I think that in order for track and field to gain popularity and to garner more appeal the goverorning body have to be more forward thinking and innovative. I am wondering if a club team format for global competition as ever been thought of. My concept is a replacement for the diamond league and not OG,WC etc.Currently all athletes when competing on the circuit do so as individuals.
What I am proposing is a global league whereby athletes will be aligned to clubs. Each team will have a set amount of athletes and will take part in set events in a set format(to allow unifority ,ease of spectator understanding.comparison etc).
Points will be awarded based upon a points system.eg 8pts for winner 7 for sec and soon.These points will be tallied towards the team to determine the winner.A special feature could be the carrying of points by athletes into a meet.eg After 3 consecutive wins an athlete carry 3 additional points in addition to those from the win. A wr holder or Championship record holder alo get additional points as long as a 3 in a row record is kept. If 3 in a row is broken but not the record when the athlete regain a 3inarow record he or she restart earning the record points(this feature will enable stars to be relevant). I think the point system on a whole will improve overall spectator interest in the overall competition and not just on the clock.
The oveall club structure and competition format is open for debate but I think that a format tha allows athletes to double and for the entire meet to finish in a day is welcomed.Also all competition will be straight final and and teams will compete in an 8 team meet where they will advance based upon a team points system awarded for placement.
The overall league could be promoted as "our athles are the test pilot of the human body,they run faster ,jump higher, throw farther and endure more "
people have been suggesting team competition as the salvation of the sport for as long as I've been around (and that's a long-long time).
it won't work simply because the top athletes have no reason to want to participate. Why sign up for series of meets that would most assuredly commit you to competing more times than you want and in places you don't want? And the minute you lose the superstars, the league is a failure.
(I'm not saying that a good team concept might not indeed help the health of the sport if it could be created, but the talent just won't be there)
It wasn't that long ago that athletes did compete for teams. University of Chicago, Florida Track Club etc. teamwise in cross country and individually in track. Then there were the various Nike Boston, Nike Eugene, AW, etc in the 80's. But that is all gone. Now everyone runs in the same Nike track suit, looking like escapees from the local MacD.
Also the demise of the National CC meet in the fall really sucked out the point of teams anymore.
Back in the 80s the Boston Club scene was big. It was mostly road races, cross country and of course the Plymouth-to-Provincetown Relay. I competed with the Cambridge Sports Union then, Charlie Spedding was once a member, and that was a lot of fun.
But for track, as gh says, outside of the academic scene it never has worked.
I could see it being useful and interesting as a "minor league" to the Diamond League-level meets. Top talent would balk at the concept. But there are plenty of athletes without pro contracts or those who receive little more than free gear who would jump at the chance for a steady paycheck and opportunities to compete. I'm not sure it would necessarily broaden interest in the sport, but it would probably create lots of good discussion on this forum. Of course, making it attractive to sponsors is a whole other issue (it might be a good format for USATF to loosen its regs on uniforms/logos/marketing and see what it can get out of it).
ExCoastRanger wrote:... But there are plenty of athletes without pro contracts or those who receive little more than free gear who would jump at the chance for a steady paycheck and opportunities to compete. ....
But now we're up against the nub of it. If all you have is the "plenty of athletes" nobody is going to buy tickets to see them compete (and TV won't be remotely interested), and sponsors aren't going to sign on for the same reason. So where does the "steady paycheck" come from?
It's a Möbius Strip from hell, with the sport eternally chasing its tail.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The answer is Reality TV.
MMA grew enormously in popularity thanks to the show Ultimate Fighter which features unknown fighters training for a UFC (aka Diamond League level) contract.
It seems like a reality TV series about Olympic caliber track guys trying to "make the team" or even - trying to make the trials. Could really tell a hell of a story.
Nowadays, I'm constantly hearing about how hard the MMA guys train. Why? Because we've seen them train on TV.
Of course the concept of a show like that might only work in an Olympic year... Surely someone has pitched a similar idea (tape it at Chula Vista?) who knows... all I know is, I'd watch it.
Then again, I'm on a track and field message board in the middle of a work day. So - I'm certainly far from normal.
But I'll leave you with this. If Reality TV (albeit using C level celebs) can make Ball Room dancing hip, it sure as hell can help our beloved track and field.
The difference that Conor is referring to is that back in the day the clubs were comprised of national-class runners, not just "locals"; meaning that the appeal to the broader public fan base has evaporated.
Italy, for example, has its club championships every year,in two-day competition format(points system) apart from individual national championships(where also everyone wears their club's track suit) There is European Champions Club Cup but it just doesn't get media coverage as European Cup(now European Team Championships)- competition for European national teams. I can't see any club competition can change DL or something and maybe it's better or we would see rich clubs sweeping all the trophies.
gh wrote:The difference that Conor is referring to is that back in the day the clubs were comprised of national-class runners, not just "locals"; meaning that the appeal to the broader public fan base has evaporated.
I get that, but the scene is picking back up.
It's never going to be what it used to be and have massive national appeal, but we are beginning to develop a decent club system in many areas for emerging elite athletes, primarily distance runners. As sponsors dry up and prize money meets diminish, elite development clubs can fill a valuable gap in support. Unfortunately, USATF has done nothing with the Elite Development Club program, other than have a token web page for it. I'm not expecting a handout from them, it would just be nice if there was _something_ offered, besides a small amount of emotional support from a few kind staffers.
Charlie, I made a somewhat similar suggestion on here a while back but it was promptly shot down as unworkable. Track and field is not very open to innovation or new ideas. The sport is pretty much run the way the same way it was run several decades ago and is largely regarded by the public as an Olympic "event" and only draws a wider (but declining) audience once every four years or so during the Olympics with a bump in interest during the World Championship years.
If there is any change in the sport it is at a glacial speed and often not to benefit of the sport. While other sports like Nascar have found their niche and have a steady and even growing audience, track and field continues to decline in popularity and the refrain from the "track heads" is that it is what it is and the sport is just not that popular, so those fans calling for change can't expect it to compete successfully with other sports. Perhaps when the day inevitably comes when track and field is no longer regarded as the #1 Olympic Sport and not even the men's 100M final can draw a large TV audience, the track heads will finally wake up and do something.
I think you'll find the sport is quite open; it's easy to call for change without a way to actually fund a revolution. Just where do you think the money would come from for this brave new world?
I didn't expect someone from this forum to call Nascar a sport And do not agree with @Trackrunner. It's the view of average American sports viewer who very often doesn't know track and field exists as a professional sport(same with cross-country skiing, alpine skiing...) and they hear that something actually is happening in track and field only once every four years during the Olympic Games... I wish I was wrong.
I don't see it as a being necessarily a money or funding problem but more of a strategic problem. If unlimited funding was available to track and field what would track's governing body do differently from what is being done now? Not much I bet except to perhaps spend more dollars to do what they are already doing.
And yes I think of Nascar as a sport. There is a physical component to it involving reaction time, reflexes and dexterity.
My vison of a track club team is not a bunch of guys that train together but essentially compete only for individual glory.
My concept is similar to a school concept such as exist at Jamaica high school champs.Ultimately the goal is for a school (club) to win but individuals can get their recognition. The concept would be tweaked to a more proffessional format which will be nothing that ever existed in track and field.
Lets face it for competitive sports to thrive it needs 2 things (1) star power and (2) rivalry on both the individual and team level. A hyped competition between opposing camps draws spectators eg English soccer rivalry between clubs goes way back resulting in more spectator interest. As for star power how many people starting the NBA because of Michael Jordon,Kobe,Shaq etc ?
Deviating from a culture is not always easy but sometimes a neccessity I think it's time track and field evolve and grow outside its diminishing core support with something new and innovative.
gh wrote:I think you'll find the sport is quite open; it's easy to call for change without a way to actually fund a revolution. Just where do you think the money would come from for this brave new world?
The solution for track and field seems obvious to me, so obvious in fact I must be an idiot because I'm sure other, smarter people must have thought of this first. We already have meets, good, big meets and a good amount of them. But they really don't mean anything. Why don't we just make these meets (Diamond League, etc) the actual championship? This solves the problem of funding (they are standing up by themselves now), and increased exposure for athletes, the only remaining issue is how to decide who goes to the meets and how you crown a champion (maybe a Diamond League style points system). What am I missing?
gh wrote:I think you'll find the sport is quite open; it's easy to call for change without a way to actually fund a revolution. Just where do you think the money would come from for this brave new world?
The solution for track and field seems obvious to me, so obvious in fact I must be an idiot because I'm sure other, smarter people must have thought of this first. We already have meets, good, big meets and a good amount of them. But they really don't mean anything. Why don't we just make these meets (Diamond League, etc) the actual championship? This solves the problem of funding (they are standing up by themselves now), and increased exposure for athletes, the only remaining issue is how to decide who goes to the meets and how you crown a champion (maybe a Diamond League style points system). What am I missing?
Are you willing to get rid of the Olympics and World Championships?
Ned Ryerson wrote:Are you willing to get rid of the Olympics and World Championships?
World champs yes I would get rid of it under the thinking that the entire season of meets becomes the new world champs. Or on the other hand perhaps World Champs could be like the finale of the season where athletes must run at "regular season" meets and somehow qualify (maybe top 8 in points in each event qualify for a 1 or 2 day World Champs final meet). Olympics you could either just not do it at all or have a season whose importance took a back seat to the games.
Ned Ryerson wrote:Are you willing to get rid of the Olympics and World Championships?
World champs yes I would get rid of it under the thinking that the entire season of meets becomes the new world champs. Or on the other hand perhaps World Champs could be like the finale of the season where athletes must run at "regular season" meets and somehow qualify (maybe top 8 in points in each event qualify for a 1 or 2 day World Champs final meet). Olympics you could either just not do it at all or have a season whose importance took a back seat to the games.
It would have to work as it does with the NHL, where the league decides if it wants to put in a break for the Olympics.
But there's no way it could work. Track and field is ultimately an individual sport and each athlete needs to have his or her needs addressed. Yelena Isinbayeva isn't going to give up the right to change her coach if something isn't working, and neither will Mo Farah give up the right to relocate across the globe if he feels he needs it.
charlie1979 wrote:My vison of a track club team is not a bunch of guys that train together but essentially compete only for individual glory.
My concept is similar to a school concept such as exist at Jamaica high school champs.Ultimately the goal is for a school (club) to win but individuals can get their recognition.
Exactly. There can be individual prize money and scoring in addition to the team prizes and scoring.
Let's say there are 8 teams ... you could put together a schedule of 16 meets, 8 meets per team, 4 teams in each meet. Don't put every event in every meet. Have later meets award more points than earlier meets, so athletes can still build for a peak without having the earlier meets become totally meaningless.
Then at the end of the 16 meets, athletes from the top 4 scoring teams plus a certain number of top-scoring individuals from other teams compete in a 3-day championship (of mostly finals) to decide the champion team and champion individual.
IMO the real problem is not with sustaining interest if they put together such a format or something similar, the bigger problem is with overcoming the inertia of administrators, sponsors, and athletes to get this started in the first place.
Ned Ryerson wrote:It would have to work as it does with the NHL, where the league decides if it wants to put in a break for the Olympics.
But there's no way it could work. Track and field is ultimately an individual sport and each athlete needs to have his or her needs addressed. Yelena Isinbayeva isn't going to give up the right to change her coach if something isn't working, and neither will Mo Farah give up the right to relocate across the globe if he feels he needs it.
Although many teams and athletes will find it advantageous to live and train in the same city with the same coaches as others in the club, the league rules can be designed so there is no requirement to change coach or relocate or not relocate.
18.99s wrote:Although many teams and athletes will find it advantageous to live and train in the same city with the same coaches as others in the club, the league rules can be designed so there is no requirement to change coach or relocate or not relocate.
Tougher to get casual fans to care about a team of all-stars who have no connection to their city.
Ned Ryerson wrote:It would have to work as it does with the NHL, where the league decides if it wants to put in a break for the Olympics.
But there's no way it could work. Track and field is ultimately an individual sport and each athlete needs to have his or her needs addressed. Yelena Isinbayeva isn't going to give up the right to change her coach if something isn't working, and neither will Mo Farah give up the right to relocate across the globe if he feels he needs it.
Although many teams and athletes will find it advantageous to live and train in the same city with the same coaches as others in the club, the league rules can be designed so there is no requirement to change coach or relocate or not relocate.
What makes them a team, then? Don't train together, different training locales across the globe... How many home meets will there be? Only two teams at a time, or more? What happens when you'e got a team with a superstar (like Bolt) but the team fails to win a majority of its meets? No postseason for Bolt?
Track is a sport where the individual can excel completely apart from a team, unlike a sport like basketball, where LeBron James, as good as he is, needs teammates to win.
18.99s wrote:Although many teams and athletes will find it advantageous to live and train in the same city with the same coaches as others in the club, the league rules can be designed so there is no requirement to change coach or relocate or not relocate.
Tougher to get casual fans to care about a team of all-stars who have no connection to their city.
I should clarify ... I meant no requirement for every athlete to change coach or relocate. Some will have to, and most will want to (at least the training together not necessarily the coaching), but doing so would bring objections from the top elites and some sort of criteria would be needed to exempt them.
Ned Ryerson wrote:What makes them a team, then? Don't train together, different training locales across the globe... How many home meets will there be? Only two teams at a time, or more? What happens when you'e got a team with a superstar (like Bolt) but the team fails to win a majority of its meets? No postseason for Bolt?
Scroll up three posts above yours.
Track is a sport where the individual can excel completely apart from a team, unlike a sport like basketball, where LeBron James, as good as he is, needs teammates to win.
Yes, but the idea of this thread is that the team format can bring more fans and money for the individuals, including enabling more athletes to make a living from the sport.
Last edited by 18.99s on Sun Apr 08, 2012 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
bman wrote:World champs yes I would get rid of it under the thinking that the entire season of meets becomes the new world champs. Or on the other hand perhaps World Champs could be like the finale of the season where athletes must run at "regular season" meets and somehow qualify (maybe top 8 in points in each event qualify for a 1 or 2 day World Champs final meet). Olympics you could either just not do it at all or have a season whose importance took a back seat to the games.
But there's no way it could work. Track and field is ultimately an individual sport and each athlete needs to have his or her needs addressed. Yelena Isinbayeva isn't going to give up the right to change her coach if something isn't working, and neither will Mo Farah give up the right to relocate across the globe if he feels he needs it.
Oh no I'm not advocating a team format. That is obviously a stupid idea. I just mean an individual season.
bman wrote:World champs yes I would get rid of it under the thinking that the entire season of meets becomes the new world champs. Or on the other hand perhaps World Champs could be like the finale of the season where athletes must run at "regular season" meets and somehow qualify (maybe top 8 in points in each event qualify for a 1 or 2 day World Champs final meet). Olympics you could either just not do it at all or have a season whose importance took a back seat to the games.
But there's no way it could work. Track and field is ultimately an individual sport and each athlete needs to have his or her needs addressed. Yelena Isinbayeva isn't going to give up the right to change her coach if something isn't working, and neither will Mo Farah give up the right to relocate across the globe if he feels he needs it.
Oh no I'm not advocating a team format. That is obviously a stupid idea. I just mean an individual season.
Agreed a team format would be a silly format in the same way a team format for tennis or boxing would be silly considering that they are both individal sport; except for one thing ,people will pay to go and watch a 3 hour or so tennis match or a 45 minutes boxing match(which by the way have to put more than one fight on the card most of the time) but no one will pay to see a 10 sec 100m run or a 60 odd metre throw by itself. Point is track and field events are inherently tied to each other; why not formalise the relationship? Moving to the format you suggest is as significant as movingfrom the Golden League to the Diamond League and will bring about as much revolution and interest.
Questions about training locale ,coaches etc are simple to answer ;which club anywhere in the world in whatever sport that that would not want to maximise the performance of their athletes? Would they not extend all resourses available to them to win?
What do I expect to be gained by a team format? 1)Fans can be drawn to a team by 1 particular athlete and in turn the league(eg Yao Ming drew viewership to the NBA fro previousely untap sources simply because he was Chinese) 2)Even if a star or any other athle is out injured fans drawn to that particular athlete would sill tune in and root for his team to progress. 3)Even if an individual is not the fan of 1 team he will be interested in other meets where his team don't participate simply to see where his team stands. 3)Fans would be more interested in competition so no disappointments when records are not broken. 4)All the events in a meet will be interesting to all since they all affect the outcome at thhe end.
charlie1979 wrote:Agreed a team format would be a silly format in the same way a team format for tennis or boxing would be silly considering that they are both individal sport; except for one thing ,people will pay to go and watch a 3 hour or so tennis match or a 45 minutes boxing match(which by the way have to put more than one fight on the card most of the time) but no one will pay to see a 10 sec 100m run or a 60 odd metre throw by itself. Point is track and field events are inherently tied to each other; why not formalise the relationship? Moving to the format you suggest is as significant as movingfrom the Golden League to the Diamond League and will bring about as much revolution and interest.
Questions about training locale ,coaches etc are simple to answer ;which club anywhere in the world in whatever sport that that would not want to maximise the performance of their athletes? Would they not extend all resourses available to them to win?
What do I expect to be gained by a team format? 1)Fans can be drawn to a team by 1 particular athlete and in turn the league(eg Yao Ming drew viewership to the NBA fro previousely untap sources simply because he was Chinese) 2)Even if a star or any other athle is out injured fans drawn to that particular athlete would sill tune in and root for his team to progress. 3)Even if an individual is not the fan of 1 team he will be interested in other meets where his team don't participate simply to see where his team stands. 3)Fans would be more interested in competition so no disappointments when records are not broken. 4)All the events in a meet will be interesting to all since they all affect the outcome at thhe end.
etc,etc
What makes it my team? Because they have eight meets per season in my area? Under your scenario, Tianna Madison would be more valuable to my team than someone like Rudisha, since Tianna could score well in the both short sprints and the long jump, while Rudisha is basically limited to one event, right? What's the postseason like? Like a copy of the NCAAs where the regular season record has no bearing on the championship, or does the regular season count, like all the top team sports? If the regular season counts, will people not feel shortchanged if Bolt misses the first half of the season due to some niggle, then by the time he's ready to rip of 9.6, his team is done for the season because they didn't advance? And what do these guys wear in competition? If I'm a superstar sprinter and I don't like the racing schedule and I don't think it works for me, what's to stop me from taking off and running in exhibitions in Edmonton, Manchester, etc.?
In track, one individual can put on a show and make it a day in a stadium. When Liu Xiang ran 12.88, Lausanne was done. The meet was a total success simply on that note. That Carter ran 19.63 later that day (which has since been put into better perspective) was simply icing. In team sports, however, individual performances can be great, but LeBron James can have all the triple doubles he wants but the Heat come up short at the end of the day, despite his 30+ points, it doesn't matter in the big picture, while a WR or other stunning individual performance makes history in track.
Ned Ryerson wrote:If the regular season counts, will people not feel shortchanged if Bolt misses the first half of the season due to some niggle, then by the time he's ready to rip of 9.6, his team is done for the season because they didn't advance?
As I mentioned a number of posts above, the championship or "playoff" round can include a limited number of individuals from teams that didn't advance, since there would be an individual championship title as well as a team title. For example, the top 2 scoring individuals in each event advance regardless of whether their team advances or not, and each non-advancing team also gets to choose one "wildcard" athlete to advance.
In track, one individual can put on a show and make it a day in a stadium. When Liu Xiang ran 12.88, Lausanne was done. The meet was a total success simply on that note.
But that is hindsight; the WR wasn't a guarantee before the fact. The stadium crowd and TV audience and sponsorship would have been significantly smaller if the entire meet consisted of that one event.
The team format is 'silly' if it is going to be a random group of people with no obvious connection. Since track and field is truly an international sport then the logical way to structure the teams is by country. But what about someone like Blanka Vlasic from Croatia who is tops in her event but would have little chance of "winning" a team medal if teams are structured only by country? So a better idea could be to 1) have regional teams comprised of athletes from several countries in a region, 2) and structure the meets in such a way that you have a balanced mix of events.
The most logical way to structure teams is by sponsors. (Team Nike, Team Adidas, etc.)
Give points to each team based on the performance of top X number of athletes at each DL event. And then, at the end of the season give the season title to the team that accumulated the largest total points. If the sponsors care about winning the team title, they will offer their top athletes incentive bonus to participate in more DL meets. This will increase the number of head-to-head competitions among the top athletes.
TN1965 wrote:The most logical way to structure teams is by sponsors. (Team Nike, Team Adidas, etc.)
Give points to each team based on the performance of top X number of athletes at each DL event. And then, at the end of the season give the season title to the team that accumulated the largest total points. If the sponsors care about winning the team title, they will offer their top athletes incentive bonus to participate in more DL meets. This will increase the number of head-to-head competitions among the top athletes.
What comes after Team adidas on your list? Will Steve Hooker jump for Team 361 and if so, how could they possibly compete in this?
Nike, adidas, Mizuno, Asics, Puma, New Balance, Saucony and Li Ning aren't going to be regulated by a league office which determine minimum salaries and salary caps. How would you have unattched athletes compete if they're not part of the league (because that never happens in the NFL, NBA, NHL, or any other major team sport)? I think that if you want teams, they must be independent of sportswear companies and must pay the athletes much more than they would get from a shoe sponsor since they're going to have to wear the team uniform for this to have any public relevancy.
