Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Visa Money [Lolo's $25K]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by Barto
    Originally posted by Powell
    I wonder if you'd be happy with the rule you're proposing if Stuczynski was then beaten to the prize by a 14.30 TJ...
    Yes, I would because we need to encourage that 14.30 girl to continue and develop in the sport. Jenn will continue without the extra help. The big names in track from the US do not need help. The emerging elite do.
    But you could just as well have emerging athletes in events where the AR is hard to beat. It's just totally unfair to base the prize money on historical performances of other US athletes. Would the 14.30 TJer really deserve the money more than an up-and-coming 7-meter LJer? Or, say, a 19.60 SPer?

    Leave a comment:


  • MJR
    replied
    Originally posted by polevaultpower
    Originally posted by AS
    It's curious that everyone is so sad about poor prize money for this champs, but noone seemed very excited about it actually happening anyway.

    Were VISA/USATF judicious in realising most stars would bypass meet in post-Olympic year? Or did low prizemoney lead to poor turnout?
    Our athletes do not go to the US Champs for the prize money. The prize money is always low, and they always have a low athletes turnout after an Olympic year when there is no meet to qualify for.
    There are some events where the US Champs is the one of the few prize money competitions they get to all year. It also is where they get their health insurance renewed. Think RW, LJ, TJ, W Shot & WT for example.

    Leave a comment:


  • polevaultpower
    replied
    Originally posted by AS
    It's curious that everyone is so sad about poor prize money for this champs, but noone seemed very excited about it actually happening anyway.

    Were VISA/USATF judicious in realising most stars would bypass meet in post-Olympic year? Or did low prizemoney lead to poor turnout?
    Our athletes do not go to the US Champs for the prize money. The prize money is always low, and they always have a low athletes turnout after an Olympic year when there is no meet to qualify for.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by mrbowie
    Originally posted by MJR
    The bigger miscarriage of justice is that pro athletes are only making $25000 as the Visa winner. They should be taking that much home for winning their event, at least. Winning $2500 in your event barely covers expenses and makes claiming you're a professional athlete on your tax return a joke.
    I, like, totally agree!
    I am just now watching the broadcast. When they spend the first five minutes hyping the $25k best-mark reward, any general sports fan must be thinking 'what a Mickey Mouse event'. A pathetic amount of money to be making a big deal about in sports today. They'd be better off ignoring it altogether. I have yet to get to where they hype the $2.500 first place money.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrbowie
    replied
    Originally posted by MJR
    The bigger miscarriage of justice is that pro athletes are only making $25000 as the Visa winner. They should be taking that much home for winning their event, at least. Winning $2500 in your event barely covers expenses and makes claiming you're a professional athlete on your tax return a joke.
    I, like, totally agree!

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Originally posted by AthleticsInBritain
    Do people really go to a meet to see someone win a lot of money? Can't say the idea of anyone winning a million in gold bullion at the Golden League ever made any difference to me when it came to wanting to watch Oslo or Zurich. I couldn't care less about the money - as a reason to go to a meet anyway.
    not sure if you were responding to my post, but by "poor turnout" i meant the athletes not the fans...

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    AIB the money is never the draw. No one goes to see the UEFA Cup for the prize money. That is all about the athletes. Thats the point. You watched a bunch of professional athletes do what they do at full capacity for $2500.

    Leave a comment:


  • AthleticsInBritain
    replied
    Do people really go to a meet to see someone win a lot of money? Can't say the idea of anyone winning a million in gold bullion at the Golden League ever made any difference to me when it came to wanting to watch Oslo or Zurich. I couldn't care less about the money - as a reason to go to a meet anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    It's curious that everyone is so sad about poor prize money for this champs, but noone seemed very excited about it actually happening anyway.

    Were VISA/USATF judicious in realising most stars would bypass meet in post-Olympic year? Or did low prizemoney lead to poor turnout?

    Leave a comment:


  • eldrick
    replied
    i suppose the stipulation coud be

    "break american record with a performance within ?2% of the world record"
    to throw out this tj nonsense of jumping 14.25 - reward a national record only if it is world class

    Leave a comment:


  • ralmcg
    replied
    USA Track and Field should have at least paid a bonus for breaking the American, if not the world, record of, let's say, $5,000.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smoke
    replied
    A soft wr? One woman has jumped anywhere near that. There's very little about it that screams soft. If it were there would be more than one woman at 5 meters. That's just bad speculation.
    7.84 is a good run as I said but did you expect anything else to win that race? It would have taken 7.04 for a woman to win it in the 60. That's a full tenth off the American record.
    Yes setting a record should garner bonus points.

    And yes it is a sad state when 2500 is the purse for winning an event.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by Barto
    Because the bonus is only awarded to USA athletes, I always thought the Visa Champion should be determined by % of the American Record in your event. If you break it you score 102.739%. If you come close you score 98.382% and so on.

    The point of the contest is to improve American track and field performances. Why not reward someone who is progressing in an event where other Americans have not?

    my 2 cents
    14.24 TJ beats a 6.96 60? You can't be serious.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barto
    replied
    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by Barto
    Because the bonus is only awarded to USA athletes, I always thought the Visa Champion should be determined by % of the American Record in your event. If you break it you score 102.739%. If you come close you score 98.382% and so on.
    I wonder if you'd be happy with the rule you're proposing if Stuczynski was then beaten to the prize by a 14.30 TJ...
    Yes, I would because we need to encourage that 14.30 girl to continue and develop in the sport. Jenn will continue without the extra help. The big names in track from the US do not need help. The emerging elite do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by MJR
    The bigger miscarriage of justice is that pro athletes are only making $25000 as the Visa winner. They should be taking that much home for winning their event, at least. Winning $2500 in your event barely covers expenses and makes claiming you're a professional athlete on your tax return a joke.
    The market pays what the market bears. That's why A-Rod (!) can get $250,000,000 to play a game he'd be thrilled to play for $50,000 a year (with just a little less talent/steroids), and our athletes get a pittance.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X