Perhaps the biggest of ideas was the writer explaining the need for a pro-specific USATF, meaning that USATF should focus more on the sport of running, rather than the activity of running (at least that is my understanding). Suggestions are offered to improve the quality of treatment of the professional athletes that make the sport of running what it is today. I could go on and on about this, but read the first four paragraphs and you'll know what I am talking about.
One area I disagree with the writer is his assessment of marketing runners. He states, "If USATF can find and advertise a runner who people love, people will learn to love the sport." I think this works to a degree, but it doesn't build a very strong base of fan. I like Tiger Woods as much as the next guy. I think he is one of the greatest athletes on the face of the planet, but I only watch golf if I hear on ESPN that it's going into the final day and Tiger is in a close battle. Isn't that the same idea with cycling too? Lance Armstrong brought a lot of notoriety to cycling, but when he stepped away so did the main stream interest.
I thought for a long time that we needed that one special star to life the sport. I was wrong. We have stars. We have stars that a lot of people know (Alan Webb, Deena Kastor, etc.), but the SPORT itself, and how it is organized, is flawed. NASCAR is one of the most popular sports in the U.S. for a reason, and it isn't just because Jeff Gordon, Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Tony Stewart are household names, rather NASCAR put a system in place that worked, thus allowing individual stars to become as famous as they are.
The funniest part of the blog post is when the writer states, "Well, the two biggest things I see are ads for backpacks and clothing," in reference to a first glance at USATF.org. I laughed hard when I read that because it is so true. I've never seen anyone actually wear a piece of USATF clothing outside of what they were given for free at an event. In fact, on the far left buying merchandise is shown as being more important than becoming a member. For USATF being a membership organization, I find this very disturbing. If there was one area where I completely agree with the writer, it would be in his analysis of the USATF website, which is a complete joke.
I know all of this may come off as bashing USATF, and maybe it is, but I think those of us who are critical of the governing body are so because we care about this sport dearly, and honestly, we want to see USATF grow and thrive into a major sporting entity. I hope this blog post was sent to USATF, specifically Doug Logan. I hope that others of you write Mr. Logan with your thoughts and analysis of USATF. Mr. Logan told me earlier this year that he welcomes it, always reads it, usually responds and occasionally moves forward on an idea. He's a man willing to listen, so take advantage of that.
.jpg)
Posts
4 comments:
You could have just titled your post What's Wrong With T&F. The same problems that plague USATF seem to plague T&F in general. Track needs something that is the equivalent of what tennis has ... a Wimbledon, Australian, French and US open. That is, big annual meets that are synonymous with the sport that fans and the public know and care about. These meets need to be of course TV friendly allowing the networks to roll back and forth between events running simultaneously. Imagine an athlete being able to say he or she won all four grand slam track events in a single year, how that would resonate with the public and what it would do to raise the consciousness of T&F in the mind of the public. I hope the proposed diamond league will fit this mold and that the IAAF also comes up with a sensible athlete ranking system.
I agree with you on a lot of points. I also have read that other article before and I can feel what he is talking about but it does feel all over.
I have been writing an extensive post about USATF.org and changes that need to happen. I would love to know what you think when I get it out and lets try to get USATF involved in the conversation.
Reddy - Agreed with you on the need for big-time annual meets and an athlete ranking system. I have to believe the Diamond League will be a great change for the sport, especially if the meet directors work together on attracting the top talent to each competition. We'll see though.
Javie - I am glad you are taking a stab at critiquing USATF.org. I really wish everyone would and send in their thoughts to Doug Logan. The more conversations that can be started, the more change will take place within the organization. I firmly believe that. All of us have sat back for too long waiting for USATF to change their ways. Mr. Logan is willing to listen, willing to change, and we should embrace that for all it's worth.
Thanks for the comments guys.
Hey Scott, as the author of that post I enjoyed reading your reaction to it. I have a couple things to add...
1) When (or where) was this up on TFN? My daily readership on that blog went from 0 (literally) to like 200 on Saturday with the supposed link on TFN, but I never saw it. Really curious how they even found it...
2) Given that absolutely no one usually reads my blog, and I didn't expect that to change, I put a total of about 15 minutes into writing that whole thing. So I will completely agree that the writing and flow are terrible and it was all over the place.
3) I hope major points weren't lost on readers because of the poor quality of the writing. Or if they were, I hope most will at least understand where I'm coming from in the 'USATF is making terrible decisions' arena.
While I think most (ok, all, but hey I wrote it) of the article is true in the sense that the ideas could help the USATF, I can certainly see how you or others would think they're maybe not nearly as beneficial as another idea, or perhaps even detrimental to the goal. Do you agree with a pro-focused USATF? I really, honestly think that two guys in a room somewhere working a couple days a week could handle the rest ('sub-elite') aspects of the USATF if there were the IT to support it. That would leave just the pros and marketing the pros (i.e. building a fan base) to the rest of the organization. I couldn't tell if you thought that was a good strategy from how you worded it.
My thinking as far as advertising a runner to build fans I suppose wouldn't be as directly successful as I made it out to be, but to continue the Tiger example: there may not be a ton of new people watching the Bank of Lower Nowhereville Open on TV since Tiger's not there, but (I think) there are a LOT of new people playing golf because of Tiger (or because of what golf has become as a direct result of Tiger being around). Since they play, they understand the game better. When they do watch they can explain things to other people watching who maybe don't know the game, which gets more people interested. They are more likely to spend money on the sport in general, they'll show up to an local event even if Tiger's not there. All of those things combined have really increased the popularity of golf in the US, esp among young people. So even if you asked little Jimmy "are you playing golf because you saw Tiger on tv" and he said "no," he may actually mean yes and not know it.
And as for the Lance effect, I know it's no where near the major sports, but there are a lot of new cyclists post-Lance (me), and Versus does show a pretty good amount of cycling on readily available USA tv; even in the years he was retired and there was no word on the comeback they continued it. We'd be in an OK place if T+F had a weekly, prime-time slot on a cable channel, I think. If we lost Boston on Versus this year like I've been hearing, then I'd certainly consider advertising a runner to gain fans as a viable option, if only because it worked for cycling. And Kara's a lot better looking than Lance, so I don't think it'd even be that difficult.
No one knows Deena Kastor. I have never watched one lap of one NASCAR race in my life and I can name a handful of drivers. The closest 'everyone knows' we have is Bolt, and the USATF reaps almost no benefits from that; and I would argue the US doesn't have it's own Bolt because of the USATF (to a degree at least). Definitely agree though on NASCAR being popular, not any one driver, and that's a huge advantage because people will watch week to week regardless of who's there, and year to year to see who gets better, who retires, who the new guy is, etc.
Also, 'disturbing' is the word I missed when talking about clothing > membership. It really is unbelievable that Doug doesn't look at that site every day and say 'someone fix this in the next 10 minutes and we'll already be in a better place.' I won't go on about the site because it's just too painful. ugh.
Finally, thank you for saying we're critical because we care. That's really what the whole point of writing my article was about. There's obviously no right answer to any of these questions, but I think in a world where it's so easy to just talk and discuss and debate, the USATF has been getting off easy for years, and thanks to people like you that's changing. Sorry for rambling.
Post a Comment