry pick and then said "no thanks" to being a part of the wildly successful XC Worlds in Mombasa. Even if they went and got smoked (like the ones who actually did go) at least we could say that we sent our best to try to challenge other countries' best. Our best runners want no part of being in the toughest race in the world and they proved that again this year, it's no wonder nobody outside of the sport in this country would be interested in the sport.

Hi ExcaliburYou brought up many good points. You're better than I am editing HTML (quotes) so work with me.Regarding Spokane, regardless whether their big race is a local, regional or national event, it is not the focal point of the world which the XC Champs of the world is. And while the Midwest has a strong appreciate for running, that in itself is not enough to improve the profile of running nationally viz a viz the b-ball sports in the US, nor I think would it be enough to satisfy a visitor who has blown a few grand to fly there, or even a single grand if domestic.I'm going to digress for a bit...Our sport is amongst the most unsexy. And that to some degree is incredible. We have lithe women and good looking men, and as a whole, the athletes are I think wholly Americana, but maybe a bit too meek, and that carries over to their competing style. Ignorant ghetto brashness is not the solution but our athletes have as much appeal as those of any other sport, but we utilize it so much less. Look at beach volleyball, a small sport, and look at the appeal with their men and women in bikinis and speedos. Something for both sexes. Us, we have our women who are attractive enough, and men, who are too, but there is something missing. They need image manangement. This is just one point, on the need to improve image in our sport, and it can also be extended to coverage. I'm a filmmaker, so I think in term of images. I see some great shots from Euro meets, but not unified and singularly great coverage of track events, and ESPECIALLY XC. I think with some planning, track and cross country can be presented like all the other speed sports. I'm preparing a demo on this because it is important to show the grace, speed, and common element it shares with other more popular sports. Combine media representation, with sexy athletes who play the part elegantly and not simply bombastically like Mo Greene (although he has his place too), and the Mottrams and Tegenkamps/Lambies/Fleshman/Flanagans (thoughtful), and the Africans, and so on, Jumbotrons, solid internet coverage (letsrun), some national coverage, and intelligent site selection, i.e., culturally rich places to fill in the time apart from the competition, and we can do a lot to pump up this sport, because right right, we're in the doldrums.Going back to your note, you're right, Eugene and Spokane are nothing special, except for knowledgeable crowds and singular spectacles. Damningly, apart from a few marathons, a few major city indoor meets, and a few outdoord meets, that's the whole of American running sport (Chicago, New York, LA, Millrose, Carson, Stanford Invite, Penn Relays, big road races). I think it would be a good exercise to analyze which city offers a good climate, training community, marathon, regular major road races, and institutionalized 12km XC course, along with being a major cultural center, and move USATF there, and all our national championships, and the occasional XC worlds visitation. Create a national brand. This moving the XC Champs to a new US city each time it visits is bogus. It only works for the Olympics (LA, St. Louis, Atlanta), and that's only because of the size, but notice, the difference. St. Louis in it's day was a worldly city, LA too both times, and Atlanta offered a different aspect of American culture (the Deep South), and now we're considering Spokane. Again, no offense intended, and I recognize Lindgren's a big deal there, but Lindgren, a US prodigy does not a cosmopolitan mindset make. I fundamentally believe we need to make our sport sexy. I am interested in doing this. But that's another discussion. To continue on with your other points, because I think their interesting. Going back to marketing. Our sport was born on amateurism and we are not in the era of sexy. Normally, I would think focusing on the sexy would be vapid, but in this case, I think it's appropriate because athletes do represent the pinnacle of human physical achievement. This is in no way represented. We are a visual culture. Basketball and football play great on TV. Baseball not so much so, and it is a dying and pedestrian sport born from easy days in the late 19th century. Track and running though are elemental sports and a renewed focus on who we are as athletes when we do interviews and represent ourselves can do a lot to create a certain market cachet and public interest. I know I'm paying enough attention to the corruption and bureaucracy of IAAF athletic 'diplomats' but they hav already written us off. They're only coming to America for the vacation and to bring their families. If we are to revitalize our spor tint he US, we have do to it ourselves. We have to make it sexy. We have to cover it right. We have to centralize it intelligently. We have to coach our athletes to be more media savvy. We have to find benefactors to sponsor our own Golden League-style circuit. That is what we have to do. And if USATF doesn't get their act together very soon. I'm going to do it myself!

umm, i made some typos that change the context of what i said.

it wasn't clear from that last post, i meant we have to make our sport sexier, and that we are living in a time that sports will live and die based on their appeal. sexiness is appealing. strong, interesting, slightly theatrical, compelling characters are good for our sport, and so is intelligent branding and management, including venue selection.

i also meant, i know the usatf and iaaf are not bureaucratic and i might add wholly incompetent at promoting our sport.

lasty, i thought 2km loops were standard but was not sure. i do still think those 2km loops, the course design, and camera coverage can be more compelling for spectators and tv viewers alike. show you how later.

Distance running should start copying what cycling has been doing. I went to watch a cyclocross race last winter and the course set-up that zig-zagged across a large hillside in a city park was both tough and extremely spectator-friendly. It was light years ahead of any xc race I've been to, including a lackluster annual xc race held in the same park every year in January and xc nationals a few times. It was a criterium course, so they could've easily fashioned a similar 2K course with separate start/finish area for an xc race. It also didn't hurt that the announcer was great, again better than anything I've ever witnessed at any xc race.

The BBC covered the races in Edinburgh this last March. I would hope that DUELIST gets an opportunity to see how well done was their broadcast. The coarse was the best XC coarse I have ever seen! It was challenging, but not deadly. The races in Mombasa were dangerous because of the very, very high heat index, especially for athletes coming from the northern hemisphere. The Edinburgh coarse was layed out on a popular venue for championship XC races in the UK and had hosted European and World events in the past. The coarse was the traditional multiple 2k loops for all of the championships races. The venue was within walking distance of many 3 and 4 star hotels. In short, it would be hard to match the quality of this venue in the US. But we should try!

Mombasa separated the men from the boys. We witnessed the greatest cross country race in history there with 100,000 fans in the blistering heat and humidity. Spokane is a nice new area to have cross and is unknown to almost all runners. It would be a nice area to explore for everyone, including most Americans who have never been to Eastern Washington state. With Boulder and Eugene we'll get the same old propaganda full of excessive snobbery and conceit that goes along with little pisshole towns dying for attention. Chicago would be nice, except for their image as a sports spectator town as opposed to an active participation town. San Diego would be the best place, the late winter's cheap alternative vacation to Hawaii. San Diego has the sun, the surf, the beach. It was a great USAXC year. Even though So Cal is the "Track and Field Capitol of the World" with the Oly and WC medals to prove it, the So Cal area is so huge nobody makes a big deal out of it.

Here's a thought of where you could possibly run the world cross in Chicago:

http://www.arlingtonpark.com/visit-us/maps-directions

It's in a big metro city; it has its own in-house television system that saves the LOC some money for the IAAF requirement to provide a signal to televise the WXC; it has the essential VIP/VVIP amenities the IAAF freeloaders need; and, it follows the model that Dublin, Ostend, and even the Meadowlands had, of holding the race on a horse race track.

I'm sure you could create some man made hills a la the Meadowlands.

Excalibur,

Have you ever heard of York HS? I think that's a sufficient "answer" to Mead for Chicago.

Yeah but the question is, which LOC ? which sponsor ? or will USATF agree to front $10 million for the IAAF Family to lounge around for days, not even watching the competition.

I stated that Boulder and Colorado didn't have an "answer" for Mead, not Chicago and Illinois. Yeah, I've heard of York but I already knew that it was a "sufficient" counter for Chicago.

DUELIST wrote:

Siting is a constant problem with our sport in the US.

The seat of the sport is in Indianapolis.

National cross-country championships are in Terre Haute.

Now Spokane is being suggested?!

No disrespect to these fine places, but I would not travel to any of these places to be a spectator, and I'm a track nut, and I can't imagine international visitors doing it either, especially them. What in the world is there to offer a European visitor in those cities. I've been to them all, and Barcelona or Edinburgh they're not.

Indy gets a pretty substantial foreign tourist crowd for the car races. F1 brought a TON of Europeans in, but that race was canceled becase the F1 chiefs wanted too much money (or something).

Point being, foreigners will even go to dreary midwest cities if it is offering something they are interested in..

I see dumb brits wrote:

Point being, foreigners will even go to dreary midwest cities if it is offering something they are interested in..

And Chicago is far from being a dreary midwest city. Also, the entire lakefront downtown is one giant park, albeit without any hills, but that would be an awesome place to hold an xc meet.

Whoever the LOC is that gets the bid is required to pay for the TV signal, and that's usually non-negotiable from the IAAF's standpoint.

The LOC will have to raise the sponsorship $ to put on the meet. Of course, they have to be careful not to piss off the IAAF's sponsors (i.e., sell a sponsorship to a competing sponsor--Bank of America conflicts with IAAF sponsor VTB, the Russian bank, etc.)

USATF will not take a $10 (or however many million $) bath to pay for the IAAF do-nothings to eat cheese with their wine.

Until the IAAF makes some concessions on selling sponsorships, forcing LOCs to pay taxes on prize money, and their requirements of bringing in do-nothings to party it up, world cross in the USA is a pipe dream, unless someone wants to take a multi-million dollar financial bath (of course, if someone at the Swoosh wants to fork over a lot of $, the IAAF will listen--I'm of the opinion that the IAAF is scared of Nike).

The IAAF's financial model is broken.

Perhaps I missed it but one factor for Chicago would be that it wants to host the Olympics. It is commonly assumed that a city that hosts international events will get points with the IOC.

The Chicago planning committee might well pony up some funds in order to get XC there.

A problem I see with Boulder is hotel space. Getting in and out of there can be a pain for a big event. I am also not sure where the money comes from in Boulder.

The IAAF has no problem getting plenty of bids from countres whom are willing to provide junkets for the entire IAAF Mafia. That's how individuals the are paid, they are all volunteers, and they have told me they contribute their own time and money to the sport, and deserve a free trip and ameneties once in a while. Many find a way into the these international events on their own, outside of the IAAF, often as certified track officials, accredited media, technical staff, etc. Most are from the top echelon of their society, but are still considered volunteers. For those who IAAF Familiy, the LOC must pay for their travel, hotel, food, etc., that's what the reward is for their unpaid efforts, and is how the game is played. If Chicago, Boulder, or Spokane wants WXC, they will have to host all of those 1000 or so IAAF Family "Blue Badges". At 2007 Osaka in August, they didn't even have to pass thru the medal detectors or have their back-pack scanned or visually searched, which was a serious security hole IMHO. Anyone could have stopped by Kinkos and made copies then pass them out to people with alterior motives. The 2006 IAAF World Cup in Los Angeles was cancelled due to the LOC failing to come up with sufficient resources. The official excuse was the IRS taxes, but the reality is that they couldn't find any federation, sponsor, government, or private entity that was willing to pay for what they deemed as excess un-related expenses. That's a judgement call that Spokane, Chicago, and Boulder will have to make for themselves.

Yeah but wrote:

people with alterior motives.

"ulterior"

Do you know where to find detail on IAAF/USATF sponsorship/business models and sponsorship/broadcasting models? I would love to know more about how Grand Prix meets are organized and broadcast from a business licensing/sponsorship/financing point of view. It also would be good to know as much detail as possible about the IAAF financial model/compromises/limitations and politics. Maybe with this background some more serious thinking can begin about what to do here in the US.I would appreciate any sources. I don't think this information is found on the Web. Cheers!