Nick Symmonds is right - let's drink and gamble at track meets

You can get me to watch ANYTHING if I can put $10 down on it.

Some good points from both he and David Torrence. In my opinion:

Beer helps all sports.

Gambling could help, ties in with a Nascar model.

Bring in idiots shooting T-shirts and other gimmicky stuff like baseball or basketball. Unlike Nascar, there is down time between events. Use that time like big time sports do.

Let the runners be themselves and promote them as superstars. This will help the gambling also.

I second that.

Mr. Nick also is ignoring one of the sports biggest drawbacks - meets for the most part are roughly 95% boredom and 5% action, and many events are unrelatable to the Average Joe. Some of the more radical changes that have been discussed here which would improve the rate of fan interest would include:

(1) moving the 10k (and maybe even the 5k) off the track and onto the roads/XC

(2) moving field events (aka the "take turns" events) out of the area during "main event" public viewing

(3) two or more water jumps per lap for the steeplechase (let's face it - the water jump is the most interesting part of the steeplechase)...... maybe even add a mud jump?

(4) for American audiences run events over 400 meters in Imperial distances (the 1500 should never be run on US soil except for Olympic qualifying, so replace the 1500 with the mile, the 3k steeplechase with a two mile steeplechase, and add the flat two mile ..... and just call the 800 the "half mile" even though it isn't)

(5) get rid of or at least make some major changes to the decathlon - it tends to confuse casual fans that a guy can win a decathlon 1500 and most of the time not be the winner of the decathlon

There you go. Now just throw some beer and betting into the mix, and Nick's vision can be had!

Agreed! How are we going to get this started? Lets stop all speculation and chit-chat and actually get this started up! Petition maybe?

Running on Empathy wrote:

Mr. Nick also is ignoring one of the sports biggest drawbacks - meets for the most part are roughly 95% boredom and 5% action, and many events are unrelatable to the Average Joe. Some of the more radical changes that have been discussed here which would improve the rate of fan interest would include:

I just have to comment on this part - so are a lot of other sports that induce lots of betting and public interest, such as horse racing and baseball.

For obvious reasons, horse racing is the closest example we can use, but the main takeaway is that the structure of the meets would need to change - the excitement for the bigger races would be fine to attract people, but to attract the masses, you need all the heats for the people that don't qualify for the main event. The field events don't need to go, they just offer a different competition somebody could bet on - some people prefer the "take-turn" events to bet on vs. the continuous race. For 10k races, if kept on the track could allow for 1st half vs 2nd half bets, obvious lines could be made for favorites - either, or both, odds bets could be created and performance times could be created (although by doing times, this would allow for easier corruption and throwing of lines) - but betting that competitor X (the favorite) wins by z seconds/meters/etc over competitor Y a la lines would work.

I think this is an awesome idea - it would work similarly to horse racing as well, a few major events throughout the competition year generate a ridiculous amount of interest, while smaller, more locally reasonable events drive the true money behind the competitions from all the "off-track" betting and gambling interest in the sport.

Rojo, you should show this side of yourself more often. Gambling is great. I hit an awesome parlay last night. Giants +8, over 47, and Tigers moneyline.

All throwing and jumping events should have all participants throw or jump at the same time. Just need to modify the facilities to allow for 12 throwing circles and jump tracks etc.

Good ideas. Also make the format of the field events into more of a knock out tournament ie, have two competitors throwing the javelin at the same time, same for pole vault, long jump etc ...

Take two events out of the decathlon and replace them with a steeplechase, and a marathon where, like in modern pentathlon the starting times are staggered according to the points already gained and the first to cross the line is actually the winner of the competition.

Drinking and gambling has been mentioned in every thread that discusses how to increase interest in the sport. This is not new.

At the 1981 Colorado State Track Meet, I tossed back a couple screwdrivers after my race. I then bet one of my buddies that a certain young lady would not accept his invitation to prom. I won the bet.

Best track meet ever.

You honestly don't believe that gambling on track wouldn't lead to rampant corruption.

It's already dominated by guys who are prepared to do almost anything to make a lot of money, how do you think this will pan out?

rojo wrote:Before everyone says Symmonds is a total genius, he also says in the interview that American football is boring. Is he crazy? American football is SO much more entertaining than track.

I'm skeptical of claims that sports are just inherently interesting/exciting or not. I think that a major element of the popularity of sports is a positive feedback cycle, whereby something that's popular becomes automatically more interesting. Otherwise it would be pretty hard to explain the crazy regional differences in the popularity of various sports, except by using overly simplistic stereotypes about the national character of various peoples.

Look at it this way: Can you explain the vast disparity in popularity between rugby and the NFL (in the US) simply in terms of the forward pass? Of course not. The NFL is popular BECAUSE it's popular. It seems dramatic and important because everyone talks about it, has an opinion, eagerly anticipates Sundays in the fall, and so on. The Matthew effect in sports is massive. Conversely, people in Europe don't really follow the NFL, not because they can't understand what makes football great, but because they're not a member of a community that imbues the sport with social meaning.

Also, for what it's worth, I agree with Symmonds regarding the NFL. Football isn't inherently the most exciting sport, and it's also extraordinarily slow. I think if you were to do a test with people who had never watched sports before, most would not conclude that football is especially exciting, even if the rules were properly explained.

My personal theory on football's popularity is that it all comes from college sports. College athletics instantly create that kind of hoopla because people identify so closely with their teams. By contrast, when you start a pro team in an area, the residents of that area don't automatically identify with the team at first. Think about expansion teams, or teams in minor sports (how many of you feel a connection to your local WNBA team?).

Football developed as the premier collegiate sport because the only other popular field sport in America was baseball, which isn't as well suited to being a school sport because every position has to be highly skilled. In football, by contrast, you could go out for the team as a freshman in 1920, never having played before, and still be useful. Only a few people on the team had to have any skills. This was important, because kids back then weren't being groomed through youth athletics programs. Also, the huge numbers of players needed for football teams ensured that more members of a school community (whether high school or college) had a connection to the team. These early advantages that football had as a school sport helped to kickstart the Matthew effect.

everything you say is wrong, and here's why

1. moving the 10k off the track. this gets rid of any standardization, which is crucial for fair qualifying if you have time standards. if you get rid of time standards, you have way too many people eligible to compete at championship meets, meaning that you need to bring back a 10k prelim, which is not gonna happen

2. this is totally unfair to field event folks. just because you don't like to watch those events doesn't mean they need to be moved. besides, theyre interesting to watch during a boring race

3. this would be too expensive to implement. and mud wouldnt work because you'd have a range of consistencies, which would screw up time standards, just like moving the 10k to the roads

4. again...stupid to change distances just because they don't suit your preferences. metric is going to replace imperial in the future anyway.

5. the decathlon is a rare event anyway...and the people who show up to meets that host a dec/hept are prob more educated. and with proper announcing and a big scoreboard, you could easily follow the scoring

If there were on-site beer and gambling, then 20,000 people would show up at Zurich, as opposed to 20,000. Eugene would still have 10,000. And nobody would still show up at Qatar where both are illegal.

You can drink and gamble watching sports on tv. Tons of people gamble on football online, but very few bets are made on track meets.

There's beer at some meets, or at least close. Olympic Trials?

I think the main thing that could make track more popular is having regional teams. With as many athletes that come and go, get injured, etc. it can be hard to follow individuals as a casual spectator. Look how popular track is in Eugene because there is a (college) team following.

Of course this simply demonstrates how boring the sport is to most people. That is why alcohol and gambling are needed to trigger interest.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

There's beer at some meets, or at least close. Olympic Trials?

What do you mean "at least close" to having beer? Close as in they have coke? Not close enough!

You raise some good points about popularity bringing more popularity but football isn't boring. Let me explain:

In a distance race, you are really looking for one thing - the break> once that happense it's pretty much over. So it's a buildup to one important action. IN a shorter race, it's the same thing but quicker. Who is ahead at the end.

In a baseball game, a close game is exciting as you are looking for that one big hit.

But in football, you have all of these "important moments" every posession. Can they get a first down? In the NFL, that's very important. The NFL is so well coached and well played most games are going to be decided by a touchdown so every drive is key.

NOw I guess if you added up all of the decisive moments by counting up all the events in a track meet, you can say they are similar in number to the football game, but not really.

You can't walk up to a field event and know who won. YOu have to write down the throws. It's absurd.

I've been to hundreds/thousands of track meets and rarely if ever watched an entire field event from start to finish.

Plus with footbasll, you have fouls, turnovers, etc. Challenges. If you had the 400 not in lanes with fouls that would be intersting.

The end of the decathlon should be run with a staggered start. No doubt. Start the leader first. Run the 400 hurdles like they used to at Penn relays in the 1900s, over the same nonmovable hurdle.