My Annual Make Track Segregated by Gender Thread

I don't think this will enhance the sport at all.

Support your claim with arguments.

Lenny's ideas will make track LESS popular and less valuable. Many fans tune in to see favorites like Jakob, PV, etc. but watch the rest of the events. The longer run time allows more advertising. The market value of advertising is what really drives success of the sport in the US - and now to cut that in half. Also you have a bunch of people who won't tune in for meets they are just lukewarm about. And unless you had the mens and womens meets back to back, you now need stadiums available for more days.

Lenny's idea was tried with the Athlos meet which worked out because it was novel, but would quickly lose viewers if it was tried over a year or two.

Even Diamond League loses excitement because the season is too long. Athletes are racing on dead legs in September or using meets as tune ups in mid Spring. If Jakob hadn't been threatening a world record, viewership of those September meets would have been low. Now you are asking fans to watch twice as many meets for no reason but antiquated views on gender?

Should marathons have the course closed for 2 days so we can implement Lenny's strategy? Or should me just make the men race in 80 degree heat at noon?

Lenny, I think your heart is in a good place, but I don't think you understand the mindset and time constraints of fans outside of that small set of super fans who subscribe to 3 streaming services year round just for track.

First thing is that you mean sex if using our moden day terms.

You may be correct but I think it is too late. Track was much more popular before women joined. It likely woukd have stayed that way but we don't have a time machine and pulling women will only pully some athletes away. I don't think we will gain any.

Lenny,

Track & Field was a major (your word) sport. All sports are major to those that are involved. Perhaps you mean that Track & Field can again become a visible sport.

When I was starting as an assistant with a small D1 program in the 1980s, a well established coach confided in me similar sentiments. He was staff/ event coach of an Olympic team, well published, was HC at at least three universities one of which is now in the SEC, and then towards the end of his career, an AD. He had lived through the changes of Track & Field brought about by Title IX. The position he took was that the addition of women’s track doubled the amount of time required to host a meet and detrimental to the sport. Because he was a product of the southwest, lived many years in the Deep South during the social revolutions of the 1960s, and some of his writings refer to “the trackman,” he probably held a bias against women. The root of the problem you perceive may be found in his belief that a meet is just simply too long for spectators. Has the NCAA not solved this issue at its indoor and outdoor championships by hosting women’s and men’s events on alternating days? Will (girls) women only meets at the middle school level be effective to grow interest? On the other end of the spectrum, does the Olympic Games have problems with women and men competing on the same days?

Attendance records of meets held prior to the mid-70s do show big numbers of fans at relays and invitationals all over the country. Also during that time Track & Field was rarely seen on television. There are many reasons for the decline of interest in our beloved sport in ranking order of public perception. Other sports and organizations like NFL and NCAA football took a lead to increase TV coverage for their games. Until just a few decades ago not every game was broadcast, and now streamed. Out of market games for MLB and NBA are easily watched. Even auto racing saw the way to gain fans was to get TV exposure. Sadly Track & Field, Cross-Country, and Road Racing is hidden behind costly contracts and not accessible through an easily recognizable streaming provider. ESPN led the networks to air more diverse sports. More sports were developed or made more readily available- triathlon did not exist until the late 1970s, soccer grew a grassroots program, lacrosse now has a similar trend, as does rugby. Cable networks now offer viewers with hundreds of (oft repeated) shows on a variety of topics. With the first running boom sparked by Shorter’s Olympic win, folks moved to the roads as participants, not just spectators.

Stating that including women’s events within Track & Field as the sole cause of dwindling interest does not seem accurate. The lack of vision by leadership groups to market the sport beginning in the 1970s does.

1. The meets could be just as long, but with more men’s events. Currently, a Diamond League meet won’t have a men’s 800 AND a men’s 1500 because they will have a women’s 1500. If they ran every male and female event, the meets would be 8+ hours.

2. The NBA and WNBA don’t have to worry about needing “stadiums available for more days.” If they are two separate events, who cares when the stadium is booked?

3. So the Athios plan worked (I’m not completely familiar with it but I’ll take you at your word) and you say it won’t in a few years off of nothing but your hunch?

4. Nowhere in what I suggested do I say the season needs to be longer.

5. I don’t care about marathons in this plan. That’s not track.

6. We have to subscribe to so many streaming platforms because the sport is not popular so the large companies aren’t interested in the rights. What I’m suggested would make it more popular so that it would stream on ESPN or just be broadcast alongside popular sports.

Not a crazy idea. Ironman has moved to that.

Very often in Diamond League, there is only one or maybe two races that I watch in the meet because the number of events is limited for every sex.

Maybe they could still have women pole vault with the men events (for example) however . That would not stop the action on the track and vice versa during a woman meet.

The diamond league struggles as it is to utilise athlete star power to boost viewer interest. When scanning the start lists to decide whether to watch or not I scan both men's and women's races. I'm both way more likely to watch and way more interested if a meet has Jakob, Arop, Lyles AND Hodgkinson, Muir, Kipyegon etc than just the former.

Track declined in popularity as football and basketball rose. People only have so much time to devote to watching sport. The organizations governing these two sports knew how to market. They successfully convinced people football needs 150 players for a college team while track needs 17. The fact that USATF isn't up in arms about roster limits tells us all we need to know about the popularity of track in the US. Those who should be responsible for making it popular simply don't care and it isn't the inclusion of women or break from amateurism that made it this way. Track became professional but the officials who only cared about trips and nice dinners never went away and a new generation of them is in place.

Citation needed.

Why not combine based on time? Let the best man win

Doesn't the NCAA separate the men and the women in the outdoor championship meet?

I don't mind coed championship calibre meets as extra time with trials and events for both sexes allows for an easier double. The 4x100 trials followed by the 100m race followed by finals in both is made easier in a coed meet.

My HS students enjoy coed meets more than same sex meets.

Track is the one sport where I enjoy watching the men and women equally.

A great race is a great race, you don't notice the difference in speed when someone makes a big move on the back stretch unless you're watching the clock.

You feel that way because that's the way the sport has been marketed to you. I'd argue that a WNBA game is as exciting relative to an NBA game as a women's 1500 is to a men's 1500.

That's my assertion. I am basing it on the fact that every sport has the option of making the competitions coed or not.

The ones that segregate based on gender are much more popular than those that do not.

False stats. New limits are 45 for track and 105 for football.

You bused that word again. They separate based on sex, not gender.

You might be correct but I don't really care about the "accessibility" or popularity of track. The men probably are hurt in some way by carrying the females along for the ride, like they are in professional tennis, but unless they are willing to make noise about it, why should I care?

No.

I notice the skill difference in the NBA compared to the WNBA. The lack of exciting plays around the rim, the lack of athleticism, the lower scoring, less physical defense, etc.

I feel like I can appreciate fast, exciting 1500s equally regardless of the gender running.