Peter Taylor adds a Mendoza Line as way to rate masters nationals
Pete Taylor
Pete continues:
In brief, here are the 8 that fell below the āMendoza Lineā:
1993 Provo, Utah
1996 Spokane, Washington
1999 Orlando, Florida
2001 Baton Rouge, Louisiana
2005 Honolulu, Hawaii
2008 Spokane, Washington
2009 Oshkosh, Wisconsin
2011 Berea, OhioIs there any sense of concern about the low numbers? Given the great expense of holding these meets, is there a concern about having to spread costs over so few entrants? Note that the trend is a bit shocking, as the deck is stacked against it. After all, the number of 1050 is a constant, but the US population keeps increasing, making it easier each year to reach that target.
My only concern about this stat: It relies on iffy data. Who knows exactly how many people actually compete at a given masters nationals? For years, National Masters News ran an obligatory headline giving a specific figure. But I donāt buy most all of them.
Entry numbers for worlds are especially suspect. As I noted in late July, Sacto had 4,800 registrants but only 4,120 actual competitors, according to the LOC.
National Masters News generally went with the registration number. Sigh.
34 Responses
Ken, I relied on data from National Masters News for 1993, 1996, 1999, 2001, and 2005. The figure for 2008 (Spokane) came from meet director Marla Emde, I believe, and was probably reported in National Masters News in a separate story from the main report in NMN.
For 2009, Jason Fast (UW-Oshkosh) gave us an indication that it was about 1000 (I think he was a little generous). The Berea figure (1030) came from Jerry Bookin-Weiner.
In every case I suspect the figure would be number of entrants rather than number of actual competitors, which is why I used “enrollment.” Clearly, I was looking for comparability of numbers.
The bigger issue, of course, is “Where did everybody go?”
This year, both Berea (nationals) and Humble (Senior Games) no doubt suffered from the presence of World Champs in Sacramento. I did only two side-by-side comparisons of the two meets and covered women 50+.
In the 100 dash I looked at how many women 50+ ran 17.50 seconds or better in the 100. The results:
Berea 19
Humble 32
For the shot put I looked at how many women 50+ put the sphere at least 7.00 meters (23 feet).
Berea 19
Humble 40
However, only 2 women at Humble put it 10.00 meters or farther, while 4 women did so at Berea. Regardless, there were a lot of big stars who competed at Senior Games who did not compete at Berea.
Notes:
1. I haven’t seen anything lately about plans to increase the turnout at nationals, and I guess this means that the status quo has been accepted.
2. This was prompted by the posting about Max Siegel, the new USATF marketer. He apparently has no special interest in masters, and the modest turnouts would not impress him, I do not think. For that reason I believe he should promote individual stars rather than the meets themselves.
3. Former national exec Craig Masback told us on at least one occasion that we needed much bigger numbers than we have now (at nationals) to promote this event.
Oh, well, perhaps this modest attendance is of no real concern. Maybe we will just keep plodding along at these levels until something dramatic happens, for good or for ill.
Pete,
I think your comment about marketer Max Siegel promoting individual stars rather than meets themselves is right on.
Media consumers resonate more to people than events.
I tried to get the Sacramento Bee to do an advance story on Worlds, but no soap (even though Sacramento rarely has an event of such international significance.) However, I was able to get the San Francisco Chronicle to do a great story on an individual star, Joy Upshaw.
Max might take note that Phil Raschker will compete in a new age group at Indoor Worlds in Finland in April. There has to be some media mileage in that.
I just hope that USATF does something. With the Olympics coming up next year there will be more interest in Track and Field. We need to try to catch some of that interest. Promoting stars is a good way to get headlines, but I think that most of the public have no idea what amazing accomplishments people are putting up.
All people seem to know now about our sport is the Marathon. When people hear that I run, they ask what my Marathon time is. Forget about trying to explain what a good 400 or 800 meter time is because a quarter of a mile or a half a mile is nothing in their mind compared to 26 miles. I think that this is part of the problem with Track and Field; we simply have not done a good job and promoting the sport.
Sure, running 26.2 miles is great, but not everyone is built for running marathons, but we have a spot for just about every body type in track and field. If you can’t run maybe you can jump or jump over things, if don’t like jumping or running you can throw things. Plus, our athletes are super fit compared to the general population.
I say promote super stars to gather headlines, but also reach out to the community to promote all of our athletes and our sport as something great.
Terry’s comment:
***
we have a spot for just about every body type in track and field. If you canāt run maybe you can jump or jump over things, if donāt like jumping or running you can throw things. Plus, our athletes are super fit compared to the general population.
***
That’s perfect! Someone with marketing skills needs to take that and run (or jump or throw) with it.
Peter, There is a very simple answer to our travails. . .just hold every outdoor national masters track and field championship in
Eugene Oregon and bring down the Canadians and make it a combo North American championship. Advertise in Central America and Mexico as well.
Tom: you may be joking – but if we could – it would be great.
Meanwhile – we hold meets where ever some group is willing to sponsor a meet, and not always where people want to go.
This is a chronic problem – and I do not have a solution. Certainly low attendance can be attributed to locations that are not well known or viewed as attractive vacation destinations.
As for “suspect” numbers of no-shows – there are many reasons why some enter meets and do not attend – but lets face it – for the organizers – the important number is the number of paid entries – not the number who actually turn up. Life happens and folks cannot attend, get sick, get injured, etc. But if they pay the entry fee – it helps pay for the meet expenses.
Tom, I agree ! The present system of putting it out for bids is not working. Although Eugene is far for me, I would go in a heart beat. I have no intention of going to Illinois next year. I probably would not be able to afford Eugene every year (from Philly) but, every 2 years, yeah, I could do that.
Love Tom’s idea.
Hmmm… what if we listened to the athletes first? Those who spend their hard earned money on this T&E? What if the USATF Masters members were polled for the top 10 locations they would love to compete at AND visit? Promote the upside to the Associations nearby and THEN let the bidders go for it. With today’s social media tools it wouldn’t cost anything but a few clever folk’s time. Back to Tom’s thought… we might discover a demand for a western, central and eastern rotating favorite to build upon. Which could generate healthy rivalry between Clubs. “OMG KP! You mean we could have a true team championship too? And have fun?” Just Do It
There are some other great track locations around the country, but Eugene is the defacto national stadium. Maybe if the masters committee could reach out to find suitable sites and scrap the bid process, we could have an east/midwest/west/south rotation. Or maybe we just go every even year, and leave the odd years to the NSGA Senior games. Maybe they could change their rules to accommodate 40-49’s. Their meets seem to draw more people, even with just the 50 and up crowd allowed. Better sites, and only having 1 major US meet a year, would likely boost attendance for the USATF meet.
Thanks for that contribution, Ken Effler. It does seem time to “think outside the box” and perhaps do something radically different. There are certainly a lot of athletes out there, but they don’t show up in large numbers at masters nationals.
Certainly the people who attend Senior Games would be a nice target. How about a mailing to all of those who competed this year in Senior Games (after deleting the names of those who competed at Albuquerque, Sacramento, or Berea). Tell them about Bloomington and Lisle nationals in 2012.
What’s that, many people would say … those slowpokes at the Senior Games? Well, I just finished a detailed comparison of women 70+ in the 100 dash, an area where participation levels are starkly different between masters nationals and Sr Games. Here is some of what I found:
Total women 70+ in 100 dash: 49 at Sr Games, 10 at Berea.
But those women at Senior Games just trot; they’re really not any good, correct? Well, here is a summary of the 100-dash results from Senior Games 2011:
In W70, all-world Kathy Bergen stormed to victory in 15.22 seconds. Even the 5th-place woman, Joann Sampson, ran a very nice 18.84. Berea? Only one woman in W70 broke 25 seconds, and she was from Canada.
In W75 at Sr Games, Monica Tang Wing beat a foursome of Hall of Famers! Monica ran 17.26 to hold off the brilliant Barbara Jordan (17.35), the mercurial Jeanne Daprano (17.62), the superb all-arounder Audrey Lary (18.58), and the extremely versatile Flo Meiler (19.67).
In W80, Frances Styles won Sr Games in 22.26. W85 saw all-time great (and Hall of Famer) Pat Peterson get the job done in 23.17. In W90, Hall of Famer Margaret Hinton got home first.
Again, I think it might be good to explore some new direction. The athletes are definitely out there.
Assuming much work is done by some local group to put on a big national meet, even when numbers are down, somebody has to want to do all that work. Is that what has driven the choices that have been made in years past? In other words, even if a vote showed Eugene a huge #1 choice of venue, would Eugene be willing to host the meet year after year?
In comparing our nationals with the Senior Games (SG), I get the impression that many SG athletes see our meets as more competitive and serious. On the former point, Peter’s analysis suggests that this is a myth. I am often asked “do you have to qualify?” for our national or world meets. That reaffirms my belief that there is a perception that our meets aren’t for the novice. I like the idea of contacting people who competed in SG and telling them about Bloomington and Lisle. And maybe we should create a “bring a friend” program where we encourage past participants to bring along a novice training partner or acquaintance. As a sweetener, we could waive the entry fee for any athlete who has never been to one of our nationals before. This approach could bring a lot of “new blood” to our nationals.
Our National Championships are awarded at the USATF Annual Meeting in December, this year in St. Louis. Interested parties including convention and visitors bureaus, LOC’s(local organizing committees), and USATF Associations, present bids to the assembled masters committee. After all bids are presented, the committee votes for their choice. That’s is how its done. Simply identyfing a great track and location is not enough. The locale must WANT to host the meet and have the ability to execute the meet. Other considerations include climate, airport proximity, availability of officials and hotel rooms, and qualified organizers.
The Championships are wholly financed by the LOC. Admittedly, there have been issues with recent meets (ie) timing issues, throwing venues, and racewalking issues. I, personally, have been affected by these, as I am an athlete. These issues are being dealt with and fixes are being put in place.
Mike Travers
USATF Masters Site Selection Chair
While Eugene is a great place to run I wouldn’t want the meet there every year. I like the rotation, it allows you to see different parts of the country and flying into Oregon every year would be to expensive for many of us. I live in the midwest and like having the option to drive and have my family come every once in a while. Kenneth’s idea of a regional rotation seems the most logical to me.
Mike;
Some of us know how the current process works, we are just questioning the validity of the process. The process seems to be a carbon copy of the process used to award the open national championships. If you have a hot enough property, local LOC’s will bid, absorb the expense, and reap the profits, if any. A growing trend that is disturbing to many of us that compete: fewer and fewer competitors at the USATF meet, especially when you compare it to participation levels at the NGSA track event, and perhaps due to the lower attendance figures, less quality in the running of the USATF meet itself. The winning LOC either cuts corners to ensure a profit, or gets in over their heads, and mishandles key functions such as timing. The gist of my posting is that I think it can be handled differently. While there will likely never be a LOC from Eugene to bid on the masters meet, why couldn’t a USATF Masters committee approach Eugene and try to rent the facility? Many of the universities in the US will rent out their facilities, including dorm space, during the summer months for camps and similar events. To accomplish this, I realize that more people from the USATF side will be required, and a structure be put into place to accomodate required functions. But I also think that the current process has flaws, and because of these flaws we’re not nearly maximizing the potential that could exist.
While I’ve never attended a NSGA national meet, their competitve fields are generally much deeper and as good in quality to the USATF meet. They seem do a better job on the promotion of age group activity, and with the inclusion of the other sports, provide a potential bidder with a much more attractive property to bid on.
Maybe one way to attack the issue is to partner up with a similar organization. I have no idea if they’d be interested, but if USATF could partner up with the masters national swimming organization, and have a LOC bid on a combined championship event. It would offer a much better property to potential bidders and local advertisers.
We all love track and field and want to see it succeed. I also know that you and others do a great job within the current system, and try to get things right for all of us as competitors. But at the same time, it’s also obvious that the status quo can be improved or changed for the better.
Anon,
Good points.
Mike T,
Why can’t USATF rent at Eugene ? Is this not a profitable venture ? Wouldn’t a lot of problems with novice LOC mistakes be avoided ? Are our fees paid by all Masters T&F members sufficient to cover up front expenses ?
I don’t understand why National (and the Associations for that matter) sub out their Championships ? I have reviewed the 990 filed by USATF, seems like a lot of money should be available to put on ONE meet a year, especially if it is in a location such as Eugene.
Good point chuckxc. I think a lot of people are surprised to find out the USATF doesn’t put on any meets. USATF staff has some involvement in the meets that bear their name, but the meets themselves are put on by the LOC (local organizing committee).
I’m not sure it is practical for USATF to put on their own meets. USATF simply doesn’t have enough people, especially local to the event.
The major meets I have been involved with generally turn a profit, but only because they are put on by volunteers. If the USATF rented a track, they would still need the resources of a local club to put together enough volunteers to make it happen, as they certainly can’t hire people for key roles and still break even.
I think you will see less vaulters at some of the big meets since airlines have all but stopped taking poles and our only air freight carrier no longer flys poles. It cost me $1,900 to get my poles to and from Sydney. Nationals is usually about $400 and we split it between a few people. But now the rates are about the same but it is by truck. Most of us don’t want to send our poles out two weeks early and wait two weeks for their return.
Perhaps USATF and a local club should work together with USATF providing $ and “know how” and a local club providing the volunteers. The club would get a stipend as an incentive, naturally much less than it would get as an LOC but without all the financial risks and hassles.
If USATF is not in the business of putting on meets, then what are they in the business of ? What are we getting for our annual dues ? Is there any info on how much revenue USATF generates from Masters T&F dues ?
With the notable exception of Boston, and perhaps several other LOC’s, I feel like I’m just paying USATF membership dues for the privilege of paying someone else to compete, usually an LOC with little or no experience.
What is the incentive for an athlete to compete at USATF Masters Nationals? Bragging rights and a medal that is not even engraved? What if there was a USATF Masters prize money or Official Ranking system based on USATF meet participation? Many associations do this already with a cross country series, but this is completely decoupled from the national body. The only track & field ranking system currently is this web site (MastersTrack.com) and it is largely self reported. A cohesive system is needed.
Unfortunately, the best are not necessarily at the USATF Masters T&F Championship. This is a problem that perpetuates itself because people will say “Well, the field was weak there last year. what does it really mean to win or place there? Why spend my time and money?”
The USATF needs to get more club teams involved in these meets especially at the local level. A registered USATF Club should be sending people to LOC and National meets and many are not. They should reach out to running groups that are not members of USATF. Lack of participation from active running clubs is a failure on the part of the USATF organization.
The Junior Championship is usually held in conjunction with the Open Championship. Why not add the Masters to the same event? Run Masters in the AM, Junior and Open in the PM. Masters would feel a lot closer to the elite athletes that they are, rather than a sideshow 1000mi away from the “real” championship. Most of us masters are also fans of running and would love to see the Open meet. As it is now, many of us would have to choose to spectate Open or race Masters. This would also have the side effect of increasing spectator volume at the Open Championship which often has lethargic turnout also.
On a similar note, the LOCs might benefit from having a championship with all age races that includes Youth, Junior, Open and Masters. Races could be run separately, but meet participation would become worth the effort of putting together a quality meet. I got into running by going to all comers track meets with my Dad as a kid. I not only learned to enjoy running and racing, but I saw that I could continue to run and compete all my life. As my daughter reaches an age where she can run, I’ll seek out opportunities for her to be involved. Hopefully that will be track meets, but if it is unsanctioned road races with a kids race, guess where I’ll be…
These are the kinds of things that need to be considered to increase USATF participation across the ages.
I love Darren’s idea of multi-generational championships. Now you’d have a hotter property that the USATF could bid out, and a LOC could really sell locally. While the meet would need to be spread out over 2 full weeks and 2 weekends; think of how many more people would be drawn into the area. You could run the Junior and Open championships the first week, with all finals on the weekend. Participants for the Junior Olympics and Masters could arrive early to watch the elite open meets, then have their events start on the following Monday, and conclude by the following weekend. The venue would be set up at the start of the junior-open meet, and broken down after the youth-masters meet.
A track and field festivus for the rest of us.
As much as I think Darren’s multi-generational championships would be a lot of fun, time-wise it would be logistically difficult with the current masters come-one-come-all policy. If the masters championships moved to qualifying times/jumps/throws to tighten up the schedule it might be feasible in the non-Olympic years.
Kevin P. and Ken E.’s rotating championship home sites is a pretty neat idea that deserves greater consideration.
Thank you, Steve Robbins (no. 13). The idea that the Senior Games are a place for old men in Bermuda shorts and old ladies in tennis dresses (while they run track) is passe.
I covered the 70+ women above, and thus I took a look at the 100 dashes for older men at this year’s Senior Games:
In M70, Alby Williams, who has “owned” the Penn Relays in recent years, downed Walt Lancaster, 13.32 to 13.87.
In M75, superstar Bob Lida downed superstar Bobby Whilden, 13.57 to 13.90. The listed M75 American mark is 13.72 by the legendary Payton Jordan, with Bobby Whilden (13.67) shown as “pending.” Wow.
In M80, Hall of Famer and former world champion Harry Brown turned in a dominating performance, winning in 15.33. Harry was the top qualifier in a 20-man field in M80. Yikes. So much for Bermuda shorts. And so much for ignoring Senior Games as a source of more athletes for national masters.
****
Another issue to confront is that of retention. We often hear that the potential pool of athletes is quite small, and that explains the modest turnouts at nationals.
After looking at my September 2003 issue of National Masters News (covered the last Eugene nationals) I see that there is evidence for a different sort of argument. People come to nationals for awhile, do well, and then move on to something else.
Does anyone remember Jeff Culpepper, Arron Prather, Barney Borromeo, and Rex Brown? The first two ran 1-2 in the M30 100 (10.78 vs. 10.97) at Eugene, while Borromeo and Rex Brown were 1-2 in M35. I haven’t seen any of these gentlemen in years.
How about the women? In W30 at Eugene, Anita Howard and Jen Davidson ran 1-2 in the W30 100 (12.29 vs. 12.76), while Venus Jewett and Colleen Barney were 1-2 in W35. Where are they now?
This comes back to the question raised by Darren Cox (no. 21): “What is the incentive for an athlete to compete at USATF Masters Nationals?” I don’t know the answer. Is there one?
I have been a visitor to the US shores over the last 20 plus years and have competed in multiple National and World Titles there during that period.During that time I have had ther opportunity to see and participate in many meets both indoors and outdoors.
The main reason I go is that for me the competition has been well run and organised with a great depth of competition making attending the meet an enjoyable experience.
I have read all of the points above and make the following comments;
*The meet should rotate around the country. Sure Eugene is an absolutely brilliant competition venue but the nationals do encourage those to compete who live relatively nearby. It would be far too expensive to travel to Eugene for most people each year.
*The biggest problem by far is that there are very few covered stands and spectators and athletes simply do not want to sit out in the usually hot sun for many hours. The lack of spectators leads to a lack of atmosphere and a disinterest in other events and performances.The last Nationals in Berea had the worst atmosphere ever in that regard.
*The fields were particularly small and the quality generally poor in Berea particularly with the female events and older age groups.
*The small fields and general lack of atmosphere at Berea leads to the view that the Nationals simply are not much fun.They should be the aspirational meet of the year.
*Sure there was a competing meet this year with the Worlds in Sacramento but in the past people have bypassed the Worlds to turn up at the Nationals. The Nationals In Maine in 1998 and the The World Masters Games In Eugene was a giood example.
*A combined meet with the Open and age races could be an idea worth considering but your own stand alone meet is also good for Masters.If combined it could only work if the Masters meet was held as a stand alone meet prior to the Nationals.Mixed competition or morning and afternoon combos will not work. Neither would an extended meet. Most Masters would not extend their stay but for those who would like to they could then continue on watching the other meets.
*We have to accept that Masters meets are not a promoters dream and never will be- ever. Not even with a clutch of former Olympians to promote.Have you noticed that, almost without exception the press will look at social aspects of Masters meets like the oldest person or an old war veteran etc. This will never change despite meet marketing directors best endeavours.
*Using competitors in the various Seniors Games to promote to is an excellent idea if that information is available, as all of those persons have already shown an interest in the sport.
*There are plenty of people who have competed in Masters athletics over the years but they are not coming back for more as the product is not satisfying. You will need to find out why.(no covered stands in the hot sun a big factor).
*Open athletics is less than vibrant so the base of athletes leading on to the Masters is very small.
*The structure of athletics in the US is probably not the best for attracting open or Masters athletes to competition.
*There should likely be more emphasis on local Allcomers meets where more people can compete at grass roots level.
*Cheaper or dearer meets is not the answer, it is providing a worthwhile experience.
I do not know why these young women (young from my perspective) have dropped out of national masters track . However from my own experience, it may be because they have very busy lives. I went to my first national masters track meet in 1983 or 84 – because I could drive there. The next one I participated in was probably some time in the late 1990’s. I ran local meets only until I retired and had both the time and the money for travel. In the meanwhile I was pretty busy with a full time college teaching job and raising children. There was no money for such things as my traveling around the country to go to track meets until our children were finished with college. And I had no time nor energy for such things as national track meets either until I retired.
It requires vacation time and money to travel around the country to these meets. I dare say that most track and field athletes feel fortunate to have time and a place to train and are able to participate in a handful of fairly local meets. Younger athletes with families often have children who play of various sports teams and are busy taking them to their competitions. Vacation time is for families, and not for a parent’s hobby.
This is a very tough economy – until it gets much better – and it might not for a long time, I think it will not matter what we do – the numbers will be low. And if we hold meets in unattractive locations, with poor facilities, and timing screw-ups – there will be little incentive to spend the time and money to go to a national meet.
Thank you, Peter Crombie, for your cogent observations (post no. 25). For those who do not know, Peter is a multiple world champion from Australia who has graced our nationals from time to time. Now that’s a long trip.
Why can’t we work a deal to promote masters’ track by having our nationals, in an Olympic year, in the middle of the US Olympic Trials? The Trials last 11 days. Next year, in Eugene, Tues and Wed (June 26 & 27) are rest days. Fans are in town. Why not entertain them with a two-day masters’ meet? I can’t think of a better venue for bringing attention to our masters’ program. Obviously this couldn’t happen for 2012. But it might be possible for 2016.
Stephen R. (#28) There is an all-comers meet scheduled in the middle (June 26 & 27) of the US Olympic trials at Eugene next summer (2012). No reason Masters can’t make a good showing then and there. As soon as I heard of this I marked my calendar and I’m planning on participating. I hope to see many other masters there too.
Henry–Wow! If they can run an all-comers meet, they could certainly run our US Nationals. Maybe Gary Snyder could to USATF about us taking those two days in 2016. I know it’s a long ways from now but it could be a showcase of our masters’ program. If money could help open this door, you can put me down for a donation. Hey, how about setting up a prize-money fund where we give, say, $100 to the winner of every event (along with a gold medal). We need to start thinking out-of-the-box.
Yes, Steve R., it’s like the feeling I get when it’s going to snow. Somehow I feel that things are changing significantly and that new directions (thinking outside of the box) are necessary.
As for nationals, we got this thing going in 1968 with a meet at San Diego, thanks to David Pain.
Twenty-one years later we were holding worlds at Eugene. During the 1990s we had nationals at Indiana University, University of Oregon, Brigham Young, Michigan State, Disney (Orlando), etc.
Somehow, Steve, I can’t see the Michigan State athletic director (we were last there in 1995) saying today, “Forget the bowls, don’t think about the Final Four, our first priority is to get those masters T&F people back.”
Nor can I see the people at Univ of Oregon (Eugene) saying, “What happened to us? How come we let the masters go?” Brigham Young? No. Indiana University for indoors but certainly not for outdoors. Disney again? Forget about it.
We are small, not prestigious, and on almost nobody’s hot list. I agree with George Mathews on another thread that we should hook up with the Senior Games people but run our own championships.
Re: the issue of how we expand the number of participants in our major meets. I think we begin by increasing awareness. From there we can expand the pool of bodies. I believe a lot of potential participants don’t know about masters’ track. So, thinking out of the box, how about: (1) We lobby to get ourselves into a venue such as the Olympic Trials (see my #29 comment). For true track fans, we’d be entertaining and maybe even motivational. (2) Stealing some of the creative ideas developed by our Aussie friends. For instance, they run handicap races in the middle of major meets. Men and women of all ages run against each other. It’s quite exciting to watch a 30-year old guy trying to catch a 60-year old woman in a 300m race. The Aussies also put on age-combined relays. A 4×1 or 4×4 made up of members whose ages adds up to at least 200 or 240 is incredibly exciting to watch. If we could get our foot in the door at meets like USATF elite Nationals, the Prefontaine Classic, and the Olympic Trials, we could add an entertaining dimension. At first we might be seen as nothing much more than a freak show but I think those views would change when track fans saw some of the incredible men and women participants in masters’ track. BTW, as Mr. Crombie (#24) noted, the media likes to focus on older athletes. I think this suggests that we would get more mileage out of having our exhibition races at the elite nationals with 80-year olds rather than 40-year olds or as handicap races with a wide range of ages competing.
I will try and keep my comment brief. Looking at the years that show low numbers. I can only speculate why the number of participates where low.
Berea-two weeks after Worlds held in the US.
Oshkosh-several weeks before worlds held in Finland, which was an expensive worlds to attend.
Spokane was expensive to attend as well. I did not go because of cost.
Hawaii- Was hosted in between World Masters Games in Edmonton and World Championships in Spain. Would have been better attended if it had not been in a year with other World Championships.
I would suspect that Baton Rouge and Orlando had low attendence due to hot weather. Most of the years with low attendence are years when there is a Outdoor World Championships, World Masters Games, and or Senior Games. Most of us do not have enough vacation time or make enough money to attend all the events that we would like. Therefore we pick the events that are the most appealing. That may be because of cost, location, family, friends in the area, etc.
I personally like our National championships, the way they are. I like moving around the country. It gives me a chance to visit places I may not have a chance to see, while getting a chance to compete. I’m not against the idea of having North, South, East, and West locations to host meets, but you have to realize that most universities are not interested in hosting our National Championships. There even less interested in renting there facilities. I have been working on the 2012 indoor championships for two years. IT will be a great meet, but it has not been an easy process.
Those of you that have come up with ideas of how to make nationals better need to form a committee. Ken, Kevin,and anonymous gather your ideas,contact universities and see what is the cost with renting there facilities. Contact the local associations asking if they would be interested in supporting the meet. come up with a plan, and present your findings in the general session of the Masters Committee at the 2012 annual meeting. I think people forget we are all volunteers and I think you will find that it’s not as easy as one thinks. Having a national championship in one location is not ideal. Eugene has hosted nationals enough times to know the process if they had any interest in hosting another National Championship they would have submitted a bid.
I just saw where they won a bid to host the World Juniors in 2014. With the current staff at University of Oregon, I think they are more focused on World competitions at the junior and elite levels.
Also there were comments made about past problems at our Nationals and how great Eugene is. At the 2008 Olympic Trials, The steeplechase water jump barrier was not lowered for the womens race and the athlete who won was injured due to this oversite. So even with the best officials in the country at one of the premier venues, mistake happen. Just keep that in mind. My two cents for want it is worth.
I started my track involvement at the Iowa Senior Olympics, associated with the NSGA, in about 2003. I did the middle distance track events on a lark, as I was there primarily for the 5K and 10K road races. I’d been doing road races for 20 years – never done track before in my life. I went to the National Senior Games in Pittsburgh in 2005 and in Louisville in 2007, doing the 10K and 5K road races, respectively. Finally, in Louisville, I noted all the track events going on and got to thinking that I’d come all that way for just one event. So I decided to seriously train for and do the middle distance track events as well as the 5K road race at the Iowa Senior Olympics in 2008 in order to qualify for those events at the National Senior Games in Palo Alto in 2009. About the same time I came across this little publication called National Masters News that advertised the USATF National Masters Indoor Championships in Boston in 2008. The publication also listed track results held across the country which led me to believe I might be half way competitive at the middle distances if I worked at it. I also found my way to the USATF web site and viewed the middle distance results from past year’s indoor championships, which further piqued my interest. I had the time of my life in Boston and haven’t missed a national championships since, in spite of a strained hamstring at Osh Kosh. Then came the Worlds in Kamloops and Sacramento…..
Based on my experience I believe there is great opportunity to market USATF masters events at state and national senior games. Not only that, I believe the huge road racing community is a possible source of future masters track athletes, and not only for the middle distance to 10000M events. I would bet a lot of the road runners out there were sprinters in their youth. And once they realize there are also the jumps, throws and vaults available in masters competition some will undoubtedly migrate in that direction.
In parts of the country where there are local, state and regional USATF track events, or even just a few all-comers meets, such new recruits could be encouraged to compete and perhaps join a local club for training advice and encouragement. Once they reach a suitable level of competence they will want to try national competition assuming they have the time and financial resources.
Probably the best prospects are those who are done raising their kids, are slowing down a little at work and are looking for another interest in life besides walking around a golf course all day.
For those of you who have maintained an interest in track and field your whole lives it may be hard to grasp that there are potential athletes out there who don’t know that masters track and field exists. I’m glad I found my way into it more or less by chance. An organized effort that would involve all of us who love to compete couldn’t help but bring in greater participation.
Speaking of olympics, these 80 year olds are truly an inspiration as they do the shot put, discus throw, and sprint towards the gold medal at the World Masters Championship. Their motto: “We can rest when we die.” Check out the documentary here:
http://bit.ly/tp8qdu
Leave a Reply