Sub-Elite $$ support should be non-existent

Disagree.

Think about it. If your group of say 500 sub-elites costs you $350 per year in product (shoes, jersey, warmup gear, shirts etc – we’re talking about manufacturer product cost, not retail cost here), you’re looking at a spend of $175,000.

Each of those 500 runners is going to be talking about the stuff they got for free (from their sponsor) to their friends, family etc. They show up at local road races and win, wearing sponsor gear. They won’t make the front page of national publication, but their local paper may have a picture of them in their sponsor’s gear.

On the other hand, kids, who don’t pay for shoes in the first place (their parents pay) don’t have the same kind of buying power that adults do. Spending the money on kids would be a waste.

put money into 21-22 year olds who are fresh out of college + have talent & potential.

every year hundreds of guys like this graduate and quit competitive running at this age. boggles my mind. they still have 8-12 years where they could train and reach their physical peak/run their best times. (but i understand the societal pressures to "quit playing games" and get a job, wife, kids, house, etc. not that i agree with following them...)

the fact that they survived HS and college running serves as a selection or "weeding out" process in itself. if you've quit by the time you're a college senior for whatever reason (to much stress to handle running + school, girls, job, etc.) that's fine. it says you likely don't have the motivation to put in another 8-12 years of work to improve. but for those college seniors that are still running/improving/stayed healthy to that point, support should go to them. it is most likely that people within that group have both the motivation and durability to make improvements and run their best during their late 20s/early 30s.

Well the point is to support the development of the sport not make an argument for why shoe companies supporting sub-elites is more cost-effective way to advertise than supporting children. So you're a bit off topic. Furthermore, I disagree with your hypothetical. Sub-elites as you defined, AKA those people in clubs that get free gear, usually aren't that in love with the gear the receive. Frankly, it can cause actual problem for the athletes. Say Asics sponsors my club and I get $350 of stuff, $150 of which is spikes and trainers that I don't like. I'm not going to go out and advertise via word of mouth. Either way, you're post is irrelevant.

I'd argue those college athletes have already proved they don't have what it takes to be worth the investment in their futures. And the weeding out process does work, but in slightly different way then you suggest. Those who have been through the ringer for 6-8 years (some hs years + 4 college years) and haven't shown olympic contender potential, don't have it, so we should move on. Sure they may improve, I don't disagree with that, but they aren't likely to improve to the international level if they aren't already there.

OverTheHillAndBackAgain wrote:

Well the point is to support the development of the sport not make an argument for why shoe companies supporting sub-elites is more cost-effective way to advertise than supporting children. So you're a bit off topic. Furthermore, I disagree with your hypothetical. Sub-elites as you defined, AKA those people in clubs that get free gear, usually aren't that in love with the gear the receive. Frankly, it can cause actual problem for the athletes. Say Asics sponsors my club and I get $350 of stuff, $150 of which is spikes and trainers that I don't like. I'm not going to go out and advertise via word of mouth. Either way, you're post is irrelevant.

It's very relevant. You asked about sponsoring sub elites. My response was about sub-elites.

What's the ROI for the companies to sponsor camps and developmental situations for kids who do not have any buying power? NXN works because Nike has a great campus the athletes get to visit and gain a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Outside of that, NB nationals, Footlocker etc are what they call "title sponsors." Same thing as the "Bank of America Chicago Marathon" or the "John Hancock Boston Marathon.” They don’t expect to make money off of the millions spent sponsoring the race, but it’s for brand identity and recognition. B of A’s logo is EVERYWHERE during the Chicago Marathon.

The shoe companies could care less about developing talent. Go look back at the Jr high phoenoms. Kevin Havel from IL ran, I believe a 4:31? Mile in 8th grade. Yet he never ended up in Stanford’s top 7. The kids can’t take free gear from the companies as that would be an endorsement, which is against NCAA and every high school athletics’ organizations rules. You want to develop talent? Look at the local running clubs. The club I’m on has kids nights in the summer and sets up track races. Tehre’s also a few track clubs aimed specifically at the U18 crowd.

Getting back to my point, sponsoring sub-elites is an extremely small expense in their company’s hundred++ million dollar advertising budgets.

I will be the judge of whether or not it's relevant and it's irrelevant.

I'm not talking about ROI in terms of shoe sales, something I highly doubt you know anything about from the way you write. If I cared about marketing ROIs I'd ballpark them myself, which I'm sure I could do better than you.

I'm talking ROI in terms of developing talent. That's great that you think that shoe companies don't care about developing talent, but I'm 100% certain Phil Knight would disagree with you.

If they're good enough, sponsors will come. Why is this so hard to understand? I don't see in this competitive climate, anyone who runs 2:15 expects to get paid for their hobby. It is barely good enough to playing single A baseball.

OverTheHillAndBackAgain wrote:

I will be the judge of whether or not it's relevant and it's irrelevant.

I'm not talking about ROI in terms of shoe sales, something I highly doubt you know anything about from the way you write. If I cared about marketing ROIs I'd ballpark them myself, which I'm sure I could do better than you.

I'm talking ROI in terms of developing talent. That's great that you think that shoe companies don't care about developing talent, but I'm 100% certain Phil Knight would disagree with you.

Where's the ROI on developing talent? Is that going to increase brand awareness or increase sales? The kids don't have any buying power. It's their parents that do. These companies aren't charities. They are for-profit, businesses, many of which are publicly traded. So who is going to pay for it? There are already training camps available -- Wisconsin has one that many people (including Evan Jager, I believe) take advantage it. You

On top of that, you run into issues like Mary Cain is -- she's NOT a Nike athlete and has to pay for coaching / shoes etc. Now, you won't see her in anything but Nike equipment, but I'm pretty sure that was either part of the stipulation of her being coached by Alberto or something under the table. If she doesn't wear Nike, then she's effectively advertising another brand, and Alberto is a Nike employee.

All in all, there isn't any money to be made for the companies, so it's a moot point. The companies don't care about talent development at such a young age. There is much better return with sponsoring running clubs and sub-elites as they have the local media attention and buying power. I know many on my team, who is sponsored by Saucony, buy Saucony clothing and shoes to match their singlet and because we get 20% off retail-- a small percentage, but still gives them an advantage over other brands and allows for more profit. You get them hooked on the brand and shoes, then even if they leave, they will have a higher chance they will return to the brand, even without the discount.

The elites need someone to race and fill the fields.

Better support and development of sub-elites makes the sport deeper and more competitive.

Late to the punch here, but who do you think is really developing the youth? Do you think the full sponsored elite athlete really does all that much in the youth development department? I'd say probably not, at least from those I am friends with, they are usually extremely busy with traveling to meets/training camps/training. However, the sub-elite is much more motivated to promote the sport so they can also promote themselves. If they have a little bit of gear sponsorship and are given the means to go out and win local races and talk with youth and make an impression on them, then that's who should still be getting support. Most kids aren't going out to Diamond League meets to watch the most elite races, their watching the races that their parents are running. Local road races. If they see someone winning and having a great time and talking to them afterwards, that is where the real impact is. Also, the sub elites are generally the ones who become high school/middle school/youth coaches. They had a great experience through running, and therefore want others to also experience it. They may have never gotten the chance to do that if they hadn't gotten a little support post-collegiately from local shops and a little gear kick back. And believe it or not, there are athletes who become much better after college and end up competing on the world scale, despite having never been NCAA champs. Hard work and dedication does still pay off.

re read the post please...

I never said that we should rely on elites for youth development. Instead I'm implying that the most effective way to develop a larger pool of elite athletes (as defined by those who are competitive on the world stage) is to put more money and focus into developing athletes at a younger stage.

The premise/hypothesis:

$1 spent on a 13-18 year olds and programs for 13-18 year olds will be more effective in the long-run than $1 spent by hansons or zap on a 2:20 marathoners.

However, I will try to ACTUALLY build off your ideas rather than make an unrelated comment (something rarely done on LR): One way to kill two birds with one stone and take advantage of a dynamic you suggest already exists, would be to create Sub-Elite/Youth Joint programs where the sub-elites as part of their pay is to coach junior athletes. I think this is kind of what's being done at programs like emerging elites:

http://www.tracs.net/emergingelites/

It's also a similar to what already happens when top post-grads serve as assistant coaches at their former programs. The idea would be to formalize these types of arrangments and have more support from USATF.

^^^^^^SEE ABOVE POST FOR IDEAS ON HOW TO USE PARAGRAPHS

OverTheHillAndBackAgain wrote:

I'd argue those college athletes have already proved they don't have what it takes to be worth the investment in their futures. And the weeding out process does work, but in slightly different way then you suggest. Those who have been through the ringer for 6-8 years (some hs years + 4 college years) and haven't shown olympic contender potential, don't have it, so we should move on. Sure they may improve, I don't disagree with that, but they aren't likely to improve to the international level if they aren't already there.

I disagree. I think there are plenty of athletes who have potential, but stop training at the level they would need to because they have to move on with life.

Because only a handful of high schools have coaches experienced enough to train their athletes at a high level, so for most runners college is really were they begin serious training. So a guy might enter college with a 5k time of 16:00 and improve by 30 seconds a year and when he leaves college his time is 14:30, which still isn't close to Olympic level, but I don't think you could rule out the fact that if he continued his training he could improve to the point where he was a contender.

I think you would have better luck with these guys who have already shown they can endure 4 years of intense training than some middle school kids who might not respond well to the training, be injury prone, decide they like a different sport better, etc.