the cost of the trials is obscene

From a corporate standpoint, $1.2 million is not a lot of money.

I suspect that due to the new standards and only 50 qualifying and 30 that will show up (maybe 20 finish?) that the 2012 marathon trials will be run on the track. Or if they are lucky on some deserted road in BFE. This way they can put on the even for as little as possible. With any luck they will eliminate the prize money as well. That should help development.

By the way, to answer your questions police assistance is quite expensive. Cops get paid off duty over-time to stand there (which for my brother-in-law copper) means they pull in about 70-90 dollars and hour depending on what they make.

1.2 million is not that much anymore if you get plenty of sponsors. Also would you rather have the trials run without the road blocked off and security and media and having all the top atheltes put themselves up in one of the new york hotels. I bet that chicago and new york marathons cost way more then that and when you think about it those are pretty trivial since they are just regualar races. Seriously quit your bitching and enjoy the show.

college runner...

My point is that $1.2 million is a lot of money to spend on determining the three best runners. I understand that sponsors are in existence to help defray those costs, but honestly all that money could be better spent.

Chicago and NY are largely offset by sponsors AND the gigantic entry fees that are now in place. Those races as compared to the trials is apples and oranges.

Your comment "enjoy the show" was really weak. I can I enjoy something that wasn't on TV, that used streaming technology that worked for about half the people I've talked to, and was in a city I can't afford to stay one night in.

i don't normally agree with ralph nader but, yes, that is an obscene amount for what this race is.

What were the costs when the trials were held in Birmingham? I would suspect the costs were comparable.

tell me what you're smokin...

nyc=expensive

the cops had to have cost more (cost of living is insanely more than it is pohdunk alabama. therefore, the cops must get paid more), shutting down central park probably costs alot, and the hotels in nyc compared to birmingham?! palease!

somehow i doubt that. and i don't think whether it's more or less or the comparable is the point of the thread, anyway.

what do you want them to do?

this is/was the biggest championship for our sport! $1.2 mil hardly compares to what it takes to put on other major sporting events.

i\'m glad they spent that much, and wish they\'d spend more! whatever it takes (except sacrificing the integrity of the sport, ie. i don\'t want to see our sport made a spectacle of...like racing horses in a trick show or something) to get more exposure!

show me tha monay!!!!

what about just holding the trials concurrent with another big city marathon like the women are doing? Would eliminate the cost, since all the average runners and corporate sponsors foot the bill, and you are guaranteed to have good crowd support

fine idea. but the women aren't doing that, either.

I voted for you in 2000 and 2004.

The NYRR doesn't seem to be complaining.

Hasn't the sponsorship issues been discussed? The conclusion being that you can't have a sponsor that conflicts with a USOC sponsor. Though, now that BofA has bought LaSalle Bank, maybe that makes Chicago palatable?

If NY spent 1.2 million to put on the trials that is fine with me. No one forced them to do this.

$250,000 in Prize money means they got the top American athletes for under the going rate. How they dropped another million I'm not sure but perhaps they are factoring in some of their advertising budget (which included the NYC marathon) expenses for employees (which may be shared with the NYC Marathon).

ING and NY got a lot of return on their investment.

Akron and others would have loved to have the 2008 NY Trials and were willing to put up the same $250,000 on prize money. The NYRR has money to burn anyway so don't feel sorry for them.

Assuming the event isn't losing money - meaning the costs aren't greater than the revenue - then it's not waste. Because that means that sponsors feel they are getting value for their money. But, on the other hand, if it loses money, then yes, there is either waste or poor monetization of the sponsorship opportunities of the event. Either way, you can't look at it as the costs of selecting a marathon team, but as a sports marketing opportunity.