Let's stop complaining about how little publicity track gets and do something about it!!!

orbitboy wrote:

How big do we want track to get? Do we really want to deal with ticket scalpers and pay-per-view? I've always liked being into a sport that's "different" and not what all the jocko lunkheads on sports talk radio are into.

My thoughts exactly. Have you seen the big 3 sports in America lately? Do you really want track to be like that?

Track is an underground sport with a cult following (except for about a couple of weeks every 4 years). For some strange reason, I'm okay with that.

Oh really yes a**hole. Watch the attitude- if you were out of town you were in outerspace.

For the intelligent posters- keep the discussion going. I really should have kept the newspaper article, but at the time I thought track's popularity would last forever. Being young (as many of the posters are) means being naive and I was back then.

Nothing's going to change. T & F is what it is.

I think that this is a really great idea. spot on. it shortens meet times, and really saturates competition to create a few stellar events as compared to a ton of watered down ones. I feel like you're on to something!!

tm wrote:

don't be overly critical - this is just a thought i had for a series of meets

5 groups of athletes sprints, mid-d, distance, jumps, and throws- have teams with 1 member per group

each meet only 5 events will be contested

same group of distance runners race against each other every meet- distance varies incl 1500, 5k, 10k, steeple?

same group of mid d runners... 600, 800, 1000, 400h?

sprinters... 100, 200, 400, 110h or 300?

throws... shot, disc, jav, hammer

jumps... lj, tj, hj, pv

points for places - teams could be regionally based ie ny, boston, dc, etc

score track meet style - most points wins - i think the public likes higher point totals winning

The World Marathon Majors is a step in the right direction. Start a Professional Running League. Teams have NASCAR like sponorship. Set up a "season", which includes road races, marathons, cross-country, and track. Not just distance races, but sprints and field events as well. Score the damn meets. Provide win/loss records for fans to get behind. Track and running has a problem in that it's an individual sport stuck within a team sport. It's too multi-dimensional to be an individual sport. Fans and the media like sweet little numbers to wrap their heads around. 3:30 for a 1500m, 3:46 for a mile, 2:10 for a marathon....that's too complicated for the average fan to wrap their heads around. Alan Webb is 3-0 or Nike Running is 10-0 is easy to wrap your head around.

Alan

TMI wrote:

Nothing's going to change. T & F is what it is.

dude your attitude is what takes us no where.

confessions of a teenage troll wrote:

[quote]TMI wrote:

dude your attitude is what takes us no where.

Where is it that you'd like to go? T & F has a limited audience in this country, just like soccer. Creating hype, spending big bucks on PR campaigns or calling friggin' NBC isn't going to change that.

People will have a Superbowl party to watch the game.

They aren't going to have a WC party to watch the events from Osaka. Get over it and watch what coverage is available.

I honestly think the biggest hindrance is the insistance on co-ed meets. Like it or not female sports do not attract nearly the same amount of attention in any sport, save tennis and some olympic sports like gymnastics, yet the female events at pro track meets take up at least half of the coverage time and I think kill the flow of the meet for those primarily interested in the mens' events. I am not saying that I do not respect female athletics, but just as I watch the nba and not the wnba because of the god given traits that allow men to compete at a higher level, the same applies to track. Just look at the events that a sports fan but not yet neccesarily a track fan would tune in today to see. Webb bringing american distance running back to life, Tyson Gay gunning for a world record, the incredible depth in the 200 and maybe even the shot put, perhaps the greatest distance runner of all time in geb, the next michael johnson and jeremy wariner and even up and coming american talents like lukezic k. robinson and hall. Now imagine that same fan waiting for those events as he is forced to watch the womens 800, 1500, pole vault and other events that frankly do not interest them. Also, if the womens' events were taken out there would be more room for creative additions to the lineup of events, maybe convincing b list pros or local college stars at whatever town or city the series was at to compete on relay teams with points being accumulated each meet, who knows. The point is that even I, an avid track fan, tend to change the channel the 5th lap into the womens 5000.

As sad as it is to say, I agree with him. Nothing against women, god knows many of them have fun fast than me @ 5k, but it just is not as exciting, yet we should try working aruond that, there is no reason to start changing t & f, we do not need to change our ways. Good post though, great feedback

One poster or 2 previously mentioned something about appearances. I'm taking it just a step further....someone mentioned that they need names on their singlets, or some way to identify them. Think to NASCAR for a second. Every driver has the same car week in and week out. It provides significant "brand awareness", meaning it is very simple to find your favorite driver, or pick out a particular person within a big pack, etc. Track needs to do this. Whenever I watch a meet, most of the runners are outfitted in the exact same singlets. Understandably so since Nike is the large backer in our sport, but who is to say that they cannot mix it up a little? Give Alan Webb a particular color to have the audiences identify with, plus his name on the front or back prominently. Maybe Webb has a reddish singlet, Mottram has a blueish singlet, etc etc.

I also very much like the idea of incorporating road races, maybe even some XC into the whole notion of the World Marathon Championships. It is easier for the common person to grasp the concept if there is some sort of league, some form of scoring that is somewhat easy to follow week in and week out. If NASCAR can become basically a top 5 "sport" in our society today, track and field should absolutely be able to at THE VERY LEAST bump its place in the rankings of sports viewerships.

But how does that get more people to watch?

Go look at the ratings, folks. It's not how the product is marketed, it's the product.

yep..you are right! I went to the USATF championships in indiana...just parents, runners, and coaches!...no fans!

Whose driving the Fairness Doctrine? Libs. The FD was needed back in the 40's when there were limited media outlets, but not now. The libs want it now because they're losing.

As far as T & F getting on par with the NFL or MLB via a grassroots marketing effort, right, like that's going to happen. T & F attracts a particular type of athlete and I can tell you, since I spend time coaching soccer and field day at my kids' school, the percentage of kids into cardio sports is decreasing.

Throw gasoline in the steeple chase water jump, make the sprinters avoid the javelin, have the girls run topless, maybe then you'll increase viewership.

Time to go gas up my v8 SUV and run over a bunny.

TMI wrote:

Whose driving the Fairness Doctrine? Libs. The FD was needed back in the 40's when there were limited media outlets, but not now. The libs want it now because they're losing.

As far as T & F getting on par with the NFL or MLB via a grassroots marketing effort, right, like that's going to happen. T & F attracts a particular type of athlete and I can tell you, since I spend time coaching soccer and field day at my kids' school, the percentage of kids into cardio sports is decreasing.

Throw gasoline in the steeple chase water jump, make the sprinters avoid the javelin, have the girls run topless, maybe then you'll increase viewership.

Time to go gas up my v8 SUV and run over a bunny.

I'd argue that the Libs want it now because they are winning...

Yes a grass roots level won't put it on par with other American sports but it has a greater chance of success (i.e., funding) due to the current abysmal state of health with our Nation's youth...

One thing's for sure you can't change the product by introducing fire, topless runners, etc., we need to change the packaging. Comparability is crucial to success. Of course that being said I wouldn't be opposed to prims or other inducements to have a fast race...

Ya know you can offset your carbon footprint by eating that bunny after you run over it...

Changing the packaging won't attract any new viewers.

Attracting new athletes/fans has been talked about ad nauseum. The best thing to do is to keep it simple. Just try to help one young person embrace endurance sports.

Of course, make it T & F if possible.

No need for name calling and I can't help that you were young in the 80's and have no historical background to the popularity of track and field in the 30's, 40's and 50's. Go back and read the NY Times from those years and you will see how popular track was in the US (I can't speak for Europe and Asia). Also, you will see from other postings that, indeed, college dual meets, indoor meets at major arenas and international meets (vs. Russia, Britain and Germany) all had large crowds and more than a casual following. This no longer was the case in the 80's, as college teams began chasing times, indoor meets went by the wayside due to huge rental costs for arenas and the international meets no longer ocurred (due to the 1980 boycott perhaps).

By the mid 1960's track as a sport followed by the general populations began to shrink. The Jesse Abramson's of the world no longer were allocated large space in the sports section to cover local and or national track and field results. The advent of semi-professional track athletes that resulted in most world records being brocken by non-collegiate athletes also, I believe had a major affect on a waning interest in track and field.

Whereas there used to be three major indoor invitational meets in New York City every winter with the Millrose Games being the highlight, having over 18,000 legitimate attendees (the other meets were the NYAC meet and the K of C Meet), now the Millrose Games only survives and only by the skin of their teeth. The Boston Games is lucky to bring in 3,000 attendees. Not even the indoor meet in Baltimore had such a low attendance. Both Boston meets had at least 8,000+ at their gathering.

Sorry, as I stated earlier, track and field has been struggling for many years. There was no heyday in the 80's.

Our sport will get better when a truly organized effort is made to 1) make the general public aware of who the truly great athletes are in our sport and 2) make the sport fan friendly.

I used football in my previous example. Perhaps golf would be a better example. Imagine Tiger Woods only playing 2 or three tournaments a year and contstanly avoiding Singh or Mickelson at every turn, pointing to some future tournament as the end all. No, we need some common sense organization of the sport that sets up some competitive order between the top 8-10 athletes in each event (men and women). Just today there was an AP headline stating "Gay to run 100 meters in London, Powell will not be there" See you later. I get no joy out of seeing Gay run against no name guys. It was meaningless for Webb to run an AR in the mile being let around the track by two rabbits and no one coming within 50 meters of him. Big deal.

I've always thought that the lack of publicity is partially due to the fact there are too many professional track meets. While it's great that so many runners now have a chance to earn a paycheck, it dillutes the field of every meet you watch. There were far fewer major meets back in your "golden era" when the media covered track. Today there are attempts (Golden League, Visa Championship Series, etc.) to bring the best athletes together, but it still doesn't happen.

And when top runners do come together at national or world championships, the races are often tactical and somewhat boring for the average Joe (just like very few can see the beauty of a five hour ride and 20 second sprint in the TdF). This is also why I think sprints remain popular for the average fan: you know that in every race the runners are going as fast as they can. The Olympic 1500 is no longer "who is the fastest over 1500 meters" it is "who can time his kick the best."

Swiftly wrote:

One poster or 2 previously mentioned something about appearances. I'm taking it just a step further....someone mentioned that they need names on their singlets, or some way to identify them....Understandably so since Nike is the large backer in our sport, but who is to say that they cannot mix it up a little? Give Alan Webb a particular color to have the audiences identify with, plus his name on the front or back prominently. Maybe Webb has a reddish singlet, Mottram has a blueish singlet, etc etc.

i agree with the league idea and the names on the singlet, and a bunch of other stuff people have said. the other day during the belgium 5k on flocast the announcer said, "up front is a sea of yellow." he couldn't even identify everyone in the pack because they all looked the same. if you're not a winnter in track then you have no identity because you just look like another guy in a yellow jersey (why do nike and adidas use similar colors year after year!?).

also, all races should be run for money, with bonuses for fast times (and not all races should be run at every meet). if there were a financially stable league that paid out the money, rather than the meet organizers, then we could actually see some rivalries. instead we get everyone ducking each other because they go go to some other meet and still get paid.

and of course we'll continue to say it, but USATF and IAAF will continue to do nothing about it, but plaster those jerseys with sponsors! MLB had no say when the yankees decided to go with adidas as their sponsor. yet with track the federation's sponsors overrule the individual sponsors.

make the meets shorter, put them under the lights, and play some "you all have ADD and need constant stimulation"-type music throughout (like the NBA).

There is an indifference and even animosity to female athletics on this message board that is not reflected in the running community as a whole. Even at this point, more people know, and care, who Deena Kastor is than who Alan Webb is. Taking female events out of "coed" track meets is a terrible idea. Do you think I'd spend a whole day at Icahn Stadium for the Reebok Grand Prix in NY if there was no Defar or Dibaba, no Kim Smith and Lauren Fleshman and Treniere Clement? No