Eugene will be fine, if the stadium gets done in time. I love going to Eugene.
But this. All of this. Everything about this. IS BAD FOR THE SPORT.
Eugene will be fine, if the stadium gets done in time. I love going to Eugene.
But this. All of this. Everything about this. IS BAD FOR THE SPORT.
polevaultpower wrote:
Eugene will be fine, if the stadium gets done in time. I love going to Eugene.
But this. All of this. Everything about this. IS BAD FOR THE SPORT.
What is bad? Just how the process has gone for awarding the Trials? One thing for is sure, moving from one location with a stadium quagmire to another location with a stadium quagmire is plain dumb.
USATF confirms it: Eugene 2020
http://www.usatf.org/News/Eugene-to-host-2020-U-S--Olympic-Team-Trials---(1).aspx
If a city and a facility owner are not bidding, it's absurd to think that the Trials could be held there. What? You're going to bring bolt cutters and take over a stadium for a month?
Some have asserted that holding the Trials in xyz location will 'build the sport there.' I'm not seeing that there has actually been any time that holding a one time sporting event, track & field or any other sport, in a particular geographic location has materially increased interest in the sport among the local population. I'm open to someone showing me that I'm wrong about that, however.
I don't work for Nike or Adidas, but it's an economic fact that Nike's investment in track & field is the life blood of the sport in the United States right now. Whether you think they are the evil empire or not, if they spent their money elsewhere, our whole sport would be like race walking, "not that there's anything wrong with that."
vivalarepublica wrote:
The_Conductor wrote:
I think it'd be useful if, instead of complaining about Eugene and randomly suggesting other locations, we thought about the qualities that makes a good host for the Trials. I went in 2012 and 2016 and had a great time in Eugene; I'll go again in 2020 (and 2021 for Worlds) as my schedule permits. The big things I see as necessities for hosting are reasonable weather (not too hot), easy access for travel, the city's ability to absorb a crowd (hotels), and a sizable stadium ideally with sun protection for the fans. What are the locations that fit those criteria (and others that I'm forgetting)? It's too bad that neither Seattle nor Portland have track stadiums. And, on the list of things that would never happen, blowing out five rows of stands at Franklin Field to make a proper 8 lane, 400m track would be awesome.
I have never found Eugene particularly easy to get to. It involved flying into Portland, which isn't cheap and rarely direct, and then renting a car to drive two hours to Eugene. One plus is that it's easy to get around Eugene when you are there and the whole town really puts on a show.
Eugene is a pain to get to. I've flown in/out of Medford, Portland, and Seattle to get there. Luckily I've had friends with cars so I haven't had to rent.
You really are dense wrote:
vivalarepublica wrote:
But none of the other choices are very convenient either. Mt SAC is a good distance from LAX and then there's the LA traffic. Maybe flying into Ontario is the best option there. Sacramento means you are most likely flying into San Fran and driving from there. Austin does not have a big airport and getting around Austin is generally awful.
Best options would be Franklin Field in Philly or building something in Portland, but those are purely pipe dreams.
You obviously have never been to Mt. SAC, Sacramento or Austin. All three are very easy to fly into, and easy to get around.
Philadelphia is a dump with terrible access.
You've obviously never been to Philadelphia with it's airport that's a hub for American Airlines that's a 15 min cab ride to Franklin Field. And its within a 2 hour train ride of New York City, Baltimore, and Washington DC, with the train station walking distance from Franklin Field. You're right, terrible access.
Lol Austin brings in A LOT more people every year for SXSW. And its easy to get around, you just uber/lyft everywhere, the city isn’t too big.
If the weather wasn’t so warm, Austin would far be the best town for OTs, considering the hotels, central location, and amount of things to do there.
If the Trials are going to mean something close to what they have always meant, the IAAF ranking system can't have a significant effect on the way the US selects its team.
Yet IAAF is advertising that the ranking system will have significant effect.
Let's see that shoe drop for Doha selections.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
My thoughts:
1. I think Eugene will do a great job with the Trials. They were awesome when I went in 2016 and everyone I've talked to said 2008 and 2012 were great as well. TrackTown USA, the volunteers, and officials in Eugene are all top-notch. And I expect that the new Hayward Field will be magnificent. Obviously they have to finish it in time, but now that the old one is knocked down and there is an actual outline of how the new one is going to look, I expect them to get it done by June 2020.
2. I don't think it's good for the sport in this country to have the biggest domestic meet in the same location four times in a row. Unlike USAs or NCAAs, I think the Trials will draw a good crowd wherever they are held. They don't need the "Eugene boost." I was really looking forward to having them at Mt. SAC and I would have preferred to see the Trials go there than back to Eugene again. From a selfish perspective, I like SoCal and it would have been neat to have a meet there. But I think you'd also grow the sport more by having it in a major metropolitan area like LA as opposed to a tiny one like Eugene.
3. That said, if USATF decided Mt. SAC was not an option -- and I don't know if they should have -- I wasn't thrilled about Sacramento. The stadium can get hot as hell during the day with no shade cover and I didn't get a great vibe from the crowd at USAs in 2014 or 2017. I think the Trials crowd would have been better (they did host in 2000 and 2004) but I wasn't stoked to go back there. Austin is a cool town, and I would have been fine with them getting a shot to host, even though it can get very hot as in Sacramento. At least they'll have the NCAAs.
4. It's funny to me that USATF took the Trials away from Mt. SAC because of stadium issues and are giving it to a place whose stadium doesn't exist yet. I'm sure they have assurances from Eugene that the stadium will be done on time, but they probably got those same assurances from Mt. SAC when they initially awarded the Trials (BTW, I think the Mt. SAC stadium will be ready by June 2020 but USATF was clearly scared off by the lawsuits and some lack of communication from Mt. SAC).
Eugene has always done a great job with the trials. If you attended other trial host cities over the years they got the job done but not in the best conditions. Eugene knows how to do it at the best level possible. Athletes love Eugene for the trials, its been stated over and over again.
Nike will have the stadium ready, thats why they got involved. Vin was pulled for a number of reasons but most of all the project was falling behind with him at the helm.
Austin has never hosted a trials, it is different from the NCAA's. Austin has not hosted or held a major open meet with the pro' s, they simply are not qualified.
SAC is a quagmire, it doesn't appear they will get any better down the road . Wise move to move away from trouble before it blows up as the event would near.
Jonathan Gault wrote:
3. That said, if USATF decided Mt. SAC was not an option -- and I don't know if they should have -- I wasn't thrilled about Sacramento. The stadium can get hot as hell during the day with no shade cover and I didn't get a great vibe from the crowd at USAs in 2014 or 2017. I think the Trials crowd would have been better (they did host in 2000 and 2004) but I wasn't stoked to go back there. Austin is a cool town, and I would have been fine with them getting a shot to host, even though it can get very hot as in Sacramento. At least they'll have the NCAAs.
seriously? youre using the weather as an argument in FAVOR of eugene? i don't think you actually did attend the 2012 or 2016 trials if that is your stance. or any meet ever in eugene for that matter.
the 2019 world championships are not having morning sessions because of heat concerns. there is talk of the 2020 olympics being delayed a few weeks because of heat concerns. but the olympic trials shouldnt be in sacramento or austin because of heat concerns? fans dont like sitting in rain or cold either. the athletes would much prefer the heat. and NOBODY like the pollen.
Amerikano wrote:
Lol Austin brings in A LOT more people every year for SXSW. And its easy to get around, you just uber/lyft everywhere, the city isn’t too big.
If the weather wasn’t so warm, Austin would far be the best town for OTs, considering the hotels, central location, and amount of things to do there.
Never said that Austin couldn't handle it. I know that city can handle it and there is plenty to do.
It's just not the most accessible city for out of towners. I was just there in Austin in April. Most flights are going through Dallas or Houston, public transit is pretty much non-existent, and getting around by car means sitting in lots of traffic. Vacations/events can be ruined by crappy transport links. An East Coast city usually has hub airport, decent metro, are easier to get around without a car, and close to/connected to other major metro areas.
But I guess it's not that big of a deal because once you there, you are there for a few days or a week and don't have to worry about transportation as much. Nice thing about Austin, Eugene, and Sacramento is you can take some fun days trips out of town while you are there to visit some interesting nature areas. Not so easy on the East Coast.
I just think having the Trials on the East Coast would be interesting and a change of pace from the same old, same old. And the East Coast probably has the best hobby joggers in the country that would love to attend the Trials without flying across the country.
rojo wrote:
ayyyyyyy wrote:
USAs has looked pathetic on TV outside of years when it has been held in Eugene. .....Keep the Trials in Eugene every year. Do what we do well in that town, and if we ever find an actual way to grow the sport, expand things then.
The first part of your statement is factually inaccurate. What you and (even Jonathan Gault) don't seem to get is there is a huge difference between a USAs and Olymic Trials. What looks pathetic is a USA Champs not in Eugene. The OLYMPIC Trials do well wherever they are held.
As a high schooler I went to the Trials in New Orleans, it seemed full to me.
Many track fans who always love track don't realize there is a HUGE difference USAs and the Olympic Trials. When my brother was running, he'd tell people hje was a pro runner and they'd look at him like he was crazy. If he told them he was getting ready for the Olympic Trials, they got all excited and acted like he was already on the Olympic team.
Rather than host the Trials all the time in Eugene, I think the following should be the rule. Hold USAs every year in Eugene but the Olympic Trials should never be held in Eugene.
Ok I've spent the morning finding the attendance figures of past trials since 2000. Do people not realize that Sacramento 2000 is the all-time record?
Eugene 1980 - 121,727
LA 1984 - 143,826
Indy 1988 - 1988 - 90,070
New Orleans 1992 - 137,262
Atlanta 1996 - 151,522
Sacramento 2000 - 187,103
Sacramento 2004 - 172, 000
Eugene 2008 - 167,123
Eugene 2012 - 173,153
Eugene 2016 - 177,000
What those attendance figures don't show is how many people in the non-Eugene trials left before a 5k/10k heat or final. Droves of people walked out. It is not the same people attending trials in Eugene as in Sac Town or New Orleans or just about anywhere else. Just not the same.
I understand the desire to move the trials, but I must admit I'm pretty excited to return to Eugene. I was 50/50 on whether or not I'd attend the trials at Mt. SAC. Many great memories of the Mt. SAC Relays, but not sure I'd enjoy the Trials there as much I enjoy Eugene. Part of the appeal is that Eugene is small. Every where you go you run into someone you know. Obviously, it is THE event in town. Attendance figures would be good/great in many places across the country, but you just can't match the track-feel of Eugene. And to those that keep bringing up Philly, it has been said often but Franklin Field doesn't work for the trials.
From someone living in the Rocky Mountain area, I realize it's easier for me to fly into Portland and for us living in the wide open west a 2 hour drive from PDX to Eugene is a non-issue.
Finally, weather-wise I'd take Eugene over Austin, Sacramento, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Indy 10 out of 10 times. I've been to the last 3 trials in Eugene plus numerous US meets and rain has not been common. Heck, it was hotter than hell during the first few days in '08. That was far worse than the rain in '12.
We were lucky to know somebody, who knew people that offered a AirBnB accommodations.. All the hotels in town were booked at the time we looked for rooms; our other alternative was to go to Corvallis or some other smaller town, and we did not rent a car. So that was the major impediment against Eugene. The weather was fairly good, but with rain a couple of days. I was hoping Sac got the nod for 2020, since we live 20 minutes away from Hornet stadium. It does get hot in midday to 5 pm, but the mornings and evenings are pretty tolerable. Plus, the access to the athletes is much better in Sac.
ayyyyyyy wrote:
USAs has looked pathetic on TV outside of years when it has been held in Eugene. I think we need to forget about trying to grow the sport by going to a big market just because. Eugene is track town usa. The trials will be on tv in all the big markets. I like it being in a place that has history and knows track and field. The atmosphere will be great. Fans will have a good time. Keep the Trials in Eugene every year. Do what we do well in that town, and if we ever find an actual way to grow the sport, expand things then. Hosting the Trials in LA would not have grown the sport. The same fans that would have gone to Eugene would have gone there and the rest of the US wouldn't care. We tried the marathon trials in LA. It looked bad. A bunch of competitors in the shape of their lives and they run in garbage conditions on a garbage course. What percent actually ran under the A standard? Do people in LA now love the marathon?
Completely agree.
Rojo- Why do you delete my post every time I or anyone else has something to say against your thoughts?
Makes you look bad, uneducated and to be honest sad.
You have hate towards certain athletes and organizations and it obvious! Why now let people express their opinions?
You also should stop giving the ability to random board monitors to delete at their own will. And please don't say you do not do this, because I know some firsthand people that have this ability to do so.
Amerikano wrote:
Lol Austin brings in A LOT more people every year for SXSW. And its easy to get around, you just uber/lyft everywhere, the city isn’t too big.
If the weather wasn’t so warm, Austin would far be the best town for OTs, considering the hotels, central location, and amount of things to do there.
Only one insurmountable problem: There is NO INTEREST whatsoever from the city and community in hosting the Trials. That is a must for any kind of bid.
"Plus, the access to the athletes is much better in Sac"
Over Eugene?! Huh? How so?
vivalarepublica wrote:
polevaultpower wrote:
Eugene will be fine, if the stadium gets done in time. I love going to Eugene.
But this. All of this. Everything about this. IS BAD FOR THE SPORT.
What is bad? Just how the process has gone for awarding the Trials? One thing for is sure, moving from one location with a stadium quagmire to another location with a stadium quagmire is plain dumb.
Yes the process has been bad. The original bidding seemed to be OK, other than Sac St seemed like they were pretty much ignored, which could be part of why they backed out of hosting USAs this year.
Maybe Mt SAC has problems that warranted pulling the Trials. Maybe not. Here's the thing...
Mt SAC is an LOC that wanted to host big USATF meets in the same area that the 2028 Olympics will be held. We are a sport that DESPERATELY needs more LOCs to host USATF meets.
If you're USATF and don't think Mt SAC was ready to host _this_ meet, OK. But you had sure as hell better be taking the time to call them and trying to smooth things over in hopes that they will host future meets. It does not cost any money for Max Siegel to get on that conference call with the Mt SAC folks to break the news. This is literally one of the most important responsibilities he has and he totally dropped the ball and burned that bridge. Way to go.
Giving the meet to another facility that also is rebuilding their stadium, that also has barely started the process (Mt SAC has done way more work to date, though they also had much more prep work than Eugene)... it makes the whole system look utterly corrupt.
I think TrackTown can stage a better Olympic Trials than Texas or Sac State. But that uncertainty about the track being ready in time will remain until right before the meet. Lawsuits aren't the only thing that can derail a project.
If you are going to pull a meet and claim it is due to uncertainty about the stadium being done, don't give it to a stadium that isn't done.
vivalarepublica wrote:
[quote]The_Conductor wrote:
But none of the other choices are very convenient either. Mt SAC is a good distance from LAX and then there's the LA traffic. Maybe flying into Ontario is the best option there. Sacramento means you are most likely flying into San Fran and driving from there. Austin does not have a big airport and getting around Austin is generally awful.
What are you talking about.
Sacramento and Austin both have good-sized and well-reviewed airports. Both cities are now hip...far moreso than Eugene. Both have more for fans to do, bigger and better hotels, day trips, beer, you name it.
Eugene has the distance tradition and Nike $$$$$, but that's it.
Hell Sacramento will likely get an NBA All Star game in the next 5 years. But USATF continues to favor po-dunk Eugene.
rojo wrote:
[quote]ayyyyyyy wrote:
Rather than host the Trials all the time in Eugene, I think the following should be the rule. Hold USAs every year in Eugene but the Olympic Trials should never be held in Eugene.
I was thinking the other way around. Since Hayward field is so historical and Eugene is tracktown USA, lets always have the trials there. For US Championship years have it some place else. US Champs not in Eugene looks normal, a US Olympic trials not in Eugene would just look weird.
wejo wrote:
The Trials in Eugene will be great especially to kick off a new stadium.
If the stadium isn't finished then people who start booking places now will be F***** but the whole point of the U of O doing the ridiculous lease back of land to Phil Knight is so nothing gets in the way of stuff getting built.
****
The Trials themselves could be moved to another location with ease on short notice (well very little in our sport is done with ease but you get the point). There are events at 20,000 seat stadiums daily in the United States. The logistics aren't that complicated. If the Trials were in two weeks and got cancelled for some reason you could move them to Austin. Fans would be screwed more than anyone else. But bring out the Texas Relays crew and they could do it.
"but the whole point of the U of O doing the ridiculous lease back of land to Phil Knight is so nothing gets in the way of stuff getting built."
I guess looking at it as a model that has worked beautifully in the past, would be too logical.
Phil and Schluss. Get stuff built. And built to last, they build things to last 150 years or more. The way Disney build now. Industrial strength, top quality materials, forward looking.
In a couple of years, people will look back at this comment and thread and be wondering what you were drinking AND smoking.
This stadium is going to be a Cathedral to both Track, Field...and TRACK FANS. There won't be a bad seat in the house, you'll be able to pop out of your reticulated seat, hit the concessions, or the restrooms, and be back in time for the next race.
You've going to be Amazed. You're going to be WOWED. And after one meet there you will be wishing every big meet in the USA was in such a "6 Star," facility. Not only will it be the best in the USA, it will be the best in the world for it's size, and better than many with larger seating and futbol pitches.
Malmo will even be able to appreciated it because it has a little influence of the designers of the stadia in Gothernberg and Malmo.
Relax kids, it's going to be fine.