In a message dated 07/07/01 19:00:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< The alternatives are not great. Because of staff limitations, it is not
possible to hold the Senior and Junior meet on the same weekend at different
sites. Some have suggested combining the Senior and Junior meet at the same
site on the same week but the Junior meet was combined with the 1984 Olympic
Trials with (at best) mixed results. Many folks felt it sort of got lost in
the shuffle. >>
Two points to this note of a few weeks back:
1. Not to take away from what USATF staff does in any way, shape or form, but
does the Junior meet REALLY need heavy staff involvement? Used to be both
nationals were put on solely by local organizers, and while there was the
occasional clunker, system seemed to work pretty well. Now that the Senior
meet has heavy advertising and marketing concerns, I understand the need for
heavy staff involvement. But is this a must at the Junior meet? I don't think
so.
2. Rather than being "lost in the shuffle," my complaint with the '84 Juniors
(held in conjunction w/ the OT) was that the Juniors actually took away from
the real purpose of the meet. As a field-event fan, i found it totally
appalling to be watching an exciting jump/throw with world-class performers
fighting for an Olympic spot, and they get ignored becuase there's the heat
of a Junior 200 going on the track. This is one instance where while it may
have added something to the everyday fan, it was a slap in the face to some
of the nation's finest athletes.
gh
ps--an alternative that wasn't mentioned (I don't think) was putting the
Juniors the weekend AFTER Seniors. Why can't the meet be run then?
pps--one thing's for certain (IMHO)--if Juniors continues to go against the
wildly popular National Scholastic meet, it'll come out a loser every time.
Mike Byrnes and Jim Spier and Co. have tapped into the prep psyche in a way
USATF has never dreamt of.
