too much of a premium on final DL meet?

[polevaultpower]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

I think the current structure also hurts the early meets. There seems to be less incentive for the top athletes to attend them because they can easily make up the points later. I also agree that the scoring should go deeper than top 3.

[rsb2]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

I think I only ever went to one WAF (or it was probably GPF at that point) and it really was a pro forma snoozefest. They mighta well have just gone directly to the paymaster's office and stood in line. That might have been more exciting if Brian Oldfield were about.

Having stood in front of Oldfield for about 3 hours waiting for the $$$ in Koblenz one year, I can assure you that was "exciting" - the closest thing to a blood sport I have been directly involved in !

[j-a-m]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

Fan support at many of the meets post-Olympics has been rock solid which is good so maybe its only the die-hard fans of the sport who feel cheated.

Fan support has been solid regardless whether DL or non-DL like Berlin. So fans come to the stadium to watch the athletes, regardless of DL scoring.

Changes to the scoring, in addition to improving it for the athletes, could be helpful to make it more interesting for casual fans who may or may not watch it on tv.

[gh]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

The IAAF's concern isn't filling the stadia; the major meets were doing that before the DL and will likely keep doing it afterwards. They're trying--as marketeers love to call it—"grow the brand."

That means an enchanting 2-hour TV product featuring the best and brightest in meaningful competition. A WR can certainly cover up the lack of that, as can megastars like Bolt. But they have a shelf life, and there's no guarantee of repetiton.

[Fortius19]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

I don't like the idea of double points for the last meet because of points made above.

I guess the IAAF is trying to keep it 'exciting' to find out who the overall winner is. If the last meet was scored the same as the others, there would be more titles 'sewn up' before the last meet, making the outcome an non-issue.

But, I don't have a better solution. Scoring points out to at least 5 places sounds like a good start.

[Alan Shank]

Re: too much of a premium on final DL meet?

This is repetitive of the Brussels 400 thread, but that's a perfect case in point.

Kevin Borlée comes into Brussels in 4th place, with only 2 points. But wins the overall with 3rds in Monaco and Lausanne and a win in Brussels. That's supposed to engage would-be fans of the sport?

I think that's more reflective of the fact that Merritt and James did not compete in DL meets than of a flaw in the scoring system. At the same time, it resulted in a situation where K Borlee passed Santos in the stretch to win the 8 points, but Santos still could have won the overall had he managed to finish 3rd. Of course, one had to be aware of the standings and scoring to appreciate this.

Look at last year's standings:
James 12
Gonzalez 11
Brown & Merritt 6 each
Taylor 4
Nixon 2
Bartholomew 1

This event really missed James and Merritt this year, that's all.
Cheers,
Alan Shank