Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    Story by John Crumpacker in the San Francisco Chronicle about Regionals last week echoed the no-comp mindset. Here's a quote from Stanford discus thrower Oman Inan:

    <<"To be honest, I liked the other format because it gave you less meets to target for," said Inan, who has a discus best of 194 feet. "But then again, I love to compete, so it's exciting. It's another chance for me to go against these good throwers in the Pac-10.">>

    Would seem that even though Inan likes to throw (never met a thrower who wouldn't throw in a meet just about every day if you gave him the chance), he has been brainwashed into thinking that he should only really think about a couple of meets a year. But maybe I'm putting words into his mouth. Coupled with the foregoing though, I don't think so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    BillVol,

    You're joking when you say you'd like to see the NCAA meet canceled in favor of scoring based on the national list. But truly, that is just about the way some Div. I coaches think. I work as a sports journalist--can't say where; company policy bars us from commenting on topics like this without first informing the boss--and there are Div. I head coaches who will tell you, and fervently believe, that "competition is bad for athletes."

    Be that as it may, I don't see how our sport can attract more fans with a format that isn't based on competition, by which I mean the old, auto and provisional qualifying standards setup.

    I attended a Regional last weekend. The marks weren't always the greatest, but the competition was thrilling... because there was something real on the line.

    >>For those who think the old system was
    >>better, I believe that they would only be happy
    >>if the NCAA championships were scored purely by
    >>the national list, and we canceled the meet
    >>entirely.

    >Oh I'm sure everybody who cares about track >and field would love that idea. Now that
    >would really be great for the sport. Yes, that's >what I'm calling for. ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    No figures announced at Stanford, but I'd guess 2000 the first day and 3000 the second for the West. On the paid side that is; few hundred athletes on the backstretch both days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Halfmiler
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    So what was the attendance at the other regionals?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trackshark
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    >In Ohio you weren't really up against baseball so
    >much as you were up against the HIGH SCHOOL
    >regional meets.

    Exactly. While I was fortunate to attend the meet, several of the local officials and volunteer workers huddled around the radio at one tent and listend to the Ohio State baseball game. I don't think they were too interested in the track meet itself.

    On another note, I thought the officials did a great job considering the weather conditions and it seems as though they were prepared for everything. You can tell Ohio State wants to host the national meet as the stadium announcer would boast "what outstanding facilities" and "what an outstanding officials" the Buckeyes have. They must have stated that at least 3-4 times on both days.

    It's easy to criticize the regional system since this is the first year. I'm sure there will be some changes in the near future and it will be for the best of the sport. Let's just hope those changes are for the better in the long run. Remember, nothing is ever going to be perfect for everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    It's my
    >understanding that BYU and perhaps some
    >bible-based schools in the South and elsewhere
    >refuse to compete on Sundays. They could tell
    >these schools that what they do on Sundays is up
    >to them, but the NCAA (like other sports
    >organizations in this country) will have
    >competition when it makes economic sense. But
    >instead they just shoot track in the foot by
    >avoiding Sunday competition.

    Funny thing about these religious types--most of them will find some way to grant an exception when they have little choice.
    Organized religion is a business.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    >Put the final day on Sunday and you have a better chance to draw the high school athletes/parents/fans who were at their local
    high school meets.<

    It's my understanding that BYU and perhaps some bible-based schools in the South and elsewhere refuse to compete on Sundays. They could tell these schools that what they do on Sundays is up to them, but the NCAA (like other sports organizations in this country) will have competition when it makes economic sense. But instead they just shoot track in the foot by avoiding Sunday competition.

    Leave a comment:


  • dj
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    Put the final day on Sunday and you have a better chance to draw the high school athletes/parents/fans who were at their local high school meets.

    Leave a comment:


  • kw
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    In Ohio you weren't really up against baseball so much as you were up against the HIGH SCHOOL regional meets. The people at the baseball game aren't going to be at a track meet under any circumstances (by and large), but the people who might have come had already been to a meet that day or the day before. Give it time and bring the ticket prices down and bit and you can make it work.

    Leave a comment:


  • BillVol
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    >Ohio State was playing at Auburn. It's safe
    >to assume the entirety of central Ohio didn't
    >drive down to Alabama.

    No, they did drive down. I saw 'em! ;-) Seriously, perhaps the Buckeye fans were watching the game on TV or listening on radio. I don't know. Or maybe they were at a Columbus Crew match.

    Stanford, which has experience
    >putting on and promoting meets, had
    >significantly better attendance. The other two
    >did not, but then again, they haven't put on big
    >meets either.

    Has anybody seen attendance for the four sites? George Mason has a fairly big indoor meet they do (or used to do), if I'm not mistaken.

    Leave a comment:


  • jsquire
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    >And what about the NCAA
    >baseball regional?

    Ohio State was playing at Auburn. It's safe to assume the entirety of central Ohio didn't drive down to Alabama.

    >the poor support they gave this
    >meet shows
    >us that they don't really care
    >about track --

    >I thought you said the reason for the poor attendance was lack of promotion.

    "Support" can mean a lot of things, including promotion. In any case, Ohio State should definitely NOT get the NCAA meet until its athletic administration proves they give a crap about track.

    >And what about attendance at the other sites? Were they any better?

    Stanford, which has experience putting on and promoting meets, had significantly better attendance. The other two did not, but then again, they haven't put on big meets either.

    Leave a comment:


  • BillVol
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    Bull. There's a
    >safety net for such flameouts. Purdue's 4x100
    >and LSU's Lolo Jones will still be there.

    You are referring to the at-large berths, I suppose. Since we do have the at-large berths, why have this meet in the first place? To generate intererst in track? Fat chance. I don't believe it will ever do that. Is it to give lesser track athletes a chance to pull a Cinderella upset -- a la the NCAA hoops tourney? Track's version of the 10th seed beating the 7th seed? Who gives a darn about that -- other than some lower-ranked athlete who has no chance at the NCAAs in the first place? Again, this meet is a waste of money and time -- and a chance for an elite athlete to hurt him/herself.

    As for
    >the complaint of all-or-nothing, aren't the semis
    >at the NCAA meet the same thing?

    Yes, but at least this takes place at the national meet, which is where IMO college track's emphasis should be.

    For those who think the old system was
    >better, I believe that they would only be happy
    >if the NCAA championships were scored purely by
    >the national list, and we canceled the meet
    >entirely.

    Oh I'm sure everybody who cares about track and field would love that idea. Now that would really be great for the sport. Yes, that's what I'm calling for. ;-)

    The poor attendance was due to
    >Ohio State not promoting the event. The only
    >promotion I saw was one poster inside the
    >stadium, a place unlikely to drum up additional
    >attendance.

    That was the only reason for low attendance? What about America's apathy towards the sport -- save for every four years at the Olympics? And what about the NCAA baseball regional?

    Track is a passion for us on this board. Unfortunately, we are a small minority in this country. THAT'S why attendance was low.

    There were no results in Saturday's
    >Columbus Dispatch (but there was an article in
    >which several coaches whined about regionals,
    >not good for attendance) and Sunday's paper had
    >literally no coverage whatsoever.

    Plus, their website is a pay site. Boo!

    >the poor support they gave this meet shows
    >us that they don't really care about track --

    I thought you said the reason for the poor attendance was lack of promotion. ;-)

    And what about attendance at the other sites? Were they any better?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    I don't think even the most fervent backer of the concept thinks there's a Magic Regionals Wand that can be waved and suddenly people are breaking the doors down to get into collegiate track meets. We've got decades of mismanagement of the sport to undo here, and the process is going to be a long one (if it works at all).

    The attendance numbers at the Regionals are irrelevant. We have to hope that in time it's going to improve (and as the previous poster said, in a relatiave sense, maybe Ohio State already was an improvement). But the big benefit we hope to see is an improved product on the field of play during the whole season. In this case the journey is as important as the destination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    Perhaps the Ohio State attendance needs to be viewed in relative terms. When was the last time a purely collegiate meet drew that many fans in Columbis---when Jessie Owens was running?

    Maybe this already represents a step upwards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Attendance at OSU Regional: 1,246!!!

    this why i dont like the regionals meet. perfect example natasha mayers she was ranked one of the top three in the nation and gets hurt at regionals. now she gonna go into nationals and lose to muna lee and be tellin herself she could have won if she was healthy. many of top athletes were gettin hurt at regionals. aslo many of the best relays in the country were fouling up there relays and may not get into nationals because there are letting in teams like BYU and cal state fullerton.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X