Track and field — going nowhere fast in the United States

Don't just continually bite the hand that feeds you, KILL IT!

hannsen wrote:

ever take a sick day? if you have maybe you should rethink your stance on rupp being not worthy of his contract for not running in conditions when he couldnt breathe. i mean on a sick day youre just getting paid to sit at home- pretty lame really.

Ever take a sic day on a day where you had a big presentation for your company and you had a sore throat is a more applicable comparison.

In terms of "saving" or "restoring" T&F as a spectator sport, these distance guys are not going to do it becuase even in T&F's popular heyday distance runners were not what spectators wanted to see. In the 72 Munich Olympics you had US legends Pre in the 5000 and Shorter in the 10000 (against Viren in both), but I bet 95% of the American and other spectators there would have preferred to have tickets to see the sprints, relays, 800/1500, pole vault, long jump, shot put, hurdles.

Race Director wrote:

Hall. Meb. Wheating. Solinsky. Cox.

These guys are doing it and willingly. You just don't hear about it because there is no $$ marketing it other than their personal Twitter, FB or occasional sponsor.

Hall is everywhere. Meb was just signing autographs in my area at the local high school. And some of the women in our sport are beautiful.

The access is there. The participants are there. We just need some organization.

so if you cant talk during your presentation should you come in or not?

z runner wrote:

Separately, as a participation sport you today see marathon and 1/2 marathon running, trail running, and triathlons all getting popular participation. That's good. But that's like bowling. Millions participate in it, but it's just not covered as a spectator sports, other than in running-geek websites. I'll bet there must be some bowling-geek version of LetsRun.com.

It'll probably never happen, but American distance running would get quite a boost if we had a charismatic, good-looking "superstar" that could break world records and win gold medals. Swimming isn't exactly the NFL, but Phelps generated some interest for a few years. 3 or 4 of them would get things back to the popularity the sport had in the 70s. Still not the NFL, but we'd at least have some sportscenter time and less than embarrassing stands.

Other ideas include: selling beer at meets, live music & home-town teams that compete on a season-long, cumulative point system. It'd be like NASCAR, 10 or so teams race 10 or so races over the course of the summer, going to different venues each time. Then they all go off to Europe. We need a stronger "leauge", I guess. We all like to fuss about stuff like that, but the NFL, NBA, MLB have a strangle hold over what their athletes are doing and the organization and accessibility works out.

Look What I Found... wrote:

z runner wrote:

Separately, as a participation sport you today see marathon and 1/2 marathon running, trail running, and triathlons all getting popular participation. That's good. But that's like bowling. Millions participate in it, but it's just not covered as a spectator sports, other than in running-geek websites. I'll bet there must be some bowling-geek version of LetsRun.com.

http://letsbowl.com/

Bowliing has had a prominent place on tv for over 40 years but very few bowlers can make a good living. A few years ago there were only a handful making over 50k with most of the others doing seminars, instruction, and endorsements to make enough money to stay on the tour.

Track and field is just not a sport that interests the masses of The United States and it will never be.

You just have to accept that.

I don't see all that many problems for track and field and distance running in the US. In any high school it might be the number one sport in terms of numbers of kids taking part. There is a healthy collegiate system for those who want to take it further. Road race participation is going through the roof in most areas. In terms of overall participation it is booming like it never has.

It is the centerpiece of the Summer Olympics, one of the biggest televised sporting events in the world.

At the pro level, US runners don't dominate the world, but they are now doing as well as they have since the emergence of East African runners decades ago.

So what if it isn't a huge spectator sport on a regular basis in the US? Why do people seem to care so much about that?

Meet attendence isn't everything.

Neither is network TV coverage.

Times have changed.

I think many fans are like myself, we watch races on youtube clips and keep updated by Letsrun and other internet outlets.

There may even be a bigger fan base than ever.

So we know they are running faster than ever. And the fast times are going deeper.

We certainly have more discussions about track than ever via internet forums.

I know I have seen more races now than I was able to see in 90's when I watched every televised meet there was. The internet has helped there.

I get all results instantly. I have now even seen races from past that I never saw before because of the internet.

Nike not recouping their investment? How many times do you see that word posted or discussed? It's everywhere. The branding and product placing is well in effect.

The sport is great.

what about beach volleyball wrote:

...Track and field is just not a sport that interests the masses of The United States and it will never be.

You just have to accept that.

Agreed that T&F will never be of mass interest. It is just too boring watching people run around in circles.

Don't agree that one just has to accept this fact. Many spend their whole lives beating their head against the wall of reality.

the answer is long distance obstacle course xc. make sub-elite post collegiate teams in each city and have barriers, rope swings, river crossings and steep hill climbs. put it on universal sports(who currently shows 8 hours of WWF every day) every saturday. get people interested in watching running and then maybe track will pick up that viewership

Those of us who do not make a living from the sport should be happy now - a road racing boom, interesting pros to watch, a very strong USA TF team, sites like lrc to obsess over them...

If you make your living from track..not so good.

Clearly, the success of the webcasts of the London Marathon and Pre Friday is the way this is going - With a wealthy and smart subculture like distance runners, we'll see more and more meets webcast only, maybe at a fee of $5 pay per view or something like that.

I would pay $40 for a Diamond League webcast subscription - as long as it can be watched later and paused and rerun like a DVR.

Which might be better than Universal, which apparently is not available in many places.

I agree that track in the US is in great shape compared to where it was, say, 10 years ago.

However, Mr. Abrahamson makes an excellent point about condensing the meet to highlight important events. More so, though, announcers need to explain to the non-runner viewers why they should care. They need to do a better job of building drama. Cutting away from the most anticipated event, the 2 mile, to show random high jump clips does not help.

In distance races, the excitement doesn't happen all at once, so you need to help the uneducated audience. Instead of harping on the slow first mile of the 2 mile, talk about how a tactical race favors a savy vet like Lagat. Explain the tactics going on. Then, mention how this aid's Lucas' record attempt (which shamefully got no mention. People like the idea of kids mixing it up with people twice their age. Recall Hasay at the Olympic Trials.), or how an underdog like Teg was in it with 200 to go, like he had a chance to steal it.

Then instead of mentioning the lack of an AR, get EXCITED about closing in a 4:00 mile (even if people don't know what 8:13 means, everyone understands 4:00). No one cares if Albert Pujols was 0-4 before if he belts a walk-off homer. The same principle applies here.

Basically don't just highlight times, anyone can get those online. People tune in to NASCAR and horse racing to see a race, so don't announce this like a time trial. If you don't do that, it reinforces the idea that it's just skinny guys in short shorts going for a jog.

ex college runner wrote:

Then instead of mentioning the lack of an AR, get EXCITED about closing in a 4:00 mile (even if people don't know what 8:13 means, everyone understands 4:00). No one cares if Albert Pujols was 0-4 before if he belts a walk-off homer. The same principle applies here.

Basically don't just highlight times, anyone can get those online. People tune in to NASCAR and horse racing to see a race, so don't announce this like a time trial. If you don't do that, it reinforces the idea that it's just skinny guys in short shorts going for a jog.

Great points. What much of distance racing has been reduced to is an unrealistic quest for records. Records will always be the occasional byproduct of strong competition. What happened Friday was just lame. Who in their right mind is going to travel or pay to see rupp race when he's more than likely to drop out anyway? I love watching 5/10k races, the time is incidental. It's how the race develops that's of interest.

1) It's not about the times, it's about winning. No one outside of very good runners knows what a good 5k,10k, marathon ect time is. Molly Huddle setting the AR in a race that she was non-competitive in is a good example of how little the time matters.

2) Track meets are boring as hell unless you really understand what's going on. The majority of the meet is athletes standing around, waiting for the next heat, blah blah. So boring.

3) This site is mainly distance people. Distance races, to virtually anyone outside the tiny track community, are the most boring of boring. The 2 mile at Pre was a great example of a super boring race. F*** around for 7.5 laps, then someone starts to run. This isn't exciting, even for most track enthusiasts, let alone the average person at home.

The team thing isn't going to happen and it's not a big improvement. Unless the financial incentives for athletes change, athletes won't compete more often or at different meets. As the article pointed out, 2 meets matter. US nationals and the world champs. Outside of that, the athletes don't really have a reason to compete. I commend the ones that do (Flanagan, Lagat, ect) and if it wasn't for them the sport would be in way worse shape.

Suggestions (I don't agree with the author on his):

1) Meets, any of them, must take less time. If time is needed between heats in the 100, run a 800 or 1500. Never have more than 2 minutes of dead time on the track. Give people a reason to watch.

2)Seperate Field from the Track. Field events are generally harder to understand and there's very little 'real time' value in watching them. In most cases they have more attempts so 1 throw/jump isn't a big deal. Using them to take up time during track events waters down the whole event from a TV perspective.

3)Accept that distance running is niche, and at best can be shown like a Nascar/Indycar race with commercials during it. Watching people run for 13/14 minutes for a 5k (twice that for a 10k) just isn't that compelling. Start it the second after another race is done and there's still commentary on that one happening. Jump to it in the middle, go to a commercial, show the last 2 minutes because there's where the winner will be decided anyway. I know this is oversimplification, but it would make them more bearable.

4) Stop having meets in remote locations (yes, Eugene is remote, as is Des Moines). They need to be in Chicago, NYC, LA, SF, ect. Hell have a meet in Vegas and let people bet on it real time. The meets have to stop being in niche places because some bullshit 'power player' in the track world made some stupid deal.

5) Have events like the Bailey vs Johnson showndown. Where is there a law that 8 guys have to line up for any sprint? most likely, 6 of them are non-competitive to win anyway. We just want to see the two. Let Tyson Gay race Chris Johnson(from the Titans) and see who really is faster. That would get a hell of a lot more viewers than Pre did.

Track isn't going to get big overnight, baby steps need to happen. I don't think the sport is actually heading in the right direction here in the US. Some of our athletes are more competitive now (IE distance races) but in the sprints were's 2nd class to Jamaica now. We need to field great athletes, in meaningful meets, in meaningful cities, that are competing to win.

re: Bears not playing.

Professional sports teams do this all the time. "Important" players sit out "meaningless" games prior to playoffs.

Betting is the key. Horse races are on tv more often than people races, and its horses!!! Add in the human element and pursuit of records coupled with betting, its a definite win. Of course, since its an individual sport, questionable things could happen like in tennis, but still. Basically I love to gamble, and betting on humans running around in circles would be fun.

As far as the Bailey v Johnson thing....running in the 1800s used to be like that. Two guys would bet on whether or not "their guy" would win a race. The steeplechase originated in this fashion. Runners would race each other from one town's steeple to the next traversing creeks and low stone walls that separated estates.

Alan

Re: Bears Playing

Yeah maybe when they're a lock for the playoff with one or two games left to play. Not when they're playing a rival team in a highly anticipated match.

There was quite a bit of AR talk going into Friday's diamond league 10k, and the deepest 10k In history followed. Maybe it wasn't equivalent in stature to USAs or worlds but it was a lot more than a small time tune up or a rust buster. It certainly was more important than week 17 in the NFL is to a team who's playoff standings have already been decided.

The Pre Classic shouldn't be a "meaningless" race that "important" runners sit out. If the only thing that matters is getting to worlds and racing worlds, then this sport has faded into complete oblivion.