Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 131
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,112
    Quote Originally Posted by tandfman View Post
    I think they generally all did all of the events, but only half of them were men's and half were women's. I assume that will continue to be the case--each meet will have 12 DL events, six men and six women, in addition to such other events as they may choose to hold. (Quite a few of them will have a 200 even though it's not a DL event.)
    I wish there were some way to 'reward' events that are having a good year.
    m/wDT both had good years with great rivalries, as did the TJ (mostly just Rojas's excellence for the w).
    mHJ was abysmal until the WC.
    mPV great.
    etc.

    by adding them back into the mix at DL Finale.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Atticus View Post
    Absolutely. There were also thrilled to pay women far less than men until the sport addressed that. This is something that has to be done for the future of the sport.
    Hit the nail on the head here. IAAF's part in this surely is to ensure success for the sport a a whole and its future(not filling the bank accounts of men in suits though there might be mixed opinions in that board room). And sure enough, many of the removed events cater to the fans of smaller nations that don't get a say. They now removed the most popular/best athletes from Kenya, Croatia, Turkey, Sweden, Austria, Colombia, Albania, Denmark and Morocco from the circuit. To name a few off the top of my head. Brilliant.

    Second thing, there likely won't be fewer mandatory events per meet(they were never THAT many), only more of the chosen ones we are supposed to like more. While there might be certain events included in the "ban" that some organizes would rather be left without, there are also removed events organizers don't wanna be without. Sweden and DT, Morocco and Steeple and I doubt USA/GB don't wanna host the 200m with DAS and Lyles, to name a few. The flip side is equally as big.

    The very simple solution if you wanted to shorten things down to 90 minutes(why though? and for who?) would be to remove all the "national" events usually going on during the TV window and put them in the pre-program or after-program. Throwing and jumping competitions for men and women could be held simultaneously to squeeze both sexes in if really needed. There are just many more, creative and better, ways to go.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Just to be clear about this, according to the DL release, ten of the 14 DL meets will have 200s and ten will have Steeples. So any organizers that "don't wanna be without" those events can have them.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    But they will not be televised in the 90 min broadcast right?
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    I assume not, but we'll see. They could figure out a way to squeeze in a 200 or maybe a lap or two of the steeple.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiederganger View Post
    and event C (e.g. 200m)is able to show mouth watering head-to-heads between the best in other events (100/400) who would otherwise not compete against each other.

    The IAAF, by their scheduling of their World Champs and Olympic Games clearly see no value in the 100m and 400m runners meeting at 200m. so for them to take this step with the DL is par for the course.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,705
    This is a good analysis of the state of the sport these days.

    "....the central issue that is driving the IAAF (soon to change its name to World Athletics) to make these changes, whether good or bad: making the sport more popular with the general public.

    ...the IAAF published its first-ever financial information in its application form for its newly-created Executive Board, ....

    Assuming this is correct, then the IAAF ranks roughly ninth among the International Federations in terms of revenue for the last reported year (see our coverage from April 2018 here). Of course, FIFA is far and away the leader, but the others ahead of the IAAF in annual revenue include:

    ● $60-70 million (3): UCI (cycling), FIVB (volleyball), FINA (swimming)
    ● $50-60 million (3): ITF (tennis), FEI (equestrian), FIBA (basketball)
    ● $40-50 million (1): IRB (rugby), then the IAAF.

    This is not where the worldwide federation for track & field needs to be and Coe and his team know this.

    http://www.thesportsexaminer.com/lan...bEBuiquo0qfOwk
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 11-11-2019 at 07:04 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    ???? ???? in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.
    Posts
    11,705
    Meanwhile....an article in The Guardian today...

    "The other tragedy in this is that Nike is by far the biggest corporate backer of track and field, sponsoring hundreds of stars and several national federations such as US Track and Field and UK Athletics. If it took its dollars away, the sport would be in an even bigger crisis."

    Also this is hardly news...

    "I have not found a single current athlete who agrees with the decision, which was reached after online research in China, France, South Africa and the US; post event surveys in Belgium, Great Britain and Switzerland; and click-throughs on Diamond League social media videos during 2019."

    Anyways I keep wondering how long Nike keeps sponsoring a sport that only brings it grief, the public barely notices, and is a very minor part of their business....it has to be in Nike's plans now to say the heck with it all. And as the author writes catastrophic for the sport...

    https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/bl...mpression=true
    Last edited by Conor Dary; 11-11-2019 at 09:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    12,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Conor Dary View Post
    the IAAF ranks roughly ninth among the International Federations . . .

    ● $60-70 million
    UCI (cycling)
    FIVB (volleyball)
    FINA (swimming)

    ● $50-60 million:
    ITF (tennis)
    FEI (equestrian)
    FIBA (basketball)

    ● $40-50 million
    IRB (rugby)
    OK, I get basketball and even rugby, and I guess cycling and tennis and maybe volleyball . . .

    but swimming and efreakinquestrian??!! This is very depressing.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiederganger View Post
    We are now in a situation where there is a possibility of WRs being broken in a number of events that are not being staged at a DL - mTJ; wTJ; mDT; w3000mSC. Which would be quite amusing.
    This has already happened with wHT, and the WR was indeed broken multiple times.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •