KU Relays

Real1 wrote:

How sad is it that there has been a hundred times more posts about how rotten the meet was than there was discussion of the meet itself before and during.

right. which leads one to believe that there were not alot (if any) noteworthy performances worth discussing?

I hope this event is not headed for a train wreck.

wildcat... wrote:

right. which leads one to believe that there were not alot (if any) noteworthy performances worth discussing?

Why not decide for yourself?

There are plenty of national and even international-level marks here (men's 100, 400, 400IH, PV, JT, SP, Hammer, women's 400, 100HH, 4x100, etc.).

The discussion as I see it is centered around the lackluster pre-meet promotion (and poor crowd as a result), continued weak collegiate field, and just too many races in general.

right...the 400 I.M hurdles was a great time; but all the winner did afterwards was complain about the meet and lack of promotion.

wildcat... wrote:

right...the 400 I.M hurdles was a great time; but all the winner did afterwards was complain about the meet and lack of promotion.

Again -- no one is arguing the fact that the promotion was poor. Just pointing out (in response to your question) that there were several noteworthy performances.

I would agree that there were some nice performances but I think part of the perception problem is that those performances are put around some absolutely terrible winning performances...and then some of the good stuff was out of the stadium...I think this leads, like even you stated, that you were not entertained...and for being a great track guy like yourself and a KU alum and you had to leave that to me is scary...I do think you had a great point about to many races...I never thought about that but consolidating should help...also why do so few teams come...I was just looking at some of the results and there are some really surprising results...the other thing that really stands out ot me is the lack of good teams running relays...no KU for one but Community colleges usually win...that is a PR nightmare...

Someone said on here about hard choices are going to have to be made and I would agree...I have always loved this meet from athlete, to D1 coach, to HS coach, to volunteer, to sponsor, to spectator...I don't want to see KU lose this meet but I do want to see a better meet then what I have seen recently...

I agree that this year was a waste. But you want to see a better meet than you've seen recently? The meet was amazing in 2005 and 2006 with massive crowds and lots of public interest and many records broken. Will having all the big 8 schools there make the meet a success?

I personally would like to see more collegiate athletes compete yes...but the big names with good PR will bring the crowds in and then maybe more colleges would come...is this a chicken or egg proposition...does anyone remember when the Russian athletes came to KU...that was a great PR move and a success...

Great point.

KU has the Confucius institute. Perhaps next year with the build up to Beijing they should try to get some of the Chinese team along with Liu Xiang. I've been seeing the Chinese compete more & more in the U.S. this year, but mainly on the West coast.

It's funny that you mention the Chinese. Tim Weaver was a guest lecturer in my sports admin class last year and talked about how he was already working on the early plans for 2007 and 2008 that involved brining in Russia and China and a few other countries to race the USA in some relay events. He made a big deal about the average fan not knowing track stars today but that everybody knows flags. Too bad.

First of all, KU is in the Big 12. The Big 8 became the Big 12 with the addition of the 4 Texas schools several years ago. Anyway, I think the biggest problem with the meet is that it's just so damn big. I go to a D2 school a little more than an hour away from KU, and our coach is thinking about going to the Mule Relays in Warrensburg (about 4 hours away) next year just because KU is ridiculously long three days that isn't even a high-quality college meet anymore. The meet is the 3rd weekend of April but it seems like the entries are due in early February. This leads to several scratches and no-shows, causing many empty lanes on the track. A meet that is this big just too difficult to manage no matter who you are, which is why I think it should be split up differently. What do you think about the possibility of running of the high school events on Thursday, college events on Friday, and then the higher profile events like the invitational events, the high school and college 4X100, 4X400, 1600/1500/mile, and 400 on Saturday? After being at KU on both Friday and Saturday this year I can easilly see why many college teams no longer attend, and why others may soon follow.

I think those are valid points...the meet needs to be condensed and lanes full...I hope the new guy will take a look at the whole structure...that is why I am a little worried that they didn't bring in someone new to it all and can make hard decisions...we will see...

If they want a high quality meet, they need to introduce STANDARNDS. I saw half mile heats with seed times OVER 2 minutes for the college level - I'm sorry a 2 minute 800 in college is NOT GOOD!

The idea of standards would increase quality without shoving out D2s,and JUCOs - both of which have athletes who could easily meet standards yearly.

KU could enjoy hosting a competitive high level meet - without limiting the field to only D1.

I think they try that and end up with many people lying on their times to get in and then they have no shows and like esu runner said the heats have two guys in them...I also saw a four mile relay team in college run over 20 minutes...again why and if they want those times in their meet to add revenue then they have a problem and that is what I mean by someone is going to have to make some tough decisions for the good of the meet...

the worst was Thursday night in the women's 10K, the last place time was over 49 minutes. I'm all for exercise, but 49 minutes does not belong at the KU Relays.

SWEDES wrote:

the worst was Thursday night in the women's 10K, the last place time was over 49 minutes. I'm all for exercise, but 49 minutes does not belong at the KU Relays.

totally agree; however; I might have a solution: if all of these recreational joggers (who would never be allowed in such a meet in the past) want to race on the KU track and it is a source of revenue to the Relays (I assume they at least have to pay an entry fee and/or buy a ticket); then put all of these 'peoples races' on Wednesday night or something. Do they still have the KU Relays Marathon? I remember back in the early 70's when Tony Brien, an Irishman at Marymount, Salina, ran in the low 2:20's at KU and Drake marathons, 1 week apart; though I think he took 2nd place in at least one of them to Lucian Rosa, Olympian from Ceylon.

Was the 49:00 runner a collegian?

I have no issue with an open citizens race (like the current 5000) on Thursday evening.

No more marathon.

1 BETTY ROTICH SO COLBY CC 35:01.55

2 STEPHANIE SIMMS SR ILLINOIS 35:38.70

3 STEPHANIE BALIGA FR ILLINOIS 36:43.63

4 CHELSIE BALDWIN JR WICHITA STATE 37:01.50

5 MAGGIE CARROLL JR ILLINOIS 37:49.36

6 KAYLEN HARRIS JR NEBRASKA-OMAHA 38:01.15

7 ANGIE HUEBNER JR WIS.-MILWAUKEE 38:15.51

8 MEGAN FOSTE JR CREIGHTON (NE) 38:36.89

9 TARA SCIESZINSKI FR DRAKE 39:18.96

10 ASHLEE ORR SO FORT HAYS ST. 39:30.07

11 AUDRY ANDERSON JR SOUTHWESTERN 39:34.07

12 JULIE JONES JR PITTSBURG ST. 39:38.44

13 MEG GENTRY SO KANSAS STATE 39:49.19

14 CHRISTINA ADDISON FR BUTLER COUNTY CC 40:30.89

15 ELEANOR BURTON KANSAS STATE 42:26.86

16 KATE TOPHAM SO SOUTHWESTERN 43:33.67

17 KATE DIBBERN FR GARDEN CITY CC 44:14.51

18 RACHEL HARRIS JR STERLING 49:30.96

Back in the day they would pull lapped runners off the track.

That being said I think Thursday night should be more of an all-comers. Friday's and Saturday's need standards. You shouldn't have an under 2:00 for HS, under 1:55 for college/open. But as I have posted before, the $$$ issue prevents that from happening.