Sacramento: We're a better track town than Eugene - we just don't have the Nike money

yuiop wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. I've been to the Olympic Trials (as a spectator) at both locations and Eugene far surpasses Sacramento in my opinion.

Regarding the attendance figures posted, I won't debate the numbers, but what they don't show is the mass exodus of fans in Sacramento before a distance event when it was the last event of the evening. No one leaves early in Eugene regardless of the schedule.

I wouldn't have stayed for the distance races in 2000 or 2004 either. Now that there is hype behind world and olympic medalists in those events, it should be better.

For the money the overall OT/USA experience is far better in large cities like Des Moines, Palo Alto, and Sacramento with so many things to do, places to see, youth track meets, road races, marathons, etc. The fans at meets in large cities are solidly diverse and possess several encyclopedias full of knowledge of the entire sport of track and field, cross coutry, marathons, and road races -- worldwide and not just for one college town or one rural county. I've learned more from just talking to the people sitting next to me at Penn Relays that from any TF magazine.

"..large cities like Des Moines, Palo Alto, and Sacramento"

Really? I guess Palo Alto is close to SFO, but calling these large cities is a little silly. Unfortunately, T&F meets, OT's or not, would be lost in the true big city markets.

Eugene is "by far" the best place to have the Olympic Trials for several reasons. In the QOD Mansoor says "we don't have the Nike money but...". Well this is a huge BUT. Eugene does have the limitless support of Nike, a company willing to overspend to ensure that the meet experience is extraordinary. I've been to 3 OT's in Eugene and to Sacto for one, and there is just no comparison to the physical theater of Hayward Field. In Sacto, you feel as if you are in a High School football stadium with a track around it (IMO). Eugene is Carnegie Hall complete with the acoustics of the stands embracing the track. It's as close to a religious experience you can have in our sport.

Sure there are downsides to both places in terms of weather, pollen etc. But (IMO), if you were to poll all Olympic Trials Qualifiers as to where they would prefer the Trials, my guess is that in would be an overwhelming vote for Eugene. After all, who doesn't want to get to Carnegie Hall?

Totally agree. And I notice the Eugene numbers went up in the 2nd go while the Sac numbers went down. Eugene added seats since then, but even a touch less than full it feels fuller, making better motivation for the athletes and better show for TV. Des Moines? Empty seats galore. Randall's Island in amazingly populated NYC? Empty seats galore even in the days of Dan vs Dave. A few other factors. I would rather go to the dentist than attend in Sac again. Hot baking sun not fun for us in the stands or the athletes. Eugene has covered stands and that echoes the crowd energy onto the track. I wish other venues worked. There used to be a great track in Stanford's Stadium I thought would be perfect. But pretty much only Eugene draws the number of fans every time to make it seem like there is an audience for a real sport. Others sometimes do. Mostly don't.

I find dis quote hilarious. No one hears the name, Sacramento and thinks track. NO ONE. Even CA people. If they have toughts about Sac it's ...smelly town, blackramento, state capital, UC davis, maybe Sacramento Kings. But the vast majority think nothing at all.

Sac is the typical generic town. Might as well be in ohio.

I have no opinion on Eugene vs Sacramento because I've never been to either city, but I think USA's should be moved to the East Coast.

The schedule prevents anyone on the East Coast from watching the distance races unless they want to stay up past midnight.

I understand having the 10k and 5k start at 9:00 and 9:25 so that it's not too hot but it cuts off more than half of the viewing audience. I have to get up at 6 AM for work so there's no way I'm staying up until 12:30 on Thursday to watch the 10k. The meet should be moved to Icahn Stadium or UPenn. Both facilities have proven they can host major track and field events.

If USATF wants the sport to grow they have to think about things like this for commercial viability. When other major sports have competitions on the West Coast they adjust the starting time so that the audience on the East Coast can still watch (I.E. every Stanley Cup game started at 7PM Eastern Time regardless of whether it was played in New York or LA)

jason williams 55 wrote:

Eugene has some great history and major Nike cash flows, but overall Sacramento is the better venue.

* better weather (hot/dry by day, cool by night)

* bigger crowds (facts don't lie)

* better airport with more direct flights (by far)

* better hotels (by far)

* more to do in both local area and within driving distance (by far)

* better overall city (sacramento is reasonably hip...arguably the "portland of calfornia", eugene is a lousy meth town)

* better local running community via sheer population advantage alone

* no summer allergy issues in sacramento

* sac state has better track (brand new 1.3 mil dollar mondo)

Only thing Eugene wins is history. Sacramento wins everything else. Sacramento has a proven track record and the Trials should return there ASAP.

You're obviously too biased.

Weather - a matter of opinion, but I'd take Eugene's weather any day over Sacramento. Between '08 and '12, with the exception of the rain for ~3-4 days, the Eugene weather was great for T&F. Heck, in '08 when it did get Sacramento-like heat, everyone including the athletes complained.

Crowds - similar numbers, but Eugene fans don't walk out on events; advantage Eugene by a large margin.

Airport - advantage Sac town, but I don't see the big deal of flying into Portland and driving 2 hours.

Hotels - advantage Sac town, but the secret to Eugene if you're staying more than a couple of days is to rent a home. Far better than a hotel in either location. We've found places within 5-8 minute walk of Hayward. It also takes care of any parking issues. For us, Eugene > Sac for accommodations.

Local area - you're too biased; Oregon coast is unbeatable, rafting, vineyards as well, mountains to the east of Eugene.

Better overall city - depends on what you want to do in your down time.

Better running community - who cares; would you rather run in Eugene or Sacramento? Advantage Eugene - more trail options, better running weather.

Allergy issues - advantage Sac, but I have bad allergies and didn't any issues in '08 or '12.

Better track - Hayward Field. Not even close.

Beer selection - Eugene, hands down.

As others have said, Eugene becomes the Trials for 10 days. Everywhere you go you seem to meet up with an old friend or acquaintance. Unless you went to the Hoppy(?) place in Sac town, you'd rarely run into anyone. Depends on your preference, of course, but we had much more fun away from the track in Eugene than we ever did in Sac town.

The rotating venue idea seems the best. Don't like this Nike-Eugene thing for the next 27 years or whatever. Does Seattle have any potential. And how about Boston or Philly? Both places have some fan base.

Des Moines was dead, you get more fans at a high school quadrangular meet. NYC too.

They've had championships in the South but that's too hot/humid for distance runners.

I live in California and grew up in Sacramento, so I'm not a big fan of the permanent east coast idea. In fact I've long hated the east coast bias of national news media, though I recognize its driven by population numbers.

I do think that the USATF should drop this smaller city focus though. L.A., S.F. PHiladelphia, N.Y. Boston, Chicago--these are where these big national meets should be held. Eugene, Sacramento, Des Moines--you just aren't going get the media coverage.

I grew up in Sacramento, love it as an easy to live in, medium sized city. But in order to be a great track town, you need to have media that are willing to cover the sport. The local t.v. stations in Sacramento are a joke, and only cover bay area football, baseball and basketball. The Sacramento Bee is an okay paper overall, but for a paper its size, it has without a doubt the worst sports section in the country, and it gives maybe one article to track a year. The rest of the sports section throughout the year is devoted to the Sacramento Kings (which have rewarded this obsession by continually losing, while attempting to bleed the city's taxpayers dry) with maybe a few articles on the 49ers and Raiders. At least the Eugene/Portland area gives track a lot of media attention.

It would be even better, though, if papers like the New York Times gave huge coverage to a national USATF meet the way they do the N.Y. Marathon. That's where the east coast media bias would pay off.

"Sacramento is right up there with Austin and Portland"

-are you insane?!?!?! that place is a pit!

been there before wrote:

"Sacramento is right up there with Austin and Portland"

-are you insane?!?!?! that place is a pit!

Don't take my word for it. Read the city-data forums. Or just come visit. Sacramento is a nice city that has improved it's "portfolio" dramatically in the last 5-10 years.

Weather - IMO Sac is better. We'll agree to disagree.

Crowds - Again, facts don't lie. Sacramento had better crowds. You can try to disparage the Sacramento track fans all you want. There are lots of good fans that are plenty knowledgeable.

Airport/Hotels/Infrastructure - Sac by a mile. I can't believe you are trying to argue otherwise, to be honest.

Local Area - Actually, Oregon Coast and other Eugene surroundings *is* beatable. You know what beats it...California Coast, SF, Tahoe, Napa, Yosemite...all day trips from Sac.

Better overall city - Sac. Name one thing in Eugene that Sac doesn't have! Sac has *way* more to do. It's a big city with metro population 2.5million.

Better running city - Sac. More trails than Eugene, actually.

Better track - Sac State has the better surface. Hayward has nicer seating for fans. Push.

Beer selection - NorCal beer scene (50 breweries in Sac area alone) is not to be scoffed at. I'm going to give the nod to Sac.

I agree, I am a California native and the Eugene trials were way better. Also if you look at those attendance numbers it was way more people for Eugene to pull those numbers if you look at the population within a 2 hr drive.

Also Sacramento is hot, Eugene has better distance weather in the summer months. I owuld think both Davis and Stanford would be better track atmospheres than Sacremento.

oldtrackpontificator wrote:

"..large cities like Des Moines, Palo Alto, and Sacramento"

Really? I guess Palo Alto is close to SFO, but calling these large cities is a little silly. Unfortunately, T&F meets, OT's or not, would be lost in the true big city markets.

Sacramento is a pretty big city and Palo Alto is in the middle of one of the biggest metros in the country. These aren't podunk towns.

Sac media market:

Bigger than St. Louis, Portland, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Indy, Baltimore, San Diego, Nashville, KC, Vegas...among others.

Boston would be the best option by far if it had a suitable track stadium. What ever happend to the idea of New Balance building one?

I liked the trials when it was at Sac ten years ago. Sac is a real city with stuff and you can stay busy before and after the meet. There were a dozen road races and high school meets before and after. Sac has a great airport and plenty of hotels for picky wives. The fan base is better and the fans in the stands were from all over the world and Bay Area. For USA Outdoors I liked Des Moines last year too because of the variety, large city, and convenience. I hope to see Mt Sac and Stanford back on the rotation soon. From coaches information I understand with Power Five track and field the top 5 (former NCAA) conferences will fund and produce championships themselves, elmiminating the much criticized bid process.

the fact that you have to rope in the SF bay area to make Sac remotely interesting says it all about how "great" Sac it. (FYI- it's about the same drive time to Portland from Eugene although with less traffic).

I love Sacramento. There so much to do and see. You can also get out and drive up to Reno, to Yosemite, fish on hundreds of miles of fresh water rivers, etc.

You-Gene wrote:

the fact that you have to rope in the SF bay area to make Sac remotely interesting says it all about how "great" Sac it. (FYI- it's about the same drive time to Portland from Eugene although with less traffic).

Sacramento, a cool city, is plenty interesting in it's own right. Proximity to the Bay Area, Tahoe, Napa, etc. is just a big bonus.