"Aided", Metrics, and why Track/Running cannot crack Mainstream American Sports.......

Oh, you figured it out.

Change these things and you will get big TV contracts, huge crowds and everyone playing fantasy track and field.

You have any bright ideas?

C'Mon toro...or are you happy buying your $10 ticket for Millrose and then sneaking down to the front row acting like you're all that...scared of the sport getting big?

You might have to stay in the cheap seats buddy....

Captain Track wrote:

You have any bright ideas?

Here's one. Focus more on real competition. Don't focus so much on finishing times, except insofar as they are used to determine winners and losers. In the team sports that you mention, the primary focus is on winning and losing. That's also true in the great majority of individual sports, even those in which finishing times determine who wins and who loses. Consider, for example, downhill skiing. No one cares who has the world record for the fastest clocking in a downhill race of a certain distance. Skiing fans are smart enough to understand that some courses are faster than others, and some courses are faster on some days than they are on others. The glory goes to the individuals who win against the toughest competition, not those who set world speed records. The same is generally true of cycling, auto racing, horse racing, and most other sports that large numbers of people enjoy watching. As a spectator, my favorite running races are cross-country races, where it's all about head-to-head competition, and not about things like pacemakers, tailwinds, net downhill courses, synthetic running surfaces, and various other gimmicks and conditions that make the participants able to go faster.

Of course, there will always be a place for comparing running performances over specified distances. And for such purposes, standards like those of the IAAF and the ARRS seem entirely appropriate to me. Events like the Boston marathon, and performances like those of G. Mutai and R. Hall on Monday, don't count for those purposes. Why should that bother you so much? There are plenty of other events for people who want to measure their performances for such purposes.

"Wind-aided" most definitely has parallels in other sports. If a running back gains 16 yards on a play where holding is called, the gain is called back and most, or all, of the yardage is wiped off the running back's stats. Ditto for a quarterback who throws a touchdown pass on a play with an ineligible receiver downfield. In baseball, if there is an attempted steal on a wild pitch, the steal does not count in the statistics. Doesn't matter if they guy hasn't been thrown out in five years, it still doesn't count. The baseball parallel is even closer to track because there is no "foul" involved, it's just the dumb luck of the circumstances.

Every sport has technicalities as part of the sport, and especially as part of the statistics. Wind-aided just happens to be where it happens in track and field. Get used to it.

Baseball isn't concerned with the length of home runs. In football the wind doesn't enhance performance and basketball... well.

In track we compete first and measure our times secondly. It is natural to weed out fortuitous gifts like the wind because our sport is all about measurement.

Captain Track wrote:

You have any bright ideas?

Yes, I have a few bright ideas.

One of them, which really doesn't take a genius to figure out: Track and Field is BORING.

Don't get me wrong, I love the sport. I have been involved at a very high level both as an athlete and a participant and I admire, respect and appreciate great performances (including this year's Boston).

But, when you get right down to it, running is not very exciting compared to the big team sports. Ask 100 kids if they'd rather play a game of pickup (fill in the blank) or go run a long distance and 99 of them will pick the game.

Track/Running will NEVER crack Mainstream American Sports.

Get used to it.

Well there is always this wrote:

One of them, which really doesn't take a genius to figure out: Track and Field is BORING.

Its huge in Europe because the sport is run by professionals who know how to stage a competition.

Randy Oldman wrote:

Well there is always this wrote:

One of them, which really doesn't take a genius to figure out: Track and Field is BORING.

Its huge in Europe because the sport is run by professionals who know how to stage a competition.

In Europe I think that I would compare it to the only real mainstream sport there - soccer. The money involved, the attendance, the level of insanity of T & F compared to soccer in Europe is a very small fraction multiplied by a very small fraction.

Just for completeness - I also think that the thread was about cracking Mainstream AMERICAN Sports.

Sadly, aint gonna happen.

Ever.

My cure for track and field is specialty meets. Meets are just too disorganized eve when meets are highly organized. I think allsprint, all-distance, all-throws meets, etc., with lots of heats of similar events would draw larger specialty crowds. I'd personally watch hours of sub elite 5ks rather than a meet with one of every event.

Bring all the events together for a championship but run specialty meets for spectators.

In Europe I think that I would compare it to the only real mainstream sport there - soccer.

Football (not soccer) is NOT the only "mainstream" sport in Europe - if you don't know what you are talking about, wouldn't it be better to just not say anything?

We see these posts all the time. I agree with some of your ideas. The metric stuff particularly in the distance races, hurts here in the US. The 1500 & 1600 are an abomination. Run the mile & 2 mile for God's sake.

I'm not saying the Oly standard should change, but just here in the USA we need to make it easy on the audience.

Well I ran at Millrose and had a pretty good view then.

(It was just a relay, but I got a nice pen for the team winning)

Track is a niche sport and is not going to crack Mainstream American Sports.

People that have followed the sport for years realize this.

Regardless, the sport is getting better and the athletes are getting better and careers are longer.

But if there is anything particularly wrong with the sport it is the lack of big math ups.

Geb has not raced Wanjiru.

Now these guys need to race Mutai.

Get Bolt, Powell and Gay in the same race in the US.

There are things that can be done to increase interest.

But it is just not going to be mainstream.

It's still a pretty good sport for those who follow it.

Keeping the distances metric and restricting records to non-aided performances is not a bad thing.

This post should be repeated in every single thread about running, popularity, and anything involving the Boston world record discussion.

pinchot wrote:

Baseball isn't concerned with the length of home runs. In football the wind doesn't enhance performance and basketball... well.

In track we compete first and measure our times secondly. It is natural to weed out fortuitous gifts like the wind because our sport is all about measurement.

In football wind definitely influences the kicking and passing game.

Wind is not weeded out in road running. Can you name a course in which the wind is monitored and a judgment is made based on it as to whether records will be recognized? No. It's only about elevation drop and the proximity of the start and finish locations to each other with respect to the distance of the race.

Total Knob wrote:

In Europe I think that I would compare it to the only real mainstream sport there - soccer.

Football (not soccer) is NOT the only "mainstream" sport in Europe - if you don't know what you are talking about, wouldn't it be better to just not say anything?

Sorry Doorknob, but soccer is the only big time professional sport in Europe. And, in case you weren't aware the game that Americans call soccer is the same game that Europeans call football. I know, multiple names for the same thing can be a bit confusing for doorknobs.

If we want Track and Field to be more popular, the IAAF and IOC need to make it an INTERNATIONAL TEAM COMPETITION at the World Championships and Olympics. Period. Look at the affect that the World Cup had on the US public while it was going on. Most people in America don't give a hoot in hell about soccer, but when you put national pride on the line in competition suddenly everybody is gathering in large groups across the nation cheering on good ole USofA. Soccer was so popular during the WORLD CUP. I believe the year that USA wins the World Cup will be year that the popularity of soccer explodes in the US.

With Track and Field its the same concept; popularity arises from national pride and longing to see the USA win baby.

Score the meets in similar way to NCAA championship meets.

Could you imagine the madness of the team gold medal coming down to the 4x400 in olympics between the USA and some other rival country? We (Americans) would be going absolutely insane screaming at our televisions and wildly celebrating the outcome.