I've watched the Bank of America Chicago Marathon and the ING New York City Marathon for years, raced each once.
Despite seeing the Bank of America and ING logos everywhere, I do not have accounts with either.
I've watched the Bank of America Chicago Marathon and the ING New York City Marathon for years, raced each once.
Despite seeing the Bank of America and ING logos everywhere, I do not have accounts with either.
you're lying wrote:
Do it wrote:[/]2. I care more about the runner who busted his @ss like I am mine to get where he is than a guy riding on comfy accommodations like Rupp or other training group.
Then why are you spending your time on a website that devotes 90% of it's coverage to elite runners? Why not just jack off to Joe Back-of-the-Pack''s blog and get on with your day?
What about the posts "is a pickle a vegetable, tiny women who take big poo's" this is 90% of this site.
NO MORE FREE RANDY wrote:
Tom Brady should be making my sandwiches at Subway in the offseason, lazy a**hole.
another troll wrote:yep, troll. Using that logic, we would have no NFL, MLB, NBA, etc.
Big difference. The big 4 sports are sports that people are willing to pay big money to watch, whether in ticket sales or tv rights. T&F doesn't have that luxury.
HRE, you seem to have a better perspective on the running universe than most. I agree with you that Chicago, NYCM, Berlin, etc. are bigtime and that the attention they draw is driven by their elite fields. But RNR races have never been that. My impression of them has always been races that paid a few big names as draws, but never filled out a good enough elite field to make for consistently compelling, high level races. I just don't their model worked. They couldn't draw enough attention to any one of their races because they were spread so thin. Put all their marketing and financial muscle into one race, and they'd put on a bigtime race.
I don't think this is a terribly sad development for the distance scene in the U.S., because I don't think that the majority of RNR races were particularly compelling affairs. Like I said, I think they had a bad model. And, it's possible that to the extent that there is now a vacuum on the running scene, local groups and local sponsors may fill the void. I just think you're better off building races with local support...
My last two posts were really about the role of elite runners at road races generally and not specifically about the RNR races. In my first post I said it's really Competitor's business whether to pay appearance money or not. I don't have a problem with that decision specifically. The RNR races will probably do just fine in terms of entry numbers and the decision could be a real blessing for fast local guys because there will be fewer out of area fast guys to beat.
TROOOOOOOLLLLLOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL.
Do it wrote:
I bust my @ss working a full time job, raising a family, and running in whatever free time available. I think even elite runners should have to find their own jobs and do the same. This is how it was back in the 50s,60s. Now elite athletes feel entitled to get appearance fees and the like.
Honestly:
1. A lot of this money is being siphoned off to East Africans.
2. I care more about the runner who busted his @ss like I am mine to get where he is than a guy riding on comfy accommodations like Rupp or other training group.
oldenuff wrote:
HRE, you seem to have a better perspective on the running universe than most. I agree with you that Chicago, NYCM, Berlin, etc. are bigtime and that the attention they draw is driven by their elite fields. But RNR races have never been that. My impression of them has always been races that paid a few big names as draws, but never filled out a good enough elite field to make for consistently compelling, high level races. I just don't their model worked. They couldn't draw enough attention to any one of their races because they were spread so thin. Put all their marketing and financial muscle into one race, and they'd put on a bigtime race.
I don't think this is a terribly sad development for the distance scene in the U.S., because I don't think that the majority of RNR races were particularly compelling affairs. Like I said, I think they had a bad model. And, it's possible that to the extent that there is now a vacuum on the running scene, local groups and local sponsors may fill the void. I just think you're better off building races with local support...
What I think you guys are missing is that Competitor Group has a GREAT model. Instead of just one big race they have races in just about every major city...races with top dollar entry fees, huge participation numbers, and cheap expenses.
Competitor Group is not in the business of "promoting our sport" of whatever Letsrun nerds always prattle on about. They are in the business of making money, and they just happen to use marathons and half marathons as a means to that end.
Face it, if you want to make money in this sport, don't run a 2:10 marathon. Start a marathon that encourages people to post their photos on Facebook, has bands every half mile, and gives out a fancy medal at the end. You'll be rolling in the dough by the end of the week.
HRE, Japan has corporations to fund athletes.... PGA golf uses corporate dollars to fund HUGE purses for their golfers. This is about track & field being entertainment!
That was my first answer when I was being interviewed for CEO of this sport and the USATF should realize that and act accordingly. How people struggled in the past should not be indicative of our athletes now. Jesse Owens should have been on a Wheaties box (non-existant then but you get my point). Out sport is run like a Democrat hand out and they act like the athletes should be happy for being screwed around. Real leaderership at the top would have dropped Competitor Group's elite status and recognized it for what it is, a slick way for groups to join and support a cause. Any cause but the betterment of our sport.
Competitor is as bad for running as ESPN has been for sports in general. Eventually those marathons that they bought will cease to be useful for them and they will leave them for dead while screwing over the investors as they siphon all the money of the top while going bankrupt. It may take a few years but it will happen.
HRE wrote:
My last two posts were really about the role of elite runners at road races generally and not specifically about the RNR races. In my first post I said it's really Competitor's business whether to pay appearance money or not. I don't have a problem with that decision specifically. The RNR races will probably do just fine in terms of entry numbers and the decision could be a real blessing for fast local guys because there will be fewer out of area fast guys to beat.
How many "fast local guys" do you know that enter extremely large and expensive marathons that don't have qualifying times and don't offer them any sort of preferential treatment (starting in front, comped entries, etc)?
I wish we could stop saying the sport will suffer. Track is one of the most participated sports in HS. Participation in road and trail races are an all time high. The sport won't suffer. People still care about their performances. What people don't necessarily care about is someone's performance who they don't know. Most runners I know prefer to run/race rather than watch/admire someone else do the same.
We compare ourselves to NFL,NBA,... But most fans never think of actually being participating. It's more of a social and cultural thing. A sports team you identify with. Running is different.
And to add. Ron Clarke had a full time gig yet broke world records. It is possible. The notion that we'll never win medals is wrong. East African interest will drop. Runners will be less inclined to talk drugs. Our golden era was during an time when money was scarce.
Track is one of the most participated sports in HS.
And the options for post-collegiate runners are extremely scarce unless they are lucky enough to live in a big city with a very competitive club. Do you really think competitive running is in a good spot right now in the US?
Participation in road and trail races are an all time high.
For non-competitive runners. Most of them probably don't even think of it as a sport. It's really not fair to count them when we're talking about running as a sport. It's really nice that so many people in the US want to run, but don't artificially inflate our numbers. Post-collegiate competitive runners in the US are few and far between.
I agree. I too would drop Competitor's status, though I'm not sure what that would mean for them. I hate the direction that the sport is going in the US. We're losing the whole competitive part and replacing it with mass participation, a good thing to an extent but when you can read newspaper stories about a major race and most of the coverage is about charity runners I think there's a problem.
But I don't blame Competitor or Jeff Galloway for cashing in on hobby joggers. They're just doing what businesses do; identifying a market and capitalizing on it. Developing athletes is not their job. Nor is it really even Hanson's job, or Greg MacMillan's job and so on though it's great that they and their kind are taking that job on. USATF should be doing that. I've thought for years that if the masses get interested in something other than running corporate money will start to dry up.
Maybe I'd have been better saying that I've never trusted the relationship between corporations and road racing. It's done differently in Japan than here and has worked well. But here corporations have molded the sport to maximize their profits rather than to maximize athletic performances and even small local races have followed suit. When one of them decides to move on it's inevitable.
Kudos to you, Business Sense!!! Yes! Yes! Yes! Money first. Money is all that matters. Private equity rules, bitches! If it makes money it must be good. More money = more good! Yay! Fugg any consequences to the business or wider endeavor, MONEY was made!!!!Exciting changes coming to the NFL: all players to be equiped with their choice of mace or sword. Pack the seats and boost the ratings bitches!!!! Big money!!
business sense wrote:
What I think you guys are missing is that Competitor Group has a GREAT model. Instead of just one big race they have races in just about every major city...races with top dollar entry fees, huge participation numbers, and cheap expenses.
Competitor Group is not in the business of "promoting our sport" of whatever Letsrun nerds always prattle on about. They are in the business of making money, and they just happen to use marathons and half marathons as a means to that end.
Face it, if you want to make money in this sport, don't run a 2:10 marathon. Start a marathon that encourages people to post their photos on Facebook, has bands every half mile, and gives out a fancy medal at the end. You'll be rolling in the dough by the end of the week.
dkjkjsjioe wrote:
Kudos to you, Business Sense!!! Yes! Yes! Yes! Money first. Money is all that matters. Private equity rules, bitches! If it makes money it must be good. More money = more good! Yay! Fugg any consequences to the business or wider endeavor, MONEY was made!!!!
Exciting changes coming to the NFL: all players to be equiped with their choice of mace or sword. Pack the seats and boost the ratings bitches!!!! Big money!!
For businesses, yes, money is what matters. Do you think Competitor Group (and the Chicago Marathon, and the NYC Marathon, etc.) are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts?
business sense wrote:
Do you think the NYC Marathon are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts?
hey there
The threads are followed in earnest of what maybe 100 people or so tops.
Race day interest add's more eyes , lets say maybe 500 people.
I hear you , i wish it wasn't so but reality of the sport has changed elite fields lend little to what road running has evolved to.
Berlin , London , Boston and Chicago will have elite fields and high level racing, thats all good but the importance and relevance of elites is in a slow fade.
Yes, Competitor Group is in this to make money. The new owner is trying to squeeze profits. Their business model has been to make an "experience" for the masses that they'll pay top dollar to get. They had a minimal focus on elite competition already. Does Competitor even get their courses certified?
Lots of people run for the experience, probably a large majority. Does Competitor care if the 250 people who are really running for a time decide not to run? Their thinking is probably not because 250 others who just want to finish will fill their spots. They might be right in the short term.
However, Chicago, NYC, Boston, all have people breaking down the door to run there. Why? Because they are storied events. Chicago has world records. Good runners will go there to run a fast time in the 1000s. You have to qualify for NYC and Boston. They have built a mistique that endures. If they dropped the elite programs, the mistique would fade and so would the masses desire to participate.
The same will eventually be true for Competitor. People will stop seeing it as a competitive event, plus they will have already had the "experience" and move on to something else. Their numbers will get harder to grow or even sustain. This is really true with or without elite programs because entertainment is a fickle business. So just wait. Competitor will start shedding races and eventually fade into the sunset. 20 years from now people will still be talking about Boston and no one will be talking about RnR Insert City Here.
I concur. Enough of the money going to the Africans. I never remember names and they all seem to change at every race anyway. Put the money to the participants and make it even better. It is the participants that make the races, not the big shots they bring in, who most people could care less about.