USATF


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

USATF

Postby abinferno » Wed Jun 25, 2003 7:37 pm

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?
abinferno
 
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: USATF

Postby miles » Wed Jun 25, 2003 8:19 pm

Huh?
miles
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:43 am

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.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:11 am

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.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby gh » Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:56 am

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.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: USATF

Postby 197hjsteve » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:06 am

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.

Surely others have noticed this at Duke ?
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: USATF

Postby dl » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:38 am

What? You don't like seeing only 180m or the second 200m of every lap? :-)
dl
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:30 am

Re: USATF

Postby 197hjsteve » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:43 am

If they are going to hold any more big meets at Duke, have them rip down that tail end of the stands.... they sure do not need it to hold football crowds.

( All this is being written by a Duke grad and former Duke T&F'er ! )
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:48 am

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.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:50 am

On a list of USATF priorities, the sightlines of the paying customers ranks about No. 127 out of 85.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:51 am

They've gone back to it exactly once.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby 197hjsteve » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:56 am

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 lines, etc.

Indy is no Eugene and never, ever will be, but it sure is a good facility.
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:02 pm

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.)
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:07 pm

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
>lines, etc.

Indy is no Eugene and never, ever
>will be, but it sure is a good facility.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby gh » Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:10 pm

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.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: USATF

Postby gm » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:10 pm

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.

The revitalized downtown area is much more welcoming than it was even as recently as '97.

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.

Indy is no Eugene? Thank goodness! What an overrated place that allergen-infested hippie hangout is... :)
gm
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: USATF

Postby LongTimeSubscriber » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:16 pm

Have the USATF sites been picked for 2005 & 2006?
My bet is Carson, CA at the Home Depot Center.
LongTimeSubscriber
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 5:51 pm

Crystal ball says you're right on for 2006 (they'll want a warm-up for the World Cup in September), but in 2005 it'll be Stanford.

Of course, you're probably too old to be believing what crystal balls tell you.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 6:42 pm

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.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:48 pm

How about those who could afford to pay for the gold seats, then had them run the 100 heats on the other side?! There would have been a riot if they'd pulled that crap again for the finals.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 27, 2003 3:12 am

>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?
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby gh » Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:14 am

Fromt his morning's SF Chronicle:

<<Stanford, USATF an excellent match

John Crumpacker   Friday, June 27, 2003


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......>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 101057.DTL
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: USATF

Postby gm » Fri Jun 27, 2003 7:50 am

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

say it ain't so, GH!
gm
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: USATF

Postby gh » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:00 am

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!
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:10 am

>>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?
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby gm » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:41 am

one word -- parking

Oh, and the fact those lousy hippies ruined our great country in the 60s, starting right there in Bezerkely.

:)
gm
 
Posts: 4559
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: "What's the pre-cooked weight on that lab?"

Re: USATF

Postby gh » Fri Jun 27, 2003 8:59 am

>>>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.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Fri Jun 27, 2003 9:48 am

>one word -- parking<


I'd rather park somewhere else and be bussed to a stadium that has indoor plumbing than park at the stadium and take a bus somewhere if I want to use a decent toilet.
Guest
 

Re: USATF

Postby blacklily » Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:07 pm

>Crystal ball says you're right on for 2006
>(they'll want a warm-up for the World Cup in
>September), but in 2005 it'll be Stanford.

I read an article that said that 2005 Champs had basically been "promised" to Carson, not Palo Alto. Confirmation.
blacklily
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: USATF

Postby blacklily » Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:17 pm

>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.

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.
blacklily
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: USATF

Postby Guest » Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:17 pm

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.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], eiluke, MSNbot Media and 12 guests

cron