Andrew Poore: "If I'm not a pro athlete, I'm not going to waste my time trying to pretend like I'm something I'm not&

agip wrote:

GreatObserver wrote:

Drugs will NEVER go away. EVER. But with more sponsorship the drug problems would get swept under the rug. This focus on PED's is really handicapping athletics in america right now, its become a way bigger issue than it should be, and a bigger one than it is worldwide.

and where does that logical stream lead you? to what conclusion?

The conclusion i come too is with free-based sponsorship track would be like every other sport, the drug issues have been minimalized by having poor testing protocol, making it a safer venue to be a sponsor. Ask Football and baseball.

AMastersRunner wrote:

One possible opportunity is to boost fan base by virtually giving away the rights to view meets, but with the stipulation that they be required to be shown in prime time on network channels.

I believe USATF actually has to buy time to have the meets shown on TV.

Then USATF sells ad time, hoping to make back its investment.

So if I am right, a big help would be to have one big sponsor buy up all/most of the ad time.

If she has a big salary on offer, why not take it? She can still go to school full time and come out ahead if the pay is really so good.

not so much wrote:

dkny64 wrote:

Thank you for clearly stating this important point [which is the same point Sally Bergesen was making in her blog post the other day.]

That's a ridiculous point. Many brands and products are not offered internationally. Why would the rest of the world (and the sponsors) care about a product that is not offered in their country.

I think we're talking across each other, so let me put the point a different way, and then you can let me know if you agree or disagree.

I'm Oiselle and I'm thinking about whether to offer a contract to Alexa Efraimson. If I do sign her up, she'll be wearing Oiselle gear most of the time she competes, but she'll be wearing a Nike singlet any time she competes for the US National team. Since most of my customers only see T&F athletes at the Olympics, this means that most of my customers will only see Efraimson in a Nike singlet, which significantly reduces the return on my potential investment in her.

Note that this calculation is different for athletes who mostly compete on the roads - e.g. Meb, Hall, Kara - because they are seen much more frequently in singlets other than that of the national team and because they wear shoes that can be worn by a large number of their sponsors' customers.

It's all or nothing with you guys! Whoever said anything about going pro INSTEAD of going to college?

She can still get an education at wherever but without being inhibited by NCAA regulations.

Shoe deals, endorsements, start money, prize money, (even for 10th) now possible without the NCAA shackles.

Race less than in the NCAA which could actually allow her MORE time for schooling. Probably less likely to burn-out. No need to double or triple up for the team etc. etc.

I love how you say USATF does nothing to promote the sport, and yet your ackowledge that participation rates for road racing and track and field are at an all-time high. Hmmm.

Could it be, and this is just a guess, people aren't interested in watching track? Sprints at the Olympics are okay because 1) you can hype up the "fastest man in the world" aspect 2) Americans usually place well, playing into national pride and 3) they're over fast.

The other poster was correct: most of the time when you see a USATF race on television, it's there because 1) USATF paid for the air time (a step beyond "giving the rights for free") or 2) it's required as part of NBC's rights to show the Olympics.

Also, what is the incentive for tv cameras to show the sponsors of individual athletes? Are the networks also being paid by the sponsors?

Track will never be popular in the US, we just have to deal with that. First, it's hard to watch, secondly there's no teams, and finally our sport tells people to only care about it every 4 years. The athletes could be allowed to have 100 sponsors on their uniform and the results would still be the same. There's only 3-4 meets aired on national television and the majority of those meets are sponsored by a shoe company who puts the majority of their own athletes into the meet ie Nike prefontaine classic or adidas track classic.

THe cited article is worth reading.

A few observations from a fan and sometime runner from way back:

1) T&F is a semi-pro sport, since only a small handful can make a living at it. The exception is scholarship athletes, who actually do make a living out of it for several years.

2) In NASCAR, the cars are the athletes. The tire companies are the equivalent of the T&F shoe companies. I'm not sure NASCAR is the best model, since it grew out of the illegal drug business (moonshining for profit). (Then again, PEDs ...)

3) Some posters here overvalue certain college degrees. They confuse price and value. Many college degrees are not worth anywhere near list price, in financial terms. Intense college athletes usually scrimp elsewhere, such as in time spent learning, and do not maximize the learning component of their college experience. A better price comparison, for most, is State U. Stanford is an exception, connections are very worthwhile; on the other hand, if you are good enough to go to Stanford, you don't pay list price unless you or your family are doing well financially.

4) I think T&F probably had better exposure in USA 45 years ago, when all it had was Olympics and on occasion ABC Wide World of Sports. It had a lot less time on the tube, and had to compete with lumberjack contests, but most sports fans in the country found time to watch that show; there was a lot less competition. (How often did Bill Russell appear on national TV?) The lumberjack contests were fun, too.

5) T&F athletes were pros at training long before the big 4 pro sports in USA caught up. The Superstars "trashsport" competitions around 1970 were a real eye opener to the "big time pros".

I don't know what all this means for the issue under discussion, but some of it might prove useful.

I did not say the USATF was doing nothing. I suggested a few ways of doing it better.

Road racing and HS participation has almost nothing to do with the USATF. 98% of participants are not USATF members and probably have never heard of the USATF. Primarily, the USATF is only there to certify courses or (in a few cases) label something as a USATF Championship race. However, despite the lack of USATF members, road races could be used to promote other spectator events in the same way that race flyers are handed out for upcoming races.

Another possibility is to promote USATF.TV and put a lot more content there and let people know it. Unless people are exposed more than a few times a year, they'll never care or become fans. Again, accessibility and promotion is key.

Incentive to show athlete sponsor: make it nearly impossible to NOT show it by having them in sponsor gear during introductions. Can the TV coverage of NASCAR avoid showing the race car sponsors? Make it similar.

True, Fastest Man in the World is easy to sell. But if that the only Track story ever promoted, how will it ever be anything else. Hence my "promote the competition" suggestion. What happens when Usain Bolt starts losing? Track viewership will drop just as it did when Lance stopped competing in the TDF. The coverage did not plan ahead and promote the future stars or the drama of the total competition.

If all of my ideas are crap, that's cool. But lets hear some better ones.

drugs are a huge problem - what the sport really, really needs is an American superstar. Track was much bigger in the 80s - carl lewis, mary decker, edwin moses, all those long jumpers - track was bigger because there were american stars.

now there are no american stars.

The sprinters are the would-be stars, but they all test positive and disappear.

Tyson Gay was a big star - he blew that. Gatlin could have been a big star. He blew that. Merrit might have been a big star - he blew that.

The drug culture among sprinters has to end so a superstar can be developed.

agip wrote:

drugs are a huge problem - what the sport really, really needs is an American superstar. Track was much bigger in the 80s - carl lewis, mary decker, edwin moses, all those long jumpers - track was bigger because there were american stars.

now there are no american stars.

The sprinters are the would-be stars, but they all test positive and disappear.

Tyson Gay was a big star - he blew that. Gatlin could have been a big star. He blew that. Merrit might have been a big star - he blew that.

The drug culture among sprinters has to end so a superstar can be developed.

I hear you but I think it runs deeper than that. Let's take Ashton Eaton as an example. He set an impressive world record in an event where the good ole US of A has a long and storied tradition, followed that up with Olympic gold, is a very handsome, well-spoken young man and still his agent says he has 1% of the name recognition Peyton Manning. Racial issue? I don't think so given the amount of attention Dan O'Brien got [to say nothing of the lack of attention given to Trey Hardy when he was on top of the decathlon game.]

Heck, when I was a kid I was a Don Paige fan because I saw him on TV and I just really liked the way he ran. I wasn't some T&F junkie at the time but I liked sports and I thought he was great. How many kids nowadays even have the chance to be, say, Nick Symmonds fans for the same reason?

btw, back in the day I couldn't stand Bruce Jenner - thought he was a self-promoting jerk, hated the flag waving thing and didn't have a proper appreciation for the challenges of the decathlon. When I look at his results now I'm pretty darn impressed - he was very good.

Dear Andy:

You're giving up a chance to make 5k a year in favor of making 0.0 a year. Same as a grad student whose school is their only source of income wanting to graduate. They think 15k a year is bad. 0 is worse. If someone's already made you an actual, signed offer and all you have to do is graduate, then do it. Otherwise we glad you get studeny pay as opposed to no pay and don't bitch about it. Is someone actually telling this clown: "if you quit runing I will pay you 50k a year. You have to promise to quit running for good, though". Does he have an actual signed contract to that effect? Or will he find that living on 5000 less than he has been to suck even more!

the problem with eaton is that he is no fun to watch. He is a machine. You never see the joy. It's no accident that the one photo you see of jenner is this:

or this:

you know, having fun.

eaton just does his thing better than anyone else ever has, but never seems to have any fun.

It's like in jerry maguire when cruise tells cuba gooding to show that he loves the game. And he does. And he becomes beloved.

eaton isn't beloved yet - he needs to have more of a personality.

People don't have an angst towards shoe companies (plural) and MR. Siegel understands that.

People have an angst over one shoe company (Nike) running the circus that is USATF.

They also have angst over

1.)USATF's seeming favoritism towards its prominent sponsor's athletes.

2.)USATF's stubborn, persistent inability to infiltrate it's own rules fairly in championship meets.

3.)USATF's natural aversion towards US athletes rights.

Sounds like Mr. Siegel is pretending to be unaware of where the real angst lies.

Ken Goe has a follow-up piece on the story today:http://www.oregonlive.com/trackandfield/index.ssf/2014/06/tuesday_morning_news_notes_lin_7.html#incart_riverI loved this quote

Goe wrote:

I think Siegel misinterprets the anger. I think it's more directed at USATF's leadership, which many athletes seem to believe -- rightly or wrongly -- is mostly concerned with cozying up to the shoe companies.

I think many athletes want a leadership they believe leads on behalf of the men and women sweating and puking in the arenas and the weight rooms while trying make ends meet on pennies. I think many athletes feel USATF's leadership has walled itself away from them and their real-life concerns.

agip wrote:

drugs are a huge problem - what the sport really, really needs is an American superstar. Track was much bigger in the 80s - carl lewis, mary decker, edwin moses, all those long jumpers - track was bigger because there were american stars.

now there are no american stars.

The sprinters are the would-be stars, but they all test positive and disappear.

Tyson Gay was a big star - he blew that. Gatlin could have been a big star. He blew that. Merrit might have been a big star - he blew that.

The drug culture among sprinters has to end so a superstar can be developed.

Am I to infer by your post that athletes in the 80's were clean?? If that's what your saying i have a well in the Sahara desert I'm looking to sell off. If anything more athletes were on drugs in the 80's! You think Carl Lewis wearing braces as a grown man for the hell of it? This is exactly why i say the drug thing has become a bigger issue than it needs to be, and a bigger one than anywhere else in the world. The simple fact is, drugs will never go away...EVER, at least until gene doping becomes cheaper and more widespread. Legalize PED's, let people gamble on it, and I guarantee you the USATF will have more money than they can count.

It would be great if Ashton Eaton ran the last 100m of his 1500m with an arm extented and a number 1 finger.

not even going to respond.

There was a link the Ken Goe article about how soccer was virtually non-existent pre-1994 and how 1 big event changes everything. The world cup is digestible, it is easy to follow and get hooked. We love tournaments on grand stages. College basketball and the NBA playoffs are the same way. The regular season for both of these are drawn out and painful and I barely watch but you bet I will be glued to the TV during march madness.

The olympics is done very, very well, lots of great stories, great characters, you know the best are competing at a very very very high level. Since the time zones are different you often cut straight to the chase, don't show false starts, bad heats etc. Things are naturally very dramatic.

Watching the prefontaine classic compared to the olympics is like pulling teeth (and this is a marquee event). All the exciting stuff could be condensed into 35 mins tops. My dad who followed the sport through college will fall asleep after 15 mins.

This might sound terrible but just have a mens only meet, only have maybe 2 or 3 meets televised where you can guarantee Bolt, Tyson Gay (before banned) etc will actually be there and condense it to like 45 mins to an hour.