By Bryan Green

Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com

By Bryan Green

 

In my previous article , I discussed the closure of Trackshark within the context of a larger argument about the web.  I argued that ads alone can't support sites creating content unless that creation is automated, and that businesses creating content will need to supplement those ad revenues with multiple revenue streams.  To do so, they will need to create content that fits one of eight (maybe twelve) "generatives", which are qualities that increase the value of information.  As a quick reminder, the eight generatives are Immediacy, Personalization, Interpretation, Authenticity, Accessibility, Embodiment, Patronage, and Findability.  The other possible four are Usability, Convergence, Community, and Status.

I received some great comments from Tom Borish and Scott Bush, the founder and managing editor of Trackshark, respectively.  They pointed out that my assumptions were not all correct about Trackshark's business model, and called me to task for not stating clearly that Trackshark was owned by a large media company.  Both are valid criticisms, though while they might have made Trackshark an incomplete example, they do not invalidate my basic argument.

In fact, their comments supported my overarching argument that it won't work to create a people-driven company based on ad revenues alone.  Trackshark was actively seeking to expand its revenue streams, but their plans did not come to fruition.  I didn't get any details, so I am not clear as to whether their plans would have affected their overall content or involved consumers paying for it directly.  But that's where I want to spend my time discussing today.

Free or Fail?

The leading proponent of "free" content is probably Chris Anderson, author of The Long Tail.  He's writing a book about the new economics of "free" as we speak.  And he's absolutely right that in today's economy there is incredible value in "free" given the reach of information.  As he wrote in an article titled Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business:

"From the consumer's perspective...there is a huge difference between cheap and free. Give a product away and it can go viral. Charge a single cent for it and you're in an entirely different business, one of clawing and scratching for every customer. The psychology of "free" is powerful indeed, as any marketer will tell you.

This difference between cheap and free is what venture capitalist Josh Kopelman calls the "penny gap." People think demand is elastic and that volume falls in a straight line as price rises, but the truth is that zero is one market and any other price is another. In many cases, that's the difference between a great market and none at all."

This is exactly the reason why track and field websites have continued to remain free.  By being free, their content is more likely to be linked to by other sites.  Even more importantly, they can focus on creating great content rather than selling great content.  By providing free content, reader numbers go up and advertisers are more likely to pay good money.  It's no wonder this model is used by the vast majority of sites, especially those creating news and opinion content. 

But what happens when advertisers stop getting returns?  Or when a niche topic, like track and field, taps out at about 100,000 unique visitors per month and not 100 million, like the most popular ad-supported sites?  (You can look up rough website visitor statistics here.)

More and more sites are looking to a business model known as "Freemium," in which the majority of content is provided for free, and readers pay for access to "Premium" content.  What defines the content as premium could be anything, but it will usually fall under one or more of the above-mentioned generatives, Immediacy, Personalization, etc.  Two more points.  First, the smaller a site's niche, the more this approach makes sense.  Second, the quality of the "premium" content must be significantly higher than that of the regular content.  You can't just wall off half of it and say, "Pay me."

More than anything, this was the approach I was disappointed Trackshark didn't attempt to implement.  I don't know if it would have worked, and it may not have been easy, but I believe it would have been worth a try.  Rather than analyze what Trackshark (and other sites) have done, though, let's take a look at what they need to do to create value worthy of "premium" rates.  Because as Chris Anderson himself said, "Free may be the best price, but it needn’t be the only one."

The Future of Track and Field Websites

I think that websites in general are bound to undergo a major transition in the future.  But consumers will never pay for crap content.  In fact, they'll not even pay for good content.  It'll have to be great and it will have to fall into one (and probably more) of the above generatives.  (While it probably goes without saying, companies that incorporate new and revolutionary--see also: unobtrusive and unblockable--advertising opportunities within the below approaches will do even better.)  Here are five areas I see flourishing in the future.

Video

It seems clear to me that the immediate future of track and field websites lies in video.  Real-time coverage of race results offers fans Immediacy, Authenticity and some levels of Embodiment and Interpretation.  If a site can aggregate all the videos at one place, they'll offer Findability as well.

If these videos are user-generated, the sites might be able to subsist off of ad revenues, at least for a while.  But the more the sites are sending people all over the country (and world) to cover meets, the more it will require them to generate non-ad based revenue streams.  Unless the meets themselves will be paying them and baking it into their ticket prices or entry fees, we as consumers will have to fund them.  I see the most likely approach being live content streamed for a fee (based on Immediacy value) with archival content remaining free.  Another approach might involve these companies using their incredible video resources to provide running entertainment shows, perhaps a TrackCenter or The Best Damn Track and Field Show on the Internet. 

Data

There are a few sites in the business of aggregating race results, and they will continue to be able to charge for access to this data.  They won't be in danger because much of their business can be automated.  One guy with passion, technology skills, and an Internet connection can literally capture almost all of the race results in the world.  If the sites are truly comprehensive, people will pay a nominal fee to use them as a resource.  Similarly, they might be able to develop business-to-business partnerships with media companies or meet organizers.

There are fairly low barriers to entry in this space, however, so I would expect it to become more competitive.  Some niche services are also bound to come about, because the site capturing elite performances, for example, might not be interested in capturing all of a state's high school performances.  And we haven't even mentioned users' training data.  There are a number of services that could be offered by sites with access to users' training logs.

The companies that will truly succeed will not only utilize ads and charge for access to "premium" data, but will provide tools or services associated to that data to be sold to businesses or fans.  There is no limit to the innovation that could be brought to this space, and I expect we will see some significantly cool (and non-free) applications and services in the future.

Advice

Half of the people visiting running sites are looking for news and entertainment.  The other half are looking for advice.  They want new ideas, validation of their existing approach, and answers to their questions.  Sites that cater to this demographic will succeed, but not by producing generic content.  The real market will be for highly personalized advice.  If you can create a website that answers my specific questions, you've (potentially) created a service worth paying for.  Integrate it with valuable data and who knows?  (There are obviously a number of ways to integrate effective advertising into this approach as well.)

Interactive Entertainment

It could be content driven or activity driven, but there is no doubt that websites will need to become more interactive in the future.  At the low end of the scale, this involves comments and forums, which many sites have.  At a slightly higher level it would include live chats, Q&A interactions with users, and possibly creating a live presence at running related events, like meets and road races.  At the highest end of the scale (at least that I can foresee), it would include things like fantasy track and online games.

The higher quality interactive entertainment a site provides, the more likely it will be to create an experience consumers would pay for.  There is a ton of opportunity in this area, and I for one can't wait to see what some enterprising young entrepreneurs can come up with.

Ancillary Products

This one I'm not entirely sure about, but here's what I picture happening.  Sites will generate content for free, but that content will be embedded into products (shirts, mugs, calendars, etc.) that can be purchased through the site.  It could be as simple as a t-shirt with the site's logo, or it could be something more significant, like a personalized recap of a major sporting event for purchase as a keepsake for those who attended the meet. 

Sites can also take a more formal approach to this and publish books, posters, and magazines.  The content on the websites will simply be an avenue for creating and maintaining a tribe of supporters.  I can imagine a number of micro-niche magazines being created and published through MagCloud, for example.  I look at sites like The The Hardball Times and what they have been able to do with baseball, stat-geek articles into a business that includes stat-geek fielding books and official branded apparel (to show off your stat-geekiness).



The ultimate key to success in these areas will be in the users' ability to personalize the products.  We're not far from the day when a user can select an hour worth of race video from a site and have it burned onto a DVD for a friend.  Or when a photographer can allow users to create customized calendars using their favorite photos from the site.

Conclusion

I believe we're headed for a day when sites will no longer be supportable through ad revenues alone.  When that day comes, the result may be sites and services like the ones described above, or the likes of which I never could have imagined (which would be cool).  Ultimately, though, value will determine the victors for track and field websites.  What users pay for and how much they pay will be a problem that successful website owners will need to solve.  But when that is a site's problem, the owners will know they are doing something right.

Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com

The Kenyan Revolution

Edward Ovadia

Email: edwardovadia [at] gmail.com

Two huge marathons (Paris and Rotterdam) happened over the weekend, with incredible examples of fast running, and the depth we're seeing in marathons these days.

To be honest: it scares me, at has changed my belief about international marathon running. I used to think that there was only one person, maybe two, who were capable of attacking the world record. And let's be honest, that's what we all thought. They were Geb, Wanjiru, and sometimes Martin Lel. But I can guarantee you that no one has said:

"Hey, that Duncan Kibet dude, he ran 2:07:53 in Milan last year, I reckon he'll crack the world record next time he runs." (Not to take away from Kibet, I watched the video of him on Let's Run and think he's a pretty cool dude! And a gutsy runner, after seeing how he won Rotterdam.)

But that's very nearly what happened. And what's more, he nearly didn't even win the race!

A few years ago the world record was 2:04:55, and anyone running under 2:07 was an impressive effort. If you ran under 2:06, people started thinking of you as the one to beat, the standout runner, the main player. Remember the news of last year's London Marathon? Three runners under 2:05:30, which was unheard of at the time. It was a revelation. And even that breakthrough is now outdated, seeing as a 2:05 time is seen as promising, but incredibly certainly not enough to guarantee you a win. The Paris Marathon had *seven runners* under 2:07, and didn't even make front page news as the winner *only* ran 2:05:47. Which is understandable, given Rotterdam had another three runners come in under the Paris winning time, two of which were under 2:04:30.

This has led me to change my opinion of marathon running, as I mentioned. I think that there's been huge growth in the event in the last few years, a lot of runners - who started to develop in the last five years when Tergat and Geb were inspiring people - are now coming of age, and flooding the elite fields.

I now believe that there are a dozen people capable of breaking the world record at any one time. At least a dozen. The marathon is such a touch-and-go event, everything has to be just so, that it's as much about how the race unfolds, the conditions down to the minutest detail; as it is about the quality of the athlete. Which is a great leveler, because an athlete who you might rank as 95/100, let's say, could easily break the world record held by an athlete of rank 100/100, just because that second athlete never had as perfect a race and conditions as the first athlete.

So my new view is that a lot of people could be breaking the world record at any one time, depending on how the race goes for them. They don't need to be Geb, or Wanjiru, or Kibet now, they could just be an exceptionally good Kenyan runner. And let's face it, there are quite a number of them.

What's scary is that all these great Kenyan (and more and more these days, Ethiopian) runners are now entering marathons. Flooding the fields. And they're all capable of breaking the world record, given a perfect day. So if you get six guys like that in a field, chances are at least one or two will have a very good day and run 2:05. One might have an exceptional day, and run 2:04. And every so often, one will have a near-perfect day and run 2:03. It's a numbers game, now. If you have only one or two athletes capable of breaking the world record entering marathons, then it will almost never happen, because they need to have a perfect run. But if you have ten in every field, then 'Super Runner #1' doesn't need to have a perfect race, because maybe 'Super Runner #2' will, and he'll get the record instead. And if not, then don't worry because there are eight more right behind them. Which is ten times more chances of getting that perfect, world record run.

This is not to take away from Haile and the guys who we consider to be the best of the best. Haile has always been the first to say that the conditions and the way the race unfolds plays a huge part in a marathon. And he's lucky to have had some pretty good runs. But as more and more quality athletes keep entering fast marathons, all it takes is one, out of an every growing pool, to have that special, perfect run; and they'll take the record. The flood gates are officially open.

Edward's website

Edward Ovadia

Email: edwardovadia [at] gmail.com

 

So another World Cross Country has come and gone, this time in Amman, Jordan. Once again the Africans dominated, and once again Kenya won a bunch of team medals, but still left frustrated seeing as they hadn't won the senior men's title - they haven't won it since Tergat's streak; you know the drill. But what of the Aussie results - what do they mean for the Aussie distance running scene.

Let's start by ranking the Aussie performances. It's not hard to pick the first one:

1) Emily Brichacek - 11th in the Junior Race.

Emily was the first non-Ethiopian and Kenyan runner out of the entire field. Which is to say that if Ethiopia and Kenya didn't exist, Emily would have won the toughest race in the world. Unfortunately for distance runners around the world, Ethiopia and Kenya are very, very real. But that doesn't make Emily's result any less impressive. Emily has not always had the best run with injuries, after running a 9:06

2) Lisa Jane Weightman - 17th in the Senior Race

The quiet achiever of Aussie distance running, Lisa Jane had an awesome 2008 with a great debut marathon in London, a solid performance in the Olympics, and a third in the Great Australian Run. She's kicked off 2009 in the right fashion, too, coming 27th in the senior race.

3) Lara Tamsett - 26th in the Senior Race

Lara has clearly made the transition to the senior ranks without trouble. Her 26th placing was a great effort in itself, but considering Lisa Jane came 17th, it's scary to think how high Lara might well finish in the next few years. Look for Lara to run some super fast times this year.

4) A Tie: Harry Summers (29th, Juniors) and Collis Birmingham (29th, Seniors)

This isn't a tie because both were 29th. Normally, 29th in the senior race would be higher than 29th in the junior race. But this has been a breakthrough run for Harry, who has yet to reach his potential on the track. So too for Collis, but we already knew he could compete on the world stage. Finishing in the top 30 at WXC, no matter what age group, is a great achievement, and will hopefully leave these two poised for a great 2009.

5) Ryan Gregson - 24th in the Junior Race

There's been a lot of talk about Gregson, and most of it has been warranted. His 24th placing was a solid performance for someone who might be better suited to the 1500m/3000m distances. In the end he didn't beat the US wunderkind German Fernandez, but wasn't far off; and considering experts are tipping Fernandez to break 13:20 over 5000m this year, Gregson is still the one to watch.

Australia had a lot of top 40 finishes, and everyone who ran last year and the year before improved their placings. Overall, the Aussies did brilliantly. Given the standard of performances, especially in the junior men's race where a whole team was sent, hopefully this will inspire selectors to follow that trend for the other divisions in coming years.

By Bryan Green

 I don't make any claims to be a track and field historian, but I can't think of any precedent for the decision recently made by German Fernandez.  A freshman, arguably a favorite to win either the mile or 3000m at the NCAA Indoor Championships, opts not to run them to focus on the World Cross Country Championships taking place two weeks later.  Who would do that?

I was surprised, to tell the truth, that Fernandez opted not to run.  It really shouldn't have been a surprise given that his coach, Dave Smith, had been saying they were going to do that for some time.  But I was sure they'd bow to the pressure of national expectations and enter him anyway.  It wasn't until the heat sheets were posted and Fernandez wasn't on them that I realized that maybe, just maybe, Fernandez was serious about being the best runner in the world.

Or he was just afraid of losing in a championship setting.  (Message boards can be crazy places.)

I've read a number of message boards at a number of sites and they tend to vary between the following extremes: A) Fernandez is a world-class runner who wants to compete against the best in a world championship so this was a great decision (some also add that NCAA Indoors doesn't matter in the big picture); and B) Fernandez is a bad championship racer who is selfishly putting himself before his team (and oh yeah he's ducking Galen Rupp ).  I don't expect to change anyone's mind with this column, but I do think it's worth putting their decision to skip NCAAs into perspective.  If for no other reason than because, quite frankly, it had to be a terribly difficult decision to make. 

Let's review the history of his running prior to the indoor season for a second.  We know he did some amazing stuff in high school, breaking some long-standing cross country, 3200m and two-mile records.  He finished 3rd at Footlocker, but won a USATF Junior Cross Country title as a senior, before finishing 25th at Junior Worlds.  Fast forward to NCAA Cross Country, where he easily handled all of his races, treating most of them as time trials or team runs.  At the NCAA Championships, his team went out slowly and worked their way through the pack up to the second group (trailing only Rupp and Samuel Chelanga) before Fernandez hurt his leg and dropped out.

Conspiracy theories abound about that injury, but there is no evidence to support it being anything but legitimate.  He recovered quickly--"A little too quickly?" suggest the conspiracists--and at that point, a decision was made to focus on the Junior World Cross Country Championships during the winter.  He would run a few indoor races, but Junior World Cross was the goal. 

Then, without even a warning, he went crazy go nuts on everyone. 

Then he opened up his season with a 3:56.50 mile, breaking a junior world record and outkicking the nation's top returner and pre-season mile favorite, Dorian Ulrey .  Then he dominated USATF Junior Cross Country, putting a 19 second gap on Chris Derrick, a 13:44 5k runner, in the last 2k.  Then the following week he ran a scintillating 7:47.97 3000m, defeating Michael Coe , one of the better middle-distance talents in the country.  Then he doubled at Big-12s, running an NCAA record 3:55.02 mile and a 7:57 3000m less than three hours apart, both entirely solo.  

Then he decided to skip NCAAs.  Say what?  Like I said, crazy go nuts.  Second only to the message boards that erupted about the decision:

Why not just run the 3000m at NCAAs?  Why double at Big-12s if you are worried about over-racing?  Would the mile really take that much out of him?  What about his team?  Two weeks is enough to recover, isn't it?  What's better: winning an NCAA title or "rubbing elbows" with the Africans?  Why not just be a pro if he's going to choose his races like one?  He's just ducking Galen Rupp, isn't he?

These questions (accusations?) range from valid to vapid.  Most of them are the product of disappointed fans who feel they missed out on one of the great potential NCAA races ever.  I certainly sympathize with them.  Other questions are grounded in the reality of our past experience: with few exceptions, the best collegiate runners have always prioritized the best collegiate races, i.e. the NCAA Championships. 

But most importantly, those questions assume that German's expected performance at World Cross is constrained by the limits of those Americans who have competed before him.  You know, the best he can hope to do is match Dathan Ritzenhein's 3rd place, which was "a fluke" because the race was run in swamp-like conditions.  (Great performances by white people against Africans often need qualifiers.)  All Fernandez can realistically hope for would be a 10th place finish that no one but diehards will remember a few years from now.

Well I disagree with that.  I love his decision, for three reasons:

First, a runner who wants to be the best in the world needs to be able to make extraordinary sacrifices.  These range from the day-to-day lifestyle sacrifices you make to the short-term opportunities you forego in the course of pursuing your long-term goals.  The ability to say no to the NCAA Indoors shows a willingness to make those sacrifices.  It had to kill him to sit at home and watch Lee Emanuel win the mile with a 4:00.33, and Galen Rupp win the 3000m in 7:48.94.  But just because you can race doesn't mean you should, and that appears to be a lesson German has learned.

Joe Franklin, who probably woke up the morning draped in a Union Jack and humming "God Save the Queen".  (I know I would have.)  On the flip side, passing up those opportunities, especially when it's literally a judgment call and not forced by an injury or illness, is as difficult for a committed coach as it is the athlete.  But rather than have German focus on being the big fish in the small pond, he's attempting to guide German through the big pond, where it's eat or be eaten.  Not because it benefits him, but because that's where German wants--and needs--to be.

Third, I don't believe German's choice to run World Cross is just about "swimming with the big fish".  That's why Chris Derrick and Luke Puskedra are running it.  To get their fins wet.  To gain experience.  But not German.  German is going to Amman to win it.  He won't say it publicly because it would seem absurd (A non-African?!  Blasphemy!) and besides, it's always better to under-promise and over-deliver.  Smith and Fernandez are getting good at that.

Take this interview with Dave Smith , where when pressed for details about German's goals for the 5k later this year, Smith mentions Rupp's 13:37 American junior record.  Puh-lease.  Maybe last year that was German's goal, but not this year.  He's got to be aiming for something along the lines of 13:10.  Am I saying he'll run that?  No, I highly doubt it.  Just like I highly doubt he'll actually win in Amman.  But what do I know?  Certainly not what Smith and German know.  If I had to guess, I'd say that what they both know deep down is that German really hasn't even been tested yet.  That he's barely scratching the surface.  And that people in Amman might just be in for a surprise.

And that's the real reason he didn't run even the 3000m at NCAAs.  When they made the decision, he was a few weeks from attempting to win a race that no non-African has been able to win for 25+ years.  It wasn't the time to add distraction or uncertainty into the mix.  Not even for some NCAA hardware. 

The odds of his making history in Amman are steep enough as it is.  He may have to go 22:30 for 8k to win it.  That just seems unreasonable.  But then again, who wouldn't have said that about any other of his performances this year? 




Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com

Second, Dave Smith isn't pushing him to do what's best for Dave Smith.  Smith is a college coach who has never won a team championship nor had an athlete win a national championship, at least not while at Oklahoma State.  He's giving up a great opportunity, too.  It's incredibly fun to be a coach when your athlete wins a major championship.  Just ask Lee Emanuel's coach,

By Bryan Green

This weekend was about more than just the NCAA meet, however.  Unprecedented performances were seen at two national high school meets--Nike Indoor Nationals (NIN) and National Scholastic Indoor Championships (NSIC), as well as the USATF 15k championships and the Fortis Pier-to-Pier half-marathon at The Hague.  And to top it all off, there was the Occidental Distance Carnival .  (Okay, I just threw that last one in because I got a couple PRs there my freshman year, and I was never good enough to make it into any of these elite meets.)

The performances this weekend were absolutely amazing.  Here's a recap of the numerous unprecedented performances seen around the country this weekend.

Rupp's NCAA Triple

Even if he hadn't won the 3000m race on the second day of the NCAA Indoor Championships, Galen Rupp's victories in the 5000m and DMR would have been without precedent.  Not just because of the way he won them, but because of the unprecedented scrutiny he has been under throughout his career, primarily for his "inability to win the big one".  Not from the mainstream media, who of course have no idea who he is, but from the running community itself.  This performance--the greatest NCAA distance performance ever--should finally put those criticisms to rest. 

In a sign of just how fit he is, Rupp outkicked the nation's best milers to win the DMR 90 minutes after defeating the nation's best distance runners in a roller-coaster paced 5000m.  Then he came back the next day and ran away from the field from the gun to dominate the 3000m race.

Until this year, Galen was the Dirk Nowitski of distance running.  Extremely good, among the best in the country, but there was just something missing.  For Dirk it was the inside game, and for Galen it was the finishing kick.  Each was fantastic when the game was playing to their strengths, but get them out of their element and you had a great chance of beating them.  But something happened over the winter and Galen Rupp is no longer the one-dimensional strength runner we grew to know and love to scrutinize.  Now it's as if he mixed a little Larry Bird  into his game and he's out there saying things like "just give me the baton in second" when discussing racing the best milers in the country.  

This weekend was the feather in the cap of the greatest indoor season ever by a male collegiate distance runner.  As for outdoors, Meb may want to get Galen's address now so he can just ship the 10k AR to him.  It's going down this year.

New Collegiate and World Records

There were three records set at the NCAA Indoor meet.  Destinee Hooker set a new collegiate record in the high jump, clearing 6'6".  Jenny Barringer ran 8:42.03 in the 3000m, breaking the record of 8:48.77 set by Sally Kipyego earlier this year.  And the Tennessee women's team ran a scorching 10:50.98 in the DMR, breaking the collegiate and world records by about 4 seconds.

Barringer capped off the greatest indoor season ever by a women's collegiate athlete--Rupp and Barringer in the same year, amazing!--with a stunning display of front-running.  Her times for the season: 4:25.91, 8:42.03, 15:01.70.  All three were collegiate records, with the 3k time also earning her the national championship.  She hasn't had the year-over-year success of Suzy Favor Hamilton, Vicki Huber , or Sally Kipyego, but in just this season she erased all of them from the indoor record books.  I can't wait to see what she does outdoors, especially in the steeple.

Tennessee's DMR team came in as the heavy favorites.  They were an all-star team, comprised Sarah Bowman (NCAA mile champ), Phoebe Wright (2nd 800m), Chanelle Price (2:01 in high school) and Brittany Jones (52 second 400m runner).  The time they ran not only broke the indoor world record, but also earned them much needed points that helped them earn the team championship.  Both the Tennessee women and Oregon men relied primarily on distance strength to win their titles.

Kipyego wins No 9

The "Era of Kipyego" has come to an end.  The prospect of winning a national title in an NCAA distance race can be taken seriously once again.  I joke, of course, because Kipyego has lost national championship races, but she has been so dominant for the past three years that it took pretty exceptional athletes running out-of-their-mind times to do it. 

Sally Kipyego won her 9th NCAA title in the women's 5000m race on Friday night, easily defeating the field by over seven seconds.  The win tied her with Suzy Favor Hamilton for the most distance titles ever.  She then nearly won her 10th title in the mile, but Sarah Bowman exorcised her demons and outleaned her to win by .03 seconds.

It's tough to judge athletes across generations, but I believe Kipyego is the greatest female distance runner to ever compete in the NCAA.  She never lost a cross country race, including 3 NCAA meets; she won 6 NCAA track titles; she set NCAA records at 3 distances (though she currently only holds the 10k record); and she ran an inordinate number of high quality doubles and triples throughout her career.  And she does it all while working 8-hour days in nursing school.  When you consider her amazing range and consistency, she has had an unprecedented career. 

Lukas Verzbicas high school 5000m record

Verzbicas is a competitive triathlete, who spent the early part of his life growing up in Lithuania.  His only two previous track races were frosh records 4:15.43 mile and 8:29.16 3000m earlier this year.  He's 16 years old.  That's about all the background I have on him.  I'm sure we'll all learn much more about him in the near future, however, after his high school indoor record 14:18.42 at NIN, followed by his 8:57.44 freshman two-mile record the following day.  Amazingly, the 5k record he broke was set earlier in the day by Solomon Haile, the Footlocker Champ from Maryland, who ran 14:22.88 at the NSIC meet. 

In the same day, the nation's best high school distance runner breaks the national record, and then 6 hours later a freshman goes out and breaks that record.  That must be unprecedented.

Gebrselassie LOSES a world record attempt race

Haile Gebrselassie doesn't run many "races" anymore, unless you count racing the clock.  His fields tend to include a few pace-makers and a few 2nd tier distance runners hoping to take a crack at the legend.  The result tends to be Haile running the last 5k of his race alone, and depending on the weather and course conditions, a new world record.  But not on this unprecedented Sammy Wanjiru, who ran 58:33 there in 2007.  The fact that he didn't get the record back wasn't shocking--he's nearly 36 years old--but the fact that he lost?  Unprecedented.  Is Haile losing to Sammy Kitwara in a pedestrian 59:50 (super-fast Ethiopian pedestrian, of course) a sign that Haile is coming back to the pack, or that the pack is catching up to Haile?  Probably both.  In any case, one has to wonder how many more record attempts Haile will realistically be able to make, at least in events run by the world's top runners every year (i.e. not the 1-hour run).

Eight Olympians at Gate River Run

The USATF 15k Championships were run this weekend in conjunction with the Gate River Run in Jacksonville, Florida.  Eight Olympians took part, four in each of the men's and women's races.  Amy Yoder Begley took the women's race, while Anthony Famiglietti won the men's.  Begley has had an awesome winter, and has far exceeded my expectations in every race.  I guess it's time I reevaluate my expectations for Amy Begley!  Fam killed me at the USATF Cross Country meet when I picked him to win and he finished 19th.  But he came back strong here, holding off a fast-charging Tim Nelson to win the title.

Speaking of Tim Nelson, when was the last time a runner finished two big championship races with huge kicks, only to finish a close second in each of them?  Oh yeah, Andrew Wheating in NCAA Championship 800m races...I almost forgot.

NCAA meet streamed live...to some people

Just so you're prepared, this is an unprecedented rant for me.  But I just had to get this off my chest.

The NCAA did a pretty good job of negotiating
What's unprecedented, at least in my experience, is the following.  ESPN has decided that advertising revenue alone isn't sufficient for Internet programming, and that they want to be paid by consumers directly.  Since they can't charge us directly--well, they could, but then they'd look like the bad guy, and they'd rather make someone else look bad--they've decided to charge the Internet Service Providers as much as $3/household to carry their online video service, ESPN360.  You know, impose the cable TV fee structure on the Internet .  Some ISPs have gone along and paid, and their users can watch streaming live video of various sports on ESPN.  Others, like my provider, haven't.  What's my recourse, as a > consumer, you ask?  According to ESPN, I should switch my provider.  Any option for me to just pay them five bucks to watch the meet?  Um, no.  Thanks ESPN. 

I understand that ESPN wants me to pay for their products.  I understand that some ISPs don't want to set a precedent of paying millions of dollars more to every popular website for their programming.  I also understand that the companies are in a pissing contest right now, trying to make the other back down.  It's fine, in my opinion, if both companies are willing to risk losing market-share over this battle.  What pisses me off is that due to the combination of the NCAA contract with ESPN and the ESPN battle with ISPs, there will now be no way to see most of the NCAA Indoor races. 

Will ESPN ever post online all of the race video from the NCAA Indoor meet?  And if so, will I be able to watch it now that it's over?  Probably not.  Will Flotrack ever be allowed to show the entire DMR race videos on their site?  I'm doubtful.  Does the NCAA care?  Unlikely.

And that's the real shame of this whole set-up.  In an attempt to get the meet highlights displayed on TV, the NCAA has unintentionally hurt the majority of its most ardent supporters, including the very companies that have compensated for the NCAA's backwardness regarding video coverage by going to big meets and just doing it. 

Here's what I'd like to see.  We need a clause in the broadcasting deal with ESPN that says any event that is not shown in full on the ESPN website, for free to all ISPs, should be free to any other company to display on their websites after the television broadcast of the meet has concluded.  I know I'm asking for the NCAA to stick up for its fans when it negotiates with ESPN, and that such a request would be unprecedented, but in the spirit of this amazing weekend, how about a little help, huh? 




Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com

 It was an unprecedented weekend in distance running.  First, the nation's best collegiate miler, freshman German Fernandez , made the unprecedented decision to skip the NCAA Indoor Championships.  The other three collegiate distance stars, Galen Rupp, Jenny Barringer and Sally Kipyego, accomplished unprecedented feats in their respective events.  And all the Tennessee women did was set a new world record in the DMR.  Heck, we even got a DQ in the 3000m due to a false start (thank you John Kosgei )!  All-in-all, the NCAA Indoor Championships lived up to everyone's expectations.  The coverage of the meet...er, not so much.

 

weekend.

Haile entered the Fortis Pier-to-Pier half marathon in The Hague, Netherlands, with the stated goal of reclaiming his half-marathon world record from

Dwain Chambers: Not All Bad

Edward Ovadia

Email: edwardovadia [at] gmail.com

This may sound controversial and sensationalist, but I'm a big fan of Dwain Chambers right now. Not the whole drugs taking thing, don't get me wrong; but his attitude since his comeback. He's had every obstacle thrown into his path, and he could be bitter at how difficult it has been for someone who wants to have a crack at it cleanly. But he's not. He takes jabs from the media with a sense of humour. And he's had the guts to expose what a lot of other athletes, some assume, are doing; but none are talking about.

He's running faster than ever before, evidenced by his recent 6.42 indoor 60m, and European Champs win. Let's put that into perspective. Usain Bolt went through 60m in his Beijing 100m win in 6.485 seconds. And sprinters hit their top speed after 50-60m, so there's no advantage in comparing a 60m race to a 100m race. The IAAF tables equate a 6.42 for 60m to a 9.89/9.90 for 100m. So Chambers is running fast, there's no doubt about that.

But yes, he's a former drug cheat. He's been banned. He's been barred from the Olympics forever. He's hated within the sport, and especially within British teams. He's not allowed on relay teams. Most international meets won't have him.

That's a tough rap. It would normally be enough to intimidate and defeat even the most determined. But not Chambers. He's happy just to run fast, wherever he can. And what's more, he's talking of attacking Bolt - something which seems tantamount to sacrilege after last year's Olympics. But he's talking the talk, and after seeing his indoor times, he's apparently walking the walk. Bolt may be having a slower start to the season, after doing the promotional circuit post-Olympics, but there's no doubt Chambers has been training something serious.

But what I like best is his attitude. For example: he's dominating at the Euro Indoor Champs, and in the post race interview (so immediate, he's still puffing), instead of being asked about his performance, he's asked about his tell-all book, which may land him on more hot water with the IAAF for bringing the sport into disrepute. And what's more, they push the issue. Most people would get pretty annoyed at that point, seeing as Chambers' Euro title, and third fastest performance of all time, are being ignored. But not Chambers - he laughs it off, and has a joke about it. Even though the interviewer must have hit a nerve - that Chambers really just can't catch a break (since being a dirty cheater, of course - that goes without saying).

But does he deserve all he gets? That's a fair point. And may be right. But I think there's more to it that that. It's hard to condemn completely when you don't know what everyone else is doing. Chambers may be aware of something that we aren't - namely that all big name sprinters are doping, and he's just keeping up. Let's hope not. But he's done his time, so to speak, and as long as he's back cleanly, then I think the past should be forgotten. Then there's the argument that drug use affects the body in long term, performance enhancing ways; which means that Chambers may still be reaping the benefits of his drug regime, even after years of being clean. But until that's accepted by the sport - which would necessitate a lifetime ban for all drug cheats - there's not much use laboring that point. Chambers has the right to compete again, and so he should be allowed to. Without having to fight at every turn. But when you do have to fight every battle, it's inspiring to see the man still smiling and taking it in his stride, and running fast while doing it.

By Bryan Green






Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com

 A couple weeks ago I wrote a distance preview  for the USATF Indoor Championships, and included predictions for all the distance races.  As always happens, half the top runners didn't show up after all and the predictions bombed like a shot of whiskey in a glass of Guinness.  That is to say, they were fun to make, but the morning after it was a little painful to think about them.

Now it's time for the NCAA Indoor Championships.  Generally, everyone who can run in the championships does run, but German Fernandez  is proving to be the exception as he focuses on Junior World Cross.  Everyone else is there, though, and in looking at the fields, I'm struck by one fact: the quality and quantity of fast times being put up across the NCAA this year is staggering. 

As for quality, we've seen many major collegiate records go down this indoor season.  On the women's side, Jenny Barringer broke the women's mile and 5000m records, running 4:25.91 and 15:01.70, respectively.  Sally Kipyego ran 8:48.77 for 3000m and 4:27.19, the second fastest time ever in the mile.  And Tennessee's women's DMR team ran a smokin' 10:56.40, which I believe is an American record.  On the men's side, German Fernandez broke the indoor mile record (3:55.02) and the junior American record for 3000m (7:47.97, #2 NCAA).  Galen Rupp broke the American collegiate record for 3000m (7:44.69) and the collegiate record for 5000m (13:18.12, in a race that saw Samuel Chelanga also break the previous record, running 13:19.79).  We haven't seen an attempt at the 800m records this year, but with the solid fields present on both sides, could this be the year?

Then there's the quantity of fast times being run.  I took a look at the qualifying times for all events and saw an amazing statistic.  In field events, there were an average of 5.7 automatic qualifiers per event.  In sprints, there were only 4.0 autos, on average.  In the distance events, however, there were on average 9.2 auto qualifying marks per event, with an amazing 27 auto marks in the DMRs (which is the best indication for overall middle-distance strength).  And another 24 marks were within one second of the qualifiers.  And I didn't count anyone not entered in a race, like Fernandez and Rupp in the mile.  This is very much the result of so many races being run at the University of Washington and Notre Dame, which have large, fast tracks beneficial to distance runners.  But it's also likely the result of a general rise in the quality of distance running in the NCAA.

So the real question is, will this year's NCAA meet live up to the expectations set during the season?  I think it could, but that will largely depend on the answers to the following questions:

No Sally vs Jenny?  Outside of the 800m, two women are far ahead of the rest of the NCAA in the distances competition in the mile, 3000m, and 5000m.  Those women are Sally Kipyego and Jenny Barringer.  With apologies to Sarah Bowman and Brie Felnagle in the mile, this is just a fact.  Maybe someone can contend in a sit-and-kick race, but if it goes out hard, and you know it would with both of them in there, there are only two women who can win it.  Unfortunately, Kipyego is running the mile and 5000m, and Barringer is running the 3000m.  We won't get the epic battle, so it remains to be seen if one or both of these women will do something amazing on their own.  Hint hint, Jenny.

WWFD?  If you see bracelets around NCAAs that say WWFD, you know they stand for "What Would Fernandez Do?"  That's the ultimate unknown of this year's NCAA Indoors.  The kid broke the NCAA indoor record (and junior world record) with a 3:55.02 solo mile, and has the #2 3000m time of the year (7:47.97).  But he's elected to focus on the World Cross Country meet and forego the chance at NCAA immortality.  I don't have any problem with that decision--he's thinking bigger and that's good--but this meet will always have an asterisk in the minds of many, because we can only imagine what Fernandez would have done.

Rupp or Chelanga?   It seems pretty obvious over the past few months that the answer should be Rupp.  He beat Chelanga at NCAA Cross, then again while breaking the indoor American record at 5000m.  They should both do battle fresh in the 5000m, and they are remarkably close when fresh...  Will Rupp be able to hold him off for a third time in a row?  And will he be able to bounce back for the 3000m and defeat a stacked field?  Chelanga may not beat Rupp in the individual match-up, but his presence might just affect the outcome of the next key question...

Distance points: Oregon or Arkansas?   The Ducks and the Razorbacks are distance powerhouses, and their battle for points in the distances will be an interesting meet within the meet.  Heck, it could win the meet for one of these two team favorites.  The Ducks have two Olympians in Rupp and Wheating, as well as a team with depth in every event.  The Razorbacks look to be the underdogs on paper, but that may be misleading, as PRs don't always translate to points in a championship meet.  With Ulrey, Forrest, McClary and the fastest DMR time coming in, they should give the Ducks all they can handle.   

Wheating or the field?  Andrew Wheating was the phenom of 2008, so it makes sense that he's now the favorite in 2009.  He is entering the 800m with the fastest qualifying time (1:47.03), the best kick, the best 1500m ability, and the highest expectations.  The best chance for an upset would have to be Jacob Hernandez, the reigning outdoor NCAA champion.  He held off a steamrolling Wheating in the final straight to take that title, but since that time, Wheating hasn't even looked vulnerable. 

New DMR records?  Tennessee's women's team ran a qualifying time of 10:56.40, just 2 seconds off Villanova's 10:54.31, set in 1988.  With the next closest team a whopping 8.5 seconds back, the Lady Volunteers will have to do it themselves if they're to break the record, but they've got as good a team as has ever been assembled for the event.  On the men's side, Arkansas (9:28.35) comes in about 2 seconds off the record set by Texas last year (9:25.97).  Oregon and Cal are one second behind them.  Neither looks likely to break the record, but at least in the case of Arkansas and Oregon, one could argue they haven't run their fastest team yet.  It's going to be one fast, tight battle, and that's the type of race that results in records.

Here are some quick breakdowns of the distance races, along with some predictions:

Women's 800m

Top Returner:  LaTavia Thomas, LSU (1st place)
Fastest Qualifier:  Phoebe Wright, Tennessee (2:02.39)
Favorite:  Geena Gall, Michigan (2008 NCAA Outdoor champ, #2 qualifying time)
Other Notables:  Heather Dorniden, Minnesota (2006 indoor champ)
Darkhorse:  Caitlin Bailey, Boston College (looked good winning the IC4A champs)
Did you know?  There are three former national champions in the field, including last year's indoor (Thomas) and outdoor (Gall) champions, and the 2006 indoor champion (Dorniden).

Prediction:  A very tight race, I really have no idea.  I'll go with Wright, Dorniden, Bailey, Gall, Thomas.  Or maybe Thomas, Gall, Bailey, Dorniden, Wright...

Men's 800m

Top Returner:  Tyler Mulder, Northern Iowa (1st place 2008)
Fastest Qualifier:   Andrew Wheating, Oregon (1:47.03)
Favorite:  Andrew Wheating, Oregon
Other Notables:  Jacob Hernandez, Texas (2008 outdoor champ)
Darkhorse:  Mason McHenry, Arizona State (this frosh has the #2 qualifying time coming into the meet...the next Wheating?), Tevan Everett, Texas (#3 1:47.82)
Did you know?  Jacob Hernandez was the pre-race favorite in 2008, but was DQ'd for stepping inside the rail.

Prediction:  McHenry or Everett, two of the faster qualifiers, will push the pace at 400m but it will be Hernandez and Wheating battling for the win.  Wheating will be too strong and will take the victory by about .2 seconds.

Women's Mile

Top Returner:   Sarah Bowman, Tennessee (3rd place)
Fastest Qualifier:  Sally Kipyego, Texas Tech (4:27.19)
Favorite:  Sally Kipyego, Texas Tech
Other Notables:  Brie Felnagle, North Carolina (2007 indoor champ)
Darkhorse:  Keri Bland, West Virginia (#4 qualifier 4:34.78 - 18th NCAA XC)
Did you know?  As fast as Kipyego is, she's been shown to be vulnerable at the mile distance, both by Barringer at Big-12s and by Hannah England, who won NCAA Outdoors last year.  But you'd better be ready to run fast and still have a finish.

Prediction:  Arguably the best women's race at NCAAs, it pits the top runner in the country (Kipyego) against two of the better milers in recent history (Bowman and Felnagle).  The pace will go out slow as all the runners try to measure out Kipyego, and when she goes, the top group will go with her.  Felnagle will have a little more left in her tank on the last lap and will sneak ahead for her 2nd indoor victory.  Kipyego, Bland, and Bowman will follow. 

Men's Mile

Top Returner:  A.J. Acosta, Oregon (3rd place)
Fastest Qualifier:   Shane Knoll, Notre Dame (3:57.36) -- German Fernandez ran 3:55.02, but is not entered
Favorite:  Dorian Ulrey, Arkansas (2nd 2008 NCAA outdoors, #2 qualifier 3:57.60)
Other Notables:  Hayden McClaren, Lee Emanuel, and Matt Centrowitz all come in with sub 3:58 PRs
Darkhorse:  David McCarthy, Providence (this freshman ran the #3 qualifier--3:57.75--on a 200m track)
Did you know?  Providence has two 3:57 milers, but no DMR team entered.  Are there no Irish 800m runners?  Really?

Prediction:  I've got this feeling that this race will turn out different from what everyone expects.  Emanuel, McClaren, Ulrey, Centrowitz, Knoll, McCarthy.  Those are my picks.  (Considering changing them for the 47th time...)

Women's 3000m

Top Returner:  Susan Kuijken, Florida State (1st place)
Fastest Qualifier:   Jenny Barringer, Colorado (8:53.88)
Favorite:  Jenny Barringer, Colorado (she's having arguably the best indoor season ever)
Other Notables:  Laurynne Chetelat (Stanford), Sarah Bowman (Tennessee), Gwen Jorgensen (Wisconsin), Alex Kosinski (Oregon), Lauren Centrowitz (Stanford) -- this field is stacked!
Darkhorse:  Frances Koons, Villanova (with a 9:01.02 PR, the last qualifier in the race might just be one of the best bets for an upset)
Track Trivia Game:  Match the 3000m PR with the athlete (9 athletes are within 3.5 seconds of each other!):

9:08.15   Alex Kosinski
9:10.99   Mel Lawrence
9:11.62   Bridget Franek
9:11.24   Laurynne Chetelat
9:08.44   Sarah Bowman
9:11.31   Gwen Jorgensen
9:10.12   Lauren Centrowitz
9:08.50   Angela Bizzarri
9:10.04   Nicole Blood

Prediction:  Barringer puts on a show (8:46).  Jorgenson, Chetelat, Kuijken all sub-9.  Koons, Bizzarri, Bowman, Centrowitz, and Kosinski all sub-9:05.  But honestly, after looking at that list up there, do you have any confidence in a prediction outside of Barringer?  Me neither.

Men's 3000m

Top Returner:  Patrick Smyth, Notre Dame (13th place)
Fastest Qualifier:   Galen Rupp, Oregon (7:44.69)
Favorite:  Galen Rupp, Oregon
Other Notables:  Michael Coe (California), Dorian Ulrey and Shawn Forrest (Arkansas)
Darkhorse:  Matt Centrowitz, Oregon (he may be doing triple duty with the mile and DMR, but he's a 3:57 miler)
Did you know?  Michael Coe was the Nike Indoor Nationals two-mile champion and the Nike Outdoor Nationals mile champion while in high school.  He'll also be anchoring the California Bears' #3 ranked DMR team.

Prediction:  So many athletes are doing double and triple duty by the time they run the 3000m, that predictions are a bit hazardous.  With that said, I'll go with Coe, Ulrey, Rupp.  The time may not be fast (7:55ish), but the last mile could be as fast as 4:02.  And I don't think Rupp can hang with that after a tough 5000m race.

Women's 5000m

Top Returner: Sally Kipyego, Texas Tech (1st place)
Fastest Qualifier:  Sally Kipyego, Texas Tech (15:54.36 -- Jenny Barringer ran a solo 15:01.70 collegiate record but is not entered in the race)
Favorite:  Sally Kipyego, Texas Tech 
Other Notables:  Lindsey Scherf, Oregon (former NCAA 10k record holder),
Darkhorse:  Gwen Jorgensen, Wisconsin (#2 qualifying time 15:55.63)
Did you know?  Jorgensen was a three-time letter winner for the UW swimming team.  Alan Webb was a competitive swimmer before focusing on running full-time.  Ergo facto, Gwen Jorgensen will soon break the American record in the mile.  I love logic.

Prediction:  Picking Kipyego is like picking the matador at a bull-fight.  Well I'm going with the bull.  I think Gwen Jorgensen can take Kipyego.  She'll need a Sikes-esque effort, but she can do it.  Jorgensen, Kipyego, Scherf a distant 3rd.  Winning time in high 15:20s.

Men's 5000m

Top Returner:  Tyson David, Alabama (9th place)
Fastest Qualifier:   Galen Rupp, Oregon (13:18.12)
Favorite:  Galen Rupp, Oregon 
Other Notables:  Samuel Chelanga, Liberty (13:19.79), Shawn Forrest (#4 13:37.77, 2nd NCAA 10000m 2008)
Darkhorse:  Chris Derrick, Stanford (I bet he surprises some people)
Did you know?  After running 3:57.86 last weekend, Galen Rupp is now the official Oregon school record holder for the indoor mile.  He knocked .06 seconds off the previous mark, set by Matt Centrowitz 3 weeks earlier. 

Prediction:  Rupp, Chelanga, Derrick, Forrest, David.  Rupp runs 13:26 off a big negative split.  Derrick breaks the American junior record for 5k, running 13:35.

Women's Distance Medley Relay

Top Returner: Tennessee (1st place)
Fastest Qualifier:  Tennessee (10:56.35)
Favorite:  Tennessee
Other Notables:  none
Darkhorse:  none, ok maybe North Carolina (#6 11:06.54)
Did you know?  Tennessee returns their entire team from last year's national championship winning relay.  But one of those runners--Brittany Sheffey--likely won't be competing.  Despite leading off in the 1200m as a freshman for the Lady Vols, Brittany will likely be watching from the sidelines as superstar recruit Chanelle Price (2:01.61 hs) has taken her spot on the squad.

Prediction:  Um, Tennessee.  In a new collegiate record 10:53.2!  Followed by North Carolina, West Virginia, BYU.

Men's Distance Medley Relay

Top Returner:  Texas (1st place, but they won't have Leonel Manzano)
Fastest Qualifier:   Arkansas (9:28.35)
Favorite:   Oregon (9:29.39, without Centrowitz)
Other Notables: Cal, Virgina and BYU all went sub-9:30
Darkhorse:  Texas (they have only the #10 time coming in, but if Everett runs and Morse is in his 2nd place 2008 indoor mile form, you never know)
Did you know?  There were 15 automatic qualifiers from one last chance meet at Notre Dame.  8 teams qualified from the first heat, and 7 from the second.  This is certainly too many to run in one race, but the DMR is not a race that is ever run in rounds.  Can you say roller-derby track and field style?  The over-under for athletes falling in an 18 team DMR on a 200m track has to be 2.5.  I'm taking the over.

Prediction:  Chaos.  Total absolute glorious chaos.  One of the two favorites--Arkansas and Oregon--will get boxed in by guys running in lane 3 and dig themselves a hole they can't get out of.  A darkhorse favorite with a big kick, someone like Cal or Texas, will sneak up and steal the title.  My picks: Cal, Oregon, Texas, Arkansas.
 

By Bryan Green

 

It's been a few weeks since Trackshark announced it was closing.  The news was certainly a surprise, but I also can't say that I'm experiencing a major sense of loss as a result.  I sometimes used it to locate meet results, and they occasionally produced content that inspired me to write, but I was never a regular on the site.  Still, I'm inspired by the work they did and the approach they took to covering the sport.  I'm convinced that they raised the bar for all other companies hoping to gain a share of the market for online track coverage.  (And I've heard they may be coming back yet...we'll see.)

The bigger question Trackshark's closing posed to me was this: what can running sites do to generate stable revenues?  Let's start with an assumption that advertising revenue is as good as it's gonna get, and that there is no room for improvement.  Why assume that?  Because I don't want to get into coulda woulda shoulda's about banner ad placement and search engine optimization.  I'd rather talk about the bigger picture. 

Frankly, I agree with Eric Clemons that the online advertising model will not be sufficient to support the continued creation of content on the web .  Ads as we know them (banners, text ads, those damn pop-ups) will be blocked or ignored at an increasing rate, causing advertisers to pay less for their placement.  As that happens, content providers will have a harder and harder time providing free content.  I know this goes against The First Law of the Internet (Internet users will never pay for content) but it's inevitable.  

Ads may be part of the solution to funding a viable online company, but ads can't be the only solution for the majority of sites in the long term.  In fact, I would argue the following: the more a business depends on advertising for revenue, the more automated their content needs to be.  Sites run by one guy in his basement aggregating content may survive off of ads.  Sites that require hundreds of employees to go out and research and create content won't.  Because ads won't support a large-scale employee-driven organization on the web.  Trackshark is just one example.  The entire newspaper industry is a better one. 

As with any rule, there are exceptions.  I can think of two.  The first is if you own a specific niche.  But you'd better really own it and it better reach people at a point when they are actively looking to spend money.  Sites that cover new gadgets or software come to mind.  The second might be a site based on user-generated content.  This content is people-driven, but if you're the owner of a site with thousands of users generating their own content, isn't that essentially an automated system?  If you want an example, consider The Huffington Post .

I'm not saying ads will disappear.  They'll always play a role, but companies need to understand the constraints.  To the best of my knowledge, Trackshark provided people-driven content, and had a 100% ad-based business model.  As a result, I would argue they were doomed as soon as they tried to grow big enough to cover it all.  (Track and field may be a niche, but one has to wonder if the online demographic is ideal for purely ad-based sites.) 

What they needed was a way to make money directly from their content.  So why couldn't Trackshark have charged for its content?  What is it that makes a company like Trackshark, that had a clean and intuitive site offering expansive reach and insightful analysis, unable to generate multiple revenue streams?  Were they not offering anything of value?

It seems the only thing stopping them was common sense.  Everyone knows The First Law of the Internet says that people won't pay, so discussion = over.  I think that was a valid assumption of the Internet's early years, but more and more common sense won't make "cents", not for most websites.  All hope's not lost, though.

Kevin Kelly, "Senior Maverick" at Wired magazine, posted a brilliant piece about the nature of value and the Internet at his blog.  In it he posits that the Internet is essentially a giant copy machine, and that anything put on the Internet will be available more or less for free given enough time.  But that doesn't mean everything on the Internet needs to be free.  He defines eight "generatives" which he feels are capable of providing sufficient value for consumers to pay for them in different situations. 

I'd like to take a look at them here (as well as four I thought up) in relation to not just Trackshark, but running sites in general.

Kevin Kelly's Eight "Generatives":

Immediacy -- People are willing to pay to not wait.  Some people pay high prices to see movies on opening night.  I can usually wait until they come out on rental.  But just because I don't care about immediacy with regard to movies doesn't mean I don't care about it in other places.  Take race results, for example.  Would you pay to get results as soon as the race is over?  How about to see live video of a meet?  As a general fan, maybe not.  But there are certainly some diehard fans who would.

The two types of sites that I see tapping into this currently are the meet management companies (who control how long it is before results are posted and how easy it is to copy them) and video companies like Flotrack and RunnerSpace, which have gotten very quick at posting video from the meets they cover (and more and more cover them live).  To some extent, sites like Dyestat and LetsRun also offer immediacy, primarily through their message boards.

Personalization -- This is the idea that products, services, or content is tailored to the specific user.  Personalization requires an ongoing relationship between provider and consumer, however.  For example, this would require sites to filter the content of my updates to my preferences or allow me to interact with and modify my individual experience.  The most obvious example would be a site that provides specific training feedback based on data you input, or answers to your specific questions.  I could also see this in a running social network, but I don't know of any worth joining.  There is certainly value to be created here, as this is a largely untapped generative in the running world.

Interpretation -- Information is only as good as what you can learn (or enjoy) from it.  No matter how much you stare at a results sheet, you're not going to be able to reconstruct the race from the final times.  Even if you get the splits, it's simply information overload.  Enter the commentator.  By providing insight and context, a commentator can pull the story out of the data, to the benefit of the reader.  Increasingly, video sites are creeping into this space, as they allow viewers to see the race for themselves.  That doesn't decrease the value of interpretation, however, so much as raise the bar on the quality of commentary that will be worthy of one's attention.

This is the most natural area to create value for running fans, which also makes it the most competitive area.  99% of running websites are in this space.  Heck, if you've got an opinion and a Twitter account, you're good to go.  My personal goal is to make this column a go-to source for insight and entertainment about the sport of track and field.  I want it to be worth paying for, even if I never charge for it.  Because if I don't do a better job than other sites, I know that you will go to them.  And I know there will always be someone else working hard to make you do just that.

Authenticity -- Some people will pay for something they know is "the real deal".  Kelly mentions software from the manufacturer, signed photographs and authentic live recordings of music.  I suppose this could include meet management companies "branding" race results with their logos, thus providing readers with the confidence that results are accurate.  More often than not, the only running websites dealing in "authenticity" are the video sites, which give people about as authentic an experience of a race--or an athlete's personality, if it's an interview--as you can get.  And if you believe that runners are entirely genuine in their blog postings, I guess you could argue those offer authenticity as well.

Accessibility -- This springs from the idea that managing what you own can be a tedious process.  More and more, people are willing to pay to let someone else house our information, organize it for us, and then let us retrieve it at will.  In the running world, online training logs fit this category pretty squarely.  Why keep your mileage logged in a book or on an Excel sheet when you can put it on the web and access it from anywhere?  Similarly, blogs are ever-accessible collections of our thoughts and opinions, and sites like Tilastopaja aggregate race data to make it all accessible from one place.  In this case, they are allowing users to bypass the very act of owning the data, which can be of high value as users then don't have to search far and wide for it.  Hence it is one of the few sites people are actually paying to access today.

Embodiment -- Words on a digital screen are still words, still ideas, still arguments, but they can lack a certain gravitas compared to when they are in the printed form.  Would you enjoy reading Once a Runner as much if it was online?  Or does the worn spine and smell of old paper improve the experience?  To some extent, the act of watching a race video captures a certain degree of embodiment, because it makes the results more tangible.  It's not just a 1.5 second victory, but a 10 meter victory.  Each represents the same relative performances, but they are very different experiences .

Hard-copy magazines like Track and Field News, Runners World, and Running Times are the most well-known example of value created through Embodiment.  I would argue that video sites like Flotrack, RunnerSpace and Runners Tribe are also providing their users with a surrogate form of Embodiment by posting great race and interview videos.

Patronage -- Kelly argues that many fans WANT to pay creators for their work.  The caveats are that it has to be "very easy to do, a reasonable amount, and they [must] feel certain the money will directly benefit the creators".  This could probably work for photographers, videographers and maybe even some columnists.  I happen to know one columnist who wouldn't be opposed to a little patronage (wink wink). 

Findability -- This is a higher-level "generative" than the previous seven.  Whereas people might be willing to pay for a video or an article or a service that meets the above criteria, they'll never pay for something they don't know exists.  In this way, sites that can find what's worth finding are creating value, both for consumers and creators.  This is primarily true of race results aggregators like Tilastopaja.  But it could also be true for other sites, like LetsRun or Runner's World Daily News , that attempt to sift through the day's running news and post what's worth reading.  These sites aren't truly comprehensive, though they're close enough for most users.

Four Other "Might Be Generatives":  The above eight represent Kelly's initial list.  There are a few others you may be thinking about that I think are worth mentioning, however I believe Kelly ultimately left these off for good reason. 

Usability -- This is the ability to do what you want to do in an intuitive, quick, and painless way.  I'm not convinced that this is of significant value, though.  People will always choose a user-friendly site over the alternative, but I'm not convinced they'll pay for it.

Convergence -- There is value to doing more than one thing at the same place or within the same product.  I often think of this as the iPhone concept.  Phone, music, Internet, games, status symbol: all rolled into one little gadget.  The equivalent for running would be the ability to look up results, read commentary, write a blog, and see a video at the same place.  Hmmm.  Sounds like Trackshark.  Are we sure there's money in this?

Community -- There is value in people coming together at the same place at the same time.  Then again, I know a number of people who are adamant they'd never pay to stay on Facebook.  Are they being irrational?  Yeah, probably, but that's a dilemma for any community-oriented site.  The catch-22 of community as a generative is that the size of the community is directly proportional to the value, but most people won't join a community unless it's free.

Status -- Some people will pay to have others know that they paid.  We all know guys driving Ferraris particularly enjoy driving them around in public.  But when it comes to websites, status may or may not be enough to get someone to pay.  It would depend on whether others view the money as going to a good cause.  To my knowledge, there are no running sites generating money by differentiating status amongst users.  Is this an opportunity?  I don't know.

Again, the point of this discussion isn't to say that all sites can, should, or will charge users for content that falls into the above "generatives".  But if a site wants to be able to expand beyond ad-based revenues, its content must fall into one or more of the above.  If it doesn't, it will never be worth paying for.  So with that said, let's take another look at Trackshark.

Where was Trackshark's "Value"?

I don't want to make too many definitive statements about Trackshark because, as I said at the beginning, I primarily used it to look up race results.  But that in itself does point out an essential truth about the site: an avid fan of the sport was only using the site for its Findability and Usability.  Would I have paid for that?  No, because Trackshark may have been the best, but other sites weren't actually bad.  And there's always Google.

Trackshark put out some amazing content.  And they provided a number of features that allowed users to do various things, aside from locating links to race results (Findability).  They provided a great deal of previews, reviews and interviews, which offered Authenticity and Interpretation.  And they certainly offered Usability, Convergence, and Community, three "might be generatives". 

These are all amongst the most competitive generatives, however, so I'm not sure the site was producing as much value as they might have liked to believe.  After all, other sites were offering similar features, and putting out similar content, and doing it in a similar timeframe, with probably much lower costs.  None may have been as comprehensive as Trackshark was, but when sites like LetsRun and Runner's World Daily News are there to aggregate and filter all the little bits and provide them in one place, they don't need to be.  They just need to create content worth linking to.

Is this discussion over-simplified?  Yes, probably.  But the fact of the matter is this: Trackshark's business model was to be a comprehensive source of information about track and field, and to do it profitably using just ad revenue.  Unfortunately, ads just can't support that.  Not when you are paying people to create the content.

In my next article, I'll discuss a little about where I feel online websites are headed, including the types of content and services that will allow them to (potentially) expand their revenue streams.  In the meantime, I welcome your comments and opinions!

Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography . He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com