Stop with the false equivalencies. Track will never be as popular as (popular sport) because it never has been.
Stop with the false equivalencies. Track will never be as popular as (popular sport) because it never has been.
Cross country is as much about team as individual. If you think otherwise, you never ran cross or you were stuck on a shitty team the whole time. If XC isn't a team sport, then races should only include 20 or 30 people. Who needs a mass XC race to determine the top 5 or top 10?
I think we already have the technology to report team scores as the XC race progresses or as a track meet moves along—such was done to great excitement at the recent club national track meet. But we need to figure out the economics to use the technology more often.
Spectators can know the score.
Tom
Why does Oklahoma State always hold out their top guys from races like this? If I were a national class high schoolers looking at school there's no way I'd run for a coach that only has you do two all out race efforts during xc season.
Abbey D'Agostino sure seems to be acting like the "regular season" matters.
Those are some good points Rojo.
I think reason #1 has to be that running is just not as exciting, and probably never will be.
When I look at the big 4 team sports I think there are a few aspects they have that running can't match.
Drama: running has it's drama, but its much rarer than the upsets, and late game heroics of team sports. While championship racing offers exceptions, our sport is a test of who has the best aerobic fitness.
Strategy: I hope this one is obvious, the strategy in a race is incredibly simple and boring compared to team sports.
Wow facto: top runners are every bit as impressive with their accomplishments as top NFL skill position players, of NBA players. But running doesn't have a lot of instances where the average Joe will watch and say "wow that was ridiculous! How did he do that?!"
rojo wrote:
Let me explain why:
Reason #1 is the fact that the "regular season" in track/xc means basically nothing.
The perfect example of that is how #1 Oklahoma State finishes #10 at Pre-Nats today and no one is talking about it. People are just assuming they held out there guys (is that true, I have no idea?).
Maybe if a very influential individual (*ahem!*) in the sport of track/XC actually cared enough to check the names of the Ok State runners, before posting this "thought," the sport would be moving in a better direction.
Rojo: don't you find it odd to be passing over the multi-time National Champions of YOUR sport in order to make a point about the lacking popularity and notoriety of YOUR sport?
rojo wrote:
I always laugh when I hear people say, "Track/XC would be so much more popular if only a, b, c, was done."
Marketing could be certainly be improved but get over yourselves people. Team sports are more intesting on a regular basis.
Our sport has inherent core attributes that make it less popular than team sports on a regular basis. Our biggest events like the Olympics can be spectacular . Let me explain why:
Reason #1 is the fact that the "regular season" in track/xc means basically nothing.
The perfect example of that is how #1 Oklahoma State finishes #10 at Pre-Nats today and no one is talking about it. People are just assuming they held out there guys (is that true, I have no idea?).
In other sports, the regular season means something. In ours, it barely means anything. The same is true in road racing (few care for the most part what happens in a 10k or half-marathon before a marathon) and on the track (why DL meets are important a loss has little bearing on the bigger picture which is Worlds/Olympics).
Reason #2 is you can go to a track or cross country meet, watch the whole thing, and leave without knowing who won the team battle.
A cross country meet finishes and it often takes 30 minutes to figure out who won. It's not much easier in track as you need a score sheet with 20 events on it. At NCAAs in Des Moines a few years ago in track, I watched 3-4 locals leave the stadium ten minutes after it was over not knowing who won the team battle.
Now don't despair. There is some good news.
The fact that our regular season means little makes our championships that much more spectacular.
Notice above. I said, "Our sport has inherent core attributes that make it less popular than team sports on a regular basis." But on a non-regular basis, during our championships like the Olympics, our biggest events can be so spectacular as the drama/tension of training all year for this one moment or all your life for this one moment is captivating.
What say you?
I'm surprised you manage to write something as....wrong as this.
When people talk about how track/xc could be more popular if this or that was done to improve it, they are CORRECT. Nobody think that if you fix a thing here and there with track/xc that it will become more popular than football, what on earth are you talking about?
Its about making it more popular, a more interesting sport. Everyone knows track/xc will never be as popular as football/soccer. Team sports will always be the most popular, everyone knows and everyone agrees.
However, that is NOT the point when discussing how to make track more popular.
Do you not get this?
Secondly, why are you explaining something to us that we are all aware of? This is not new.
"The fact that our regular season means little makes our championships that much more spectacular."
Sorry to bust your bubble, but no Olympic track event is more spectaular than the World Championships in soccer, except if you are an avid track fan in which case you probably think a DL meet is more spectacular than the average football/soccer game.
norphxc wrote:
While championship racing offers exceptions, our sport is a test of who has the best aerobic fitness.
Strategy: I hope this one is obvious, the strategy in a race is incredibly simple and boring compared to team sports.
Wow facto: top runners are every bit as impressive with their accomplishments as top NFL skill position players, of NBA players. But running doesn't have a lot of instances where the average Joe will watch and say "wow that was ridiculous! How did he do that?!"
No.no.no.
Running these days is not about who has the best aerobic fitness. Its about who has the best finsihing kick off a very slow pace.
Race strategy is boring because they run sit and kick races. They do absolutely nothing for 12-25 minutes and then finally decide to start running fast. A 15 minute men's 5000m at USATF????
rocky mountains wrote:
Cross country is as much about team as individual. If you think otherwise, you never ran cross or you were stuck on a shitty team the whole time. If XC isn't a team sport, then races should only include 20 or 30 people. Who needs a mass XC race to determine the top 5 or top 10?
that's the dumbest post in the history of letsrun
congratulations
T&F is already the #2 Olympic sport, followed by Womens Beach volleyball.
this sounds a bit condescending and dogmatic (I always laugh" - what are you laughing at? - (others lamentation and effort at addressing a problem and frustration.) I would expect more from an "expert".
Hey JR:
I like running also. This is a running forum, remember? Why are you so ignorant? While you are at it, get a grip with your hatred for football. I watch football and am also a huge running fan.
JR, Running is a team sport as much as an individual sport. I've been on teams where a guy or guys were not coming to practice every day or working as hard as the rest of us--it was costing the team the opportunity to run in Championship races. This happens both in HS and College.
We were pissed at the guy because it hurt the team. That's what hard working teams talk about if a guy is not working hard is/was the team. Individual accomplishments are great but its also a team sport.
I am fortunate to belong to a group of guys that ran our asses off decades ago and occasionally were at times, nationally ranked because of it.
You are either 13 years old or simply have a lot to learn.
J.R. wrote:
Rojo should be on letsfootball.com.
Running is an individual sport not a team sport.
A pre season meet is not the Olympic final.
If you're looking for a football game, you're probably not going to enjoy running.
However I love running, and hate football. I haven't been to or watched a football game since being a kid, when I had to attend and didn't know any better. IMHO football sucks and there is nothing good about it at all, which is why football is not running. They have absolutely nothing in common.
The running means something, to runners, not to weekend football jockeys, i.e. running is not football and football is not running. Duh! If you want football watch football.
I like watching running events, because I like running, not because I like football. I don't like football! I like running. Running events are interesting to me whether they're on the track, roads, or cross country, races or workouts.
few care for the most part what happens in a 10k or half-marathon before a marathonWell then go watch a football game so you won't have to whine and complain anymore!
you can go to a track or cross country meet, watch the whole thing, and leave without knowing who won the team battle.
Good. I don't care anyway.
A cross country meet finishes and it often takes 30 minutes to figure out who won.
Or you could just watch the race and see for yourself.
I said, "Our sport has inherent core attributes that make it less popular than team sports on a regular basis."
Team sports are only popular due to marketing, which is a false dichotomy because marketing and value are two different things. There is no value to getting drunk, banging your heads against walls, eating frogs and whatever other dumb things are done by football players and their fans. You can have it.
Personally I like running, and I like it fine as it is.
Aww someone get one to many swirlies from the football team in high school?
Cross Country is a GREAT team sport. Often, it's the 4th and 5th runners who determine the team winner. Depth beats a hot dog anytime. With chip timing-it's very possible to post team scores every mile of a race. Will it ever be like football-No, but it could be a lot more exciting to watch if the finish stadium understood that the difference between 45 and 50th place is what drives the team competition.
rocky mountains wrote:
Cross country is as much about team as individual. If you think otherwise, you never ran cross or you were stuck on a shitty team the whole time. If XC isn't a team sport, then races should only include 20 or 30 people. Who needs a mass XC race to determine the top 5 or top 10?
30:45X-C1978 wrote:
Hey JR:
I like running also. This is a running forum, remember? Why are you so ignorant? While you are at it, get a grip with your hatred for football. I watch football and am also a huge running fan.
If I was ignorant, I'd be watching football like you do.
JR, Running is a team sport as much as an individual sport. I've been on teams where a guy or guys were not coming to practice every day or working as hard as the rest of us--it was costing the team the opportunity to run in Championship races. This happens both in HS and College.
We were pissed at the guy because it hurt the team.
He probably went out running on his own instead of being around a bunch of football guy wannabe runners haha.
That's what hard working teams talk about if a guy is not working hard is/was the team. Individual accomplishments are great but its also a team sport.
I am fortunate to belong to a group of guys that ran our asses off decades ago and occasionally were at times, nationally ranked because of it.
It sounds to me that you had a needy team with very low self esteem. I was captain of my cross country teams in both high school and college, and we never got down on anyone for not doing well. Our coach was great too, because he never tolerated excuses, like someone trying to blame someone else for not doing well, boo hoo hoo hoo. "He didn't show up, so I sucked, boo hoo hoo hoo."
You are either 13 years old or simply have a lot to learn.
I wish! But thanks for the compliment!
Gotta agree with the antibiotic/PED troll JR here, especially the last part about blaming someone else for you not performing.
Running is not a team sport. The end. XC in the US is to a degree, but the US isn't best in running and the rest of the world dont care about teams.
Heres some evidence XC isnt a team sport:
Also, 10 guys in 29.00 shape who are good at XC but doesn't know each other would do a better "team" effort, and get a better "team" results than 10 guys in 30.00 shape who are equally good at running in XC.
I think we could really see a more exciting event if every runner had an RFID tagged number (like most races today) an d there were a dozen RFID mats out on course. You could put up a few large screens around the event and get real time individual and team scoring on screen and on the web and on TV for bigger events. Coaches and spectators could get real time team scores at every 1/2 mile mark etc.
I was at the Vermont 50 (local race) a few weeks ago and they did this at the finish. This was even more complicated because you had mt bikers and runners on a 50 mile cross country course. There were multiple start times by category, but one start line and one common finish. As soon as you crossed the line regardless of when you started and if you were a biker, a runner, doing the 50k course or the 50 miler, you were ranked and stacked overall, by age, and displayed immediately.
Not that hard to do (already been done). Not that expensive.
Dr. Turd's Brother wrote:
Branch Technology most likely charged upwards of 25K to time that meet with all the bells and whistles How many meets can afford the technology?
I hope your kidding. They already have the transponders like any legitimate timing company. What's so hard about putting it up on the web?
Maybe I should get in the timing business.
How much do timing companies make?
1. Because cross athletes are skinny and almost look sickly. Not the desirable tall, built, sculpted athletes that spend hours in the gym before they even practice. Running high mileage reduces testosterone, and entertainment from competition stems from watching high testosterone men combat eachother head on
2. Nothing about a slow, constant race is cool. It's not fast paced and races don't provide jaw dropping plays. XC races don't provide audiences with plays that need to be replayed or watched in slow motion (already slow enough). A cross country race will never be featured on a top 10 play
3. Very high predictability (the teams with the most talented runners usually win, whereas in football, teams with the most talent aren't guarenteed anything) No underdog stories, no strokes of luck
4. Maybe the biggest one, racing isn't fun, training isn't fun. Playing at the highest stage of football, basketball, soccer, is fun.