Discussion about results on GP circuit stops in Brussels or Monaco never did grab the same audience as the college rabble-rowsers arguing who had a better XC "4th man"- Arkansas or Stanford.
I'd say the collegians dominated the list about '94 to '96. Then elite IAAF track & field took over much of the discussion from '96 to about '98 or '99. Then it shifted to doping and scattered indoor high school results from New Jersey and New York. Yes, it's gone downhill. For me, the glory days of the list were the '96 to '98 period when the list was the quick source for what was going on in Europe from June through September. (REAL track & field). This was before most of the big meets over there signed up to provide real-time results over the net. I've concluded that the T&FN board is better than this list for top level track & field talk (what's going on among the world's top 50 performers) now, even though there are also plenty of muckrackers, know-it-alls, and flamers-just-to-be-flaming there. I just haven't signed off this list yet- not sure why- maybe for old times sake. I still look forward to contributions from Roger Ruth, Ed, Malmo, "Doc" in Missouri, and a few other long-timers. And there are some good newcomers too from time to time. Sadly we're missing people like Paul Houde up in Canada. No, I don't miss the circa-1995 college rah-rah trash talk. I never connected with it to begin with. To me it's no different than the Brits or Germans arguing whether Dortmund or Sheffield has a better club team. WHO CARES? Or baseball fans looking at a TV playing the World Series but spending their time arguing about whether Tidewater or Sarasota has a better bullpen staff. Yes, NCAA track & field and cross country is the minor leagues. NCAA Division I is equivalent to baseball's Double-A. The USATF Champs in most events (other than the short sprints) is Triple-A. RT
