May Editorial

[mike renfro]

I strongly disagree with the NCAA editorial. I will admit, mostly for selfish reasons, but there you have it. I much prefer championships to have heats. You can pick out relative unknowns as comers and follow the flow. I'm in hog heaven with a 12 hour meet. That said, I do think the regional form is a really good idea, and extending that to the multis and 10ks, in one national qualifier, maybe a week before the individual regionals wouldn't hurt. With the slap the meet into a 2 hour (at best) format so ads can be pimped to NASCAR fans has harmed the sport. I'm, but T&F IS an elitist sport. Ignoramouses (had to look up the plural) need not apply.

For me, the main problem with Garry's suggested format is that there are many good athletes I just won't get to see. I doubt that I will ever make it to any of the non-western regionals. So, 3/4 of them are just names in eTL, unless they get to nationals. And, I probably won't travel to non-western nationals, because I don't much like to fly. I didn't much like airplanes before 11 Sep, and now it has become absolutely gruesome. I can steel myself for a month or so to go abroad, but there are allures before and after the meet to compensate. Somehow, Des Moines just doesn't light my fire. I suppose I could finally get to Chicago to check the Wright's work.

In sum, no Garry, your suggestion is not the kind of meet I'd like to be watching.

[George P.]

I don't share Renfro's admittedly personal and passionate position on this, but I generally agree that the editorial is off the mark. The editor seems to be on a mission to reduce meets to bite-sized, media friendly chunks. This will surely end in eroding the essence and integrity of the sport.

There may be some room, as Gary suggests and Renfro concurs, for tinkering around the edges of things: the multis and so forth. But as for radical innovation for dubious purposes --- here be dragons.

[26mi235]

I think that there are significant problems with adding even more to the Regional setup. Based on pure chance there are easy Regions, especially in some event in some years. Why should a 10.00 sprinter be unable to get in when a 10.33 guy gets in because he is from the West Region (numbers made up but not completely unrealistic)?

The qualifying at a 'regional' multi implies that the multi athletes have to be at a peak twice; these athletes are relatively injury-prone due to the higher level of demand placed on their bodies and being non-specialist in events which entails greater injury risk (see especially the PV).

An additional problem exists for program in the northern regions, especially those not right on the west coast. It is hard to have the athletes ready even by regionals, making regionals even more important will make things worse. Maybe they ought to realign regional to be east-west rather than north-south? It also further erodes league championships which are quite important to many schools, including many that have no real hope of influencing the team results at Nationals.

A question: One complaint of the old system, iirc, is that the rich teams can send athletes anywhere to chase marks. The are elements of gh's 'proposal' that make this an issue, I think.

That said, it was the first thing I read yesterday when I got home and found the latest issue in the mailbox, and I found it interesting and worth discussion.

[gh]

I don't share Renfro's admittedly personal and passionate position on this, but I generally agree that the editorial is off the mark. The editor seems to be on a mission to reduce meets to bite-sized, media friendly chunks. This will surely end in eroding the essence and integrity of the sport. ...here be dragons.

Media has ZERO to do with it. And so do the hard-core fans. I'm interested in seeing track meets put on that will appeal to the general public. The sport is committing suicide if it continues to put on meets that cater to the readers (and staff) of Track & Field News.

In this case, we're our own worst enemy.

[gh]

ps--the 2-hour final day of the NCAA is already upon us (with no pushing from me to do so---if you read the previous editorial, you'd see I decried what they've done to that day). The linkage I'm trying to make is that if they're going to condense the NCAA that way, make the rest of hte product more watchable and meaningful.

[tandfman]

There may be a middle ground. Use the regionals to reduce the fields to 12. No time qualifiers at all, as gh suggested. Have no more than 2 rounds of any race, with only a final in everything from 1500 up. Trials and finals only in the field events without flights. It would give more meaning to the regionals, yet not reduce the championships to finals only in all events. You could easily reduce the Championships to 3 days. and they wouldn't have to be long days, unless you wanted to hang around all day for the multis.

[tafnut]

I don't share Renfro's admittedly personal and passionate position on this, but I generally agree that the editorial is off the mark. The editor seems to be on a mission to reduce meets to bite-sized, media friendly chunks. This will surely end in eroding the essence and integrity of the sport. ...here be dragons.

Media has ZERO to do with it. And so do the hard-core fans. I'm interested in seeing track meets put on that will appeal to the general public. The sport is committing suicide if it continues to put on meets that cater to the readers (and staff) of Track & Field News.

In this case, we're our own worst enemy.

Even though gh and I don't see eye-to-eye on the marks vs. places issue, I gotta agree with his stance here. I'd like to see a semis-final only NCAA too. Make the Regionals more significant and then you've got 5 great meets instead of only 1.

[AS]

There may be a middle ground. Use the regionals to reduce the fields to 12. No time qualifiers at all, as gh suggested. Have no more than 2 rounds of any race, with only a final in everything from 1500 up.

Why 12? Surely having semis implies at least 16? Why not go for 24 and have three semis (and first 2 +2 qualification through to the finals)?

Can easily squeeze 15 onto the track for 1500m and above...

[jrun]

Is it considered profane to say why should track be trying to appeal to the common fan at all?

Because some would say no matter what you do, attracting him/her ain't happening...

[Barto]

Why does track and field continue to define itself based upon it's number of spectators and not it's number of participants? Having witnessed the championships of other olympic sports, I believe we are singular in this spectator fixation. Swimming, gymnastics, skiing are all much more concerned with their participation numbers than their spectator numbers.

my 2 cents,

Barto

[tafnut]

Why does track and field continue to define itself based upon it's number of spectators and not it's number of participants?

Ans: $$$

[Pego]

I don't share Renfro's admittedly personal and passionate position on this, but I generally agree that the editorial is off the mark. The editor seems to be on a mission to reduce meets to bite-sized, media friendly chunks. This will surely end in eroding the essence and integrity of the sport. ...here be dragons.

Media has ZERO to do with it. And so do the hard-core fans. I'm interested in seeing track meets put on that will appeal to the general public. The sport is committing suicide if it continues to put on meets that cater to the readers (and staff) of Track & Field News.
In this case, we're our own worst enemy.

Is there some reliable information available regarding the viewership of T&F on TV? ESPN ( the networks, too) have been provided coverage for years. Do they have a database that breaks down the number of viewers into categories?

[Halfmiler2]

I can certainly see holding the fields to 24 per track event so the lane events have a three-heat semi. Less than that just isn't going to happen unless the NCAA is looking to save money.

I also like the idea of designating certain existing meets (e.g Stanford, Penn) as qualifers for the 10K , decathlon and heptathlon instead of relying solely on marks or times for those events.

[Barto]

Why does track and field continue to define itself based upon it's number of spectators and not it's number of participants?

Ans: $$$

Since when are we talking about enough $$$$ to make a difference anyway?

[bad hammy]

Is it considered profane to say why should track be trying to appeal to the common fan at all? Because some would say no matter what you do, attracting him/her ain't happening...

I agree. All of this chopping and carving and squeezing is not going to win any additional fans or TV viewers. Joe Sixpack is never going to watch T&F live or on TV unless it is the OG. (If T&F was the only thing on TV, Joe Sixpack would rather start working on that honey-do list, just like me when hockey is the only thing on.) Serve the athletes and fans we have, not the fans we will never get.

Wait, wait!! Doh, I've got it. Topless women's pole vault. Now Joe Sixpack is with us . . .