Is Indoor Track Dying Slow Death?

Indoor track has picked up in Europe and slowed down in the US on the pro circuit.

USATF indoors never had much participation.

College is as good as ever.

MG & BIG are watered down. Small athlete participation and little tiny stadiums at USAin and NCAAin. Bottom line is Indoors are not considered real T&F. UCLA and USC take the winter indoor season off and instead do outdoor workouts. That's huge because USC and UCLA are the only two Oly/WC/Major medal powerhouses and if they aren't in it the national media doesn't care.

I enjoy indoors alot more. The fan is alot closer to the action.

It's hard to make it over to watch outdoor meets because I've seen steeple events acheduled for example at 9:30 at night..

Indoor meets run more on weekends where I am at..easier to get to.

I understand though how the athlete feels about it.

Indoor wrote:

Image what we could produce if track and field thought like the NFL and built a venue for the fans in addition to the players.

We could produce a much bigger financial loss for the people paying the bills, that's what.

A 200m track is not just about the runners, but the logistics and view points as well, and doesn't take a lot of money to make small changes to make it better.

It doesn't? OK, tell us how to spend the money and exactly what we should do.

Indoor track is not dying. It is in the same place it has always been and the same place it will aways remain: A fringe sport. It will never, ever ever be anything like the NFL. Not because some promoter isn't doing his job but because nobody except hardcore fans of track and field want to spend money to watch people run in circles for 3 hours.

Buttsniffer wrote:

Here's the umbrella: running. Anything under this name will continue to be dwindling into nothingness. You picked a dying sport. Sorry.

not necessarily a "dying" sport but like an above poster said, "watered down" with a loss of competition

vgt wrote:

I enjoy indoors alot more. The fan is alot closer to the action.

It's hard to make it over to watch outdoor meets because I've seen steeple events acheduled for example at 9:30 at night..

Indoor meets run more on weekends where I am at..easier to get to.

I understand though how the athlete feels about it.

I always hated running indoor. Spectating indoor is okay but I think I'd rather watch an outdoor meet. I would be interested to see a steeple run indoors.

I personally would not mind indoor becoming irrelevant at the professional level if it meant that our professionals would stop being pansies and RUN CROSS COUNTRY!!!!!!

I really don't give a shit if Solinsky or Rupp runs 7:43 indoors when they could be mixing it up with the best Africans over 12k over hill and dale.

In response to the OP....we can only hope!

Watered down wrote:

UCLA and USC take the winter indoor season off and instead do outdoor workouts. That's huge because USC and UCLA are the only two Oly/WC/Major medal powerhouses and if they aren't in it the national media doesn't care.

Right, the media doesn't care about NCAA football this year since USC and UCLA aren't contenders.

Just like the media didn't care at all about the NCAA basketball tournament in 2010 when USC and UCLA both didn't make the field.

It's true the national media doesn't follow indoor track because UCLA/USC never participate at the team level. The media is focused on covering Olympic T&F and IAAF Worlds.

Winter football and track are not real sports.

The Stache wrote:

I personally would not mind indoor becoming irrelevant at the professional level if it meant that our professionals would stop being pansies and RUN CROSS COUNTRY!!!!!!

I really don't give a shit if Solinsky or Rupp runs 7:43 indoors when they could be mixing it up with the best Africans over 12k over hill and dale.

You must be crazy! Cross Country is the most boring sport known to mankind. Indoor track is Farrrrrrr more exciting. I will admit,anything over the mile is boring in indoor, but that is true for outdoors also. Distance running is for losers who cant do anything else.

Nat Turner wrote:

The Stache wrote:

I personally would not mind indoor becoming irrelevant at the professional level if it meant that our professionals would stop being pansies and RUN CROSS COUNTRY!!!!!!

I really don't give a shit if Solinsky or Rupp runs 7:43 indoors when they could be mixing it up with the best Africans over 12k over hill and dale.

You must be crazy! Cross Country is the most boring sport known to mankind. Indoor track is Farrrrrrr more exciting. I will admit,anything over the mile is boring in indoor, but that is true for outdoors also. Distance running is for losers who cant do anything else.

______________________________________________________________

What will result in our best distance runners being able to compete in outdoor track (ya know, where they have those little competitions called the Olympics, World Championships that everyone actually wants to go to, Diamond League, etc)? In my and many others' opinions, including many good coaches in the country, competing at a high level in international cross country would MUCH better prepare our best to compete in outdoor track - the races that really matter.

The Stache wrote:

Nat Turner wrote:

You must be crazy! Cross Country is the most boring sport known to mankind. Indoor track is Farrrrrrr more exciting. I will admit,anything over the mile is boring in indoor, but that is true for outdoors also. Distance running is for losers who cant do anything else.

______________________________________________________________

What will result in our best distance runners being able to compete in outdoor track (ya know, where they have those little competitions called the Olympics, World Championships that everyone actually wants to go to, Diamond League, etc)? In my and many others' opinions, including many good coaches in the country, competing at a high level in international cross country would MUCH better prepare our best to compete in outdoor track - the races that really matter.

Our US sprinters compete very well at a international level. Can we say the same about our distance runners? I'm tired of hearing you guys whinning about those genetically superior Africans who keep beating the shit out of you distance geeks.

WXC and WIC are not a majors. The money is not there. Most elites skip it or might do it for training. DL is the watered down Golden League which was failing. The DL, GP meets are 2 hr TV meets with no heats, they and not majors.

Nat, in case you didn't notice, sprinters don't run cross country. Indoor track is great preparation for sprinters, for jumpers, for vaulters, for multi-event athletes, and even for middle distance runners (800 guys and even 800-mile types who don't have the mule genes for XC).

Seriously, do you pay attention around here? Of ALL people who post on this board, I am not the one to be lecturing on sprinting. I know damn well our sprinters have been and are still on the top of the world. I am one of the few who post on this board who even cares about sprinting, much less jumping events and throws.

So, my comments were directed toward distance running, this is letsrun.com after all.

You (I assume you) always come on here talking about "majors." The "majors" in track are World Championships and Olympics. My point still stands: What will better prepare our distance runners for outdoor World Champs and Olympics? Racing the mile in indoor track, or running international cross country? Look at the 5000 and 10000 medalists over the past couple of decades. The vast majority of them not only ran XC, they excelled. Sure, Bekele ran some indoor too, but never at the expense of XC.

The Stache wrote:

I personally would not mind indoor becoming irrelevant at the professional level if it meant that our professionals would stop being pansies and RUN CROSS COUNTRY!!!!!!

I really don't give a shit if Solinsky or Rupp runs 7:43 indoors when they could be mixing it up with the best Africans over 12k over hill and dale.

Cross country is a glorified jogging club. Nobody outside East Africa cares. That's why IAAF is phasing it out. Same for the death of 10000 in Europe--due to "lack of interest," as Renato put it: Kenyans are being forced into Marathons with the fitness joggers as pro distance racing is being gradually phased out in Europe.

I care that Solinsky works on his speed a bit indoors (3000 or even 1500), as he will need it in Deagu. But indoors will have very little pro participation in the US this year because there's no World Indoors this year.

There is no money in pro track and field in the US, so why even talk about it. Numbers are at an all time high for high school track and field, college track and field seems to have stabilized to the point where fewer programs are being dropped, year to year. Now, if head college coaches, who are distance coaches would allow their athletes to compete more than once a month, especially indoors, track meets would be more fun to watch. The old saying of out of sight, out of mind is paramount to the success of our sport. Build a program where one has enough athletes to please distance runners (not compete every weekend) and let the sprinters, hurdlers, jumpers and throwers compete on a weekly (that what it's all about anyway).

The big indoor arena meets are irrelevant to the success of indoor track. Arena costs, lack of high school and college participation have taken away that venue.

However, look at activity in areas that have always been popular for indoor track, that have good facilities and you can see how indoor track is still alive and well. (Boston, Providence, NY City, Washington, DC, etc. etc)