Sacto redeux....

[mike renfro]

Okay, I have a minor problem. My wife says "never again" to multi day meets at hot weather sites. I am pretty sure that Sacto will be in the hunt for the OT in '08. My question is, how bad was the heat on finish line side? We had the sun in our face opposite fl, and Mary had real problems. She missed a lot of the meet, hiding behind the stands. I would be willing to give up lanes 7-8 (probably part of 6) in the straightaway races if that would help. I doubt if anyone sat on both sides, but if anyone did, I would appreciate input.

For me only, did they keep the metric marks up on the board long enough for people to see them? In the eight days of the meet, I probably saw 4 or 6 marks. By the time the board swung around for us "lowlifes", it was imperial only. If they bothered to swing the board. Ironically, the vertical jumps had the metrics up mostly. I guess that is because the misses/makes graphics took up too much room for imperial. Which wasn't really that much of a boon, because those are the marks for which I know the conversions. It was virtually impossible to score the multis, because of the lack of metrics, but they did post the printout of the results pretty rapidly, so I know going into the 800/1500 what people needed.

At the '84 OG they had both metric and imperial on the boards. It ain't rocket science, they should be able to do that for the OT.

[trackhead]

Re: Sacto redeux....

it made a huge differnce being out of the sun on the last day. It was hot, but being out of the sun makes it easier.

[The Kitchen Cynic]

Re: Sacto redeux....

Let's face it. The place seux.

[kuha]

Re: Sacto redeux....

"My wife says "never again" to multi day meets at hot weather sites."

She can't be blamed. I came to that decision after New Orleans in '92.

[tafnut]

Re: Sacto redeux....

Fair weather fans! Ya gotta SUFFER for the sport you love. It's all about the sacrifice! Look at the Viking fans out there in -22 weather stark naked with just face paint on. Look at the Raiders' fans. Well, never mind them; they're just weird.

[Pego]

Re: Sacto redeux....

Mike, this is what I do to have my wife come again and again to those Hell's Kitchens (the last 5, no doubt) with me. I always get the tickets on the west side of the stadium, as high up as I can. It reduces your view of the track, especially the finish line, but oh well...In Sacramento it meant to be in shade by about 3-3:30. I also usually sacrifice morning and early afternoon sessions (usually qualifiers), so I might miss a couple of events of the multi's. Doing this has made her almost happy to come along. Of course, I am also extremely attentive those 10 days and say/do nothing contrarian :-)

[bad hammy]

Re: Sacto redeux....

> Fair weather fans! Ya gotta SUFFER for the sport you love. It's all about the sacrifice!

Apparently you have been in charge of selecting the Oly Trials site since the mid 80s. Indy, NO, Atlanta, and Sacto(2): all terrible sites from a fan perspective. Sitting in the heat/humidity for that many days is asking a bit much for the fans of a sport which is not exactly overflowing with fans in the US. And adding to the severe discomfort in Sacramento, the views from the seats blow.

As to the question at hand: the problem with the seats on the home stretch is that they block any of the breezes the occasionally flowed from the west and provided what little relief there was from the oppressive heat. I noticed this in 2003 at the NCAAs, when I was on the home stretch pouring sweat by the bucket-load when someone mentioned the wind readings. Thinking ‘what wind are they talking about’ I saw some flags blowing and knew I needed some of that. I wandered over to the backstretch and it literally felt 20 degrees cooler.

That said, I’m with Mike’s wife (well, not literally). Two days is about all I’ll give some hell-hole like Sacramento.

[kuha]

Re: Sacto redeux....

"I am also extremely attentive those 10 days and say/do nothing contrarian :-)"

Thanks very much Pego: You've set the bar impossibly high for all the rest of us!

[Pego]

Re: Sacto redeux....

You do what you have to :-)

[tandfman]

Re: Sacto redeux....

The Sacramento facility would be a poor one even if weather were not a consideration. It's really not a good place to watch a track meet.

[guru]

Re: Sacto redux....

>look at the Viking fans out there in -22 degree weather<

Uh, tafnut, the Vikings play in a dome, presumably for that exact reason.

The only way those fans sit in -22 degree weather is if the AC is put on hyperdrive.

:-P

[tafnut]

Re: Sacto redux....

Uh, tafnut, the>Vikings play in a dome, presumably for that exact reason.The only way those>fans sit in -22 degree weather is if the AC is put on hyperdrive.
:-P

doh! Packers? Da Bears!!

Whatever happened to Hayward Field being the Big Honcho? Why are they not getting the bids?

[Al in NYC]

Re: Sacto redux....

I didn't go to the Trials because I hate that place so much (and I was going to Olympics) but I did attend '00 Championships there. Ugh. The mid-summer conditions, combined with that awful sight-impeding oven of a stadium (what was wrong with Hughes? it wasn't THAT bad), along with the amateurish "production" of the meet would have been enough to scare away many a novice fan.

When is the USATF going to get their act together in putting on national championship meets that are good for athletes, spectators, and TV? Or is that too much to ask for?

[marknhj]

Re: Sacto redux....

I sat about 1/3rd of the way up on the home strech. It was bloody hot, but not unbearably so. I can't imagine sitting on the backstrech with the sun in my face though. Lani was placated by us smuggling beer in which she drank all day. Seemed to do the trick.

[RMc]

Re: Sacto redeux....

I noticed this in 2003 at the NCAAs, when I was on the home
>stretch pouring sweat by the bucket-load when someone mentioned the wind
>readings.

If you thought that Sacto was hot at the NCAA 2003, then the only place that you would consider "temperate" would be Eugene or Seattle in a rainstorm, or Palo Alto or Berkeley in the fog. The NCAAs had as temperate of conditions that you will find ANYWHERE else in the US in June. (Remember how COLD it was the first 2 days????)

Understand that for a major championship meet we need to have warm enough temperatures to keep the sprinters happy. That means daily highs in the 80s or more. Those temps will be uncomfortable for some fans, especially those from the Bay Area or the Northwest. For the rest of us, we can get through a meet at those temps.

The trick is trying to find a site that has consistently warm temperatures without being TOO hot and humid. Problem is that Seattle and Eugene are too cool and often too wet during the summer (I grew up in Seattle, and does anyone remember the soggy '80 Trials?) The Bay Area is often socked in with fog mid-summer (I lived there for 10 years as well.) Everywhere east of the Rockies is incredibly humid in July which makes for arduous distance running (ask Jay Marden about 1988) and also suffers through rainstorms. So we're left with just a few metropolitan locations that provide consistent temps. The LA Trials in '84 had the best weather of any Trials by far. LA certainly offers the largest fan base, but the Trials also would be lost among all of the other activity in the region. San Diego probably offers comparable weather advantages, but I haven't seen a complete description of the available venues. And then there's Sacramento. Tends toward being overly warm, but rarely is humid and almost never rains between April and September. Nighttime temps cool sufficiently to allow for good distance racing. (How many distance PRs were there in Atlanta, NO and Indy vs. the last 2 years in Sacto?)

For those with heat issues, you can buy tickets in the west stands near the top (and people stood and sat at the top w/o tix as well, like my wife.)