Question for Garry Hill and others

[Guest]

given the 'state of things' (and I spose that is a dynamic not static deal) in our sport ... and if you were 'king for day' ... what changes would you make in the sport?? (I'm guessin this has to come up in the halls of the 'bible'). Question two - how much chance of any 'portion' happening???

[gh]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

Let me sort out those minor problems in the Middle East first.... I like to start with easy ones.

[Guest]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

how about get rid of the 3-per-nation rule. If Kenya can go 1-10 in the steeple, so be it.

[Guest]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

>how about get rid of the 3-per-nation rule. If
Kenya can go 1-10 in the steeple, so be it.<

That's been on the wish list for track nuts since the first World Championships (and before that in the context of the Olympics, but eveyone always knew the IOC would never accept it). As far as I know it has never been seriously considered by the IAAF and I doubt that it ever will be.

Remember that the voting membership in the IAAF is national federations, and there are something like 210 of them. And it's one federation, one vote. How many federations would imaginably ever get more than three finalists in a single event? Not nearly enough to come close to outvoting the federations that would see this as a threat.

If there are ten Kenyan finalists in the steeple, some of the countries that now can aspire to having a finalist would have no chance. Ditto the USA in the 110m hurdles, etc. It would be logical and, from the fan's point of view, wonderful to have some super-standard that was the equivalent of perhaps the top 10in the world and anyone who makes it qualifies regardless of how many qualifiers that would give any one nation.

It will never happen.

[gh]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

OK, my smart-assed answer bought me half an hour to think to come up with one single thing. To list all the things King G would do would cause the universe to start charging me for all the electrons I'd use up posting them.

So, if the track genie gave me a single wish?

I'd find a way for the professional side of the sport to be split off from all the rest of the baggage that USATF carries. Did you ever see the commissioner of baseball organizing the Little League World Series? Or Pete Rozelle worrying about Pop Warner football? Of course not. There's no reason Craig Masback and his people should be futzing with age groups, mountain running, etc,. etc.

Clearly, there would be some significant funding/organizational details to be worked out, but I'm confident it could be done, to the betterment of the sport at the top end. Until track is taken seriously by the media and general fans, it won't become a "real" sport again.

[tafnut]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

Your implication is that USATF is such an egalitarian organization that it puts in too much time in the fringe programs, and not enough on Big Track. That's hard to believe, and I bet Masback denies it, but if true (and you have a better seat than we) that IS kind of outrageous. Track would definitely benefit by a trickle-down process (thanks Ronnie) whereby the big guys get big exposure.

[gh]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

>Your implication is that USATF is such an
>egalitarian organization that it puts in too much
>time in the fringe programs, and not enough on
>Big Track.>>

No, that's not quite what I'm saying. USATF has too big a mandate. They're doing a terrific job considering how many balls they need to keep in the air at once. I'm saying that overall the sport would be better served if there were an organization charged with running only the pro side of things.

And if there were, I'd want Masback running it.

gh

ps--aside from having too many balls in the air, you've also got the problem of rules & regs being made for the pros by people from all walks of the sport, and by people who are (bless 'em) volunteers who often only have a passing interest in the sport.

[tafnut]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

The sport would be better served if there were an organization charged with running only the pro side of things"

Why can't USATF form an arm of the organization that does just that? Who's better equipped to do that than they are? CM could become the Exec-VP of that and let someone else worry about the nuts and bolts of the rest of USATF.

[Guest]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

So what if the IAAF did pass a policy creating an AA standard (really high like 10.00 or 8:10, which would be serious medal contenders) that automatically gets you in the OG/WC, but . . . it also said that a nation may only send 3 or more if ALL had the AA? Then . . . the nations like Kenya and the USA had their qualifying meets, but the AA guys were not the top 3, but the top 3 all had the A standard. Then the country would have to decide who would go, the AA guys or the top three A guys (there would, of course, would be an overlap). Then . . . there really wouldn't be a surfeit at the top like they, the constituent members of the IAAF, would fear. The key is to take the fear factor out. Once they saw that there would not be a huge glut at the top they could agree that a WC needs all the medal contenders there, to even be called a WC. Too sensible?

[gh]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

Smaller nations measure their success much differently than the big ones do, counting just making it to the semis as a major moral victory. There has been discussion by some small nations to change the IAAF qualifying rule in the field events, which currently doesn't actually assign places. You either Q or you dont' Q. What they'd like is for the first non-Q to be awarded an "official" 13th. Finishing 13th in the world plays well in Ouagadougou.

Create your AA classification and the U.S. and Britain, for an extreme example, might get 5 sprinters apiece into the semis, kicking out 3 more small-country chances. And on and on.

Wouldn't surprise me that if somebody ever got a rogue hair and started a movement within the IAAF to restrict it to 2 per nation that it might pass at a general vote of all 200-plus "nations."

[jlanza]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

No, that's not quite
>what I'm saying. USATF has too big a mandate.
>They're doing a terrific job considering how many
>balls they need to keep in the air at once. I'm
>saying that overall the sport would be better
>served if there were an organization charged with
>running only the pro side of things.

And if
>there were, I'd want Masback running
>it.

gh

I don't know if its necessary for there to be separate orgaanizations, or simply a separate arm of USATF, as someone else said. Masback is in a unique position. What other "commissioner" of a sport gets to preside over everything from the pee-wee league to the majors? This is where I think the greatest opportunity lies and where I thimk that Masback and USATF have missed the boat. We all bemoan the lack of milers, runners, shot putters, whatever, and yet what has the organization done at a grass roots level to combat the lack of interest? It would seem to me that someone with the universal support Masback has could take the long view and start at the pee-wee level, to grow interest in much the same way that soccer has (I'm not saying that soccer did this in a planned fashion). Instead , USATF tries it from the top down, with minimal success. In the US, we are arguably in worse shape than when Masback took over, and while I am not laying that all at his feet, I don't think he has the long term strategy to reverse the trend.

[MJR]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

Gotta agree w/ GH (yes it does happen!!) on this. Craig has done a marvelous job with the Elite portion of the sport. Not that things can't be tweaked there too. The big area where improvement has been slow, has been the Grassroots and "unpopular" events within the sport. This is the area that Bill Roe comes in and the Club Championship Series that has been created is a good step in the right direction. Getting a MAJOR sponsor to underwrite the whole shebang is crucial, and the money has to be significant. I'm talking 6 zeros! Next is to take the idea of Verizon sponsoring the Youth Champs and bringing real financial resources to the local level so the volunteers need not volunteer and the kids can participate without spending all their movie money. The state of officiating, especially on the local level, is getting grim with 50% relocating to the old-age home within 10 years. If a real developmental system to bring officials along with some sort of financial reward based upon skill level isn't created soon, we're up that famous creek!

[Guest]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

I thought gh's point was that the top needs fixing and then you guys are saying that it's the bottom. Which is it?

[Guest]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

Masback was a very good distance runner himself. That is why I am surprised that US distance running is in such dreadful shape under his watch.
At least in the not so distant past we had a few great runners like Johnny Gray and Steve Scott. Falcon and Holman even teased us with flashes of brilliance.
When he was a commentator for ESPN Masback used to frequently complain about the dearth of American elite distance runners. Unfortunately, the situation is even worse under his watch.

Who cares about improved High School times. Alan Webb proves that fast High School time mean nothing at the elite level.

[blacklily]

Re: Question for Garry Hill and others

It seems to me that U.S. distance running has improved under his watch. It's still woeful overall by global standards, but it doesn't seem to be nearly as woeful. Since Masback became USATF head, Khannouchi (granted, imported talent) has the world marathon best, Drossin is doing pretty well, Krummenacker won an indoor 800 title, Regina Jacobs has a couple more medals, Teter shows promise, folks in the pipeline. I'm sure Nike & other folks have played a key role in it too, but I think it's improved.