Doping is the primary reason. Nobody takes the sport seriously anymore for this reason. The performances arent believable. Even hard core track fans cant take someone like Gatlin seriously. High profile dopers like marion Jones whom everyone trusted and liked did a huge number on the sport. I remember Chris Berman on ESPN sports centre remarking Track and field ? Now theres a dirty sport That sums up the publics perception.
Joplas wrote:
Doping is the primary reason. Nobody takes the sport seriously anymore for this reason. The performances arent believable. Even hard core track fans cant take someone like Gatlin seriously. High profile dopers like marion Jones whom everyone trusted and liked did a huge number on the sport. I remember Chris Berman on ESPN sports centre remarking Track and field ? Now theres a dirty sport That sums up the publics perception.
How do you explain this?
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/50797969/ns/sports-cycling/What is there to explain ? Cycling is not that popular either. The fact that Lance Armstrong was once popular does not mean cycling is popular.
Well I Dunno wrote:
I agree that track is boring compared to basketball, football, maybe a few others.
Track & field is boring to watch because there is exactly one observable event in most races- the finish. There may be a few "moves" during the race (or maybe not), but you really have to be watching with a stopwatch to know whether the leader is surging or the 2nd place guy is dropping back. So, to a casual viewer, a guy in a blazer shoots a gun, and a little while later a string of guys crosses the line.
In contrast, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, and probably even poker offer a series of individual events that contribute to the eventual outcome. Since the viewer can experience some kind of emotion at the outcome of each of those events, the whole thing seems more exciting.
Look at football. It's hugely popular to watch, even though the players aren't actually playing the game for the vast majority of the telecast. But with each snap, you never know what will happen- could be a fumble, could be a touchdown. Lots of little moments of drama that keep the viewer's interest.
In order to appreciate watching a race, you need to know enough about the event and the racers to have an idea of the strategies in play, and even then they're visually subtle. It's just not for everyone. And of course, a great announcer can make up for a lot of this by actually calling the race with a little bit of passion and expertise, helping the viewers understand what's happening.
Like any kind of popularity it all starts with smiling more. Track should smile more!
Explain this to me:
Individual Sports Popularity in America by TV ratings
1. NASCAR
2. Golf
3. Tennis
4. Horse Racing
5. Marathon Running
6. Track and Field
These are all individual sports, so we should be comparing Apples and Apples here. So why is track and field the worst of this group?
To me the blame has to fall on the USATF governing body. They have not done a good job of getting money and interest in the sport. They have failed to make the connection between extremely high participation numbers (T&F is number one participation sport in high school in the US) and popularity viewing the sport.
My take:
1) Quality over Quantity - In a track meet with 20 events highlight four of them per meet.
2 men competitions
2 women competitions
Pick the 4 most interesting competitions of the meet, based on big names entered (especially American names entered - no one except track geeks want to watch 15 kenyans run a 10k)
If possible try to focus on
1 jump event
1 throw event
1 sprint event
1 distance event
(or a broadcast an entire decathlon instead)
Then do a 5 minutes summary of other action and allow viewers to watch the entirety of the meet online at their leisure.
The key as I said is quality over quantity. So for each event 10 minutes should be spent before the event, talking about the contenders. Introducing the favorites. This is what gets people rooting for an athlete.
TRACK AND FIELD NEEDS A FACE or FACES.
Fans need to have vested interest in who wins a race or a jumping competition.
The introduction should also include an announcement of the athletes being introduced (as with the Millrose games- which is by far the best run meet in America)
Following the 10 minute introduction the athletes compete. During this time the commentators should keep their comments to a minimum. In general I think the commentators on TV today are intelligent and know their stuff, but they never stop talking and let the audience enjoy the event for what it is. When I'm watching I like to hear the roar of the crowd.
Finally, each highlighted competition should receive 5 minutes of wrap-up with replay, commentary, and interviews.
ONCE AGAIN IT IS ABOUT THE PEOPLE RATHER THAN THE COMPETITION ITSELF.
People in America are more interested in Lebron James than they are the Miami Heat and Tiger Woods more than golf. The personalities of the meet are critical to track and field's success.
If these changes are made the fan base WILL grow. People will start showing up to the pro track meets.
IF YOU HIGHLIGHT THE ATHLETES, THEY WILL COME
The Rocket. wrote:
IF YOU HIGHLIGHT THE ATHLETES, THEY WILL COME
Look, man, you can "highlight" interchangeable East African marathoners and steeple-chasers all you want, but Americans will never give a sh*t.
They wouldn't care about golf if Americans weren't typically among the top players (on the men's side, at least), and if the sport were instead completely dominated by Europeans and/or Asians. They've come to care less and less about tennis (at least, on the men's side) as there are increasingly fewer top U.S. players.
Americans may generally make a point of tuning in to watch the Kentucky Derby once a year, but do they do so for the Epsom Derby?
If you can't understand this basic reality, I can't help you. It doesn't matter how you stick the wings on this pig you're trying to fashion. It's never going to fly.
Personally I think the Diamond league is good for the sport, but could use more locations. There should be a meet in california, texas, or florida in my opinion.
Joplas wrote:
What is there to explain ? Cycling is not that popular either. The fact that Lance Armstrong was once popular does not mean cycling is popular.
How do you explain that TdF TV ratings jumped up by 29% last year, excluding internet users?
Crashes! The Tour is popular and NASCAR is popular because of the spectacular crashes. If we could add alligators to track or something then it would be way more popular! The public wants blood!
Well NASCAR has 36 events a year, PGA has 40. There isn't room for that many events, making fewer would probably be easier. I agree USATF has a lot to do with it, but I'm glad they are doing USATF 36, I think the first one is covering Richards-Ross on NBC Sports in a couple of weeks. The US needs a Mary Cain type phenom, and probably in the sprints. I think the Diamond League or Golden League or whatever the hell they call it now has been a failure.
Joplas wrote:
What is there to explain ? Cycling is not that popular either. The fact that Lance Armstrong was once popular does not mean cycling is popular.
Are you trolling? Two posters have already mentioned that the popularity of cycling on TV is shooting up (pun intended).
29% increase in TdF viewers 2012 Versus 2011 (pun intended).
Estr wrote:
Everyone says track isn't popular because its dominated by blacks. Well that sure killed the NBA didn't it?
Once 90% of the NBA's rosters are filled with Kenyans & Ethiopians I am here to tell you that infomercials would have higher ratings, bub.
not the greatest spectator sport, because the people in the stands are at a distance and it's hard to see much going on during races except at a few key moments. On television, you don't get the same sense of speed and replays help but still not too much apparent, obvious drama.
Camazotz wrote:
The Rocket. wrote:IF YOU HIGHLIGHT THE ATHLETES, THEY WILL COME
Look, man, you can "highlight" interchangeable East African marathoners and steeple-chasers all you want, but Americans will never give a sh*t.
They wouldn't care about golf if Americans weren't typically among the top players (on the men's side, at least), and if the sport were instead completely dominated by Europeans and/or Asians. They've come to care less and less about tennis (at least, on the men's side) as there are increasingly fewer top U.S. players.
Americans may generally make a point of tuning in to watch the Kentucky Derby once a year, but do they do so for the Epsom Derby?
If you can't understand this basic reality, I can't help you. It doesn't matter how you stick the wings on this pig you're trying to fashion. It's never going to fly.
If you read my novel of a post you would see that I totally agree with your statement. I was saying highlight meets with Americans (see above). Obviously the focus of the event is on the Americans. Once in a while we can focus on non-Americans such as Bekele, Bolt, Chicherova, Defar, and other big names in the sport worldwide.
The Rocket. wrote:
[quote]Camazotz wrote:
[quote]The Rocket. wrote:
If you read my novel of a post you would see that I totally agree with your statement. I was saying highlight meets with Americans (see above). Obviously the focus of the event is on the Americans. Once in a while we can focus on non-Americans such as Bekele, Bolt, Chicherova, Defar, and other big names in the sport worldwide.
I stand corrected as to that point, then. I see now that your plan is to make track popular in America would be to offer the fans a generally inferior product, along the lines of co-ed softball leagues, etc.
I think the Decathlon/Hep has the best chance of becoming popular in the mainstream because it's long enough and there is a clear winner. It could be like golf and tennis where individuals make the sport popular
The Rocket. wrote:
They wouldn't care about golf if Americans weren't typically among the top players (on the men's side, at least), and if the sport were instead completely dominated by Europeans and/or Asians.
I think that's true. Americans are so used to winning that they lose interest otherwise. It's not their fault. Other countries tend to be appreciate international stars, partly because they don't have that many stars themselves.
Look at Wimbledon for example. They could sell tickets 5 or 6 times over even though a Brit hasn't won the Men's title in 78 years. The only British Woman to win in the last 50 years had a distinct South African accent.
Look at the Diamond League attendances in Norway, Switzerland, Belgium and Italy, despite their lack of world class athletes.
Buffalo ORange wrote:
Well I Dunno wrote:I agree that track is boring compared to basketball, football, maybe a few others.
Track & field is boring to watch because there is exactly one observable event in most races- the finish. There may be a few "moves" during the race (or maybe not), but you really have to be watching with a stopwatch to know whether the leader is surging or the 2nd place guy is dropping back. So, to a casual viewer, a guy in a blazer shoots a gun, and a little while later a string of guys crosses the line.
In contrast, basketball, football, baseball, hockey, golf, tennis, and probably even poker offer a series of individual events that contribute to the eventual outcome. Since the viewer can experience some kind of emotion at the outcome of each of those events, the whole thing seems more exciting.
Look at football. It's hugely popular to watch, even though the players aren't actually playing the game for the vast majority of the telecast. But with each snap, you never know what will happen- could be a fumble, could be a touchdown. Lots of little moments of drama that keep the viewer's interest.
In order to appreciate watching a race, you need to know enough about the event and the racers to have an idea of the strategies in play, and even then they're visually subtle. It's just not for everyone. And of course, a great announcer can make up for a lot of this by actually calling the race with a little bit of passion and expertise, helping the viewers understand what's happening.
Exactly. No drama unless its the Olympics. Track could be more popular if with the public if they manufactured it and captured interest with personal rivalries.
Other than the Olympics the most popular ratings track ever got in the last 30 years was Donovan Bailey racing Michael Johnson in a 150. Which proves that there is potential for non track fanatics to be interested.
I would imagine for most people flipping through channels looking for sports they might watch a track meet for about 5 minutes, especially if the 100 is about to start or the women;s pole vault is going on.
It's a sport in which Americans have a past remembrance of glory, the (unfulfilled) promise of future glory, but insufficient glory in the present. Americans think of their country as being a winner, and have a hard time adjusting to enjoying valiant efforts that fall short. Hence the limited popular appeal of US track and field, with a niche following of enthusiasts. Notice the way the Olympics are portrayed on American network television: events that don't have strong American medal contenders get zero coverage. Internationally popular events like Diamond League and the World Championships are virtually ignored by American newspapers - largely because of a small number of American champions (although Americans are probably still somewhat over-represented among the track and field elite, the media expects American dominance). Even LetsRun shares this weakness: nothing lights up the boards like the promise of a world beating performance by an American athlete, nothing attracts scorn like an American's failure to live up to our expectations. We see dominant figures from Kenya, Ethiopia and Jamaica: this runs counter to our world view. To describe this as racist (it might have a racial component) may miss the point. As a nation we want our illusion of supremacy confirmed by the performance of our sports heroes. It's exhilarating if it's Bob Hayes or Jim Ryun, distressing if it's Usain Bolt or Kip Keino.