Sacramento: We're a better track town than Eugene - we just don't have the Nike money

Sacramento is such a dump. Just a crime infested cesspool. The whole city smells like cow manure. If I were forced to go there again I would wear surgical mask throughout the entire trip.

John Calm down

Never been to Sacramento but why not have it at Stanfurd? Better everything there and the whole SF bay area will go down there more easily than Sac.

Objectively, speaking he's got a point.

Here are the attendance figures:

2012 (Eugene): 173,153

2008 (Eugene): 167,123

2004 (Sac): 172,230

2000 (Sac): 187,104

Also weather wise, people who have never had allergies in their life get them in Eugene. That is offset by the fact that on average it's about 10 degrees warmer in Sacramento (hghs in low 90s, lows in lows 60s versus 80s and 50s for Eugene).

Eugene seems like a better place to have it because the stadium is intimate and there is literally nothing to do in the (some might say dumpy, others quaint) little town.

Personally, I think the should have a 3-4 city rotation.

Eugene, Sacramento, insert others with good weather like these two. What other cities get pretty warm in the day but cool off at night?

Or have the sprints in Sacramento and distances in Eugene.

If Sacramento's fans ever learn metric they will beat Eugene's rabid octegenarians hands-down. Until then there is no "track town" in America.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Do you agree or disagree?

I disagree. I've been to the Olympic Trials (as a spectator) at both locations and Eugene far surpasses Sacramento in my opinion.

Regarding the attendance figures posted, I won't debate the numbers, but what they don't show is the mass exodus of fans in Sacramento before a distance event when it was the last event of the evening. No one leaves early in Eugene regardless of the schedule.

I know a lot of "track" people across the country and I didn't hear a single complaint about the Trials in Eugene. In fact, most felt there wasn't a better atmosphere in the U.S. for the Trials. I realize my experiences are not necessarily the consensus of the entire track community, but my time in Eugene was nothing but positive. I intend to go back in '16, but I'm fairly certain I won't go back to Sacramento if they get the '20 trials. Never say never, but that's how I feel now.

Sacramento definitely has the weather advantage for sprinters, but not so for the throwers and distance runners. I remember sitting on hot aluminum bench seats in Sacramento, and then couldn't see much of the sprint races because the stadium rows are too low and gradual. I also seem to recall having to walk to another field to watch the hammer and discus throws. The stadium food was nearly as pathetic as was the gouging they did on the prices, and the security seemed to be patterned after something they would do in old Soviet Russia. I'd like to see Sacramento step up to the plate and do a good job, but I just don't see it happening.

Oklahoma Oakie pretty much summed it up, there's a lot more to a meet than just attendence (which are both relatively close) snd weather. Seating, field ecent location, food, how an entire town and neighboring towns support it, etc are all very important.

Eugene has some great history and major Nike cash flows, but overall Sacramento is the better venue.

* better weather (hot/dry by day, cool by night)

* bigger crowds (facts don't lie)

* better airport with more direct flights (by far)

* better hotels (by far)

* more to do in both local area and within driving distance (by far)

* better overall city (sacramento is reasonably hip...arguably the "portland of calfornia", eugene is a lousy meth town)

* better local running community via sheer population advantage alone

* no summer allergy issues in sacramento

* sac state has better track (brand new 1.3 mil dollar mondo)

Only thing Eugene wins is history. Sacramento wins everything else. Sacramento has a proven track record and the Trials should return there ASAP.

I'd love to see major events at Stanford. SF people can get there in an hour or less regardless of transportation method, and people from the San Jose metro area can get there even faster. But reality is Sac, and that means I'm driving 5 hours round trip to see a day of Outdoors this wknd. With gas prices the way they are in CA, that's a $50 premium added to my ticket cost. Almost makes more sense to fly SJC->SAC. But if Sacto is counting the Bay Area as part of its base, well, I can't argue with that, as I'll be one of those people going through the turnstiles.

ten and six wrote:

I'd love to see major events at Stanford. SF people can get there in an hour or less regardless of transportation method, and people from the San Jose metro area can get there even faster. But reality is Sac, and that means I'm driving 5 hours round trip to see a day of Outdoors this wknd. With gas prices the way they are in CA, that's a $50 premium added to my ticket cost. Almost makes more sense to fly SJC->SAC. But if Sacto is counting the Bay Area as part of its base, well, I can't argue with that, as I'll be one of those people going through the turnstiles.

Stanford is a great venue, but not nearly enough seating there. And the Bay Area truly isn't far from Sacramento. SF->Sac State is 1.5hrs without traffic, Oakland to Sac State even less time. Also, the Bay Area has too much going on to draw the kind of crowds Sac can. There are less sporting options in Sacramento in summer = more fans coming.

jason williams 55 wrote:Stanford is a great venue, but not nearly enough seating there. And the Bay Area truly isn't far from Sacramento. SF->Sac State is 1.5hrs without traffic, Oakland to Sac State even less time. Also, the Bay Area has too much going on to draw the kind of crowds Sac can. There are less sporting options in Sacramento in summer = more fans coming.

All good points. Seating would need to be improved at Stanford for long term viability. As to travel time, I'm closer to San Jose so my driving time to Sac will be 2+ hours, and there will almost certainly be traffic on the return trip, hence my 5 hour estimate. I'm not unwilling to do the run, but if Outdoors was at Stanford, I'd be going to more than 1 day. And it's true enough that the Bay Area has more sports options, although at this time of year the NFL, NBA, and NHL are all inactive, so it's still the best time for T&F to try to grab sports fans.

I liked them both, but Eugene is my favorite.

Sac we were packed like sardine's and it was too freaking hot.Sat with some dirty hippies from Oregon and there was no stream or river for them to bathe in. Seating in Eugene had much more room.

I already knew how to get around around Eugene and all the cool places and after parties with elite athlete's.

Venue food at Sac was better, felt like is was limited in Eugene. Beer choices were much better in Eugene.

Sac had good in and out parking though.

Sac has better access to elite athlete's, in Eugene they are quite closed off.

Wendy Ray was quite a track announcer, nod to Eugene.

Sac was easy to get to from the airport, but I love driving I5 through coburg, it gives me chills.

I sat in the rain the whole time in 2012 and Nobody moved we just put on poncho's and watched the races.

Victory laps at Hayward are like no other.In Sac I barely remember a victory lap except for Alan Webb cause he was flexing and stuff

Pre's Trail and Pre's rock...Winner Eugene :)

asu guy wrote:

Victory laps at Hayward are like no other.In Sac I barely remember a victory lap except for Alan Webb cause he was flexing and stuff

I don't think anybody will ever forget the Webb "scream" in 2004. So intense.

We had the trials there , mediocre at best. Sitting with Aggies we were told to be quiet , we were making to much noise by cheering and ringing cow bells to cheer runners on ! Haywards practice track is better than sacs track.

Reasonably hip Sacramento , you have got to be kidding us , its a dump.

More to do ? Hmm you have never been to Eugene and know nothing about the surrounding area.

As you know the trials in Sac lost money and I think the sports agency that put them went bankrupt !

Money for nothing wrote:

We had the trials there , mediocre at best. Sitting with Aggies we were told to be quiet , we were making to much noise by cheering and ringing cow bells to cheer runners on ! Haywards practice track is better than sacs track.

Reasonably hip Sacramento , you have got to be kidding us , its a dump.

More to do ? Hmm you have never been to Eugene and know nothing about the surrounding area.

As you know the trials in Sac lost money and I think the sports agency that put them went bankrupt !

Sacramento is right up there with Austin and Portland when it comes to discussion of the best mid-sized American cities.

Eugene?? Not even close to being in same class.

One would think so, but then don't forget the downside of heat to sprinters. Both Michael Johnson and Maurice Green suffered massive muscle pulls in Sac and were out. The weather was horrible to sit in, and clearly the heat was a factor in those and other injuries. Having been a volunteer at the last OTs in Eugene--not a resident--I watched how extensively the top athletes warm up. Amazing really! But that much warm up in Sac heat? That's the factor I think many may miss. And for the distance runners also not great, obviously. And for the fans. I was also at the 2000 Sac and you won't see me there again ever.

Oklahoma Oakie wrote:

Sacramento definitely has the weather advantage for sprinters, but not so for the throwers and distance runners. I remember sitting on hot aluminum bench seats in Sacramento, and then couldn't see much of the sprint races because the stadium rows are too low and gradual. I also seem to recall having to walk to another field to watch the hammer and discus throws. The stadium food was nearly as pathetic as was the gouging they did on the prices, and the security seemed to be patterned after something they would do in old Soviet Russia. I'd like to see Sacramento step up to the plate and do a good job, but I just don't see it happening.

I can't say know anything about Sacramento as a track town. Honestly I didn't follow the link.

Except my recollection from years back is that U.S. T&F gave Sacramento plenty of chances to hold big meets but was unsatisfactory. Eugene emerged as a better venue. And little thanks to "Nike Money".

The East Grandstand at Hayward field is still the same grandstand that was there in Bill Hayward's day.

The West Grandstand I believe is the same one built off of local support from donations from local businesses, doctors, and lawyers sometime in the 1970s when Eugene only had a timber economy.

They some millions of dollars into completely upgrading the track and field about 5-10 years ago . But in today's economy it was peanuts. It wasn't anything a city the size of Sacramento couldn't raise if they were truly a "better track town".

Arguments:

Sac is a better location...easier airport access, more hotels, convenient to the wine country and the Bay Area if you choose to make an extended vacation out of it. Tahoe too. Weather can be hot has Hades but cools off nicely due to the breezes off the river. Just laid down a new Mondo track.

Having said that, Hayward Field is a fantastic place to watch a meet. The throwing venue for Sac is a walk away from the track. In Eugene you can watch everything from your seat. Canopied bleachers. Although sprinters don't like it, the cooler weather is better for spectators. Lots of history at that venue. Cute, quaint town (I like it).

I would say for the average track fan, Sacto gets the nod. For the more knowledgeable fan, go for Eugene. But what are the organizers trying to do? Increase the fan base? I would argue Sacto would be a better choice if that is one of the goals.