Conor Dary wrote:You have it wrong. You are looking at what was. But remember Jurassic Park was only a movie and there is no Dino DNA to resurrect track as we once knew and loved. You can search for prehistoric amber high and low and all you will find is a paperweight.
?! I do not want to go back to what was, because times have changed, but if we don't think we can't carve out a new niche in the public consciousness, it CAN'T happen.
I can't count how many times I came into new situations in my professional careers and wondered why things couldn't be improved. The answer was always "that's the way we've always done it." I then did it differently and at WORST, nothing changed, but in MOST cases, they markedly improved. And yes, I always got a lot of head-shaking at my ideas. As you can imagine, that has never deterred me (cf. 'insanity' above).
Yes, trying to improve things is noble. Certain things you do have the power and ability to change, some you do not. A few gimmicks are not going to have a Joe Public smash his forehead and say "WTF was I thinking? It is not football (baseball, basketball...) I am interested in, it is the track."
Pego wrote: A few gimmicks are not going to have a Joe Public . . .
We are not talking about a few, or even abuncha gimmicks; we're talking about a fundamental sea-change in the way the highest-tier domestic meets are marketed together, not individually. The circuit would be fueled and hyped as rivals' showdowns in some key events. USATF would have to do the heavy lifting and an athletes' union could enter into collective bargaining.
But right now, as Capt. Willard said to Col. Kurtz, when Col. Kurtz asked if Willard thought his methods unsound, "I don't see any method . . . at all."
marknhj wrote:Marlow = President of Cloud Cuckoo Land HOA
Zackly! And as such, I seem to be the only here who can see beyond what is - into what could be!
No it is not just you. There are some of us who think the sport can do better, but we are in the minority in these parts.
Trackrunner: each of us must chose whether to live in the reality of the track & field world or hope that the dreams in our imagination become that reality. Neither is right nor wrong.
But those of us who chose to accept the reality of track & field do so based on the empirical evidence that has been staring us in the face for several decades now. Simply wishing, or dreaming, or believing, that better "marketing" or more "gimmicks" will return us to the days of the sport's glory is fine, but to some those dreams are simply an illusion.
marknhj wrote:But those of us who chose to accept the reality of track & field do so based on the empirical evidence that has been staring us in the face for several decades now. Simply wishing, or dreaming, or believing, that better "marketing" or more "gimmicks" will return us to the days of the sport's glory is fine, but to some those dreams are simply an illusion.
You're still not getting it! No one wants what they can't have - the good old days - they no longer exist. What we want and CAN have is a better future for T&F than what we are enduring now.
Marlow wrote:What we want and CAN have is a better future for T&F than what we are enduring now.
All of us would like that. Public's tastes are usually cyclical, so that may happen at some point in the future. What I maintain is that to make it happen is not in our power to induce. You may argue to the contrary until blue in face, but that is the reality. Sure, innovations are great, they may help the athletes and the existing fans, but they are not going to dramatically enlarge the fan base.
Even the administrators of major sports periodically review their product, branding and marketing efforts and tweak their product offering accordingly. In track there appears to a stubborn intransigence to any kind of change and an indifference to recommendations that may improve the product being offered to the public. Track's problem is not a cyclical one or a problem inherent to the sport but a failure of imagination and therefore a leadership problem.
Trackrunner wrote: In track there appears to a stubborn intransigence to any kind of change and an indifference to recommendations that may improve the product being offered to the public.
If you knew anything about the history of the sport you would realize what a silly statement that is.
For one thing we use to run events in yards, which the public was comfortable with. But in an own-goal we switched to all metric which no other sport did and with it went the public's interest. The only worse thing would have had all of the announcing in Latin or French.
So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Trackrunner wrote:So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Oh, dear. All I did was point out your error that there was no change.
Pego wrote:Public's tastes are usually cyclical, so that may happen at some point in the future. What I maintain is that to make it happen is not in our power to induce. You may argue to the contrary until blue in face, but that is the reality. Sure, innovations are great, they may help the athletes and the existing fans, but they are not going to dramatically enlarge the fan base.
Uh oh, how many precedents must I cite where someone (or group) was not willing to accept the status quo as an inevitable reality that was not in anyone's power to change. Look at the (literally) unbelievable powerful paradigm shifts that occurred on MANY fronts in 1960s America. If you want to see what one man can do, look at Gandhi or MLK, Jr.. Changing something as trivial as the way USA T&F is presented is a whole lot easier!
Trackrunner wrote:So you say you are disagreeing with me and then you go on to cite an almost perfect example of one way in which track's leadership failed to consider the public interest. I got ya.
Oh, dear. All I did was point out your error that there was no change.
I never said that. I said there was resistance to change and little consideration of recommendations that may improve the product being offered to the public. The example you cited actually helps to make my point that the public is given very little consideration by track's leadership.
.