Smoke wrote:The core problem with US track and field is seen right here in this thread. . . . this thread is filled with know it all's immediately ripping the man apart and not predicting failure but GUARANTEEING it! Based on one infinite knowledge and all knowing foresight. . . . I am off to continue helping create the athletes many of you love to defame when they run fast. Hopefully, they continue running fast enough for you all to tear apart, it lets me know I am doing a good job out there.
Wow . . . as the Church Lady would say, "Isn't that special."
Smoke wrote:...I am off to continue helping create the athletes many of you love to defame when they run fast. Hopefully, they continue running fast enough for you all to tear apart, it lets me know I am doing a good job out there.
Create? It's true: success does have a thousand fathers! Defame? You are certainly paranoid. Good job? If you say so.
Smoke wrote:The core problem with US track and field is seen right here in this thread. We have finally hired a new CEO, and this thread is filled with know it all's immediately ripping the man apart and not predicting failure but GUARANTEEING it! Based on one infinite knowledge and all knowing foresight. A few scattered defenses, but overall the negative and cynical nature that has ultimately diminished the sport as a whole.
Max Siegel is a known entity, with a solid background in marketing. His client list and successes are commendable, unlike Logan's who's greatest job and legacy was the MLS where a simple google search told us he had failed at that job. Max has many connections and his experience, along with his recent involvement with track/USATF make him the most exciting CEO we have had in 30 years.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It was starting to get lonely in here. You have written well and clearly. I think a lot of track fans, especially the older ones - but not all - are quite 'cliquish' and happy with the status quo. You see them at the big meets - the faces become familiar after a while. They are unbothered by the diminished interest in the sport. They go to the meets and quite enjoy themselves as they get to meet up with old friends, have a few laughs about the good 'ole days - maybe they go out for a few beers when the meet is done. Change likely scares the bejeesus out of them. God forbid that this Max guy brings NASCAR elements into our sport. I say give Max a chance to do his job. There will be ample opportunity to crucify him if things go wrong.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. It was starting to get lonely in here. You have written well and clearly. I think a lot of track fans, especially the older ones - but not all - are quite 'cliquish' and happy with the status quo. You see them at the big meets - the faces become familiar after a while. They are unbothered by the diminished interest in the sport. They go to the meets and quite enjoy themselves as they get to meet up with old friends, have a few laughs about the good 'ole days - maybe they go out for a few beers when the meet is done. Change likely scares the bejeesus out of them. God forbid that this Max guy brings NASCAR elements into our sport. I say give Max a chance to do his job. There will be ample opportunity to crucify him if things go wrong.
Scared of change? Hmmm....
I have to admit I am not overly concerned over the diminished aspect of the sport, so you got that part right. Some things are just inevitable. But, I was around when it really was something and thankful for that.
NASCAR? Death on the track? Or maybe have just white guys running around which is pretty much the NASCAR scene. I am sure that will work well in LA.
One political issue Clarke does not consider at length is racism. She discusses the sad story of Wendell Scott, who was a well-respected driver who never had access to the best cars, and to date is the only African American to win a major NASCAR race. She does not, however, explore how a historically southern sport with predominantly white drivers attracted an enormous, mostly white fan base around the start of the Reagan 1980s, just when black athletes began passing through the doors that legislation and courts had opened, and were beginning to attain a majority presence on most basketball and football teams at the college and professional level. It's probably coincidence.
Track & field as a professional sport is already dead and apparently doesn’t know or care. We run with a business model similar to golf and tennis, but it sucks for us because:
While 98% of our athletes are working for basically meal money one star eats about 70% of any meet budget he deigns to run in.
Can’t get real sponsorship money because of the self-induced drug taint. Face, the nose we cut off in spite is over there somewhere: still dirty, poor, unloved.
Can’t even get live Oly T&F coverage on TV any more.
Forty men’s tennis players have made over $10 million in career prize money alone (topped at $70 million)- how many of T&F have earned even $1 million in prize money? Fact is we get athletes with no other options because the ones with any kind of ball-sport skills will go for the money, further diminishing our sport.
Don’t get me started on the wonderful fan experience at most meets, but what should fans expect? It’s a rinky-dink sport with no money. Go sit on your crappy bench for the next five or eight hours and shut up.
gibson wrote:there seems to be a kind of consensus opinion here... i.e. the USATF should attract more money to the sport, that would make things just nifty. they need to convince joe 6-pack that he should ditch his team sports and watch a track event
...
T&F is so fundamentally simple to understand (no off-sides rule, no personal fouls to accumulate, no balks) that the 'selling' of the sport requires only some background understanding of the athletes themselves. Who are the favorites (and why)? Who are the up-and-comers? Who are the wily vets? When my wife goes to a meet (like the OT this summer), I tell her the 'context' of the event and then she really gets into it, rooting for the one she feels 'should' win (however she sees that). She would be bored to tears if I didn't do that. That kind of info (not at ALL to be confused with the saccharine 'up close and personal' bits!) is all we need to sell the sport. And ya know what? I have heard good stadium announcers (Hill, Hersh, Davis) do exactly that. ....
One thing that could be done is to train meet announcers below the national level. Years ago, Bob Hersh with some assistance from Scott Davis gave an announcers clinic at a USATF convention. One of the best sessions I ever attended. It drives me crazy at times going to a high school or college meet of some note and there isn't even a good announcer to give basic information to set up the meet and events for a casual observer.
26mi235 wrote:A (computer-literate) colleague told me the other day he would be ready within a couple of years of dropping cable completely and obtaining everything through the web.
My husband and I did that two years ago. We watch a few shows on Hulu and I watch a few track webcasts and that's it. His free time that he used to spend watching TV is now spent on Facebook, Failbook (and several other fail websites) and Cracked.com.
26mi235 wrote:A (computer-literate) colleague told me the other day he would be ready within a couple of years of dropping cable completely and obtaining everything through the web.
My husband and I did that two years ago. We watch a few shows on Hulu and I watch a few track webcasts and that's it.
Hulu, the popular free online TV and movie streaming website that was founded as a joint venture between NBCUniversal, News Corporation, Disney and Providence Equity Partners, may soon be putting up a rigid paywall, according to a report in the New York Post on Monday, citing unnamed sources. The Post is also owned by News Corp.
Hulu, which currently offers much of its content for free, plus extra content for paying subscribers to its Hulu Plus service, will soon force viewers to log-in using paid cable subscription account numbers, the Post states, citing sources.
Trackrunner wrote:Thank you, thank you, thank you. It was starting to get lonely in here. You have written well and clearly. I think a lot of track fans, especially the older ones - but not all - are quite 'cliquish' and happy with the status quo. You see them at the big meets - the faces become familiar after a while. They are unbothered by the diminished interest in the sport. They go to the meets and quite enjoy themselves as they get to meet up with old friends, have a few laughs about the good 'ole days - maybe they go out for a few beers when the meet is done. Change likely scares the bejeesus out of them. God forbid that this Max guy brings NASCAR elements into our sport. I say give Max a chance to do his job. There will be ample opportunity to crucify him if things go wrong.
What rubbish (and, to more than a few, insulting rubbish).
I'm for giving everyone "a chance" but have no delusion that it will be "NASCAR elements" that save the sport.
Linked on the home-page, an excerpt from a NY Times article:
[Max Siegel:]“I believe that there are things we can do on a year-to-year basis to keep the sport relevant and not have it viewed by the general public as a once-in-every-four-year sport. I’m not naïve enough to think that we can go head to head with the N.B.A. or the N.F.L., but I certainly think we can create a lot of awareness, increase our viewership significantly. In fact, the drama around the sport is made for TV." [article continues:]Track and field is a battle of stamina and will waged in close quarters by fierce competitors. The rivalries that emerge have created many lasting moments — triumphant or agonizing — that appeal to the general public.
This is neither a new idea nor profound, but it does address a key issue we have - our disappearing act every four year.
Marlow wrote:Linked on the home-page, an excerpt from a NY Times article:
Am I the only one who doesn't like how Siegel talks about "we can" do something, as opposed to "we can help/assist" do something. Let's not forget it's the athletes and not the bureaucrats who deliver the actual performance.
Marlow wrote:Linked on the home-page, an excerpt from a NY Times article:
Positives about the article: The author talks about the importance of great rivalries, not just about the importance of great stars. And before the author even quotes Siegel, he quotes one E. Garry Hill.
The article is on the whole positive but I don't see how USATF can be successful in a vacuum. Track at the elite level is very much an international sport. The issues related to marketing and staging of meets start with the IAAF. I've never really understood the IAAF's strategy. Just go look at the website they run for instance. Lamine Diack seems like a nice guy but I think if athletics is to thrive you need someone with stronger business/marketing savvy working closely with regional track heads. Still I look forward to see and hear what Max is doing.
j-a-m wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't like how Siegel talks about "we can" do something, as opposed to "we can help/assist" do something. Let's not forget it's the athletes and not the bureaucrats who deliver the actual performance.
The problem has never been the athletes. They're doing what their supposed to do, competing at a high level. The problem has been the lack of 'support' (which I'll over-simplify down to 'marketing') that USATF provides.
Trackrunner wrote:The article is on the whole positive but I don't see how USATF can be successful in a vacuum. Track at the elite level is very much an international sport. The issues related to marketing and staging of meets start with the IAAF.
Are you saying the USATF is powerless to 'market' USA T&F (it's kinda in their name)? I think the IAAF HAS been more successful at marketing than USATF, and I'll flip your argument around and say that the IAAF can't do it by themselves; they need the national bodies to pull their own weight. The USA, as the 'heaviest' T&F nation, is NOT pulling its weight (IMO).
Marlow wrote:The problem has never been the athletes. They're doing what their supposed to do, competing at a high level. The problem has been the lack of 'support' (which I'll over-simplify down to 'marketing') that USATF provides.
Exactly. And I believe it would be a good idea for Siegel to stress that supporting role in the language he uses (and to stress the great job the athletes are doing, for that matter).
Marlow wrote:The problem has never been the athletes. They're doing what their supposed to do, competing at a high level. The problem has been the lack of 'support' (which I'll over-simplify down to 'marketing') that USATF provides.
There was a T&F News article a while ago about difficulties for Post-Collegians to get access to training facilities, based on requirements for liability insurance as well as NCAA regulations. Would you agree that USTAF support should include assisting Post-Collegians with this? It seems an organization like USATF would be in a good position to help with stuff like this.
Going a different direction, I've worried that there's not enough distance between the CEO and the board of directors. Seeing Hightower quoted with 163 words to Siegel's 112 doesn't assuage that worry. Put that together with the type of crap we saw indoors, where Millrose got zero promotion and virtually zero reportage from USATF, and I'm less than 100% convinced this CEO will be able to do everything he should.
Trackrunner wrote:The article is on the whole positive but I don't see how USATF can be successful in a vacuum. Track at the elite level is very much an international sport. The issues related to marketing and staging of meets start with the IAAF.
Are you saying the USATF is powerless to 'market' USA T&F (it's kinda in their name)? I think the IAAF HAS been more successful at marketing than USATF, and I'll flip your argument around and say that the IAAF can't do it by themselves; they need the national bodies to pull their own weight. The USA, as the 'heaviest' T&F nation, is NOT pulling its weight (IMO).
Point taken, but I wonder how much clout USATF has over the staging and marketing of say the Diamond League meets on US shores. If the staging of the meet is crappy it is wrong to blame USATF for it if the IAAF is in fact responsible. And again I think it is just sad that we can get hours and hours of potbellied men playing poker on ESPN but have to settle for an obscure channel to watch elite track and field meets.
Trackrunner wrote: And again I think it is just sad that we can get hours and hours of potbellied men playing poker on ESPN but have to settle for an obscure channel to watch elite track and field meets.
Probably because the overwhelming number of viewers on ESPN are potbellied men who dream of making easy money.
I read the article, and it was alright. gh had the best comments and the realistic one. Track is a niche sport and there really isn't much we can do about that.
As to the Trials, I have become sympathetic to gh's view of a 10 day meet. Primarily because of availability of single day tickets, which I don't think was true before in Eugene. My brother is taking his 3 kids, who all complete in track, including one at the U of Minnesota, for one day of the meet. And I think one day of the Trials at Hayward will be quite memorable and hopefully make them lifelong fans.
Trackrunner wrote:.... Point taken, but I wonder how much clout USATF has over the staging and marketing of say the Diamond League meets on US shores. If the staging of the meet is crappy it is wrong to blame USATF for it if the IAAF is in fact responsible. And again I think it is just sad that we can get hours and hours of potbellied men playing poker on ESPN but have to settle for an obscure channel to watch elite track and field meets.
"staging and marketing" have very little to do with it.
ESPN shows hours of poker for two reasons that track can't hope to beat:
1. There are waaaaay more poker fans than there were ever track fans.
2. You can televise poker with one fixed camera (plus the spycams in the table). Couple of guys show up in a van and they set up in half an your. For a track meet done properly you need to bring in an 18-wheeler (maybe two), hire perhaps a half-dozen cameraman (both fixed and mobile), hire a half-dozen grunts to lay cable all over the place, etc., etc.
Same answer as to why darts or pool are a staple of sports programming... they're easy & cheap. And track is not. And TV is nothing if not a bottom-line business.
gh wrote:Same answer as to why darts or pool are a staple of sports programming... they're easy & cheap. And track is not. And TV is nothing if not a bottom-line business.
Which is why, for the sake of TV and not us purists, T&F needs to be dumbed down to a 1-ring circus as much as possible. The TV package has to be a 2-hour window, where things happen consecutively, even the field events. There needs to be a conscious and intentional plan-of-attack of how to cram in the most bang-for-the-buck into those 2 hours (minus the ad time) and make sense of it. Putting a field event into a tape package can work as long as you show how the event DEVELOPED, not just the one best jump/throw by the top 3 finishers. But have the field events (as much as possible) climax in the last half hour is important too. There's SOOOOOO much (I know I'm preaching to the choir here) good stuff to see at a 'Pre' or Champs meet, that I can't help but feel that the way we've 'scheduled' our meets is what's killing us!!
unfortunately, your "1-ring circus" doesn't save a significant amount of money over the full-boat version. Televising something (properly) on an oval that's a quarter of a mile around presents logistical problems that just aren't going to go away.
Marlow wrote: Putting a field event into a tape package can work as long as you show how the event DEVELOPED, not just the one best jump/throw by the top 3 finishers. But have the field events (as much as possible) climax in the last half hour is important too. There's SOOOOOO much (I know I'm preaching to the choir here) good stuff to see at a 'Pre' or Champs meet, that I can't help but feel that the way we've 'scheduled' our meets is what's killing us!!
Why not also teach them calculus while we are at it.
How the field events have been presented has hardly been track's biggest problem.
This 1 ring circus has been tried before. It was called indoor track and was hugely popular, once. But due to various reasons that have been noted previously, it became, like the dinosaurs, extinct. And unless we find some dinoDNA from old meets, I doubt it is coming back..
The poker analogy doesn't work, as it's very similar to the women's 8-ball "series" that ran for several years.
You don't know when the poker game took place, and I defy you to tell the difference between a first showing and a rerun. Unless you really follow poker.
This crowd is smart enough to know that the Big10 channel showing the indoor champs tonight is showing old product. I don't know that this crowd knows that some televised poker game doesn't fall into the same category.
gh wrote:TV is nothing if not a bottom-line business
I will have no argument about track being expensive, but will have one comment.
Talking heads are quite expensive. Why have so many of them when only one, perhaps two contribute to the quality of the broadcast? Often there is 6 of them, 2 commentators, 3 in the booth, one trackside asking breathless athletes "what were your thoughts as you entered the ...?"(fill in the blank).
Pego wrote:Talking heads are quite expensive. Why have so many of them when only one, perhaps two contribute to the quality of the broadcast? Often there is 6 of them, 2 commentators, 3 in the booth, one trackside asking breathless athletes "what were your thoughts as you entered the ...?"(fill in the blank).
gh would know more about this than I, but I would bet the announcers are small change compared to the costs of getting and using the equipment needed.
Conor Dary wrote:Track is a niche sport and there really isn't much we can do about that.
Track is NOT a niche sport (unless we have different definitions of the term). The general public knows what track is, they care at least every four years, and a large and diverse group of students participates in track in schools across the country. All that may not get money into the hands of athletes, but it shows that track is not a niche sport.
Marlow wrote:Which is why, for the sake of TV and not us purists, T&F needs to be dumbed down to a 1-ring circus as much as possible.
Respectfully disagree. So many other sports that are successful on TV haven't been dumbed down, to the contrary:
Baseball: A lot of the discussion in the media is about statistics, throwing mechanics, etc., opposite of dumbing it down. Football: Pretty sure plenty of viewers don't know what a cover 2 is, but the commentators don't dumb it down. Soccer: 45 minutes without commercial break, very TV-unfriendly. Golf: Really difficult to follow on TV, still doing well without dumbing down. Cycling: For years all the Tour stages have been shown live on Versus, now rebranded as NBC Sports, no dumbing down, lot of live coverage.
j-a-m wrote:Track is NOT a niche sport (unless we have different definitions of the term).
Well, you do. The rest of us have come to the inevitable conclusion that although T&F is widely 'understood' (and participated in), it does not generate fan support in the open TV market, hence the term 'niche', which means it's not only below the first tier (MLB, NFL, NBA), but even the second tier, (Tennis, Golf . . . ugh . . . NASCAR . . . poker). We are only slightly above other third-tier sports like Gymnastics and Figure Skating (and how many 'civilians' do THOSE sports?) or Swimming and Volleyball (which ARE highly participated in). And even those sports draw decent ratings during the Olympics.
Marlow wrote:Which is why, for the sake of TV and not us purists, T&F needs to be dumbed down to a 1-ring circus as much as possible.
Respectfully disagree. So many other sports that are successful on TV haven't been dumbed down, to the contrary: Baseball: Football: Soccer: Golf: Cycling: (Tour stages)
But you've just cited sports that ARE doing fine already (Cycling ONLY during the Tour - and even that is going down fast). We're not. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Marlow wrote:it does not generate fan support in the open TV market, hence the term 'niche', which means it's not only below the first tier (MLB, NFL, NBA), but even the second tier, (Tennis, Golf . . . ugh . . . NASCAR . . . poker).
Track is better known among the general population than poker. Accordingly, the POTENTIAL audience is larger in track, and that's what I consider relevant for the term niche. Poker does a great job getting an audience in that niche market, while track needs to do a much better job getting an audience in a non-niche market. But that doesn't change that poker's a niche market, and track's not.
Someone should broadcast one of the many beach vaults this summer. Half hour package. Single camera plus maybe a bar cam. Hot athletes (Kat Majester is a cheerleader for the Atlanta Falcons and Allison Stokke is Allison Stokke and most of the other girls are similarly hot. The guys aren't bad either). Skimpy clothing. Body types that appeal to the average non-track fan. An event that is fun to watch even when you have no clue what the performances mean. Most vaulters are very intelligent and articulate. Heck if you paid the athletes, I'm sure most would be willing to wear beach volleyball-like attire.
The average track meet just has too much going on for the attention span of the average viewer. I'd love to have a good half-hour single event broadcast for each field event. Men and women together. Not live, just packaged stuff that can be squeezed in those odd hours or played in the middle of the night. Show enough of an event and athletes that the viewers can relate to them and see enough of the action to follow a real storyline and start to understand the event a little.
Defame? You are certainly paranoid. Good job? If you say so.