1) I do not think it will be successful but I hope I'm wrong.
2) IF it it successful, I hope it's not at the expense of the great meets we currently have like Monaco, Welklasse, Pre, etc
3) If it it's successful, I'l almost certain it will not the track and field as we currently know it, meaning the odds that is has all of the events is close to zero.
Right now, instead of having Pre, you could have a very successful match race between Kerr and Ingebrigtsen. So one off things like that could be promoted just like MJ vs Donovan bailey at 150m was big when I was a kid.
But track spends a lot of time and effort on things that are expensive and has little interest (many field events, wheelchair races, many lane fillers in track events, etc. - IF it's a 400h race, does anyone care about anyone who isn't one of the Big 3-4?)
I was talking to my brother and Jonathan about this the other day and I was complaining a bit about the for profit angle of this. I was like, "Many track athletes are struggling to get buy? Why should some rich investor get rich off of track (it's what drives me nuts about the flotrack business model)?"
Weldon helped point out that only a for profit entity would have the guts to make painful changes for the sport - like axing half the events, or half the competitors.
And Americans and people like celebrity. I finally had a talk with my ex-Cornell runner Barry Kahn who is looking into doing sprint match races and his idea is certainly not track and field as we know it - it would be a tv series but not what you and I envision as a normal track meet.
But your last sentence is one I have to agree with the most:
As I said to a buddy the other day who stopped by on a run. "Do you swimming people sit around and think, "If only presented the sport better , it would be super popular all the time? I have no interest in watching swimming except at the Olympics and I feel like that's largely true for sports fans regarding track."