Because if you ever needed a GST gut/health check only 2 meets into it's opening season you just got it.
He saves 100k by eliminating 2 races alone. He will save another what, 100k, 200k? on the operational costs of one day (think venue hire(?), equipment hire, insurance, all the stuff you don't think about in running an event). Cut out an extra day of accommodation, catering for these athletes and probably two because I guess he's also going to scrap the previously mandatory "be there two days prior" deal. All up, does he save 350-400k in getting rid of one day? It's really that damn expensive.
But sadly the gut feeling is it's too late. To have to cut costs halfway through your first season says 1) we are running out of money and 2) we don't have an avenue to mitigate this rapidly evaporating cash we once had. Ugh.
I personally don't know if I should feel somewhat vindicated or depressed about this. I always felt guilty for writing on these boards from the very start about the painfully obvious issues with the format and execution of this venture but now it's actually beginning to teeter, the only thing I can think of is "if this implodes, there are going to be no more swings at bat for the sport in terms of this sort of funding again for a very long time". That really sucks. Right now it's hard to believe this makes it past the LA meet. I'd like to say that's unbelievable but in reality it's tragically not.
I can't help but wonder whether these changes were in some way obvious.
There are three things I wonder. 1. Did they talk to the long-distance runners and offer them the choice: either 1 race and half price money, or have 2 races across both days (maybe 2x3000m, etc.)? Depending on who you are, I am not sure this is an obvious answer. JG, if you could confirm this, that'd be swell! But how much they really cared about their racers feedback depends on the next point...
2. My guess is that the organizers were not fully happy with the (men's) LD group, realizing that that product is simply poor in the current format (for a large group of viewers). If true, it's clear that you'd want to make an adjustment. Moving LD to a two day format seems like a surefire way to invite even more slow jogging. So in that sense, it's out of the question.
3. Finally, should the LD guys have realized that they are digging their own grave? As one of the primary racers (who are likely to participate next year as well), even if you expect changes to only occur next year (instead of so soon), it seems terribly short-sighted to only run for a given weekend's price purse. I especially think about Fisher's decision to only fight for second. While that surely maximized his prize-money winnings on that weekend, I wonder how much of that contributed to the cutting of the event to 1 day, as it truly exposed some of the issues in the format.
Originally JG was proud of the way Fisher carried himself in the second race. He praised him as ‘Stanford intelligence’, ‘electrical engineering smarts’ but then all of a sudden started questioning his sanity doing so. As I was telling thoughsleader earlier there is no panacea cure all. You take what you have and forgo what you don’t. The only ideal world is in heaven. On earth we only have a dystopian society. This is why I don’t bother to engage is such worthless discussions. No matter how to adjust it there is still going to be a problem until you solve the energy crisis.
Because if you ever needed a GST gut/health check only 2 meets into it's opening season you just got it.
He saves 100k by eliminating 2 races alone. He will save another what, 100k, 200k? on the operational costs of one day (think venue hire(?), equipment hire, insurance, all the stuff you don't think about in running an event). Cut out an extra day of accommodation, catering for these athletes and probably two because I guess he's also going to scrap the previously mandatory "be there two days prior" deal. All up, does he save 350-400k in getting rid of one day? It's really that damn expensive.
But sadly the gut feeling is it's too late. To have to cut costs halfway through your first season says 1) we are running out of money and 2) we don't have an avenue to mitigate this rapidly evaporating cash we once had. Ugh.
I personally don't know if I should feel somewhat vindicated or depressed about this. I always felt guilty for writing on these boards from the very start about the painfully obvious issues with the format and execution of this venture but now it's actually beginning to teeter, the only thing I can think of is "if this implodes, there are going to be no more swings at bat for the sport in terms of this sort of funding again for a very long time". That really sucks. Right now it's hard to believe this makes it past the LA meet. I'd like to say that's unbelievable but in reality it's tragically not.
shut UP SHUT UP
too much BULLSH*T I CANT EVEN THINK
Salvitore has a habit of waxing philosophical about everything and staying on the fence. He never anywhere near any solution as you may see through his posts because he hasn’t solved the energy crisis yet.
Sensible comment. It’s the common sense stuff really. I hope athletes read the terms of contract before signing to race. They should have bonuses for being 1st to 3k mark in a 5k race honestly if you ask me. That’s the way around a slow 5k race.
There isn't really a difference between a 3k and 5k if they are gonna sit til the last mile, at the earliest. might as well save the 5 or 6 minutes.
The threshold of human patience in modern society around now is on the order of 5-15minutes except on the Shinkansen Tokio Japan. 5-6 minutes is within tolerance and if it’s savable then it must work both ways and be expendable too. People are able to wait an extra 5-15mins without paying for anything.
They can if they had a contract that stated those changes beforehand. I think in this case it did.
How would you know that or why would you think that?
My guess… is no. No to cutting race purse expectations. Otherwise, GST wouldn’t have been able to sign the distance racers they did.
My guess… is yes. Yes to have the flexibility, in running their business and therefore being able to change to two days or adjust race distances (possibly).
Therefor, I believe GST to be in breach of contract with respect to race purse expectations and should pay the full expected amounts for the one race change to 3,000m
I am a fan of GST and also like the two day and one distance race change. What I don’t feel is on is changing the race purse expectations that distance racers signed on to.
I was a hotel business manager and I know how contracts are operated. They are always advantageous to the organisation and employers and not much the employees. The terms and conditions which people usually don’t care about. Unless there was a force majure or Jesus Christ floating down into the middle of he infield to declare the end of the world and the start of the seven year tribulation, the terms and conditions usually proceed in favour of the organisations.
They should all drop out and post on X a group photo of them flipping the bird. Distance runners are always the first athletes to be screwed by meet organizers at every level; from junior high all the way to the pros and beyond to masters competition. It's high time they stuck up for themselves and tell MJ and those freeloaders to fill the empty time slots with local hobby joggers because they are sick and tired of being taken advantage of and walked on like carpet. GST is no different than the AAU of old and I called it that something like this would happen where they would end up screwing the athletes out of prize money two months ago on this very message board.
If they want to turn the event into a farce by trotting around at 2 minutes outside world record pace then the male distance runners only have themselves to blame.
As for the women if it was on sporting merit rather than being a white American Elise Cranny would not even be a top 25 choice.
Are you from the Arctic Circle as your name suggests? There is no perfect situation on earth. Already I’m quite thankful that a certain male born American middle distance athlete learned to stop behaving like a female geese in front of television cameras before and after races and to hold himself more like a man like his compatriot from Greater Edinburgh.
May I also suggest personally to Dathan Ritzenhein that if you want your male born athlete to be associated with bird flock at least choose the male gender of that flock to market to the public. A goose is a female geese. A gander is a male geese make sense?
And please ask Jakgoat to stop taunting him with epithets like ‘the goose’ because it’s a sexual insult to a male born person. Henceforth I demand that JI and all journalists and Rojo, JG start calling Nuguse as ‘The Gander’ if it’s so decided that likes to be marketed as a ‘bird’.
I like that they're willing to change. But I think they need an incentive to run faster at 3000 (or maybe the 5000 instead).
The prize money could be based on time.
The long distance group is screwed. It won't be back next year. Fundamentally, it can twork. They were given a chance but they've delivered three out of four boring races. I won't blame them as doubling 3k and 5k is difficult but tbh, as an event, GST would be better spending the long distance money on field events that have genuine star power like Mondo in the vault and Davis-Woodhall in long jump or Rojas if she's fit again. Even Crouser and Healy would be better for a US audience. I'm a distance fan, but it just isn't working. The DL and standalone events for the 10k and 5k are just going to have to find a path to success. It not impossible as Night of the 10000 PBa has shown
Did you know The TEN and Night of 10000m also has a habit of attracting the unsavoury dopers? The world has lost its way. It’s not about the commercial value of sport but it’s also equally about the spirit and values and ethics of the sport which have clearly taken a back seat in our dystopian dysfunctional society.
Great move because 3 days was too much to have athletes commit on 5 separate occasions. As far as the long distance being reconstructed to just one event, also great move. If the athletes (EXCLUDING Agnes Ngetich) were just going to jog both races and earn easy paydays, Michael Johnson said, "not on my watch".
Do it need more changes probably so but it's was a novel idea and has room to grow and possibly succeed with a few more adjustments.
Great decision. Kudos to MJ and GST for listening to the fans.
Making the long-distance group 3K only alleviates the concern about those athletes burning out, which increases the likelihood of more top athletes deciding to participate.
That is the way I saw it too. They had to jog the 5km because they didn't want to be 8 races into their seasons and only in July! The distance guys will be better off with just one race.
That said, they could have done something to make it "different" than a regular DL meet like "Devil Take the Hindmost" or big-time cash premiums for leading after each K.
Make sense to cut it to 2 days. 3 days is a bit much. Sucks for the D runners though who despite signing a contract in which they thought they'd be competing for $100k each meet now they are down to half that.
This makes me feel like MJ and crew planned out the whole format without talking to athletes or fans. Cuz I think any fan would say a meet spread out over 3 days is a bit much and especially when it's such a scaled down meet with only specific selected races. And if they had talked to distance athletes I think having them double in 3 days, while certainly not impossible or anything, would have gotten some resistance in the planning stages of GST. Maybe they did and it did get resistance, but perhaps they were focused on the marketing of all the groups doing the same doubling.
Anyway, hopefully they find these last two meets more successful, and I'd like to see further changes for Year 2.
I could see some changes in the scoring / champion payout rules improving the format, as well as adding in time bonuses to help keep the races honest including GST record bonuses.
Also since they've broken the everyone-doubles format now, the 100H + 100m double seems kinda meh, like do people care that much about short hurdlers racing a flat hundred? Maybe get rid of that? I would say have one hurdle group that does both 100H and 400H but I guess those are fairly different events and athletes usually only do one of those and so could be worried about getting injured considering jumping over stuff when sprinting at two different distances is a lot different than just doing two different flat distances.
Another idea would be teams. People generally get really into sports because they root for a specific team. Given that GST is signing people into contracts, they could brand the people as different teams, maybe the Racers and the Challengers team, and instead having all the individual doubles, have the teams compete in relays. Like have the 100H people double with the two teams competing in a 4x100 instead of just doing a 100m race when the sprinters already do a 100m. Have the distance people do the 3k the first day and double back with a 4x8 or DMR the second day. Relay races are always super popular at all levels in track, so if MJ wants GST to be an exciting format, it would make sense to have teams compete in relays.
Anyway, seems to me there are probably further changes and improvements they could make after this season to try to come out with a stronger package next year.