BELL LAP #28

TRACK AND FIELD--OCCASIONALLY A TEAM SPORT (June 28, 2000)

In a recent issue of his newsletter, "Running Commentary," Joe Henderson said this about team competition in track and field:

"Track and field, now there's a curious team sport. Athletes go in different directions, into events with no more in common than swimming, gymnastics and weight lifting. A team sends as many athletes to a national meet as can qualify, and as few as one. Contending teams often don't knock heads in the same events. All of this should render track's team scores rather meaningless. But don't tell that to the athletes, administrators or alumni, who take these results most seriously."

No kidding. I'm one of those serious alumni, at least if yelling "Yeah, baby!" at the television periodically during this year's NCAA meet is an indication of seriousness.

Watching the Stanford men's distance crew--Brad and Brent Hauser, Jonathan Riley, Michael Stember and the irrepressible Gabe Jennings--rack up enough points to end Arkansas' eight-year winning streak and nail the Cardinal's first national track championship since the Great Depression, gave this grizzled alumni a cardiac jolt. Even without the drumming.

Part of the fun came from this being a culmination of Coach Vin Lananna's efforts to create a training environment at Stanford where American talent could thrive. When I interviewed Lananna in the fall of 1997, he said, "We've got to get away from the idea that American distance runners can't be good. I won't buy into it."

A positive attitude about U.S. runners--who wouldn't want to see that rewarded? Stanford also took second in the pole vault, but their distance points alone would have won the meet. So yes, I'm glad for their success, and the way it ought to inspire young American runners.

Mostly, though, I'm just glad to see my alma mater win. I'm far removed from the days when I wore Stanford colors--if I were much farther removed, I'd be dead. The emotional connection, though, is very much alive. There may be nothing worse than hearing someone wallow in the victory of his old school, but that's my point. Team allegiance drives enthusiasm in most sports. So can't we ratchet up team enthusiasm in track and field, too?

With fewer track and field scholarships available these days, most college coaches have given up trying to field a full team. Instead, they focus on one or two event areas where they have the athletes and expertise to succeed. As a result, top-notch dual meet match-ups, once the heart of team competition, are rare.

On the high school level, team scoring often seems an afterthought. Does anybody in the stands during most meets have a clue which school is winning? Do announcers let fans know team scores after each event?

Schools aside, we're entering the part of the track and field year that's devoted to individuals. Nothing wrong with that, especially in an Olympic year when athletes compete for the ultimate team, the one they're citizens of. But what about other times? At most national meets, athletes represent shoe companies and agents. Who can generate a whit of emotion about those "teams"? Isn't there some other system that might spike interest?

Perhaps not. Team competition may just fit better in the school setting, and if so let's enjoy it, highlight it, promote it. I'm sure Arkansas is already plotting their return to the top next spring, and one suspects Stanford, among others, would love to foil that plot.

Curious or not, team rivalries drive interest. Serious or not, we want more of this. Yeah, baby!