Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USATF Names New Board Of Directors

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    Jeff Darman of RRCA was named announced yesterday as the person from the organizational members. That completes the 15-member board. They also announced its first meeting will be in Orlando on March 8th - when they will probably name Stephanie Hightower as the Chair.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    At the risk of self-aggrandizement/elitism, we have the ear of a few selected people who know how to look at the big picture. Unfortunately, as in real life, it's the special-interest people who tend to rule.

    We count minor victories here and there, but in general, we're not major players when it comes to effecting change at the alphabet-soup level. But we keep on keepin' on, as they say.

    Leave a comment:


  • no one
    replied
    Garry H / others - perhaps this is my naiveté and/or not really connected to things track/field, but Do you have no pull amongst that group? And do they not regard TFN as a finger on the pulse? Or ...??? Things are sounding pretty grim

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Analysis from a longtime USATF follower (who obviously had very strong feelings going into the whole process):

    <<I am not very positive about the new Board. The 15th member will come from those six 5E member organizations (NAIA, NCAA, etc.). Probably a coach. I hear the NCAA is not happy about the possibility
    of not having a Board seat......>>
    Wonder how the coaches/NCAA will feel about the 5E seat apparently going to roadie Jeff Darman?

    So the board has nobody on it who has served in what is actually the engine that drives the sport--the NCAA feeder system--in 20-odd years?

    Leave a comment:


  • dl
    replied
    I haven't been able to fully follow the discussion on the new USATF board/Project 30 recommendations, etc., but I would like to make a few comments.

    1. I agree 100% that the USOC (and perhaps now USATF) is mistaken in making the Olympics the be-all and end-all of our sport. Everyone wants Team USA to do well at the Games, but I would take half the medal haul in exchange for more meets on TV, a more robust domestic circuit, more support for emerging athletes, etc.

    2. The idea that our Olympians need to compete less between the Trials and Games is a bit naive. I haven't had the time to look at the list of competitions by Olympians between the Trials and Games included in the Project 30 report, but everyone should keep in mind that EVERY ATHLETE AND EVERY AGENT know that the number one way to make a lot of money in our sport is by doing well in the Olympic Games. No one would sacrifice that for a little bit more money on the circuit. For most events, other than perhaps the 10,000 and decathlon, not competing between the Trials and the Games is NOT a good way to stay sharp and be at the top of one's game for the Games. As I mentioned on a previous post, I thought it was only the corrupt and incompetent Kenyan federation that blamed poor performance at championships on greedy agents and athletes competing too much.

    3. Perhaps I missed something, but is there a meet/race promoter or an agent on the Board?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Not remotely, if for no other reason than because the UK is a nice compact little country.... just think of the logistics of such an undertaking from sea to shining sea. (We won't even get into the fact that the average Brit actually likes the sport.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    Speaking of professional, no one has said a word about the pro t&f league being attempted in the UK - see the link on the front page. Is that a model that might work?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Barto
    Track and field will be a viable professional sport when we pay the losers to show up and play. Until then sorry, semi-pro at best. Without the subsidy that other countries' federations provide to the athletes the whole sport collapses. Period - end of story.........
    And without the salaries that baseball players get from their teams that sport would collapse; what's the difference who's paying?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Barto
    Track and field will be a viable professional sport when we pay the losers to show up and play. Until then sorry, semi-pro at best. Without the subsidy that other countries' federations provide to the athletes the whole sport collapses. Period - end of story.

    If you think there is a market for track meets with only sprints and hurdles, then go promote that type of event. You would soon find that Europeans would not buy it and neither will enough Americans to make it fly.
    I have an impression you equate "professional" with "viable".
    Do you, or I misunderstand what you are saying?

    Leave a comment:


  • Barto
    replied
    Track and field will be a viable professional sport when we pay the losers to show up and play. Until then sorry, semi-pro at best. Without the subsidy that other countries' federations provide to the athletes the whole sport collapses. Period - end of story.

    If you think there is a market for track meets with only sprints and hurdles, then go promote that type of event. You would soon find that Europeans would not buy it and neither will enough Americans to make it fly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    Barto, I appreciate your honesty but you are dead ass wrong. It is a professional sport. It is mindsets, and approaches such as yours that keeps the sport in flux. Federation and governmental subsidizing has zero to do with the "professional" aspect of the sport.
    The sport became professional the minute the money came form under the table to the top. Since that time we have struggled with the mental concept. And we have struggled with the reality of the economics. Most prevalent being, the most attractive events get the most attention.
    What GH is getting at is something I have noticed and argued about for years now, lack of respect and representation on the business end for the sprint events. Think what you want about the sport, the reality is the 100, 1500, and high hurdles are the glamour events. As for the US we are a sprint and hurdle nation, but on the business side the sprints and hurdles get pushed to the side. So here we stand with the USOC strong arming USATF over medals, sorry, GOLD medals and relay GOLD medals, and there is not a single representative from that side of the sport on the board.
    This is not a new phenomenom. It is fairly consistent throughout the hierarchy of USATF/TAC/AAU. And gh is right. We are not a federation/governent subsidized sport, so thos circuit races loom huge for these athletes. They have a right to have a voice on the board and not have their futures or earning ability dictated to them by a board of non peers.
    This is a song and dance that is tiresome. It is not about the board, it is about money. It is about power, it is about the Olympics. I see some of you pouting about Logan is our only hope. Horse crap. Logan will destroy this sport if he does not have track people to balance him out. His fresh approach has some merits but do not confuse yourselves into believing his ideas are wholy correct. They are not. He set up an audit panel that excluded anyone involved with the current system he said. but it was untrue. He excluded anyone involved on the track side of the system, but not the office side.


    I do find it interesting that many of you have drawn lines in the sand. And some of you are involved in the process. Do you not see you are doing nothing more than perpetuating the problems of the past. New regime, new board, new chairman, new president, new CEO, yet there you sit pigeon holing folks before anything has started. Look in the mirror next time you start characterizing folks. I do not agree with Logan but I am giving him a chance. What we had got us here, now it is time to evolve again and grow. We need to make serious moves to ensure that Barto recognizes us as a professional sport. Seriously. This thing has been sold as a change from the infighting, ok so let's stop the infighting. Give love a chance as the song goes.
    Logan is a check and balance against the old regime, and vice versa. I just wish the money makers had more voice in the room, a direct voice.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrackCEO
    replied
    OK, I confess. I'm responsible for Willie being on the board.

    Seriously (for once). 8-)

    Details here:
    http://masterstrack.com/blog/005376.html

    K E N

    Leave a comment:


  • Highland
    replied
    Originally posted by MJR
    I find it interesting and politically reprehensible that Evie Dennis is on the Board. She chaired Hightower's election & committed Ethics violations in the process (which were ignored, making the idea of ethical leadership a moot point), yet somehow was also allowed to be on the Diversity Comm to pick the Nominations Comm which in turn picked her to be on the Board.

    Smells like horse [email protected] to me! It seems that as much as things have changed, they remain the same.
    Amen to that. Dennis has no business being on the board, and the fact that she is is indicative of 'same old same old'. The wild cards are the three people we've never heard of - I assume they were pushed by the USOC and will be in his camp.

    If the Hightower faction wins, the sport will continue to suffer. Logan is the only hope right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler2
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower
    Originally posted by Halfmiler2
    4. Willie Banks is the pick from the "grassroots" constituency - he was nominated by Masters Track & Field. Not picking Dee Jensen who was the top pick from both the Associations and Officials seems like a lost opportunity to unify the organization. She did receive 48% of the votes for President.
    Some of the votes for Dee were votes against Hightower more than they were votes for Dee. I don't think not having her on the Board is going to be _that_ divisive for the organization.
    You misunderstand my larger point. The day after Stephanie Hightower was elected President , the various constituent groups had to vote on their three nominees to send up to the Nominations Committee. The Officials Committee voted Dee as their top nominee for the officials member on the Board, and the Associations Committee voted Dee as their top nominee for the grassroots member on the Board. Yet the Nominations Committee passed her over twice. That will look like very bad form to a lot of people.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    And my big problem with the USOC is that they seem to think that track exists solely to provide them with medals!

    I fear they want to run the whole sport to that end, making it meaningful for 1 week every four years and who cares what happens the rest of the time.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X