LOL @ the Shade from the British Press on Team USA

[preston]

Didn't think the article was that far out of line, but some of the responses in the thread are so defensive that they fail to recognize that there IS a problem and it's been developing for quite some time. Face it, the USA is slipping (apologies to Virgil Sollazzo). Does that mean that Logan's goal of 30 medals is in jeopardy? No. But it DOES mean that the collegiate/laissez-faire/capitalist model may be showing the strains of its flaws and MAY need to be revamped.

There is NO reason that the USA, with more women "participating" in sports than nearly any country, can't have at least 8 A-qualifiers in every field event. The system worked "better" years ago, but with so much knowledge and specialty info available there are countries that are not only catching up but surpassing the USA. It's hard to reconcile that wTJ was once an "American" event with an American WR holder; even PV was "first in America" (kind of) with an American WR holder, but now there is only ONE medal threat for London in the wPV and if she can't pull it off the next american is more than 15 legitimate places behind her. It can't just come down to "resources" as the USA has more pits and more runways in a state like Florida than ANY OTHER NATION HAS COUNTRYWIDE. Athletes still only have 24 hours, 365 days to get ready, yet countries that have never had track success before are rapidly closing the gap or leaving the USA behind. Why? Coaching. The collegiate system just isn't enough anymore - even though it does an incredible job of identifying talent. Whether it's Mammoth Track Club, or one of the Nike, New Balance, etc Affiliated clubs, Clermont or Los Angeles -- "PRO" coaches are advancing the sport. Stones is right, after nearly 30 years and far more opportunities (especially for women) the USA should be better.

[Randy Treadway]

But it DOES mean that the collegiate/laissez-faire/capitalist model may be showing the strains of its flaws and MAY need to be revamped.

Only if it's a widely acknowledged national priority. Just consider the possibility that reduced success in medal-winning might NOT be an indicator that the model is flawed. It's only my opinion, but I think it's WAY down the list of most citizens' priorities, and possibly well outside the nation's ability to live within its means. Heck, the idiots in Washington can't even live within our means WITHOUT Olympic funding, and some folks here want to pile MORE on top?

How about if athletes were allowed to peddle tax exempt USOC savings bonds to their friends, to raise money. Think that would work? Could they sell enough? Don't forget that those bonds have to be paid back some day, with interest. No government bailouts. And USOC doesn't have any currency printing presses.

Basically, what athletes want are gifts. Handouts.

[j-a-m]

How about if athletes were allowed

Or how about if athletes were allowed to place more advertisements on their clothing? Or how about if more athletes would be allowed to accept volunteer coaching jobs at universities than currently possible under NCAA regulations?

There are still plenty of regulations restricting athletes, and it would make sense to remove those first, before asking for additional funding.

[preston]

How about if athletes were allowed

Or how about if athletes were allowed to place more advertisements on their clothing? Or how about if more athletes would be allowed to accept volunteer coaching jobs at universities than currently possible under NCAA regulations?

There are still plenty of regulations restricting athletes, and it would make sense to remove those first, before asking for additional funding.

Well, you see, that [removing NCAA/IAAF/IOC regulations] wouldn't work for Mr. Treadway, who has been pushing his anti-gov't screed for the last few weeks; a "non-gov't" entity like the NCAA/IAAF/IOC would have to shoulder the blame and that just can't happen if Mr. Treadway intends to point the finger at Washington, D.C., USA financial condition, debt, deficit, etc. etc.

[Marlow]

Didn't think the article was that far out of line, but some of the responses in the thread are so defensive that they fail to recognize that there IS a problem and it's been developing for quite some time. Face it, the USA is slipping (apologies to Virgil Sollazzo). Does that mean that Logan's goal of 30 medals is in jeopardy? No. But it DOES mean that the collegiate/laissez-faire/capitalist model may be showing the strains of its flaws and MAY need to be revamped.

So 30 IS a possibility, but we're SLIPPING?! I suggest you chart the USA medal counts from 1972 on (excluding the 84 West Bloc Games). The rest of the world is finally getting the resources we've had for a long time and we're still doing very well. There's LOTS of things we could do better, but the USA is not slipping by the medal count measure, which is, of course, a pretty objective one.

[Vault-emort]

By the way, what is it with this 'throw shade' expression?

I seem to see it all over internet forums these days, but do real people really talk like that?

[Randy Treadway]

How about if athletes were allowed

Or how about if athletes were allowed to place more advertisements on their clothing? Or how about if more athletes would be allowed to accept volunteer coaching jobs at universities than currently possible under NCAA regulations?

There are still plenty of regulations restricting athletes, and it would make sense to remove those first, before asking for additional funding.

Well, you see, that [removing NCAA/IAAF/IOC regulations] wouldn't work for Mr. Treadway, who has been pushing his anti-gov't screed for the last few weeks; a "non-gov't" entity like the NCAA/IAAF/IOC would have to shoulder the blame and that just can't happen if Mr. Treadway intends to point the finger at Washington, D.C., USA financial condition, debt, deficit, etc. etc.

Don't read more into than there is. I'm just as anti-NCAA (bureacracy that is) as I am anti-Washington.
If I was a sky-is-falling alarmist, I'd say that athletes want to push the Medicare little old lady in her wheelchair off the cliff, so they can have her money to pay for their training. But that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

[jhc68]

What I read into this thread is that it ought to be 86'ed from the board any moment now...

[Randy Treadway]

One of the problems is when athletics decided to "go professional" in the early 1980's to get rid of the hypocrisy of under-the-table payments, some people quickly jumped to conclusions that it meant that the sport could now compete with soccer, American football, basketball and baseball, for the public's entertainment dollar and sponsor endorsements (mostly athletic apparel).
That never happened.
Not just in America, but in Europe too. The public likes athletics, but not THAT much.
Which makes it pretty much impossible for professional track & field athletes to make a living from the sport.
That means to survive, the professional end of the sport can't make it on 'entertainment value', so must fall back to looking for grants in the 'arts and culture' arena. Those other major sports don't do that. They live within their means. Major League Baseball is WAY down, but so far I haven't heard them asking for any government subsidies or bailouts. Granted, they are still WAY bigger than athletics, and even rookie major league players can live quite nicely in the economy.
So what IS track and field? Is it art like a Rembrandt painting? Something that has such high value it sells very high in the marketplace? Or is it entertainment, which like theater plays and movies, must survive on ticket sales? Maybe our favorite sport has an identity complex.

[j-a-m]

What about making money from teaching? Clinics, seminars, etc. Watching t&f may not be in high demand right now, but the skills that the athletes possess (running fast, etc.) are very much in demand.

[Randy Treadway]

Another article on the same subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Adam Nelson has an interesting opinion.

Maybe track athletes need to band together into a competitor's union and threaten to strike the Olympics unless they get a piece of the pie.
BUT... I'm afraid the athletes wouldn't do it. There's always somebody else willing to step up in their place who would be more than happy to compete in the Olympics for free.

[j-a-m]

Another article on the same subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/10/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t2

Adam Nelson has an interesting opinion.

Adam Nelson is quoted as saying "All kinds of people involved in the Olympics are making a lot of money off the hard work of athletes." And that's a good point. Before we ask for additional funding, we may wanna ask where the money currently goes, and plenty of it goes to bureaucrats who don't add value for the athletes.

[preston]

Didn't think the article was that far out of line, but some of the responses in the thread are so defensive that they fail to recognize that there IS a problem and it's been developing for quite some time. Face it, the USA is slipping (apologies to Virgil Sollazzo). Does that mean that Logan's goal of 30 medals is in jeopardy? No. But it DOES mean that the collegiate/laissez-faire/capitalist model may be showing the strains of its flaws and MAY need to be revamped.

So 30 IS a possibility, but we're SLIPPING?! I suggest you chart the USA medal counts from 1972 on (excluding the 84 West Bloc Games). The rest of the world is finally getting the resources we've had for a long time and we're still doing very well. There's LOTS of things we could do better, but the USA is not slipping by the medal count measure, which is, of course, a pretty objective one.

Feel free to misread the point of the post...it keeps you consistent. What is slipping is the collegiate development system; I CLEARLY acknowledged that 30 goals were attainable - even if unlikely. And, though it was NEVER the mandate of the collegiate system, there seems to be far fewer collegiate athletes that made the US Olympic team. And, if this is the case, then the USA will HAVE TO find a better way to address the needs of he athletes. Which is what Dwight Stones is saying, imo. Below are the collegians for London.

m200 - I. Young (Ole Miss)
m400 - B. Nellum (USC)
mHJ - E. Kynard (KSU)
mLJ - M. Goodwin (TX)

wSC - E. Coburn & S. Kipp (CO)
w400h - G. Moline (AZ)
wHJ - B. Barrett (AZ)
wLJ - C, Hayes (LaTech)
wSP - T. Brooks (OK)
wHT - A. Bingson(UNLV)

[gm]

You forgot a few...

m200 -- Mitchell
m400 -- McQuay
mSteeple -- Cabral
m20KRW - Barron

[Marlow]

there seems to be far fewer collegiate athletes that made the US Olympic team. And, if this is the case, then the USA will HAVE TO find a better way to address the needs of he athletes.

Where's the logic there? There should NOT be many collegians in a system that values post-collegians and allows them to develop beyond their college days. If an athlete's peak is typically in their latter 20s, why is fewer collegians a bad thing?

[gibson]

so what if the games have gotten more competitive?

USA has an all time great team. despite losing a lot of guys to injury.

enjoy it.

[preston]

there seems to be far fewer collegiate athletes that made the US Olympic team. And, if this is the case, then the USA will HAVE TO find a better way to address the needs of he athletes.

Where's the logic there? There should NOT be many collegians in a system that values post-collegians and allows them to develop beyond their college days. If an athlete's peak is typically in their latter 20s, why is fewer collegians a bad thing?

Marlow, what are you talking about? Values post-collegiates? The USA system doesn't "value" post-collegiates, it values whomever qualifies; there's no focus on "post-collegiates" by USATF or USOC for t&f. We can all agree that USOC and USATF do NOT have a development mechanism for track and field, Colorado Springs (and a few other sites) notwithstanding. If there are fewer collegians making USATF teams -a biproduct of more professionals- and "professionals" can't make a living in the sport, then the "professionals" will eventually drop out short of their full development which hampers USOC/USATF medal prospects; the collegiate system will then be ill-equipped to compete against the world's best. What does USOC/USATF have that could replace the collegiate system? Also, look at the collegiates who made the US team and point to the athletes that have a chance at a medal? Goodwin? Hayes? Maybe McQuay? long, long shot Moline? That's the collegiate contribution to a team that though competitive has fewer sure things than in years past.

[Flumpy]

Shit, I sometimes find myself hoping an athlete loses simply because of posters here. That's kind of fucked up.

Amen!!!

There are a few perfectly pleasant athletes who I have no problem with personally that I actively want to lose because of certain T&FN posters.

[Marlow]

Where's the logic there? There should NOT be many collegians in a system that values post-collegians and allows them to develop beyond their college days. If an athlete's peak is typically in their latter 20s, why is fewer collegians a bad thing?

Marlow, what are you talking about? Values post-collegiates? The USA system doesn't "value" post-collegiates,

Sigh . . . missed my point again . . . I didn't say we DID. I said a system that does, should not have a preponderance of U-23s on the national team. We do not, so we must be doing something right, but you see that as a problem. Yes, USA post-collegians DO INDEED (largely) have to look out for themselves, but they manage MUCH better now than they did 20, 30 and 40 years ago, when prize money was even smaller and most stars retired earlier.

Our system COULD be better, but we are doing VERY well right now, and your concession that we COULD win 30 (yes, it is a stretch, but a not unreasonable one) indicates that by the MOST important measure (in this sort of discussion), we are more than OK.

[j-a-m]

When you talk about collegiate contributions to the current team, you might wanna include Taylor, Claye, Centro. They left college a year early, and they medaled last year; so it seems whatever success they're gonna have this year, most of it can still be attributed to their collegiate training.

[preston]

When you talk about collegiate contributions to the current team, you might wanna include Taylor, Claye, Centro. They left college a year early, and they medaled last year; so it seems whatever success they're gonna have this year, most of it can still be attributed to their collegiate training.

I think it can be attributed the the fact that they are out-sized talents; otherwise there would be more like them, but there isn't - they stick out like sore thumbs as their "collegiate peers" are not even A-standard qualifiers, much less finalists, much less medallists.

Sigh . . . missed my point again . . . I didn't say we DID. I said a system that does, should not have a preponderance of U-23s on the national team. We do not, so we must be doing something right, but you see that as a problem.

Marlow, noone misses your point; it's you who missed the point because you have a problem conceding other posters points - attempting to change the argument to fit your need to rebut every post. The points that you're trying to force me to agree to I made initially. You'll never get it because you can't admit that you don't have dominion over every subject having to do with track and field.

[Marlow]

you can't admit that you don't have dominion over every subject having to do with track and field.

HA! That's where you're TOTALLY wrong, buckoo!! I freely admit (and always have) that I know next to nothing about the Walks, so there!!

[preston]

you can't admit that you don't have dominion over every subject having to do with track and field.

HA! That's where you're TOTALLY wrong, buckoo!! I freely admit (and always have) that I know next to nothing about the Walks, so there!!

And, if you think, even in jest, that the walks are the only place that you know next to nothing about this sport then that's the problem.

[Marlow]

And, if you think, even in jest, that the walks are the only place that you know next to nothing about this sport then that's the problem.

Well, gimme some time! I've only been a RABID (as opposed to just a mere die-hard or hard-core) Fan for 46 years, a competitor for 48 years, a subscriber to T&FN and TN for 42 years, a coach for 25 years and an official for 20 years, so I am BOUND to learn something soon. I'm sure you have LOTS more experience than I!!

[fromage]

I would find it illogical, absurd and slightly shameful if the USA did not dominate athletics for the forseeable future.
The two largest populations in the world, China and India, have no interest in Track and Field with vast numbers of very poor inhabitants and largely small in stature ; Russia has no interest at all in track , a largely poor country, and a crap climate .
A wealthy country as the USA,with 320 million people and with a large base of naturally talented athletes with a convenient overall feed via the college system can hardly be expected not to be considerably better across the 47 events in the programme at World level.

European interest in track and field is way down these days, and , apart from the throws, the performance of European athletes in the sprints and long distances is now more or less extinct, (with a few salient exceptions such as the Russian mid distance athletes), in France, Germany, with a 90 million population, Russia and the Scandinavian countries.

As for the third world countries in Asia and South America , again vastly poor, their Universities are not full of natural talents waiting too excel in sport, but trying to excel to fight the for a place in the sun, jobwise.

Jamaica and other Caribbean countries, Kenya and Ethiopia are exceptions and specialise in few events.

So if the USA do not win 10 Gold Medals and at the very least 20 medals overall it would be a dismal performance.

[Flumpy]

By the way, what is it with this 'throw shade' expression?

I seem to see it all over internet forums these days, but do real people really talk like that?

Of course they do. And as with most of the best things in life it started with the gayers.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shade

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lEtUqxg44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlt3Y_76oLg

[Vault-emort]

By the way, what is it with this 'throw shade' expression?

I seem to see it all over internet forums these days, but do real people really talk like that?

Of course they do. And as with most of the best things in life it started with the gayers.

Fair suck of the sav! By crikey, I must be gettin old, china!

[Marlow]

it started with the gayers.

As a WP (Word Person), I am always fascinated by the evolution of language.
Homosexual (straight-forward)
Gay (Euphemism)
Gay & Lesbian (aren't Lesbians . . . gay? )
Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual (necessary distinction)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trandgender (adds a growing minority)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender & Queer (Q, as I understand it in this context, simply means 'others', i.e., people whose sexual orientation is not accurately reflected in the previous terms)
Whither next, Flump?

[mump boy]

By the way, what is it with this 'throw shade' expression?

I seem to see it all over internet forums these days, but do real people really talk like that?

Of course they do. And as with most of the best things in life it started with the gayers.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shade

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lEtUqxg44

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlt3Y_76oLg

You wanna talk about reading ? let's talk about reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsnq1IzJ ... ure=relmfu

Legendary Children taking over in 21st century

RIP Venus Extravaganza

[preston]

And, if you think, even in jest, that the walks are the only place that you know next to nothing about this sport then that's the problem.

Well, gimme some time! I've only been a RABID (as opposed to just a mere die-hard or hard-core) Fan for 46 years, a competitor for 48 years, a subscriber to T&FN and TN for 42 years, a coach for 25 years and an official for 20 years, so I am BOUND to learn something soon. I'm sure you have LOTS more experience than I!!

Marlow,

-how much of that coaching "experience" has resulted in an athlete qualifying for Olympics, WC, A-standard or B-standard?
-how many of the NCAA/elite coaches, athletes and agents do you actually know? Have their cell? email? will return your calls knowing who you are?
-how many conversations have you had with IAAF/USATF officials (technical committee, council members)
-how much of that "RABID" fan-dom caused you to use your passport to watch an international circuit or global meet? We have several posters who plan their vacations around global events. Certainly a FIFA fan would...and many wouldn't consider themselves "RABID".
-how much of that competitive "experience" qualified you for NCAA's? World Champs? Olympics?

The above are many of the topics that you comment on with abandon, or are using your "experience" to justify your opinion. This is a messageboard. Being an A-hole is expected, but DBAD. "Pulling rank" is a **** move. "Seniority" counts for nothing if you're not, nor have you been, in a position to know; it also does nothing to make your OPINIONS more valid, especially since most of the things you are so strident about others may have more knowledge on than do you. Despite your 46/48/42/25 and 20.

[Marlow]

"Seniority" counts for nothing if you're not, nor have you been, in a position to know; it also does nothing to make your OPINIONS more valid, especially since most of the things you are so strident about others may have more knowledge on than do you. Despite your 46/48/42/25 and 20.

Ah, yes, then I think we can wholeheartedly agree that you have no more validity than I. We are both two tiny drops in a huge bucket, neither of whose opinion counts one whit more than the other. I am very comfortable with that. You?

[preston]

"Seniority" counts for nothing if you're not, nor have you been, in a position to know; it also does nothing to make your OPINIONS more valid, especially since most of the things you are so strident about others may have more knowledge on than do you. Despite your 46/48/42/25 and 20.

Ah, yes, then I think we can wholeheartedly agree that you have no more validity than I. We are both two tiny drops in a huge bucket, neither of whose opinion counts one whit more than the other. I am very comfortable with that. You?

suprisingly, I agree with that general sentiment (however, you're wrong )

[Marlow]

suprisingly, I agree with that general sentiment

Then I suggest we proceed with that singular sentiment in mind as we post in the future. There is no need for 'callings-out', when all that may prove is that we ourselves are the deficient ones!

[Flumpy]

it started with the gayers.

As a WP (Word Person), I am always fascinated by the evolution of language.
Homosexual (straight-forward)
Gay (Euphemism)
Gay & Lesbian (aren't Lesbians . . . gay? )
Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual (necessary distinction)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Trandgender (adds a growing minority)
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender & Queer (Q, as I understand it in this context, simply means 'others', i.e., people whose sexual orientation is not accurately reflected in the previous terms)
Whither next, Flump?

Not wanting to derail the thread completely but I hate the word 'queer'. I know that we're supposed to have reclaimed it to reverse it's negative conotation but instead we've just given prominence to a horrible word that no one else would be using.

Why would anyone want to be described as 'queer'??? Why not reclaim pansy???

[Smoke]

preston you were so busy trying to be right, I am convinced you never realized your premise IS false. In no way shape or form should college athletes dominate the national teams. Athletes leak around mid to late 20s and into their early 30s. As the sport has grown (albeit slowly) more and more are able to sustain a career longer than 3 years past college, which means less spots available.
If you look at the team this year, a few of the college athletes should not have made this team at all, but the quality of the fields is a little down throughout the track-verse. i.e. the 400, and 200. Yet, as history has shown, 1 or 2 college kids made the respective squads.
Before I get long winded, you don't have proof of your assertion. Many college kids made the squad and some post collegiates that could possibly be in school still. And lastly you are completely detached if you do not think there is a greater focus by USATF on post collegiates. That is just rhetoric on your part that denies all the grants, and shoe contracts out there.