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

So where are their proposals to HOST Track & Field???????

Would love it, but it hasn't happened outside Des Moines, Sac & Eugene. Not saying folks couldn't but they haven't!!

And, no, expectations & level of execution required, even for Penn Relays or State HS Champs, aren't equivalent to USTATF Nationals. Expert & experienced (volunteer) officials don't just show up nor can they be "trained" instantly for nat'l championships. Basically, your ignorance is showing if you think "anyplace" can pull this off.

So, no offense but just shut the hell up until you can show me cities/committees who have submitted proposals (other than DM, Sac & Eug) and delivered.

Portland should host.

Easy to get to

Nike/Adidas North America backyard

Moderate weather

Adequate hotel and home rentals

Great running community

Microbrews

Music

Running spots

All we need to do is move Hayward to Portland, and it'd be perfect.

There are either only a handful of cities bidding on the USATF Championship, or the USATF is only looking at a few (primarily Eugene, SAC, Des Moines, Indianapolis) for the past 15 years. Midwest cities have much worse weather problems: heat, humidity, thunderstorms, tornado.

Eugene looks like a great place to watch (+1), but getting there is logistically difficult and expensive: Hotels are limited(-1). Closest decent size airport is PDX over 2hr drive away(-1). That means renting a car too(-1).

I did to to OTs in 2004 and Sacramento was fine. Easily found a cheap hotel close by, walked to stadium (+1). Public transport is available if further away so no rental car necessary. It was hot during the day and the stands have no shade(-1). But I could fly straight there (+1).

Portland would be a much better city than Eugene if Nike is the driving factor. Would love to see it find a home in a city you could fly direct, big enough for plenty of hotels, shade for spectators, good weather. I know, I know. That would be great for the fans, but what about the Nike execs and the USATF officials? It seems fans and athletes are an afterthought in this process.

Can't argue with you on this one.

yawn... your ridiculous premise was that a T&F championship is so huge and complicated that only a few cities could pull it off. ( And yes you did imply that no one else could do it. ). That is bullcrap, you know it, I know it and the whole board knows it. SO, like a coward, you change the premise.

Hate to burst your little Eugene bubble that fact that you think this is such a big undertaking when cities of all sorts pull off all sorts of festivals/events/ championships 5-10X larger than a T&F champ with ease. Maybe 10% (and that is me being generous) of the volunteers need special training but you know, these things are announced then put on the next day. In fact, both Sac and Eugene put out the call for regular old folks to volunteer who just showed up and/ or were trained.

You might want to leave your home once in a while, Your myopia is astounding.

I always thought if UC Berkeley could resurface their track, they would make a great venue, because of the size of their stadium. Stanford could bring in additional bleachers, but they simply just don't have enough room for seating.

Eugene is a great running community with so much history and a great fan base. Definitely more catered towards the distance folk though.

I think Berkeley would be a great venue because it's area gets pretty consistent weather that isn't too hot or cold. Also many hotels nearby as well as 3 major airports.

-Just my 2 cents on the subject

+1

Again, NO evidence in the response (just typical ad hominem attacks from LRC ranters)- where are these other cities/committees' proposals. I've suggested that it takes a fair amount of effort to pull off a pro caliber T&F event, strong community support and business/sponsor support. If you know anything about officiating T&F, walk up volunteers ain't it. And check with any host city for major T& F championships, no one announces one day and puts on the next. If the bar is so low as you think, it's truly remarkable every major city with the slightest interest in T&F isn't submitting proposals. But again your post is beside the point - where are the all the proposals to HOST??

No, that's right you'd rather bash, trash and do the usual LRC criticize and be negative.

Bad Wigins wrote:

If Sacramento's fans ever learn metric they will beat Eugene's rabid octegenarians hands-down. Until then there is no "track town" in America.

-----------------------

I don't think I've ever seen a LR thread with you on it where's yours wasn't the most a**holish input in the thing.

Amazing accomplishment.

It must be brutal for anyone who has to spend time with you on a daily basis.

I've been to both Eugene and Sacramento many times and I prefer Sacramento. It's easier to travel to, hotels are plentiful, parking is good, and the weather is warm during the day (good for sprints/field) and cool at night (good for distance). Eugene is great too but Sacramento is less of hassle - and who wants to pay for $200+ for a crappy hotel room in Eugene or drive one hour when you can't find a room.

To be clear, I'd love to see other cities besides Eugene, Des Moines and Sac host major national championships, but until another city organizes to submit a proposal stop with the mostly petty criticisms of the successful cities.

It'd be great for the sport of T&F to grow, but with the mindless tearing down especially on LRC of so much that is positive, successful and good I have a hard time seeing that happen.

Negativity doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile, just tends to make people cynical and feel hopeless. And by evidence on these boards leads to more of same.

Bay Area native living in Oreg wrote:

I always thought if UC Berkeley could resurface their track, they would make a great venue, because of the size of their stadium. Stanford could bring in additional bleachers, but they simply just don't have enough room for seating.

I think Berkeley would be a great venue because it's area gets pretty consistent weather that isn't too hot or cold. Also many hotels nearby as well as 3 major airports.

Berkeley would work (and the history/fans/decent weather is there), but the entire stadium would need to be rebuilt. I understand there are some seismic issues with the old East grandstands. Plus the place is just flat out OLD. Would need new Mondo track too. Unless a BIG donor steps up, it ain't happening.

Parking/logistics would be tricky, but hey if they can get 60k for football just up the hill, 20k for track could be accommodated.

LosersRant.com wrote:

JW 55, you can't really be claiming that Lagunitas and Sierra Nevada are top notch?

Indeed, I am claiming just that. I guess I underestimated the snobby provincialism and inferiority complex of Oregonian beer drinkers. You're seriously dissing Lagunitas and Sierra Nevada, two of the world's best breweries?

(Sorry Eugene, you lose on that count too)

1. Can't believe you're equating the Bay Area and Portland. The Bay Area is 1000x better. A more apt comparison for Portland, is...gasp...Sacramento! There are many similarities. Check out Midtown Sac. It's 5 min from the track...no need to drive 2 hours.

2. Sacramento Airport is 1000x better than Eugene, both in number of flights and quality of facilities. You hurt your credibility arguing otherwise. Most will fly direct into Sac. Saavy fans/athletes can get by without a rental car and instead use taxis, shuttles, uber, light rail, bike, walk to get around town, between competition sites, hotels, etc.

3. Sac weather is better for the athletes. And it didn't seem to deter the fans in 2000 or 2004. Sac dry heat really isn't that hot anyway, plus it's very cool nights/mornings.

4. Yes, everyone has craft beer these days. Sac's beer scene is very good.

5. Sac has WAY more to do than Eugene by virtue of sheer size alone. Eugene is a tiny town. Sac is a big city chock-full of clubs, dive bars, and everything in between. There are museums, rivers, parks, trails, historical sites, AAA baseball (best minor league ballpark in America), and more.

6. Gang violence in Sac? Hardly any, and it's contained to small pockets. No fans will get anywhere near those pockets. Sacramento is a quite safe for its size. And doesn't have a meth problem. This is perhaps the weakest argument you make (and that is saying something).

I'm a Sacramento diehard, have lived here nearly my entire life. I think Mansoor, bless his heart, is just playing up the rivalry for promotional purposes. Judging by the reaction here, it's worked. So good for him.

I've been to Hayward and love it. It's an awesome venue. Eugene fans are more knowledgeable. It's true that they love their distance races. The shaded grandstands are awesome. No argument here.

I don't think Sacramento will ever get behind track like Eugene. We have gotten behind soccer and would be a great soccer town. But track, I don't know. There just isn't the diehard fan base here that exists in Eugene. And Eugene is further aided by the fact that it has the best college track program in the country that can sustain a full track calendar (along with a Diamond League meet in Pre Classic).

I do think it's funny to watch people trash Sacramento without ever having lived here or spent much time in the right places here. People from LA and SF reflexively crap all over our city because they don't know it. There's a thriving restaurant scene and an explosion in craft breweries. There are miles upon miles of shaded trails along the river and Lake Natoma. There isn't a club scene and there isn't the breadth of museums that exist in big cities. But as far as cities this size go, there's more than enough to keep you entertained during a weeklong track meet.

LetsRun.com wrote:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/24/6509475/good-showing-by-sacramento-could.html#storylink=cpy

We were going to go with a Mary Cain quote but for QOD tmw but will hold off until Thursday. This has to to be it.

John Mansoor said:

“This is a chance for Sacramento to show once again what a great track fan base we have here,” said John Mansoor, the meet’s co-director. “In some respects, we’re in a rivalry with Eugene. We don’t have the Nike money like they do, but we have a better fan base – and Eugene’s is rabid and knowledgeable, but not as many as what we have. We have larger fan-base numbers and better weather. And we’re going to do innovative stuff to add to the experience.”

Do you agree or disagree?

Disagree.

As stated, attendance figures are pretty close but more fans stayed for longer in Eugene than in Sacramento (fewer empty seats at the end of the meet).

I absolutely disagree with the weather comments. Average high in Eugene is ~70 degrees with a ~18% chance of rain and ~12 mph daily high wind; in Sacramento, it's ~84 degrees with a ~3% chance of rain and ~15 mph daily high wind. The only thing better about that is the rain, but if it only lightly rains one day a year during the trials, that's hardly a reason to ignore the moderate temperatures and less wind.

Facility-wise, it's obviously Eugene.

Sacramento is a bigger city, and is closer to SoCal, but that's about the only things it has going for it (and if people are scared off by the 15% difference in chance of rain).

jason williams 55 wrote:

[quote]Steeplechasergirl wrote:

2. Airport. Really? Sac has better access than Eugene? I've been to the Sac airport... it's hardly larger than Eug. I'm betting a lot of people fly into the Bay area and drive to Sac.

2. Sacramento Airport is 1000x better than Eugene, both in number of flights and quality of facilities. You hurt your credibility arguing otherwise. Most will fly direct into Sac. Saavy fans/athletes can get by without a rental car and instead use taxis, shuttles, uber, light rail, bike, walk to get around town, between competition sites, hotels, etc.

Agree with Jason Williams 55 here - Sacramento's airport easily wins in this category. You can fly direct from Sacramento to almost any major U.S. city. I know people from the East Bay who drive to Sacramento rather than deal with Oakland or SFO because it's easier.

As a track fan who has lived in the northwest and norcal I have to say that Eugene is a better venue to watch a track meet. It has a lot of benefits for track & field fans and the athletes as many other have already listed. Sacramento is a better town and can draw a big crowd. But 1) weather. . .I have to say one of the reasons I am not going out to Sacramento has to do with the scheduling of key final events in the heat of the day. The middle distance races will be mostly tactical due to the heat in my opinion. 2) The venue. . .a lot has been said already. It is unfortunate that we don't have more European type stadiums and run all events within the fences surrounding the track. Just look at the Diamond league racing venues. Eugene, as small as it is, comes close. Bottom line: We just don't have the facilities they have in Europe for track fans or the proper stage for athletes to perform here(other than when we host the Olympics). If you've been over there or even watched the events on a flat screen, our venues just don't measure up for the fans or the athletes.

LosersRant.com wrote:

Great Pic of Hayward; couldn't find a great Hornet stadium pic that demonstrated T&F at it's best (http://tracktown12.gotracktownusa.com/UserFiles/Pages/3d2cf39a-ef14-46cd-af74-2bbeef801841/56b425f3-fe93-47a5-972b-5a62da8c105c/sample-header.jpg)

Some pics from shot put yesterday. Kind of a cool setup.