Just posted on usatf.org
Just posted on usatf.org
Definitely big news.
I must say I'm very surprised. We'll try and find out more about the bids, but the Houston bids must have been very, very strong.
Congrats to Houston and to USATF for not letting Boston and NY rest on their laurels.
Video of the announcement sent to us by the organizers on the homepage, USATF announcement here:
If in fact this choice was made because it gives our athletes the best chance in the Games, then it was a great choice.
Thank god.
I think it is great that the Men and Women will be selected on the same day. Surely both races won't be run at the same time though. Does one race start at 8 AM and the other at 11 or something like that?
Also, this must means that the window for qualifying will stay open until Dec 14th 2011? (30 days out from the trials date). This could include any fall Marathons/Half-marathons which could be great news for those on the border of qualifying who might need that extra time.
To quote Lloyd Christmas.... "We landed on the moon!"
This is old news, there was a thread about this a few weeks ago titled "When was houston awarded the olympic marathon trials?" Or something like that.
No, it's "new news" because Houston is now hosting BOTH the men AND women.
I'd venture the decision has more to do with New York & Boston being unwilling to eat another $1.25 million to stage the trials.
Sponsorship conflicts with the USOC were never resolved after the last trials in NY & Boston (basically, the USOC didn't budge).
The USOC doesn't have an energy sponsor so Houston (Chevron) is sitting pretty.
What a terrible decision.
I know Houston that has done a good job with their marathon/half-marathons, and they have been very accommodating hosts to their athletes, and they must have put out a very strong bid. I don't mean to belittle any of that.
But, quite frankly, if we really want to put our American athletes on the world stage, this was a tremendous mistake for USATF. Houston is a nice city but it does not even come close to New York or Boston in terms of generating publicity, hype, and fan excitement. The amount of sponsorship money and media attention will be significantly lower than what it could have been.
New York, especially, could not have done a better job in 2007. What a total let down for Mary Wittenberg.
what are the A and B standards or whatever they are called to run at the trials?
runBen wrote:
What a terrible decision.
I know Houston that has done a good job with their marathon/half-marathons, and they have been very accommodating hosts to their athletes, and they must have put out a very strong bid. I don't mean to belittle any of that.
But, quite frankly, if we really want to put our American athletes on the world stage, this was a tremendous mistake for USATF. Houston is a nice city but it does not even come close to New York or Boston in terms of generating publicity, hype, and fan excitement. The amount of sponsorship money and media attention will be significantly lower than what it could have been.
New York, especially, could not have done a better job in 2007. What a total let down for Mary Wittenberg.
Wow you sound stupid. If we want to put our runners on the world stage what does publicity, hype and fan excitement have to do with anything? Fast times put you on the world stage and Houston is a much faster course than Boston or NY.
If it's on a 10k crit course, I'd like to see the women start their race 25-30 minutes before the men. Then we'd see the top three for each finish within 10 minutes of each other.
Big deal. The timing of the trials will better serve runners being at their best again in July and August, which is the actual world stage.
runBen wrote:
But, quite frankly, if we really want to put our American athletes on the world stage, this was a tremendous mistake for USATF. Houston is a nice city but it does not even come close to New York or Boston in terms of generating publicity, hype, and fan excitement. The amount of sponsorship money and media attention will be significantly lower than what it could have been.
Lets see London weather Houston weather ? London course , Houston course , not similar ? Market hype vs other majors ? Another blunder by Logan. Maybe someday the course will be chosen because its closer to the actual race course layout and climatic conditions , not bid dollars. Keep the athletes in mind.
London and Houston courses are very similar...definitely more comparable than New York or Boston. And as for weather, has there been a major (Houston included) marathon in the last 7-9 years that has had consistently good weather as Houston? No!
It's entirely about money. Absolutely nothing else.
I'd say that Houston weather in January is fairly comparable to London weather in August. Maybe 5-10 degrees off, but Houston is very moderate in January, and London is very moderate in August.
runBen wrote:
But, quite frankly, if we really want to put our American athletes on the world stage, this was a tremendous mistake for USATF. Houston is a nice city but it does not even come close to New York or Boston in terms of generating publicity, hype, and fan excitement. The amount of sponsorship money and media attention will be significantly lower than what it could have been.
New York, especially, could not have done a better job in 2007. What a total let down for Mary Wittenberg.
I disagree with what you are saying. In terms of publicity, one thing matters most- national TV coverage, preferably on an overtheair network. That is what gets eyeballs.
The Trials were held in NY last time. Sure they get some local coverage the week of the race but there are a lot of other things going on in NY. In terms of national coverage as long as the race is on a major network, the coverage and viewers will be roughly similar.
In terms of fan excitement, I don't think most fans are going to care too much where Ritz vs Hall vs Meb happens.
The race will get more local publicity in Houston than NY leading up to the event I believe just because it is a smaller market.
As for "The amount of sponsorship money and media attention will be significantly lower than what it could have been."
I assume the package was first and foremost evaluated on its sponsorship package. All things equal I don't think USATF would hand the trials to Houston unless it was offering more money.
My guess is that Houston won the Trials by offering more money than NY or Boston. That is what I assume it came down to, money. Houston offered more and won. NY and Boston are free to say, "your race will get more publicity here" but if they are not turning that publicity into $$$ in their bid then USATF should pick someone else. Likely it seems to me the sponsorship money increased with Houston and that is why it was chosen.
Ritz got an estimated $200,000 for his debut in NY a few years ago. Ryan Hall gets six figure appearance fees. If done right the Trials could have a half-million dollar prize purse with the state of men's marathoning in the US. If anyone has more details on the bids please email or post here.
Can we agree it's better than Pittsburgh or Birmingham?
London Calling wrote:
Lets see London weather Houston weather ? London course , Houston course , not similar ? Market hype vs other majors ? Another blunder by Logan. Maybe someday the course will be chosen because its closer to the actual race course layout and climatic conditions , not bid dollars. Keep the athletes in mind.
The course closest to the London marathon in terms of weather and course is the Shittown marathon in Wymoming in July. Let's do it!