WHY TRACK & FIELD IS CURRENTLY NOT POPULAR IN THE U.S.

Ways to make T&F popular in the US:

Eliminate Men's events

Focus on Women's Pole Vault, High Jump, Triple Jump, Heptathlon, Hurdles, 400, 800....in that order.

No one wants to see male distance runners. Spindly legged betas.

Americans believe that T&F is for betas who aren't good enough to play a real sport.

You don't live in Southern California that's for sure.

man oh man great outline!!! all your reasons were right on, so thanks for taking the time to post- # 4 was the best about track and field athlete's interviews and let me add something here -> many times when a track and field athlete is interviewed, it's like every other word is we we we we - the interviewer asks how are YOU feeling or how are YOU doing, how is YOUR training going? and many times the response is "well we looked into it and decided we would run this race" yada yada yada - who the bleeping bleep is"WE" - OK for the record I totally get these guys have coaches - I know there's a "we" component to it - but you aint freaking NASCAR - you don't have a crew putting your shoes on like NASCAR changes tires- get off this stupid "I'm so dam important I've got a 'support team' unlike the lowlife hobby joggers" - it's total False humility - newsflash > YOU ran the race, YOU did the training, so answer the question for you - now if you're asked about your coach, by all means give your coach some credit, but the way you come across (the interviewed track athlete) is just too phony, you make it sound like you got a 40 man support team pampering you so you can do your 5 races (i.e. public appearances) a year - heck even football stars who risk brain injuries appear in public 16 times a year - track and field is its own worst enemy- nothing is more frustrating as a fan then when these stars do their race good or bad , they give the stupidest interviews one can imagine then go into hiding like a hibernating grizzly bear - hopefully Jakob will be different - I sure hope so

LOL, As soon as we get a cool, interesting, literate T & F athlete around here (Phoebe, Merber, Symonds,...) we immediately disparage them. Pathetic!

I have never disparaged anyone on this message board.

What's pathetic is overgeneralizing.

And YES! - I agree that the little boys in their mother's basement who are critical of any of these athletes are pathetic.

But don't generalize the whole message board.

I go to Southern California often, I'm not trying to be a SA - I really want to know, which meets are highly popular? is it USC meets? Mt SAC? Occidental? seriously I want to know - if what you're saying is true, that's a good thing - the only city that I know about where the citizens of that city actually care about track and field is Eugene Oregon - but if I'm wrong and there's more that's OK with me!

Luv2Run wrote:

I will take issue with the "people do not root for individuals": ever hear of fantasy football or baseball?

Or tennis or golf.

the track elites are only hurting themselves - if they want to race 5 times (or less) a year then go into hiding like someone in the Witness Protection Program, it's their bottom line that will be effected. Sure they may make X amount with the shoe sponsorship crap (newsflash most people don't care what kind of shoes you're wearing-it's a freaking shoe!) but if they actually gave a crap about their fans, they would get even more fans which in the long run improve their opportunities. (there's more things to market other than shoes and shorts!)They're only hurting themselves, but what's sad for them is they don't even realize it. What may seem to be "negative", is actually a "positive" - we fans are trying to put the track and field athlete on par with the QB, the pitcher, (but Ohtani is untouchable LOL), the center, the goalie, but the track and field star is making that rather difficult.

Track's lack of popularity has been an issue for a long time and will never change. In regard to distance running, if you're not a runner or a coach, it's really boring. I remember watching the start of 1972 10K, which was a great race, and watching only a few laps as I didn't know the runners, pace or strategy. I had never of Pre so I didn't watch the 5 at all. By 1976, I had had 3 years of running and reading T&FN experience which resulted in me enjoying watching the distance running more than even the Super Bowl.

For along time, I found golf to be unwatchable. But after playing in my 30's, I learned about distance off the tee, club selection, spins and how hard chipping is. I now, at least, watch the majors every year.

The quality of athlete interviews doesn't matterto me. They're certainly not as bad the poor grammar and cliches used by major sport athletes.

I don't agree that the best distance runners are competing in other sports and actually believe the opposite is true; they're more likely to compete in running than the person naturally talented for tennis or golf competing in those sports. A world class runner is likely to run a 5-minute mile in 7th grade PE and be over a minute faster than any other kid which is pretty heady stuff. The high school coaches are going hear about it encourage him to pursue running. Also, when you have that kind of ability running is naturally enjoyable.

I don't believe sports commentary has any effect. I hate most major sport commentators, but it would never make me not want to watch a game. I just wish there was an option like there is Japan where all you hear is crowd noise.

In the US, T&F is a minor sport and always will be.

Raddison wrote:

I believe T&F is not popular with the average viewer because it is not intuitive , you have to understand the sport to appreciate what is going on. I know nothing about lacrosse, Australian rules football or snowboard half pipe but if I were to spend an hour watching one of them I would soon work out what is going on and develop some appreciation for the sport and its participants. Watching track is more like watching chess, what is going on in the competitors' minds is as important as where they are on the track. Lap 3 of a mile is boring to the average person but key to the runner. A knowledgeable viewer will see clues from running form and style and know who will still be in contention a lap later, the average viewer will miss all these things.

So apparently the reason why track is so unpopular is because viewers are too stupid to understand that complexities of running around a circle. Yeah, okay. I love competing in and watching track, but even I'm not as dense as this arrogant prick.

No, the reason track is so unpopular is because most find it too boring and painful to actually DO, so what makes us think people would want to watch it? People and have short attention spans and want action and stimulation - something that skinny men running around in shorts for half an hour doesn't really offer. It's sad, but true.

Raddison wrote:

I believe T&F is not popular with the average viewer because it is not intuitive , you have to understand the sport to appreciate what is going on.

A gun going off and people running until they reach the finish line isn't intuitive? You don't have to know anything. Watching a football or baseball game certainly is much less intuitive if you don't understand the sport.

Americans are obsessed with violence. Add landmines to USA running tracks and everyone will watch.

Most T&F/XC places are in use 52 weeks out of the year here in Southern California.

As another poster mentioned, T&F is probably more popular in the US than anywhere else. I went to high school in the States and ran a couple seasons of track and XC. There are synthetic tracks all over the country, probably more than anywhere else in the world. I say this having lived in both France and Germany (Finding a proper track is easier in Germang though). Sadly, TV coverage is lacking, except during the olympics of course, so people aren't really aware of what's going on.

test

Well, T&F isn't that popular anywhere, really but, of course, the best of anything never has the biggest following. For example the greatest music and the greatest literature aren't the most popular examples of those genres.

Call me a know-it-all, but don't call me wrong. The two reasons T&F doesn't catch on are:

(1) the TV coverage is absolutely atrocious. The visuals are horrible. You can't look at the screen and see how fast each runner is going, how far they've gone, or how far they have to go. No real-time metrics that would make it interesting to watch.

The (american) football equivalent of T&F broadcasting would be to take a camera, put it face up in the grass in the neutral zone next to the ball, and watch the action from there. Or, in baseball, put a fixed camera at the center field fence and just watch the game full field from there. The ratings would fall to zilch in a heartbeat.

Yeah, the interviews are bad but that means relatively little.

(2) there are no real teams.

Talking about camera work, the person in charge of the shots we see at recent Euro Meetings should be shot!

In at least two middle distance races, where a group of athletes went through the bell together - and anybody with a brain could guess that things were about to kick off - the producers decide to concentrate on all the back markers passing the lap to go spot.

AND, the shot I really hate - for its stupidity - is the head on shot, in the back straight, in the last lap of a middle distance race, where the viewer can't tell what's happening.

Spinachrunner wrote:

I go to Southern California often, I'm not trying to be a SA - I really want to know, which meets are highly popular? is it USC meets? Mt SAC? Occidental? seriously I want to know - if what you're saying is true, that's a good thing - the only city that I know about where the citizens of that city actually care about track and field is Eugene Oregon - but if I'm wrong and there's more that's OK with me!

Around 8 dozen meets in L.A., S.D, O.Cc, Riv are packed to the gills with athletes every month. It's a madhouse in So Cal. Officials are worked to death.