The cover article

We all have to check the mirror, nit the Indianapolis phone book. NASCAR fans are very well known to "vote with their wallets" in favor of the sponsors of their favorite drivers and races (OK, OK, they would all smoke Winstons anyway). Golf too.

And golf and hockey have the added element of requiring a wall of money up front from anyone just getting started to buy the equipment.

BTW, hockey's viewership is waning, at least in the US . Some sports-business biggies have suggested that the increasing presence of non-North American players with those less-familiar-sounding names may be putting off the non-zealots a bit. Sound familiar?

I still love hockey though.

Some here trash triathlons, but hockey is a duathlon. Fighting and hockey in the same game? What a concept!

politically correct wrote:

Some here trash triathlons, but hockey is a duathlon. Fighting and hockey in the same game? What a concept!

Don't want to take this down the bash hockey road but I rarely hear any hockey fan refer to the previous night's game without also referring to the game's fight's. This is to the point of comments such as 'it was a boring game. No fights'.

We need Mo, Tim, and Dwayne dukin' it out right after the finish.

Golf is successful in part because the Sr. Execs of the sponsoring companies are Tiger wannabees. I can't see that situation ever happening with Athletics.

The key to getting T&F covered is to produce American champions. While I find it very inspiring to watch Gebresellasie or Kipketer or Bekele dominate, most Americans just can't connect with non-American champions. Just look at soccer-- our team does well, is ranked 6th in the world, and they get a lot of coverage. Its the same with the Tour: when Europeans were winning, Americans by and large didn't give a rat's ass about bike racing. But, once you get a champion like Lance Armstrong in the saddle (and the cancer story doesn't hurt either), he gets significant news coverage and gets on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Why did Pre make track such a big deal? Why did he get a SI cover? Because he was an all-American champion, and we are enamoured with those at the top. Ditto Frank Shorter.

Until Webb or Ritzenhien or Torres or Sage or Hall start running VERY fast (i.e. world-quality times, <3:50, <13:00, <27:00) regularly, or start performing VERY well (at least top-10, preferably top-5)at major championships (like World Cross), we just won't have enough to interest a mainstream audience.

[quote]DIII Coach wrote:

I have seen two sports thrive in the mainstream that I never thought would be big:NASCAR and NHL Hockey. Television exposure is obviously the key, but when you have to pay to have your product televised as is the case with USA Track and Field, your viewing opportunities are going to be limited.

I don't agree. Most of the biggest money sports -football, basketball, baseball- never compete outside of the US, are never "World ranked." People still pay beau coups to watch. The equivalent for track would be the USATF championships, but no one is coming to watch them. I mean, we have "American Champions" every year, but it's not doing anything to promote the sport.

An occasional SI cover does not denote PR success, either. How many covers does SI have of basketball, football, and baseball each year? How many of track? Soccer may be getting better coverage than track, but that's not really saying much.

I think the golf opinion above was more on the money - people watch golf because people play golf. More people have played or play football, basketball, and baseball (especially if you include softball) than run track. Or than run, period, probably. They have problems relating not just to the athletes, but to the sport.

idealist wrote:

I don't agree. Most of the biggest money sports -football, basketball, baseball- never compete outside of the US, are never "World ranked." People still pay beau coups to watch. The equivalent for track would be the USATF championships, but no one is coming to watch them. I mean, we have "American Champions" every year, but it's not doing anything to promote the sport.

I think the golf opinion above was more on the money - people watch golf because people play golf. More people have played or play football, basketball, and baseball (especially if you include softball) than run track. Or than run, period, probably. They have problems relating not just to the athletes, but to the sport.

Tennis is an example of a sport in which having Americans do well pumps up the interest. There was virtually no interest in the Men's side of things until Sampras and Agassi started moving up at the US Open. A similar case could be made for the Women a few years ago prior to the Williams sisters, Capriati, etc. started winning.

I also find it odd that people who run road races have, for the most part, no interest whatsoever in athletics even just distance running.

Crossman wrote:

"We need Mo, Tim, and Dwayne dukin' it out right after the finish."

Who do you think would win in a fight between Ritz and Webb?

That might just be the biggest problem there, that road race participants aren't interested in watching everything from the local high school meet to the Grand Prix in Europe.