low turnout at USATF Indoor?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby fourjz » Sat Mar 02, 2013 10:36 pm

I noticed all the unattached athletes.Guess they are trying for contracts from somebody,anybody ?
fourjz
 
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:08 am
Location: Southern California

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby aaronk » Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:31 pm

fourjz......
I think "unattached" means they're just currently without a boyfriend or girlfriend......

but I could be wrong!!

LOL
aaronk
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby polevaultpower » Mon Mar 04, 2013 5:44 am

fourjz wrote:I noticed all the unattached athletes.Guess they are trying for contracts from somebody,anybody ?


Shoe contracts are tough to get these days. You can have other sponsors appear in the results but USATF does not believe in publishing the information as to how one does that.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby vip » Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:38 am

You know what was really embarrassing? All around the track in ABQ were USATF posters with world class athletes: Allyson, Tyson, Sayna, etc., etc. And not one athlete featured on those posters was in the building!

This meet was a disgrace. Yeah, I know about Suhr's WR and Cain and whatnot. Absolutely, a few performances stood out. But overall, for a national championship, the poor turnout was a horrible reflection on the sport, the athletes and the organization.

Wouldn't this be the ideal meet for USATF to relax the sponsorship rule if only to attract more athletes and give them a chance to make money? Also, why couldn't an A-list athlete get their shoe company to foot a one-day travel expense and at least use the meet to promote the product and for training purposes? Don't they have some responsibility to promote the sport they so dearly care about? Next time an athlete complains about lack of recognition, and then doesn't show up at a national championship, excuse me if I don't shed a tear.
vip
 
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:54 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby batonless relay » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:21 am

It's not just the US, professional indoor track is not relevant anymore and I don't think anything will change it back. None of the top sprinters bother and we could probably say the same for distance runners and the field eventers. Why pretend that a national champs for indoors is even needed?

Instead of indoor track the sport should actively promote "below/near the equator" competition during what is currently indoors. And, allow qualifying into major circuit events and championships based upon participation in the "below/near the equator" circuit (which is more "just" than allowing diamond circuit event winners a bye into worlds, imo).

the top athletes have shown more of a willingness to go to Australia or South Africa in the "winter" than they have for running indoor track. Why not turn it into a full fledged circuit of cities like Auckland, Christchurch, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Kuala Lampur, Johanessberg, Cape town, buenos Aires, Santiago, Sau Paulo, Belem, Fortaleza, Nassau, Kingston, Port of Spain, Havana (eventually). Plus, almost every major city in Africa is closer to the equator than Auckland, New Zealand. And almost every Asian city not in china, korea or japan lies within this area as well.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby polevaultpower » Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:45 am

vip wrote:You know what was really embarrassing? All around the track in ABQ were USATF posters with world class athletes: Allyson, Tyson, Sayna, etc., etc. And not one athlete featured on those posters was in the building!

This meet was a disgrace. Yeah, I know about Suhr's WR and Cain and whatnot. Absolutely, a few performances stood out. But overall, for a national championship, the poor turnout was a horrible reflection on the sport, the athletes and the organization.

Wouldn't this be the ideal meet for USATF to relax the sponsorship rule if only to attract more athletes and give them a chance to make money? Also, why couldn't an A-list athlete get their shoe company to foot a one-day travel expense and at least use the meet to promote the product and for training purposes? Don't they have some responsibility to promote the sport they so dearly care about? Next time an athlete complains about lack of recognition, and then doesn't show up at a national championship, excuse me if I don't shed a tear.


There were no restrictions on what logos athletes could wear on their uniforms or what sponsors they could represent and the athletes all know this, or should, it was well publicized through AAC the past few months. USATF could do a better job of posting information on their website as to how one gets a sponsor listed in the results, but I would hope that any agent would be in the loop, or that any motivated athlete could figure it out.

There's no need for shoe companies to pay the A-list athletes to go to the meet, USATF already does this: http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/ ... nding.aspx

Now why wasn't Jenn on one of those posters in ABQ? Hmm... :(
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby RichC » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:37 am

The posters were made four years ago by USATF and if everyone remembers, Jen didn't compete, so they only had posters made of who was actually in the meet. They have used the same posters for the last four years.
RichC
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:18 pm

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby tm71 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:20 pm

RichC wrote:The posters were made four years ago by USATF and if everyone remembers, Jen didn't compete, so they only had posters made of who was actually in the meet. They have used the same posters for the last four years.


if that is the case the usatf is totally lazy and useless. why not have posters of lewis, moses and JJK ?
tm71
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby gh » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:32 pm

vip wrote:....

This meet was a disgrace. Yeah, I know about Suhr's WR and Cain and whatnot. Absolutely, a few performances stood out. But overall, for a national championship, the poor turnout was a horrible reflection on the sport, the athletes and the organization....


I'm biased, because I had the point of view of being emotionally invested in the goings-on from the announce booth, but I came away from the meet with the impression that it was a surprisingly good show for those in attendance. I've been to many "high turnout" meets/Nationals that didn't remotely have the crowd appeal that this one did.

Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said in the past: the meet simply shouldn't be held in years when there isn't a Worlds to qualify for. The reality of the modern competitive schedule is such that it's advantageous to very few top-enders to be there.
gh
 
Posts: 46306
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby aaronk » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:43 pm

gh wrote:
vip wrote:....

This meet was a disgrace. Yeah, I know about Suhr's WR and Cain and whatnot. Absolutely, a few performances stood out. But overall, for a national championship, the poor turnout was a horrible reflection on the sport, the athletes and the organization....


I'm biased, because I had the point of view of being emotionally invested in the goings-on from the announce booth, but I came away from the meet with the impression that it was a surprisingly good show for those in attendance. I've been to many "high turnout" meets/Nationals that didn't remotely have the crowd appeal that this one did.

Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said in the past: the meet simply shouldn't be held in years when there isn't a Worlds to qualify for. The reality of the modern competitive schedule is such that it's advantageous to very few top-enders to be there.


Are you serious?
We (the USA) shouldn't hold a National Championship meet....whether indoors or out....just because there's no WC to qualify for??
How many "important" track and field nations do NOT hold an annual INdoor national championship meet??

I always thought the AAU/TAC/USATF championship meets were to determine who the USA champion was in each event!
In OG and WC years, the only difference was that the meet ALSO determined the teams for those majors!!
But even in those years, the winners of each event became the USA Champion!!

(It's sad, but true, that sometimes our "national champion" did NOT qualify to go to the OG or WC!!)

I see this suggestion as being akin to a state NOT holding their high school State Championship Meet.....because they weren't going to send anyone to the post-season meets, like the WJC's!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby polevaultpower » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:03 am

gh wrote:Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said in the past: the meet simply shouldn't be held in years when there isn't a Worlds to qualify for. The reality of the modern competitive schedule is such that it's advantageous to very few top-enders to be there.



It is an important prize money opportunity for many events, especially field events and race walk.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4519
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby RichC » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:20 am

I'll side with gh on this one. Those 2000 folks in attendance enjoyed the show. Certainly there were a lack of depth and high level talent, but for the people who paid their $15 bucks to get in they clapped, and appreciated all the positive things that DID happen.

While I do believe it is important to have the meet each year there are ways to improve it. In non world years they could make it the USA Invitational so that collegians could come to the meet and use it for NCAA qualifying. Can you imagine how great the meet would have been if all the people flying all over the country for last chance qualifiers had been able to come to ABQ and fill the fields. And those collegians would have brought mom and dad along and the stands would have been packed. So one had situations like we did where we had to send our NCAA Long Jump champion and NCAA Triple Jump runner-up to Notre Dame for a last chance qualifier instead of them competing right here on their own facility. There are ways to improve the meet, there just needs to be a commmitment to look outside the box.
RichC
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:18 pm

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:15 am

Of course, the DMR teams and the distance runners would like a venue closer to sea level, but that would be part of the planning. If I had been any where near NM I would have gone.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:27 am

polevaultpower wrote:
gh wrote:Having said that, I'll repeat what I've said in the past: the meet simply shouldn't be held in years when there isn't a Worlds to qualify for. The reality of the modern competitive schedule is such that it's advantageous to very few top-enders to be there.



It is an important prize money opportunity for many events, especially field events and race walk.


that money can (and should) simply be spent outdoors, where it'll do more good. From my column in last year's May edition, lamenting the lack of meaningful competition for post-collegians in the run-up to the Trials:

<<All of which brings me back to this year’s indoor season. It was wonderful that
USATF found a way to stage another meet in Madison Square Garden to replace Millrose. And it was terrific that the federation was able to get Fayetteville back into the fold as a significant fixture.
But—and far be it from me to tell USATF and prime sponsor Visa how to spend their sponsorship dollars—what the heck is the point of spending hard-to-find resources on indoor meets when they are so irrelevant compared to outdoors?>>

Go here to read the whole screed

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/images ... p05crx.pdf
gh
 
Posts: 46306
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby br » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:43 am

RichC wrote:I'll side with gh on this one. Those 2000 folks in attendance enjoyed the show. Certainly there were a lack of depth and high level talent, but for the people who paid their $15 bucks to get in they clapped, and appreciated all the positive things that DID happen.

While I do believe it is important to have the meet each year there are ways to improve it. In non world years they could make it the USA Invitational so that collegians could come to the meet and use it for NCAA qualifying. Can you imagine how great the meet would have been if all the people flying all over the country for last chance qualifiers had been able to come to ABQ and fill the fields. And those collegians would have brought mom and dad along and the stands would have been packed. So one had situations like we did where we had to send our NCAA Long Jump champion and NCAA Triple Jump runner-up to Notre Dame for a last chance qualifier instead of them competing right here on their own facility. There are ways to improve the meet, there just needs to be a commmitment to look outside the box.


Would not be possible for many event chasers. The USATF meet finishes on a Sunday and the dates for the NCAA to accept marks for the indoor championships are from December 1 through the first Saturday prior to the first day of the national championships.

http://www.ustfccca.org/assets/qual-sta ... F_2013.pdf

Also, the M&W 5000m and the M&W 200m are not available at the USATF meet.
br
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:36 am

DMR also not available (although it has been in years in the past), and that's a huge one for last-chance qualifying.

And, of course, if you don't have the meet on a ludicrous oversized speedway, collegians won't want to come anyway. Look at the Flotrack story linked on front page for what happened in the DMR over the weekend.

The illegal tracks also have another benefit; more lanes, more teams can compete.
gh
 
Posts: 46306
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby exdrake » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:10 am

I imagine one tweak at this meet would have double/tripled the viewing pleasure: Wilson vs. Cain in the 800m.
exdrake
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:46 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby aaronk » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:21 am

exdrake wrote:I imagine one tweak at this meet would have double/tripled the viewing pleasure: Wilson vs. Cain in the 800m.


Would've LOVED that!!

Here's the pre-race "weigh-in" for both:

Wilson:
She has a 2:00.91 OUTdoor (and overall) PR.
Her 2:02.64 winner at USATF was an INdoor PR.

Cain:
Her OVERALL PR is 2:03.34, run OUTdoors last year.
Her INdoor PR is 2:07.26, also from last year.

So Cain would've needed an OVERALL PR to beat Wilson!!
aaronk
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:35 am

gh wrote:DMR also not available (although it has been in years in the past), and that's a huge one for last-chance qualifying.

And, of course, if you don't have the meet on a ludicrous oversized speedway, collegians won't want to come anyway. Look at the Flotrack story linked on front page for what happened in the DMR over the weekend.

The illegal tracks also have another benefit; more lanes, more teams can compete.


I do not see it as a bad thing that you can have more athletes on the track. At least the 200 runners in Lane 6 are not five feet above the finish. As I said elsewhere, the OTs are no more illegal for distances than the Banked ones are for the sprints once you make correct adjustments for qualifying. The big OTs are still favored too much and as I said on the other thread using a continuous adjustment (f = b x (C - 200) where b is calibrated for, say 300m; a 250 would get less adjustment, a 350 more adjustment. If the average adjustment was based on a weighted average of 275 meters, the current adjustment for the 350m track would be 18 seconds rather than 9 or so (going by memory).

Does good competition help qualification - yes.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16315
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby az2004 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:45 am

i think wilson beat cain twice indoors at the 800

cain beat wilson at penn relays mile 4:39 to 4:52

i take wilson over cain at 800 now

wilson600 meter speed only gives cain 200 meters to catch up
az2004
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: low turnout at USATF Indoor?

Postby az2004 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 11:05 am

http://www.runnerspace.com/video.php?video_id=61486

i think the 800 between the 2 plays out like this video from 2012 new balance indoor nations

ajee gets away and cain trys to chase her down

bit dieerent if the do a mile

http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/248558 ... ampionship
az2004
 
Posts: 3131
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dave, JumboElliott, lonewolf and 10 guests