Why are BAA and NYRR so bitter and angry that Houston got the US Trials bid?

The NYRR did not have a prepared statement. They were asked, by multiple sources. The statement was a response to those inquiries.

I wouldn't consider the NYC and Boston trials to be significantly better than St. Louis and Birmingham. We had two medals come out of 2004 and then went 0-fer in 2008. Looks like a step back, to me.

If they can't get it on tv then who gives a crap? Doesn't matter what other media involvement there is if they can't even do that. Besides, it's 2010 and the media is more mobile than ever.

Red Glare wrote:

If they can't get it on tv then who gives a crap? Doesn't matter what other media involvement there is if they can't even do that. Besides, it's 2010 and the media is more mobile than ever.

NBC owned the television rights to the 2008 trials and may well own the rights for the 2012 trials. NYC and Boston had no other options except for NBC. We can hope that NBC's ownership of Universal Sports will give the Houston trials better options for a live national broadcast.

Hate to break it to you, but in 2010 the print media is less relevant than it has been probably since the US Revolution.

Not if organizers can't get the race(s) on television. Whether 10,000 Houstonians or 40,000 Bostonians or New Yorkers line the race course is irrelevant. You're building the sport based on the millions who could tune on on their HD sets from the comfort of home across the US and around the world. That's the audience a legit sport wants.

Given the US medal production in the event over the past 20 years, how much should USOC and USATF invest in OT marathons?

Old XC Dad wrote:

Red Glare wrote:

If they can't get it on tv then who gives a crap? Doesn't matter what other media involvement there is if they can't even do that. Besides, it's 2010 and the media is more mobile than ever.

NBC owned the television rights to the 2008 trials and may well own the rights for the 2012 trials. NYC and Boston had no other options except for NBC. We can hope that NBC's ownership of Universal Sports will give the Houston trials better options for a live national broadcast.

NBC has bought the rights to Olympic broadcasting (trials for all sports and the games themselves) in the US. NBC owns CNBC and MSNBC, there were plenty of airwave options. I watched NYC online in 2007, don't remember if it was on UniversalSports's website or via the local NYC NBC affiliate's website. Either way, they were filming it. It's about it being worthwhile to NBC to put it on the air in place of something else. Houston was able to get that provision into their bid and NYC and Boston apparently were not.

highway to hell wrote:What is the intrinsic value of having the trials in Boston when it is not associated with the Boston Marathon,as opposed to say the intrinsic value of having it in Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, etc?

Well, a lot, given that the NYCM and BM both already have much more media coverage than Houston ever could get. Having the trials in conjunction with these 2 existing marathons would mean that the media coverage of the Oly Trials in NYC or Boston would be much larger than what we will get in Houston. You might not care but it is what it is. The fact that this concept was expressed doesn't mean that NYC and/or Boston expected to get the trials (even though for other reasons I think they did).

Red Glare wrote:

I wouldn't consider the NYC and Boston trials to be significantly better than St. Louis and Birmingham. We had two medals come out of 2004 and then went 0-fer in 2008. Looks like a step back, to me.

If they can't get it on tv then who gives a crap? Doesn't matter what other media involvement there is if they can't even do that. Besides, it's 2010 and the media is more mobile than ever.

Were you at any of these prior trials? I watched Birmingham online and saw the 10 people at the finish line. I was at NYC and saw the 10s of 1000s of people running back-and-forth in Central Park and the 10s of 1000s of people at the finish line.

I also wasn't aware that the quality of the Oly Trials is based solely on how our qualifying marathoners do in the actual Olympics. So if 100 people show up to watch, it isn't broadcast on TV or the internet, the course is mismarked and the wrong distance and the hotel arrangements are terrible but 2 of the qualifiers go on to medal, we will be hailing the Trials as a success?

Gossip monger wrote:

I heard that one of the consultants for USATF felt slighted by the lack of returned calls he was getting from the NYRRC and BAA. They didn't know he was a consultant and dissed him. Paybacks a bitch.

0/10 troll attempt.

NY State of Mind wrote:

highway to hell wrote:What is the intrinsic value of having the trials in Boston when it is not associated with the Boston Marathon,as opposed to say the intrinsic value of having it in Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, Atlanta, LA, Seattle, etc?

Well, a lot, given that the NYCM and BM both already have much more media coverage than Houston ever could get. Having the trials in conjunction with these 2 existing marathons would mean that the media coverage of the Oly Trials in NYC or Boston would be much larger than what we will get in Houston. You might not care but it is what it is. The fact that this concept was expressed doesn't mean that NYC and/or Boston expected to get the trials (even though for other reasons I think they did).

As stated above, the Boston trials, if they had occurred there, would not be associated with the Boston Marathon. the trials were to be in Jan, the BM is in April. Yes, NY in 08 had the men's trials the day before the the big show, but Boston's was a completely separate thing. So, my question still stands: what is the intrinsic value of having the trials in Boston over other cities when the trials will not be associated with the Boston Marathon itself? More fans lining the course? Is that it?

And as someone else stated above, trials are in Dec-Jan when it is freezing in NY and Boston. Yet the Olympics are held in August under usually sweltering conditions. Why not have a marathon trials in a warm(er) place where we can see who might handle the heat a little bit better?

Provincial state of mind, more like. Read the rest of the messages above. What you're chiming in with here is irrelevant, my simplistic friend. I wasn't aware that I ever said "solely" but maybe your dumb brain inserted that into the text? Being on tv is one measure (not the number of people scrambling all over the course who probably aren't seeing much in the way of sponsor names and who pay zero admission fee) and how the runners wind up performing in the games is another measure of the success of the trials race.

Good points. In Bham and STL, were the trials held sort of in conjunction with another race? Or were they stand alone events? I think that makes a difference in terms of fan turnout. Also, wasn't the weather in STL pretty bad that year?

NY State of Mind wrote:

Were you at any of these prior trials? I watched Birmingham online and saw the 10 people at the finish line. I was at NYC and saw the 10s of 1000s of people running back-and-forth in Central Park and the 10s of 1000s of people at the finish line.

Come on. So there were at least 20,000 people running back and forth, and another at least 20,000 at the finish line? Let's say we give each spectator a yard's width of road. On one side of the road, 1,000 spectators would take up 3,000 yards, meaning that they extend from the finish line to a little bit before the 24.5-mile mark. Have that on both sides of the road and you're at 2,000 spectators. To get to 20,000 (the lowest possible version of "tens of thousands"), there would have to be a solid wall of 10-deep spectators from the finish to just before the 24.5-mile mark. Not my memory of that morning.

Houston will do a great job.

The City of Houston is behind it logistically and financially.

The LOC will spend 1.7 million dollars....almost the cost of both the NY and Boston Trials combined.

USATF & the USOC won't have to lay out a penny to help subsidize Houston.

BUT and here's the catch- the Marathon Trials will only generate 1/2 the tv/press exposure/publicity.

Two separate dates and venues mean twice as much publcity.

That means our beloved sport is taking a hit...less publicity.

PLUS and a very big plus - if they plan on running both races together (or even with a staggered start), the races will have to share the telecast!!!!! that's just not acceptable to highlight our athletes.

The trials in NY was all about the men.

The trials in Boston was all about the women.

The trials in Houston will be about USATF, USOC, and Houston.

Are you intentionally or unintentionally making up facts? Both the Boston and NYC bids involved hosting the trials in conjunction with their existing marathons:

The cities [Boston and NYC] would hold the trials in conjunction with their own marathon weekends, said Jill Geer, a spokeswoman for USATF.

So do you think the 100s of media who were in town for the main NYC and Boston marathons during the last Trials just ignored the Trials marathons that also occurred those weekends? Geesh, this concept isn't exactly rocket science.

Boston + NYC = Democrats, bitter about everything

If 2 qualifiers go on to get medals, then yes, the trials were a success. Isn't that the purpose of the trials, to get the most qualified runners to the Olympics?

And if you think that just because NYRR didn't get to host that the course will be mismarked and the Hotels won't be good enough, then you should jog down to Central Park and go for a run.

Then you are an idiot. The success of the Trials has absolutely nothing to do with how the 3 qualifiers do in the actual Olympics. It also would behoove you to learn what the definition of a hypothetical is. It might come in handy at some point in your life.

I also think that it is beyond shocking that Houston made a bid that did NOT include the actual course and that bid won. That's not some minor detail that should be worked out later. What happens if they decide to hold it in a big parking lot crit style? I'm sure Houston eventually will get around to picking a suitable course, but to win the Trials when you don't even know where you will hold it, doesn't exactly smell right.

luv2run wrote:

In Bham and STL, were the trials held sort of in conjunction with another race? Or were they stand alone events?

Um hello, YES.