nationals hosts and the health of the sport

[gh]

comments pulled from two different threads in the wake of Reebok:

knite: <<Hence the reason why I always wonder why meets are in Eugene or Sacramento only....I know they are GREAT towns, knowledgeable, etc, but it doesn't do the sport any bit of good to only hold the trials/nationals in mainly one or 2 places in the states.>>

Al in NYC: << holding almost all national events in small cities in one small area of the country seems awful short-sighted in terms of the national future of elite-level track & field.>>

What would be gained by taking the meet to many more places? (keeping in mind that so doing is going to mean a major hit to USATF's thin coffers)

[dl]

I agree they should have the National Champs in New York; the Jamaican Champs, that is. :lol:

[AS]

A smart way to do it would be to "prep" a town for such a big event with smaller meets in preceding years, and also within same season. Otherwise, how will fans and local press get a familiarity and any excitement with sport/characters/venue/etiquette...

Not unlike what (sometimes) happens with Olympic hosts, but on a smaller scale...

[Marlow]

Well I agree that major meets should theoretically rotate around the country so that interest can be built, it also seems that the sport is simply not strong enough to withstand the transplants. Sacramento didn't seem like the right place, but certainly LA, NYC, and Chicago (who wants the OG!) are all viable sites (besides Eugene, of course).

[gh]

how does holding a meet in a different site "build interest"? If the next three natinoals were in LA, Chicago and NYC, what would be different about the sport the next year?

[Marlow]

how does holding a meet in a different site "build interest"? If the next three natinoals were in LA, Chicago and NYC, what would be different about the sport the next year?

Now, I do realize you're baiting me, and you already know the answer to your question is 'nothing', but here goes anyway.

Large metro areas tend to have a large influence on their region. The media of that area would (hopefully - with the help of the local organizers and USATF or NCAA) bring the sport up in the public eye and generate some interest for the meet and beyond. Right now the COI for USAian track is Eugene, Oregon. It'd be nice if we could expand that. Sacramento did not have enough ooomph as a cosmopolis to help us. Certainly the Reebok meet was helpful in the NYC area.

If we are simply to 'give up' and 'accept the fact' that T&F is a tiny third-tier niche sport, then we are not doing our jobs as tafnuts (RIP) and general rabble-rousers for our beloved sport, now are we?

Rage, rage against the dying of the light - do not go gently into that good night.

[knite]

My suggestion is that they rotate the meet to various locations. It doesn't have to be relegated to Eugene only, IMO.

The object should be to get the rest of the country as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable and interested in the sport. if we cater to that only of the fans in Eugene, then we are doing a complete disservice to the sport and the hopes of its viability for the future.

I get the impression all too often that its almost "sacrilegious" to move the meet away from Eugene, and if you do you "will be cursed" for doing so...

When the fans of Eugene should understand the bigger picture. Most notably, they'd still be privy to more meets than most, just that they would have to share the opportunity to host the national champs from time to time.

[gh]

It's not "relegated to Eugene only"; it goes to whomever makes the best bid. Eugene should be apologetic for supporting the meet best? (aka, currently having the deepest pockets)

You need to understand how the process works.

In some years there's only a single bidder; this is a very tough property to sell. The downside financial risks to the hosts are immense (Sacramento lost a million bucks--yes, a 1 with 6 zeroes--in hosting the OT in '00).

In the non-WC/OG year in every quadrennium it's almost an impossible sell since nobody is trying to make a major team, which is why you see things like Stanford taking the '02 bid as part of the price of hosting '03.

Drake has taken '10 because it puts them in position has having "nationals experience" when it comes to bidding for the 2016 Trials.

[knite]

It's not "relegated to Eugene only"; it goes to whomever makes the best bid. Eugene should be apologetic for supporting the meet best? (aka, currently having the deepest pockets)

You need to understand how the process works.

In some years there's only a single bidder; this is a very tough property to sell. The downside financial risks to the hosts are immense (Sacramento lost a million bucks--yes, a 1 with 6 zeroes--in hosting the OT in '00).

In the non-WC/OG year in every quadrennium it's almost an impossible sell since nobody is trying to make a major team, which is why you see things like Stanford taking the '02 bid as part of the price of hosting '03.

Drake has taken '10 because it puts them in position has having "nationals experience" when it comes to bidding for the 2016 Trials.

I do understand that, and wasn't going into all depths to explain it all. However, this is where the USATF is going to have to step in. Its just a matter when/how they view or see the sport and what /where they wanna take it.

[einnod23]

Gary, if it's true that it's up to cities/towns to put in requests to host, and "Sacto lost $1M", then your next T&FN cover should be...........

"What if They Had a Championship and Nobody Bid?"

[gh]

what do you mean IF it's true? I'm not just here flapping my gums. I'm trying to give you some facts here, not opinion.

[knite]

First, I must applaud Eugene for the masterful job that they've done, I do not want to overlook the presentation and efforts that they've provided over the years. And in all honesty, that is why its become a mainstay there.

I'm just looking at this from the standpoint of "where do they(Doug Lougan, etc) want the sport to go?

[gh]

.... but certainly LA, NYC, and Chicago (who wants the OG!) are all viable sites .....

If LA is a viable site, how come it no longer has any indoor meets? How come in the last quarter-century it has only hosted the USATF meet twice?

If NYC is viable, why hasn't it bid in almost 20? Why did the USATF Indoor, which spent its first 75-odd years in NYC, leave town?

If Chicago is viable (other than a potential 1-year hit IF it gets the OG), why did it lose its indoor presence a quarter-century ago, and outdoor twice that? Why did the two major universities in town drop track?

Having a large population ≠ "viability."

[bruce3404]

I can see Hayward from my house, but I would be willing to travel to other sites for Nationals, just as I'll be traveling to Fayetteville in a couple of days for the NCAA's. Whatever it takes to promote the sport and bring it back to '60s levels of interest is OK by me. I wonder, though, how many of us same fans would simply be traveling from place to place and how many new fans would be brought into the fold? My guess is that 50% of the fans in Sacramento during their relatively recent hosting of four NCAA div 1 Championships and two Olympic qualifying meets were locals. Those Sactonites who attended the major meets seemed enthusiastic enough and were willing to try a new sport.

Are those folks still interested in T&F? How many of them made the relatively easy drive up I-5 to Eugene last year? And how many will do so this year?
Have the Neilsen ratings spiked in Sacto during televised track meets?
All this stuff is measurable. If you can't sustain interest in a relatively large city which hosted 6 major meets in only 7 years, and get those folks to travel a relatively short distance to attend major meets, you've got a problem and I'm not sure there's any fix.

If that's the case, then let's just keep the big meets where they are wanted and be glad we can enjoy our sport within the "friendly confines" of a small arena.

[bad hammy]

All things considered it is possible to make the argument that having the national championships in Eugene every year is a good thing for the sport (and no, I do not live there).

Eugene obviously wants the meet, is paying the bills, and wants to make it the best it can be. The fans are plentiful, knowledgeable and enthusiastic, which the athletes love. (If there has been a louder crowd of 20k watching a T&F meet than the one that finished off the 2008 OT 800 final I must have missed it.) It looks good on TV – lots of green, real stands, lots of people.

Tennis is not hurt by having the US Open at Flushing Meadows every year – T&F would not be hurt by having the USATF meet at Eugene every year.