"If the race was anywhere else it would be no different."
I agree. One of the points for having it in NYC was more media coverage. To me that means being able to see a good portion of the race and the critical points of the race on TV.
"If the race was anywhere else it would be no different."
I agree. One of the points for having it in NYC was more media coverage. To me that means being able to see a good portion of the race and the critical points of the race on TV.
If the race is really run at 7:15am, then I doubt it will be on TV. Even if it was, the general public isn't going to watch. Likewise, I can't imagine people are going to get up 2 hours earlier to get out there and cheer on either (again, the general public).
RTC wrote:
There was also bringing the athletes into what is basically a circus environment surrounding the people's race. The last thing guys need are extra distractions and/or travel problems, etc.
Sounds like an accurate simulation of the Olympics to me doesn't it?
if most of the people who'd really like to actually like to watch the race are already bussed out to the start and unable to see the OT race, is that really building the interest for the sport? most of the people along the course tend to be obscure and curious spectators or family/friends of some specific Joe or Mary Blow running the marathon. Seems to me the group that would truly have the most interest in watching is not going to have that opportunity.
? wrote:
"If the race was anywhere else it would be no different."
I agree. One of the points for having it in NYC was more media coverage. To me that means being able to see a good portion of the race and the critical points of the race on TV.
The media is more than TV. The race will likely have same day coverage. That would not be the case anywhere else but Boston. Everywhere else would have no coverage until at least a week or so later as has been the case in the past.
NY is a great choice but why start so early? They'll get a lot more tv coverage and fans along the course if they start later - there'd be 3 races going on at once. Maybe ING's sponsorship says its got to be early? I'd prefer starting 10 minutes before the elite women and giving the 2:25 guys some incentive to beat Paula.
Not true. With live feed links online, there is a good chance it would have been shown at the time competed.
"The media is more than TV"
To me it is not. I get plenty of pre and post race articles, interviews, pictures, messageboard chatter for these type of events. TV is what the fans want, they want to see the race. I don't want streaming audio over the internet from an AM station in Alabama like in 2004 (it was appreciated though, it was the best and only choice).
If no real TV coverage, it does not matter that it is held in the media capital of the world, it might as well be back in B-ham.
JimG wrote:
[quote]Montesquieu wrote:
Do you really believe that an Olympic Trials race held in NYC will not receive greater attention from the national media--for example, the NY Times, which is now essentially a national newspaper--than if the race were held in Akron?[quote]
Yes, but only slightly.
Very few people read the NY times. In terms of eyeball's all that really matters is network TV.
They just had Justin Gatlin at Randall's island in NY. Very few people on the street knew about it. I think the trials will be different but the key is how much national media exposure it gets. Locally hopefully the race will be at a time so people come out on the street and yell. Maybe they should move the women back to the normal men's start and start the US race 30 minutes beforehand.
Kipp wrote:
Not true. With live feed links online, there is a good chance it would have been shown at the time competed.
True. I should have specified TV coverage.
For the general public the media coverage with the race being in NY will be much greater.
Much more in the print media, probable same day coverage on TV, mention on the sport highlight shows. Non of that happens anywhere else but Boston and NY...unless there is a death or two.
Everyone is whinnnnnnning wrote:
Sounds like an accurate simulation of the Olympics to me doesn't it?
I see what you're saying, but not exactly. Athletes at the Olympics are housed in an athlete's village, so they aren't staying in hotels with spectators, and they can stay more isolated from the chaos if they want to. Also, they're brought in well in advance, not just a couple days before. Lets be honest. USATF is not trying to simulate the Games with the NY decision. If they were, they'd do Boston where odds are they could have closer weather to what Beijing will have and still get the circus environment to boot.
Montesquieu wrote:
RTC wrote:And as for some advantages of NY--first there's the sheer majesty of the course and the great images of several runners fighting it out.
Man are you full of shit. Typical NY blowhard.
ambassador orange wrote:
NY is a great choice but why start so early? They'll get a lot more tv coverage and fans along the course if they start later - there'd be 3 races going on at once. Maybe ING's sponsorship says its got to be early? I'd prefer starting 10 minutes before the elite women and giving the 2:25 guys some incentive to beat Paula.
Or how about the same time as the women and then expose the Austin Qualifiers for what they really are?
Weldon,
You make an excellent point about how much national TV exposure this could mean. The truth is that because USATF can not figure out how to push our sport to the next level, they have tried to give the sport to someone who can. NY is great at pub. Eugene can create its own buzz (along with Nike). Rather than fix the ills of USATF they have decided to put it all on someone else. When this idea fails (and it will). USATF will either try to spin it into a positive or they will blame it on NY. Either way it will not be their fault.
I agree that tv is most important but the Times has circulation of a million on weekdays and 1.5mil on Sundays (including the internet these numbers would be higher), which are decent numbers considering they have articles pretty much everyday the week before the marathon.
A 7am start seems like a very bad idea - aside from the real die hards no one is going to watch 5 hours of marathon coverage or spend 5 hours standing on the street watching the race.
Montesquieu wrote:
the sheer majesty of the course
You've either never run this race, or you were on crack when you did it. The majesty of the auto body places and bodegas on 4th Avenue?
If they wanted a majestic course they could have found one - for example start them in Jersey on the Palisades, then over the GW Bridge, down Riverside Drive then into Central Park.
The NYC Marathon course is about the ugliest possible route you could pick, and its sole virtue is that it touches all five boroughs.
Wicked Wicked Pisser wrote:
9 months prior. No more like a year. It sucks for men who are just trying to make it to the trials. It is good for the guys who are trying to make the top three. The barely 2:22 guys lose another chance just to get in. Like chicago in the fall of 07. Now really how many chances do you get?
Those with a real shot at the team will have no trouble qualifying for trials. Guys that are planning to qualify by 10 seconds in Chicago 2007 for the 2008 trials are a non-issue. Guys who can actually compete in the Olympics should be given proper time to prepare.
More NY blowhard BS wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:Prediction: The networks will give the same coverage they usually do. 10 minutes on the elite race of NY, added OT coverage totalling another 10 minutes and the majority of the condensed coverage will be amount to a NY tourism promo and clips of costume wearing jackasses in the open race.
If you think interest is going to rise nationally because it's being held in NY, you need to go soak your head.
Exactly!!! You can't create interest artificially with big bucks and media coverage. The 2008 Men's Olympic Marathon Trials will be an "also-ran" news story that day. The big story of the day will be the ING NYC Marathon. The ING NYC Marathon is one of two marathons the casual American even knows about. It doesn't matter who wins, Kenyan or not, the race is a fairly big news story. Two national marathons are given ink in the local papers nationwide, Boston and NYC, regardless of who the winner is. So the headlines will read Kenyan wins NYC...and oh yeah we had an Olympic Trials race earlier in the day because we can't compete with the big dogs.
You want to create interest you win major races. Meb and Deena did that, but they are only two people and one of them isn't considered "American" by the majority of so called Americans.
Will the Men's Marathon Trials get more media and fan attention because it's being associated with the NYC Marathon? Sure, but is that the point? What are we trying to accomplish? I understand the reasoning behind it. In order to become a big time sport we have to behave like a big time sport, with all the lack of ethics or concern for it's athletes. If our goal is to lure fans in with a big show that so be it. We've done it with the NBA and it's been clear for a number of years now that we are no longer the best in the world at that. NASCAR and Golf are horrific sports to watch but big bucks have lured fans in. Screw the athletes, get the fans!
Alan
Usatf is inept wrote:
Weldon,
You make an excellent point about how much national TV exposure this could mean. The truth is that because USATF can not figure out how to push our sport to the next level, they have tried to give the sport to someone who can. NY is great at pub. Eugene can create its own buzz (along with Nike). Rather than fix the ills of USATF they have decided to put it all on someone else. When this idea fails (and it will). USATF will either try to spin it into a positive or they will blame it on NY. Either way it will not be their fault.
Why are you so critical of USATF in regads to tv? They have a series of meets on TV in the States that are on ESPN and ESPN2 and some on NBC. Perhaps you could argue NBC would be better but the NY Marathon does not get a ton of national coverage anymore (I would like them to go back to being on live in the morning but actually less people might see the show). It has a 1 hour highlight show. This is similar to Penn Relays which is on NBC for actually 1.5 hours I believe and is put on by USATF. It's easy to bitch at everyone and people need to be held accountable (and that's where this website is a good thing, i've had tons of people in power talk to me about the website, express some concerns, but clearly they are reading it. If we don't ruffle a few feathers every once in a while this site is failing as no one is doing a good job 100% of the time) but I don't think USATF is doing a bad job in getting meets on tv. The IAAF deserves most of the blame for the World debacle last year.
NY taxpayer wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:the sheer majesty of the course
Through the past few years there has been a lot of BS posted on this message board, but this one has to be top 5..... at least.