Am I the only one who thinks it seems ludicrous that there are not 9 competitors in the one lap and two lap races? The site for the Olympic trials next year doesn't even have 9 lanes all the way around the track, something that vexed me a little this year. Shouldn't there always be that opportunity for the 9 guy to get up for a point for his team?
My understanding is that world records are not accepted from Lane 9, so that's why it's not used in finals. But since track radius differ so much, I'm not sure this rule is justified. Ex. Lane 9 at Penn is probably bigger radius than most configurations.
Let me get this straight. A standard international track is 8 lanes. Most Olympic tracks have 8 lanes. Most tracks in this country have 8 lanes around the oval, at most. There are very few venues that are suitable in every way for holding an Olympic Trials and you want to eliminate a majority of them from consideration just because they don't have a full nine lanes. Gimme a break.
Anyway, if making the top 8 is too much of a task for you, you're not gonna make the team. Being in the final is not what this meet is all about.
You can set a WR from lane 9 so long as the radius of that lane doesn't exceed the maximum set down by the IAAF. The IAAF has staged multiple World Cups using all 9-lanes; you don't think they'd do that if the track was illegal do you?
Other than in the World Cup (where nobody's usually running that hard anyway), the superstars always get the middle lanes either by seeding or by by promoter's choice. So in a practical sense, the way the sport is now, you could probably outlaw WRs made in any lanes but 3-4-5-6 and never lose a one.
Sac State has the unusual configuration of being 9 lanes around one curve and the straightaway. So, as they did at NCs, you can run the 100s and 200s 9-deep, but not 400s. Kind of unfortunate they did, at least for those sitting in the main stands, becuase you couldn't see lane 9. (Of course, the stands are so flat--one of the worst facilities imaginable in this regard--that you can't see 8-7-6 either!)
Fortunately, they chose not to use lane 9 at Stanford, so the ticket-buyers were spared missing that lane, becuase it's even closer to the stands than Sacto.
Garry, in response to your comment about poor sight lines of all lanes of the track, every time I have been to a big meet at Duke, ( 1990 and 2000 NCAA's) I am appalled that when the runners are coming off the turn, into the main stretch, you cannot see them for about 15 yards, due to the curvature of the end of the stands !
Why the NCAA can tolerate that at its biggest meet is beyond me.
As bad as that corner situation is at Duke, it's still a much much better place to watch a meet than Sacramento, which has absolutely miserable sight lines. It's also a physically uncomfortable stadium. I can't believe USATF keeps going back to that wretched place.
I live in Indianapolis. Are we now on the s*** list due to the abysmal attendance at tne last Nationals here about 5 or 6 years ago ?
We had some GREAT meets here between 1982 and 1997.
Great track, great sight lines, etc.
Indy is no Eugene and never, ever will be, but it sure is a good facility.
Indy is a GREAT facility and with the USATF National Office there, I don't know why they haven't returned to it recently. They had a lot of really good meets there in the '80's and '90's. I vote for returning. (Oh, sorry, I forgot. I don't get to vote. I wonder who does.)
How true... what's sad is that the stadium is hardly used anymore -- except an occassional hs meet or small-time college meet.
What gets me is the fact that it sits on the campus of IUPUI -- a Div I school with 20K+ students that DOES NOT have a T&F program.
>OK, one more time.....
I live in Indianapolis.
>Are we now on the s*** list due to the abysmal
>attendance at tne last Nationals here about 5 or
>6 years ago ?
We had some GREAT meets here
>between 1982 and 1997.
Great track, great sight
Indy is no Eugene and never, ever
>will be, but it sure is a good facility.
Despite the oft-brutal weather, Indy was indeed a superb site for the meet. Not only the track, but also a nice downtown just a few minutes walk away, good hotels, central to a huge portion of the country's population mass.
The attendance in '97 was indeed worthy of many asterisks. In fact, we were joking about it at the meet just last weekend, where somebody dredged up the best line from that meet, which was, "wouldn't it be easier just to make all the paying fans wear a credential?" That reference the fact that--and there's not too much hyperbole in here--i think there were probably 5 people with a credential around their neck for everybody who wasn't. It was abysmal.
Couple of things to remember about Indy:
In the early '80s there was a great move afoot to turn it into the amateur sports capital of the world (well, U.S. at least). Then the Dolts came to town and the whole outlook changed.
'97 was also the end of Ollan's reign. He was fierce about bringing the big show to town. Craig has taken a far more catholic view of the situation.
I was just at Stanford for the first time. What a disappointment. The seating was terrible-couldn't see either turn from the bronze side. The gold seats were too much money for four days. The stadium hampered the meet and did not do the performances justice. Give me Indy or Eugene any day.
>Indy would be an ideal spot for a permanent NCAA
D1 site, though I certainly am not in favor of
such a plan at the moment.
As for the U.S. nationals returning there? I would say it is probably only likely after the name changes on the door of USATF's CEO.<
I give up. Why would Craig not want the meet to be held within walking distance of his office? I'd think that there would be big $$$ savings to USATF if he and the rest of the HQ staff didn't have to travel to the championships. Those meets were great when they were there. So what's he got against the place where he lives?
While the country's best track and field athletes are heading over to Europe for competitions leading up to the World Championships in Paris in August, the organizing committee that staged last week's national championships at Stanford is already talking about hosting them again, perhaps for another two-year run in 2006-07.
USA Track & Field, the national governing body for the sport, wants to return......>
Heh-heh-heh.... actually the best track facility in the Bay Area (and perhaps the best in thecountry), is across The Bay at Cal. If you don't like the Eugene version of tie-die, wait'l you get a load of Beserkeley!
>>actually the best track facility in the Bay Area (and perhaps the best in thecountry), is across The Bay at Cal.<<
If that's true, why haven't they ever bid for some of these big meets (NCAA/USATF)? (Or, if they have, why haven't they gotten them?) I don't doubt that the place is far better than those crummy facilities at Sacramento and Stanford. So why are they out of the loop?
>>>actually the best track facility in the Bay
>Area (and perhaps the best in thecountry), is
>across The Bay at Cal.<<
If that's true, why
>haven't they ever bid for some of these big meets
>(NCAA/USATF)? (Or, if they have, why haven't
>they gotten them?) >>
Two answers here:
1. the refurbished facility has only been in what, 3 years now? And at the same time, there's a change in head coaches, so the whole athletic-department infrastructure is in a state of flux. (But ntoe they did host the multis portion of the Nationals last year.)
2. No matter what the athletic department is up to, it's people with names you've never heard who make a Nationals a viable project. USATF provides professional help (and some caish) and the university provides the facility and the technical knowledge of the coaching staff. But who provides the thousands (and thousands) of hours that are required to set up housing, hospitality and transportation? Who finds the hundreds of volunteers needed to do things as mundane as packing the athletes' clothes baskets around? Who does all this for no pay?
The LOC (local organizing committee), which is made up of people you've never heard of, who either through a sense of loyalty to their alma mater, a desire to do community service, the need to be wanted and appreciated, or just cuz they're plain nuts are willing to give up a huge chunk of their lives to make it work.
Lots of cities find a way to do it once, but it's such a drain that's why you never see them bid again. Stanford currently has such a group. As does Eugene. But there aren't many other places that do.
Disclaimer: I was a member of the Stanford LOC this year, so you can consider me biased, even though my personal time involvement came to mere dozens of hours. I at least get to have fun doing on-field interviews for the crowd. The rest of the poor stiffs--the ones who do the real work for free--labor in anonymity in the background, getting nothing more than the satisfication of a job well done.
>Despite the oft-brutal weather, Indy was indeed a
>superb site for the meet. Not only the track, but
>also a nice downtown just a few minutes walk
>away, good hotels, central to a huge portion of
>the country's population mass.
>in '97 was indeed worthy of many asterisks. In
>fact, we were joking about it at the meet just
>last weekend, where somebody dredged up the best
>line from that meet, which was, "wouldn't it be
>easier just to make all the paying fans wear a
>credential?" That reference the fact that--and
>there's not too much hyperbole in here--i think
>there were probably 5 people with a credential
>around their neck for everybody who wasn't. It
Couple of things to remember
In the early '80s there was a
>great move afoot to turn it into the amateur
>sports capital of the world (well, U.S. at
>least). Then the Dolts came to town and the whole
'97 was also the end of
>Ollan's reign. He was fierce about bringing the
>big show to town. Craig has taken a far more
>catholic view of the situation.
USATF can blame itself for that piss-poor attendance. If it can't promote the meet in its backyard, what gives?
Although I think USATF overrates California a little as a track spectator mecca, I somewhat understand why California gets the bulk of elite track meets (& I live in Cali). However, Oregon is WAY overrated, while Texas is WAY underrated.
While USATF should disproportionately place nationals in locales with track fandom, it should also strive to expose other regions to top meets. What about Des Moines? It has a popular event (Drake Relays), it is renovating its facility, & has no other pro sports that I know of. For USATF to not build up track & field in America's heartland -- in its own backyard -- is a travesty.
Ive run at Cal, at Stanford, at Eugene, at Sacramento. From an athletes point of view (as a sprinter) Sac was by far the best. Berkeley being the worst. It's obvious who'm ever is stating Berkeley has never run there. There is a reason Stanford gets the events, although honestly both tracks (not stadiums) suck.