Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Rounds At Trials

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: More Rounds At Trials

    While I don't disagree with this sentiment, I still question the need for all these rounds. How many athletes--really--will have met the relevant qualifying standards in these events? My hunch: not nearly enough to justify all this busywork.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: More Rounds At Trials

      I agree with Kuha, why have all these rounds if most of the athletes do not have an A standard? My god, there use to be a time in the not-so-distant-past when the top 3 finished and you knew they were on the team. Now, you need the equivalent of the 'Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society' to figure out who is on the team. There is way too much pork! Perhaps the Republicans are in charge of the OTs?

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: More Rounds At Trials

        You'll not see a reduction in the number of rounds at the OT for the most elemental of reasons: it has become a significant cash cow.

        Another salient point to consider is that a longer meet generates more TV and that's good for the sport. (To say nothing but good for the stay-at-homes, who if they went back to the old 1-day OT would get a 2-hour production that showed a handful of events. Be careful what you wish for.)

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: More Rounds At Trials

          "a longer meet generates more TV and that's good for the sport."

          With all due respect, I don't buy it. Since when does QUANTITY equal QUALITY? By this measure, EVERY marathon should be roughly 420 times as exciting as ANY 100 meter sprint. I think not. There's NO way that the televising of umpteen heats (most probably only 2/3s full and only minimally meaningful) will make for exciting TV. It will not: all but hardcore fans will very quickly flip the channel. I could see a truly great 2-1/2 hour recap of the whole meet, with highlights of the best prelims and all (or nearly so) of the finals. Anything beyond this will be fluff and padding. And, as far as the fans go: I, for one, quit going to the Trials after '92. It's just too much time away from work--too many hotel and food bills--to be remotely justified by a week's worth of (in)action. Sorry, but that big fat turkey won't fly.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: More Rounds At Trials

            >"a longer meet generates more TV and that's good for the sport."

            With all
            >due respect, I don't buy it. Since when does QUANTITY equal QUALITY? By this
            >measure, EVERY marathon should be roughly 420 times as exciting as ANY 100
            >meter sprint. I think not. There's NO way that the televising of umpteen
            >heats (most probably only 2/3s full and only minimally meaningful) will make
            >for exciting TV. It will not: all but hardcore fans will very quickly flip the
            >channel. I could see a truly great 2-1/2 hour recap of the whole meet, with
            >highlights of the best prelims and all (or nearly so) of the finals. Anything
            >beyond this will be fluff and padding.>>>

            Yes, but you know that a 2.5-hour recap is going to have a huge fluff and padding coefficent (up close and person---gack!). Think of what they show you in a 2-hour broadcast of a non-Trials meet; maybe 8-10 events. And with 40-odd events at the OT, if they had the one show, that's still all about all you'd get. Unfortunately, if you want events, you need to suffer through fluff as well (go TIVO!).

            << And, as far as the fans go: I, for one,
            >quit going to the Trials after '92. It's just too much time away from
            >work--too many hotel and food bills--to be remotely justified by a week's worth
            >of (in)action. Sorry, but that big fat turkey won't fly.>>

            Since I get paid to be at the OT, I obviously don't relate to this complaint too well, but it's certainly a legitimate one. But, thinking pro bono publico, the longer the OT is, the better it is for the sport as a whole in terms of generating fans (even if it prices some of the hard-core supporters out of complete attendance).

            Even if they sell half the stadium as a full-meet package, that still leaves 10,000-odd seats that will be filled every day by people who bought shorter packages, and the number of different people who see some of the meet is greatly magnified. And that gives us hope for generating more fans for the sport.

            ps--a disclaimer here. Yes, T&FN makes a profit on selling tour packages to the OT, and longer meets make bigger profits. You'll just have to trust me that my motivation in promoting the virtues of a longer meet here are rooted solely in what, IMHO, is good for the sport as a whole.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: More Rounds At Trials

              Well because it is a big cash cow now doesn't mean it will always stay that way. Nor should it be a reason to have all these silly rounds. And just because we have more on TV is not necessarily a good thing. For example, what is so great about the having, say, the men's 1500 final finish and having none of the top three make the team because they don't have a qualifying time. Wow, isn't that exciting.

              Cut back the number of rounds and have a 4 or 5 day meet.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: More Rounds At Trials

                Dub question #1: Is it really a big cash cow? I'd think it would be more like a small change goat.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: More Rounds At Trials

                  "Dumb" question, that is...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: More Rounds At Trials

                    Having been to a couple US oly trials, I have always loved the rounds. Since they are not likely to cut the number of days for the meet it seems that adding rounds from a spectators point of view is a good thing. We have plenty of people in the short sprints and hurdles to make for competitive and interesting rounds. Ten to fifteen years ago I was lobbying for allowing "more" sprinters in the trials. In other words tie the trials entry standards much more closely to say the "B" oly standards. We would have plenty of sprinters to make for 4 interesting rounds.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X