Nobody is bidding to host 2018 masters outdoor nationals
Kiddies make good use of JDL Fast Track in Winston-Salem, site of 2015 indoor nationals.
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
36 Responses
well, constantly complaining about the organizers does not help….
Ditto!
sure would be nice to have it in Orono Maine again (Univ. of Maine) -had several great meets there in the past and the weather was pleasent (warm, not hot or humid)
I second Warren Graff’s recommendation of Orono, Maine. I was there for the 2002 and 2007 meets. For whatever reason, the javelin flew far (at least far for me) there and the weather is good in Maine in the summertime. Not so much this time of year. also, I thought the meets there were very well-run.
Perhaps we are doomed to having to scramble to find national masters meet locations at the last minute (if you consider two years as last minute).
By now masters T&F should have a good idea of what past location/organizations are capable of putting on a good national outdoors meet and which ones have come up short.
Another disadvantage of last minute planning is that it cannot take into consideration geographic rotation if only one bid is received.
Is it pie in the sky to think a bit more holistically?
There are four regions in the country (West/MidWest (MT)/MidEast (Central)/East – think timezones). Within each region there should be at least two locations that would provide a satisfactory meet. Perhaps with more advance planning we could also keep the dates within a more narrow predictable time window.
Then rotate the outdoor meets through each region:
e.g.
2016 East – Grand Rapid, Michigan
2017 West (Spokane? – Eugene? – CA?)
2018 Midwest (MT) (Provo? – Colorado? – AZ?)
2019 MidEast (Central) (TX? MN? KS?)
2017 East (Maine? – North Carolina?)
Rinse-Repeat.
2017 is tagged for Baton Rouge:
http://masterstrack.com/albuquerque-2017-indoor-nationals-baton-rouge-2017-outdoors/
It was the only outdoor bidder.
Ken: Well, your blog seems to be the only place to find out about 2017.
Nothing is posted at:
http://www.usatfmasters.org/cal_bigmeets.htm
or
http://www.usatf.org/Events—Calendar/National-Championships.aspx?year=2017
So the two USATF webpages you would normally turn to to plan your 2017 schedule has nothing listed.
If Baton Rouge is on the docket for 2017 then rotate the outdoor meets through each region:
e.g.
2016 East – Grand Rapid, Michigan
2017 MidEast (Central) Baton Rouge, LA
2018 Midwest (MT) (Provo? – Colorado? – AZ?)
2019 West (Spokane?, Eugene?, CA?)
2020 East (Maine? – North Carolina?)
Rinse-Repeat.
Would that this was as simple as commenters seem to think. Anyone who has ever organized one of these meets knows just how much work it is and how many people are needed to do it well. And just because there are people ready, willing, and able, doesn’t mean there’s a facility that is appropriate or available (see above re Lexington, KY where there wasn’t). And vice versa — we all love Eugene, but no one there is up for doing it, or they would!
Even a rotation for the Throws Championships hasn’t been all that easy to pull off, so I seriously doubt that one would work for the outdoor meet. I haven’t seen a suitable facility in the “Midwest” that Dave Ortman posits above, and even if there were in AZ, who in their right mind would opt for that in the middle of the summer?? Same for TX. And we all saw what Kansas was like (read totally unacceptable facility).
I too liked Orono, but there were two major downsides that doomed their last bid:
1. Expensive and difficult to fly to Bangor
2. The track itself is old and badly in need of resurfacing, something the University folks there said was unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future (read they don’t have it in their budget and don’t expect to either).
The track was already hard and tough on folks running more than 400m in 2007; imagine what it would be like 10 years later!
So, bottom line to the commenters with ideas – get involved! Come to the Convention or, if you can’t do that, talk with the Masters Chair in your Association. Join a committee, and contribute to the solution!!
PLEASE do not have Indoor Nationals on a flat track. The turns are too tight for decent times.
I agree with Jerry. Not as easy as it seems. Even more significant than the facility I think is the LOC and meet management. Very hard combination to find. Most college track coaches believe they can run a national masters championship but are sometimes surprised with what it takes.
I think the Masters Committee needs to consider setting up a national committee to run the meets similar to the way our open meets are run. I believe they had a similar problem in the past. It would be great to move it around the country but think it is more important to have really experienced Masters meet management and a great facility.
Returning to the same facility, such as Eugene, isn’t the worst that could happen. Maybe award multiple years at a time.
We run it and they get revenue from entries etc or some variation that is mutually beneficial.
I think Indianapolis could help make this happen.
They are very much involved in our championships these days anyhow.
Make meet management a masters Committee budget item.
Out of the box!
I do not like red tracks. I think locations with red tracks should be excluded 🙂
You also have the ‘USATF’ restrictions on outside sponsorship that maybe a local organizational group may have. It is hard to get university indoor tracks as most are ‘booked’. Outdoor university tracks are maybe easier to get, but it does take a lot of work to put on our meets. A rotation would be nice to have.
After putting on a couple of local Masters meets, I agree that there is a tremendous amount of work and people needed. Finding a suitable and available facility with the resources and desire to handle a championship meet can’t be easy.
Birmingham, has a great indoor facility – I wonder if anyone has approached them?
Finally, unlike Milan, I like red tracks but find that I jump better on blue tracks. No one should have to jump on a black track.
What if I could get Eugene (Hayward) to consider 2018? Only of after July 16!!! Clubs age and Oregon Track Masters is a perfect example of the most vibrant one now being a shadow. I know Vin and Tom J and maybe could light a fire. I also could use some help – creative approaches. I am a bit surprised at some of the regional associations – it seems they are along for the ride. Supposing to be an Association or Region or whatever they had to bid on a biannual basis?
To Kathy’s comment about not running on flat tracks. We prefer that our Indoor championships are hosted on banked tracks, but they are few and far between. The facility in Boston has started hosting more open events and doesn’t seem as interested in hosting master events. Plus the committee that worked to put on the National championships in Boston are tired from hosting our championships so many years in a row. Other banked tracks are either very expemsive to get to or just not set up to host our championships with mulitiple throws and jump areas.
To Mike’s comment about the facility in Birmingham. They have been approached several times. At last I heard, they wanted $8000.00 per day for us to host our indoor Champiionships there. They only charge youth $5000.00 per day, but some how they think masters meets bring in more money than youth.
The problem that we are having across the country is more and more university are not willing to rent out there facilties even when they are laying there not being used.
To eveyone out there, both the Indoor and Outdoor championships make a profit. These events are self funded, so if anyone has any interest in looking into the potential of hosting one of our championships. Get in contact with me. I personally hosted the 2012 Indoor Championships, yes it was a lot of work, but I enjoyed putting on a great event for my pers and they were equally greatful for a successful event.
I dont have a preference in color of track, I just run as fast as I can on any color track, never noticed if I ran faster on certain colors. Maybe I shold start tracking that. I wonder if the color has anything to do with the surface because up in to recently most red tracks were Mondo. Maybe Milan doesn’t like Mondo tracks.
Mike & Robert – I have talked to Birmingham for several years and encouraged them to work with us to bring in the Masters. The CrossPlex wants $8,000 per day rental for Masters, which is non-negotiable. That’s $32,000+ for a three day meet, (they charge for the meet set up day too). For a youth meet, the expense is $5,000 per day. They also charge admissions, parking and other unacceptable demands. Great facility if you have the money. Mike Travers shared Boston’s numbers with me and at best it would be a small profit for the Birmingham LOC. The flip side is a substantial loss. If we could get the facility for $15,000 with no parking and no admissions we would probably have an interest.
Bill,
Thanks for clarifying why Birmingham is not available. I am sure that similar issues surface when looking at many facilities. Finding suitable tracks for our meets can’t be easy.
I am agnostic about track color or being flat or banked but I dislike tracks at altitude. If sprinters think indoor flat tracks slow them down – well -the altitude of a track such as in Albuquerque slows down middle distance and distance runners who do not live at altitude. Given the difficulty of finding suitable venues and groups willing to host a USATF Masters track meet – indoor or outdoor -we should not also think we can have rotating sites – east/middle/west/north/south etc. We should be thankful to have a meet somewhere. As for Albuquerque – I will stay home – between age, living at sea level, and past experience at Albuquerque – I will have to pass on 2016 and 2017 indoor meets there. If I were a thrower, jumper, or sprinter – I would be delighted.
The Boston area will have another indoor track in a couple of years – that might take the pressure off Reggie Lewis which is very heavily booked. And perhaps the indoor meet can return to Boston.
my comment about the color of the track was a joke 🙂
Is the new indoor facility on Staten Island big enough to handle all of our championship meet requirements?
I prefer to throw off a concrete circle than a wooden surface…..color does not matter.
I personally don’t like blue football fields. I don’t like tracks that encircle blue football fields at altitude or at sea level. Now give me a red track encircling a blue football field and I have a quandary because I like a red track.
To Gary and all: The real question is…. does a group of organizers in NY willing to put in the time and effort required to host a meet exist? I’m reasonably sure that the Ocean Breeze facility in Staten Island could accommodate our meet. It takes a committed group in partnership with a facility to host these meets. My advice would be to GET INVOLVED!
Mike Travers
At meets I try to thank the officials (without whom we wouldn’t know when to start, when to stop, or how high/far we’ve thrown or jumped). So also a big Thank You shout out to those who organize the meets.
My point in posting was to explore whether looking ahead in four year cycles might standardize or help the process, rather than the uncertainty of trying to find a location two years in advance. It is possible that all good ideas have already been explored, but I was struck by a recent USATF announcement that the 2016 USATF Hershey Youth Outdoors is set for CALU of PA:
“The USATF Hershey Youth Outdoor Championships annually hosts several thousand athletes, ages 18 and under, competing for national titles. The weeklong event includes a Hershey Welcome Celebration cookout and carnival for athletes, their coaches and families.
“As previously announced, the 2016 USATF Hershey Youth Indoor Championships are slated for March 11-13 at the Ocean Breeze Track & Athletic Complex in New York, NY.”
It does seem that venues that host several thousand youth athletes in various age groups may also be likely candidate sites for masters meets.
I think we have gotten the point that USATF Masters can’t just pick a site, but must have a willing and capable host (which can be daunting for hosting the first time). Still, if we lack meet bids it does send a signal that masters are not much loved.
So, again, I say a Thank You to those involved in organizing our National Meets.
Like Milan, I was kidding about the color. It really does not matter.
I do think that we need to look at what is needed to make it attractive to a city or facility to want to host a Masters meet. Maybe better marketing of our product, increased public awareness, going to the USATF as a unified group? Any thoughts out there?
Dave, I was struck by something else in that announcement about the Hershey Youth Championships. That was the line that says: “The USATF National Office will serve as local organizing committee of the meet.”
I don’t know if we want to go there. And this site has not been known previously, so the youth teams/folks haven’t had much time to prepare and I wonder how much, if any, input they had into that decision.
I learned more about staging a nationals meet from these comments than I would in 10 years of reading USATF’s website.
Also, just wondering why Hershey Youth Nationals would be anywhere in PA other than Hershey itself. They have a large stadium with a good track just outside the amusement park, and lots of hotel space nearby. Also, they have an amusement park!
Being that I am in Alabama, I’m not surprised by Birmingham’s response. They literally charge for everything. There hasn’t been a meet I coached or ran in where they weren’t charging for parking and admissions. The price probably steep because they not interested in hosting it. Maybe in the future they will have a change of heart and be a little more reasonable with the price.
I am confident that SoCal Track Club will bid at next years convention for the 2018 Outdoor Nationals to be held at Mt. Sac. ( That’s in Walnut,Ca)There were just to many complications to bid at this years convention. They are undergoing a 5 million dollar renovation to a facility that was capable of hosting our Masters Outdoor nationals before the renovation. We could set a record for participation at that Nationals with 1,800 to 2,000 athletes, which I think is very reasonable. Stay tuned.
I would be comfortable going to Eugene every year. Weather, facilities and every thing else has always been good.
To give this some historical context, especially in the light of Mark Cleary’s comment (no. 28):
In the 1989-2000 period (our “glory years”), 25% of outdoor nationals drew more than 1400 athletes. Since then, only 1 outdoors in a total of 15 (just 7%) drew more than 1400 — Sacramento in 2010.
These facts are remarkable in light of 3 factors: (1) The US population aged 30+ has grown dramatically from the year 2000 to the present. (2) We have had a huge increase in the number of women participating. (3) Through Ken Stone’s site and other good uses of the Internet, awareness of masters T&F must have grown remarkably (although I can’t document that).
The biggest T&F meet in the US, the Penn Relays, is held every year at the same venue, Franklin Field at the University of Pennsylvania. I remember holding the North American masters there one year and our nationals there another. Why not follow Penn in a somewhat similar fashion by having only two sites in the US?
I propose Walnut, California (Mt. SAC), and Oshkosh Wisconsin (2009 outdoors). One accompanying mandate would be that other groups in those regions would have to help with meet administration.
Although I competed at Penn in an outdoor masters regionals and even though Penn has had nationals, I do not expect them ever to bid again. I have competed at national indoor masters at Princeton University, but I would rule them out as well. I also competed at the US Military Academy at West Point (indoor regionals), but I’m not looking for support there either.
In conclusion, the big dogs don’t want us, but the small dogs (Mt. San Antonio College, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh) might like us, especially with proper help. It’s a new world out there, and the big dogs have no interest in us.
And no, I won’t go into the issue of whether the two sites I mentioned would have any interest; these are just examples. Lets face it, we have a huge problem. Instead of choosing from among a bevy of bidders we hope that we will have one.
The reality is that we are at a breaking point — what happened to our traditional model? In 1989 when I couldn’t get a job in my field (working in health care administration) I moved into a new field — editing for a health care audience (hospital management, in this case).
Had I kept searching for a position in health care administration I would have been unemployed for at least a decade. In truth, we in masters T&F are headed toward having no nationals at all if we don’t make some dramatic changes.
I think that Peter is correct. We need to be realistic and look at facilities that want to host and look at ways to make hosting Masters meets more attractive to put on. I get the feeling that we sit back and wait for offers to pour in and that does not seem to be happening. Maybe we need to look at how we “market” masters track and be prepared to target smaller towns and D3 colleges. They often have excellent facilities and small towns don’t have as much competition for their facilities and may welcome +1000 tourists.
Eugene, Oregon sounds great to me too, Hawaii is my second choice
Looks like Spokane for 2018 outdoors. What happened to Mt. SAC?
Spokane hasn’t even posted a schedule yet! Not sure how seriously they’re taking this…
The Mt SAC Relays page says, The stadium will be undergoing a complete renovation until 2018., so maybe they didn’t want to risk it.
Thanks
Leave a Reply