Club Nats - Omaha is Hotter the Hell

clubdrats wrote:

[quote]Waren Bufet wrote:

USATF puts up $0 for this meet it is all done by the Local Organizing Committee.

It is commical how little you know about the business structure of this event yet your post makes you sound like you do. USATF pays the bill for the majority of this event in an effort to help out the club system.

Time of Year for us. Location next. Finally, expense last.

Bottom line is the current system is broken. I don't know about the specifics of the meet other than the participation was seriously lacking in quantity and quality. This was run on a high school track with high school caliber times.

The timing of the meet is poor. While it gives the relatively weaker athletes a chance to compete nationally, they should try having the meet prior to the Olympic Team Trials or USA Outdoor Championships as it will likely attract a large number of quality athletes chasing marks, plus the weather will likely be better. Funding may also a factor, cities have to bid to help fund and host the meet (I think) so if you don't like Omaha then please step up and bid to host the meet next year.

Get the facts straight wrote:

clubdrats wrote:

[quote]Waren Bufet wrote:

USATF puts up $0 for this meet it is all done by the Local Organizing Committee.

It is commical how little you know about the business structure of this event yet your post makes you sound like you do. USATF pays the bill for the majority of this event in an effort to help out the club system.

It is comical how you think you know what your talking about. They do not put up any money trust me. I am/was part of the Local Organizing Committee and there was zero help from the USATF. They do not give a $hit about this meet.

They (USATF)do not give a $hit about this meet.

Yes, and it was very evident. I think of the USATF like one of the cabinet depts of the US Government. They have no competition. It's getting like the days of when Pre railed against the AAU. Now, USATF has wields all the power.

I was there as well. Friday's attendance (not including club team members): 15 people. Saturday's attendance: 20. There was no cost to watch the meet. Yikes. There were four club teams that actually had representation in most events. The top four teams took prize money home ($2,000 for first, $1,500 for second, $1,000 for third, $500 for fourth).

Understanding that the $10,000 is a drop in the bucket for USATF, couldn't that money go somewhere else?

Somehow Omaha accomadated 40,000 visitors in the overlap between the college world series and the US swim trials a few weeks ago. They all seemed happy with the ability to get flights, hotel rooms, and have a good time. Leave it to runners to continually bitch. It has been hot - but the east coast hasn't exactly been dealing with spring like temps either. Has club nationals for track ever been a draw?

You guys do not understand how this meet works. The USATF does not put up any money for the event! It is fundraised by the LOC, in this case Will Lindgren, who is very good at talking a big game and not delivering. There were no other bids in 2012 to host the meet, no one wants to host this event except NYC because they can actually make some money. If anything the meet should be in NYC every year. It is incredibly hard to find a group that wants to put the meet on because it takes so much time and the is no benefit to anyone except for the teams that can afford to send a bunch of sprinters and jumpers. CPTC had to have spent well over the prize purse just in airfare.

Kind of rambling but the fact of the matter is, this event does not cost the USATF money. Someone goes out and raises it. NYC does a very good job with this, everyone else doesn't.

d--

+1

BTW, I'm in 102F air temp, w/108 heat index, and it is GREAT for sprint training. So loose, so relaxed, I was even doing 400 repeats the other day in under 60 seconds, then moved to 200 repeats. So easy! It is now down to around 85, I guess it will have to do.

Excremento, Mt. Sac, San Diego, all excellent suggestions. Hold the distance stuff later in the evening and the sprints/jumps/throws in the afternoon when it is warmer.

For the majority of athletes, infinitely better than either Eugene OR Omaha.

USATF clubs - interesting comment that no one wants to host the meet because it takes so much time. I agree that the meet doesn't really benefit anyone. I just don't know how much time it really takes. Find a few officials. Get an electronic timing person. Find a starter. It's a two-day event with 30-50 minute breaks in between events. If USATF doesn't care if a crowd shows up there is no pressure to get people in the stands, so no time wasted marketing the event.

Was there as well wrote:

USATF clubs - interesting comment that no one wants to host the meet because it takes so much time. I agree that the meet doesn't really benefit anyone. I just don't know how much time it really takes. Find a few officials. Get an electronic timing person. Find a starter. It's a two-day event with 30-50 minute breaks in between events. If USATF doesn't care if a crowd shows up there is no pressure to get people in the stands, so no time wasted marketing the event.

The time comes in when you have to raise $10000 for the prize purse. Not an easy task in most cities I would imagine.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

d--

+1

BTW, I'm in 102F air temp, w/108 heat index, and it is GREAT for sprint training. So loose, so relaxed, I was even doing 400 repeats the other day in under 60 seconds, then moved to 200 repeats. So easy! It is now down to around 85, I guess it will have to do.

Excremento, Mt. Sac, San Diego, all excellent suggestions. Hold the distance stuff later in the evening and the sprints/jumps/throws in the afternoon when it is warmer.

For the majority of athletes, infinitely better than either Eugene OR Omaha.

I know it's not exactly a happening place, but Sacramento put on a pretty good world masters meet last year. I was pleased....wouldn't diss it by calling it Excremento. At least there were decent (not 5 star) restaurants and accomodations. I think Hayward Field is awesome but Eugene is an armpit.

Sprintgeezer is too much like so many other ignorant posters on LR. First off, you fools should be thanking Omaha for taking on the Club meet. No one else put in a bid, so don't go talking about putting the meet somewhere else unless you are willing to put up some $$$ and make your own bid. Secondly, these suggestions about putting on meets in California are just simply moronic. Sacramento's organization of the World Masters Meet was a travesty, with 3,000 fewer athletes attending than normal for WMA meets. The Organizer, (all but defunct)Sacramento Sports Commission, went a half million in debt with that meet alone. Mt. Sac?., San Diego? c'mon let's get real, even if they had paying fans or adequate facilities, they wouldn't bid because it's all about in-fighting and grabbing the money when California organizers are involved. I've been to most of the potential sites around the country and have concluded that only Drake and Hayward Field deserve major meets (Home Depot, Icahn, etc. have proven to be disaster sites). COst of transportation?? Wake up crybabies, it costs a bundle to fly anywhere these days. Sure it's expensive to fly from the East Coast to Eugene. But no more so than to fly from Eugene to the East Coast. It works both ways, folks. BTW, final reports showed that Eugene's hotels were only at 90% during the Trials, and the University had hundreds of student housing rooms that could have been made available, if shortages of accomodations had become a reality. In the end, these bitches about room availability were a non-issue.

why should we be thanking omaha for putting on an embarrassment of a meet that should be eliminated altogether? just because omaha was stupid enough to bid on it and waste a lot of money on a meet that nobody cares doesn't mean that anyone needs to thank it.

buffet rules not wrote:

why should we be thanking omaha for putting on an embarrassment of a meet that should be eliminated altogether? just because omaha was stupid enough to bid on it and waste a lot of money on a meet that nobody cares doesn't mean that anyone needs to thank it.

I think you are failing to realize how the USATF makes a good chunk of change. Membership fees. Club track and cross are the only times most of these athletes can feel special, like they actually "national champions". It is the same with juniors and masters, most of the USATF member who pay dues belong to some sort of club these clubs support a large majority of the membership base. I am not saying without clubs the USATF would die but they sure help support the few athletes that actually matter.

Now if the meet goes away, do the clubs actually care? Some would, but does it matter to the USATF?

I think that USATF and/or the club council should rethink the inclusion of Midwest in the rotation after the dramatic drop in participation from last year to this year as well as the 100+ temps. Perhaps it should be east-west at this point. Additionally, maybe the weekend before July 4th as opposed to the weekend after might be a better time.

This meet has the capacity to be so much better than it is. Exhibit A: Club Cross Country Nationals is a robust event.

My suggestions, some of which are possibly off the mark--

1. Move this meet back to mid- or late-May as suggested to avoid the poor weather and increase participation among the better runners a) chasing qualifiers, b) still in top late-season form.

Reasoning: In my experience everyone is scrambling for a good meet in the May 1st-June 15th window. Non-professionals would not want to run a track meet in July unless they are in Europe chasing times which are generally out of range of runners from these club teams.

2. Make sure the venue has a viable record for prior meet hosting and participation, and there is a reasonable chance of someone spectating. Consider college venues with decent track programs or venues with a history of putting on solid meets.

Reasoning: Generating interest and developing the sport.

3. Eliminate the Midwest location, or host club nationals at somewhat viable sites such as Drake, Columbus, Austin or perhaps runner-friendly Madison / Ann Arbor.

East Coast: Stick to NYC-Philly-Boston-maybe DC

West Coast: LA, Bay Area, Portland-Eugene, Seattle

Reasoning: All of those expressed above.

4. Make meets more entertaining for the average fan and competitor. Improve the crispness of timing between events. Have Flotrack cover it. Have a band there or something lively. Host a social event associated with the awards ceremony as they do with club cross country. Bend, Oregon is going to have a beer garden in 2013 for its Club Nationals.

5. And if necessary, hold club nationals in conjunction with a bigger meet. Consider that possibility as well.

6. As it stands there is very little inducement to take on hosting this meet. Hosting a meet like this needs to offer some form of incentive, and I do not have the answer for this dilemma. Will Lindgren is out ten grand, put on a lousy meet and is getting ripped on here.

Yeah, sounds like a hoot, let's all sign me up for that.

All good except thinking about a fan base. Nobody's going to show up no matter where it is.