BIG CHANGE AT COMPETITOR GROUP TOP TWO GUYS ARE OUT

come on dude wrote:

How is giving all of the money to one guy (whose primary racing tactic is bad for the sport in my opinion) help the sport?

Who is going to generate more attention and interest for your sponsors' benefit: Mo Farah or the local guys picking up $1000 for running 65:00?

The Great North Run followed this plan but had a lot more money to spend and they had among the best half marathons we've ever seen and the "prize money" was less than that of any Rock 'n Roll race today.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Who is going to generate more attention and interest for your sponsors' benefit: Mo Farah or the local guys picking up $1000 for running 65:00?

Go big or go home.

You can either spend big $ and get Farah, Rupp, Goucher, Meb, Hall, Geb, Bekele etc. The handfull of runners that everyone knows and who can present themselves.

Or you can give $1000 to the local guy running 65:00. This guys is a blue collar runner that folks can relate to.

Both works.

What does not work is paying $20,000 for noname Kenyans who run 61:00. Who wants to see that?

Too easy - I guess "noname Kenyans" - to use your wording - would like to see that

Nutella nailed it. It really is an either or situation, the middle is NOT where you want to be.

Nutella1 wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Who is going to generate more attention and interest for your sponsors' benefit: Mo Farah or the local guys picking up $1000 for running 65:00?

Go big or go home.

You can either spend big $ and get Farah, Rupp, Goucher, Meb, Hall, Geb, Bekele etc. The handfull of runners that everyone knows and who can present themselves.

Or you can give $1000 to the local guy running 65:00. This guys is a blue collar runner that folks can relate to.

Both works.

What does not work is paying $20,000 for noname Kenyans who run 61:00. Who wants to see that?

See thread about Honolulu. My eyes glazed over reading the race report by RRW. How can a race justify continuing to give out $40,000 to no name Africans, when it could be directed towards supporting Americans? I was more interested in what happened at CIM cause of all the Americans trying to make the Olympic Trials, than what happened at Honolulu.

honolulu who wrote:

See thread about Honolulu. My eyes glazed over reading the race report by RRW. How can a race justify continuing to give out $40,000 to no name Africans, when it could be directed towards supporting Americans? I was more interested in what happened at CIM cause of all the Americans trying to make the Olympic Trials, than what happened at Honolulu.

How are they no name Africans? What does that even mean? Last time I checked, they do have names. And why should Americans get preferential treatment? CIM wasn't a natioiknal championship. It was an open race. Should all sports that take place in the US not pay foreigners?

Do no-name Africans play ice hockey?

http://www.freewebs.com/blackhockeyplayers/index.html

jsjll wrote:

How are they no name Africans? What does that even mean? Last time I checked, they do have names. And why should Americans get preferential treatment? CIM wasn't a natioiknal championship. It was an open race. Should all sports that take place in the US not pay foreigners?

Because if we want to keep professional running alive, there needs to be justification for having elites at a race, beyond how fast they run. Having Americans brings the added attention up front. When races such as CGI are axing their elite athlete support because they can't justify it, maybe they need to reflect back 30 years on what created the running boom in the first place- Americans up front and center.

honolulu who wrote:

Because if we want to keep professional running alive, there needs to be justification for having elites at a race, beyond how fast they run. Having Americans brings the added attention up front.

It's not only Americans. There are some athletes other than the Americans that bring something to the table, but those are just a handful. Geb, Farah, Kim Smith, ...

Have you seen an interview with Kipsang, Mutai, Makau, Kiprotich? An American 5th grade has more confidence.

honolulu who wrote:

Because if we want to keep professional running alive, there needs to be justification for having elites at a race, beyond how fast they run. Having Americans brings the added attention up front.

It's not only Americans. There are some athletes other than the Americans that bring something to the table, but those are just a handful. Geb, Farah, Kim Smith, ...

Have you seen an interview with Kipsang, Mutai, Makau, Kiprotich? An American 5th grade has more confidence.

honolulu who wrote:

See thread about Honolulu. My eyes glazed over reading the race report by RRW. How can a race justify continuing to give out $40,000 to no name Africans, when it could be directed towards supporting Americans? I was more interested in what happened at CIM cause of all the Americans trying to make the Olympic Trials, than what happened at Honolulu.

The winners definitely had names.

There are 2 issues being discussed here.

1) The overall amount of money (via prize money, appearance fees, travel stipends) given to runners.

2) Who that money goes to

RNR greatly reduced #1. Some of you seem fine with that as long as money doesn't go to "no name Kenyans". You might rather have some guy get $1000 and run 2:25.

Most races don't have prize money and I'm totally fine with that.

Rock N Roll however bought some races that have a history of paying pros. They decided to stop doing this. It's perfectly reasonable for me to disagree with this decision and tell people not to run those races.

Races are free to do what they want. Consumers are free to do what they want. Road races however use public resources (and public subsidies in the case of some RNR races) so there is going to be more scrutiny as to where the money is going. RNR needs each and every city turning over their city roads for a few hours a day or they are no longer in business.

RNR used to give more $$$ to pro athletes and the sport of running, now it is saying it doesn't need to do that.

wejo wrote:

Rock N Roll however bought some races that have a history of paying pros. They decided to stop doing this. It's perfectly reasonable for me to disagree with this decision and tell people not to run those races.

Races are free to do what they want. Consumers are free to do what they want. Road races however use public resources (and public subsidies in the case of some RNR races) so there is going to be more scrutiny as to where the money is going. RNR needs each and every city turning over their city roads for a few hours a day or they are no longer in business.

RNR used to give more $$$ to pro athletes and the sport of running, now it is saying it doesn't need to do that.

No, it is NOT perfectly reasonable for you to tell people not to run those races. It is quite the opposite. What you're displaying is what my 7 yr old nieces and nephews display when they can't get what they want.

Why do you want to punish them? What if they can't afford to give out that much money anymore? Is that so bad? They're not maliciously acting against professional running. You're being irrational if you want to boycott them but not all of the other races that never offered prize money at all. Especially considering that they STILL OFFER PRIZE MONEY.

And drop this city subsidy argument. The city receives and recognizes a benefit for it. So RNR doesn't owe anyone for the subsidies. The city got what it wanted. It's not a charity deal. It's a business deal.

And when did they say that they didn't need to do that? Show us the source of that quote.

wejo wrote:

and public subsidies in the case of some RNR races

Time to think about these subsidies.

Why are the cities subsidizing them? Because they bring tourist $ to the city? Ok, that may be worth it. What does that have to do with pro runners? Nothing.

Now if the cities were subsidizing these races because they want to help developing country's athletes, that would be another story. But I don't think that is the case.

What happened to the free market?

i don't see why people single out TCG when users of public resources, public venues, and public infrastructure such as NYRR, USATF, IAAF, IOC, USOC & NCAA, have CEOs, executives, and staffs that extract funds for hefty salaries and full benefits. TCG after all, has to work very long hours to organized thousands of unpaid volunteers to work events, just the same as the other federations. Why shouldn't TCG get paid for it. Many of the aforementioned federations don't pay prize money at all yet where's the personal attacks on them?

TCG is different because whatever public resources are given to TCG just increase TCG's profitability and are indirectly paid to TCG's private investors. If a city pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to TCG to put on a race, then that much money goes straight to TCG's bottom line and benefits private investors, not the public. This is just an indirect transfer of tax money to private investors.

Of course most businesses are fine with any kind of corporate socialism, but I don't see why taxpayers should be. At a minimum, in a situation where public money is being given to a for-profit business, there needs to be some sort of analysis showing that taxpayers are getting an offsetting net benefit in return for giving public resources to private businesses.

The same analysis applies to charities, but with well-run charities, whatever money they make beyond costs is presumably used to benefit the public. If NYC wants to indirectly subsidize NYRR's fitness programs in the schools, there's at least a public benefit there (and given what NYC charges for police, etc., there may not really be much of a subsidy).

If it's a badly run charity with excessively compensated management, that needs to be fixed or reformed. However, it's not a justification for donating public resources to a private business like TCG.

I don't know, I think everyone should have a choice to run those races or not if they want to versus telling us we have to avoid them b/c of your belief. Do I agree with RNR and their decision not to give extra support to the elites? No, but I wouldn't boycott them either. Just my honest opinion.

Here's something. Maybe some of you can support this race?

http://www.tampabayrun.com/prize-purse

the same holds true for the federations (IAAF, IOC, NCAA, NYRR, ...) and pro leagues.

the federations we all know and love are "for-Career " organizations that propel salaries, bonuses and career opportunities for executives and employees in sports. their careers lead to jobs at sports equipment manufacturers, media firms, and TV stations.

except for 3 teams (local laws forbid) every nfl, nba, and mlb team is a public welfare entity with free stadium, parking, and tax credits from taxpayers.

pro teams and federations are 100% the opposite of hundreds of yearly track meets, funruns, relays, turkey trots, walks, road races, and marathons where everyone including the race director and executive staff works for free.

so why aren't people ragging on USATF sapping funds to pay for executive accommodations at 5-star hotels at Moscow 2013 for instance?

thousands of fraternal organizations and charities have zero salary executives that pay 100% of their own air fare, bar tab, titty bar (or gay bar) tab, hotel, etc.

if TCG, USATF, BAA, NCAA aren't then that's their American right but to slam one when each federation executive works to enhance their own personal bank accounts is really hypocritical and beyond reason.

it's official:

http://www.bicycleretailer.com/north-america/2013/12/10/shakeup-ousts-execs-competitor-group#.UqqAmPRDu1s