I now understand why, as an amateur Track* fan, I've spent the past year on third-rate streams trying to watch my favorite athletes. The absence of consistency (and even a basic graphics package, no offense) makes it so tough to consume. Looking forward to more from you!
Enjoyed the article. We need a domestic circuit of races that meet directors can be invited, with a Diamond League type of format which has a payout at the end.
I think track could look at the ISL (international swimming league) as a viable model. Swimming is a mostly individual sport, though it also has training groups/"teams" and athletes/U.S. swimming focus on medals at major events like worlds and olympics. Yet, the ISL is able to attract top talent whilst realizing it may not be the number one priority of all athletes each year. Plus, meets are on cable TV (or in a centralized location for streaming https://isl.global/where-to-watch/) for fans to watch
What other entertainment do we consume regularly that is even remotely like track and field? Track’s individual participants with, as you said, a focus on championship meets and fast times makes 99.999% of the sport and events completely irrelevant. This offers no entertainment value. I have for a long time contested that track needs to create team competitions at many levels, but your article brings up the idea that what would need to change is what the sponsors incentives athletes for. If Nike had a serious of meets and incentivized their athletes for participation in those meets instead of for setting WRs or medals at championships then we would see a vastly different sport. I hadn’t realized before that the sponsors are actually who is dictating how the sport functions.
I think the real question there is what do fans care about? Sponsors aren't going to incentivize people to not pursue medals if fans then call that person a choker for never delivering the big medal performance. There are minimum race numbers in a lot of contracts, but those get waived if you run well enough "when it counts".
The idea of fans brings up another interesting question. I’m always amazed at the fact that we don’t maintain our participants as fans and I think a lot of that is how segregated our sport is. If a former long jumper wants to be a fan of long jump they are going to be sadly disappointed when they turn track on TV and all they see is one jump and a bunch of running events they never appreciated when they participated. Creating fans needs to start at the biggest participation levels. How do we get high school participants to enjoy all of the events and then want to enjoy them all by attending a meet or watching it on TV?
Very intriguing counterview to the common argument. While I wish it weren’t true I concede you’re on to something. One of the ideas I wrestle with is track and field is the most participated in sport at the HS level but our collective “interest” in it here in the US is relatively low.
feels to me like we need a "diamond league" in the USA to elevate a handful of major events annually. Think pro golf having 4 majors ever year. Schedule timing that works with the athletes need to prop for Olympics and World Championship in the years those take place, but since only a handful of pro track and field athletes actually qualify for those events, having annual "majors" to point towards would be helpful. Penn Relays (add a pro event, hits a key populatoin dense marketplace and a place where some track history already live). Pre (great facility, should get full crowd in great venue). Feels like we need something completely new in the upper midwest like Chicago. Probably a good idea to go to Texas and or California. Need sponsors, preferably out of the normal running space. Think the Google track classic versus the Penn relays brought to you by Adidas. If prize money is good. Venue is good. Timing is reasonable. Can't see why coaches or athletes would avoid these to do cobbled together time trial meets. Maybe performances by place in these meets, rather than just a pure time standard, is how people qualify to the USATF national championship?
I definitely think you have to use place at certain meets as a criteria for qualification. The issue is, USATF's number 1 mission is to win medals at World's/Olympics, so they will be very hesitant to cross the coaches who might tell them that having to run 4 meets is going to hurt their preparations- and coaches will tell them this. More on this in the next post!
This is a great analysis, and I generally agree with your points. I think there's also a huge issue that track is difficult for the casual viewer to understand. There's a huge learning curve to be able to fully appreciate what's happening on screen, let alone to be familiar with the specific athletes in any given race. What are your thoughts on how race commentary can help make the sport more accessible, and more exciting to a broad fan base?
I agree that there's a steep learning curve. I feel like it's tough to judge the commentary thing because what appeals to me as a die-hard track guy might not appeal to the marginal fan. I certainly favor trying to not to dumb things down and trusting people to be intelligent, but I have talked to TV people who say their research cuts against that, so who am I to disagree? I don't think you're ever going to get the casual fan to care about the guy in 8th place that just ran a big PR the way that we do, so you gotta meet people where they are.
Interesting read, I look forward to reading the next one and seeing some of your ideas. I admit I may have kicked around some ideas in my head of how I would improve track if I had enough money to do it right (spoiler alert, I will never have the right amount of money), so I'm naturally intrigued by the topic
Great article Chris!
I now understand why, as an amateur Track* fan, I've spent the past year on third-rate streams trying to watch my favorite athletes. The absence of consistency (and even a basic graphics package, no offense) makes it so tough to consume. Looking forward to more from you!
Enjoyed the article. We need a domestic circuit of races that meet directors can be invited, with a Diamond League type of format which has a payout at the end.
I think track could look at the ISL (international swimming league) as a viable model. Swimming is a mostly individual sport, though it also has training groups/"teams" and athletes/U.S. swimming focus on medals at major events like worlds and olympics. Yet, the ISL is able to attract top talent whilst realizing it may not be the number one priority of all athletes each year. Plus, meets are on cable TV (or in a centralized location for streaming https://isl.global/where-to-watch/) for fans to watch
NBCSN does not count as on TV for free. You need to have cable.
Never claimed that it was! The only sport that is mostly on broadcast TV is football. Even baseball and basketball are primarily on cable.
What other entertainment do we consume regularly that is even remotely like track and field? Track’s individual participants with, as you said, a focus on championship meets and fast times makes 99.999% of the sport and events completely irrelevant. This offers no entertainment value. I have for a long time contested that track needs to create team competitions at many levels, but your article brings up the idea that what would need to change is what the sponsors incentives athletes for. If Nike had a serious of meets and incentivized their athletes for participation in those meets instead of for setting WRs or medals at championships then we would see a vastly different sport. I hadn’t realized before that the sponsors are actually who is dictating how the sport functions.
I think the real question there is what do fans care about? Sponsors aren't going to incentivize people to not pursue medals if fans then call that person a choker for never delivering the big medal performance. There are minimum race numbers in a lot of contracts, but those get waived if you run well enough "when it counts".
The idea of fans brings up another interesting question. I’m always amazed at the fact that we don’t maintain our participants as fans and I think a lot of that is how segregated our sport is. If a former long jumper wants to be a fan of long jump they are going to be sadly disappointed when they turn track on TV and all they see is one jump and a bunch of running events they never appreciated when they participated. Creating fans needs to start at the biggest participation levels. How do we get high school participants to enjoy all of the events and then want to enjoy them all by attending a meet or watching it on TV?
Very intriguing counterview to the common argument. While I wish it weren’t true I concede you’re on to something. One of the ideas I wrestle with is track and field is the most participated in sport at the HS level but our collective “interest” in it here in the US is relatively low.
feels to me like we need a "diamond league" in the USA to elevate a handful of major events annually. Think pro golf having 4 majors ever year. Schedule timing that works with the athletes need to prop for Olympics and World Championship in the years those take place, but since only a handful of pro track and field athletes actually qualify for those events, having annual "majors" to point towards would be helpful. Penn Relays (add a pro event, hits a key populatoin dense marketplace and a place where some track history already live). Pre (great facility, should get full crowd in great venue). Feels like we need something completely new in the upper midwest like Chicago. Probably a good idea to go to Texas and or California. Need sponsors, preferably out of the normal running space. Think the Google track classic versus the Penn relays brought to you by Adidas. If prize money is good. Venue is good. Timing is reasonable. Can't see why coaches or athletes would avoid these to do cobbled together time trial meets. Maybe performances by place in these meets, rather than just a pure time standard, is how people qualify to the USATF national championship?
I definitely think you have to use place at certain meets as a criteria for qualification. The issue is, USATF's number 1 mission is to win medals at World's/Olympics, so they will be very hesitant to cross the coaches who might tell them that having to run 4 meets is going to hurt their preparations- and coaches will tell them this. More on this in the next post!
This is a great analysis, and I generally agree with your points. I think there's also a huge issue that track is difficult for the casual viewer to understand. There's a huge learning curve to be able to fully appreciate what's happening on screen, let alone to be familiar with the specific athletes in any given race. What are your thoughts on how race commentary can help make the sport more accessible, and more exciting to a broad fan base?
I agree that there's a steep learning curve. I feel like it's tough to judge the commentary thing because what appeals to me as a die-hard track guy might not appeal to the marginal fan. I certainly favor trying to not to dumb things down and trusting people to be intelligent, but I have talked to TV people who say their research cuts against that, so who am I to disagree? I don't think you're ever going to get the casual fan to care about the guy in 8th place that just ran a big PR the way that we do, so you gotta meet people where they are.
Interesting read, I look forward to reading the next one and seeing some of your ideas. I admit I may have kicked around some ideas in my head of how I would improve track if I had enough money to do it right (spoiler alert, I will never have the right amount of money), so I'm naturally intrigued by the topic
A lot of problems go away if you begin with "step 1: assume millions of dollars".