Quoted for truth. Golf is popular b/c you can ride in a cart and drink beer while playing, with no running or swimming required. Triathlon will NEVER be as popular as golf. :)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Honestly, I dont see the reason to increase the cost. 1.5 M divided by 5 gives 300k/team if you need appearance fees. IMO it should suffice to give 15k/person on average for appearance (more to some, less to others) which is what AB got for winning Ironman Sweden this weekend.

Then use the rest of the money for fastest swim, fastest bike, fastest run, fastest swim-bike, fastest bike-run, slowest swim (This one should be well paid! Imagine having ppl speculating "how slow can I go on the swim and still be competitive"? Obviously this would just mean race as normal for some of the athletes but would Blu be willing to swim like Sanders and then try to get the fastest time?) and fastest times overall

just to mention the F1 point, the driver really don't like the overdramatization that Drive to Survive does. to the point where Max Verstappen refused to participate in it and several other drivers backed him out and voiced their outrage.

I follow F1 very closely and have been doing so for the last 25 years, and I could see how DTS tried to really fake events and feuds that were none existent in reality. The Sam beef was much more real and less dramatized that what DTS did in the last 2 years.

However, and you can't really compare F1 as you rightly mention, the massive uptake in viewership in the USA is due to DTS making F1 into a show, and we can't deny that it was a success.

Just to make it clear though, I don't think faking feuds in Triathlon would work. 2 totally different sports, fan base, and viewing experience

---

Tridad

Sometimes we scratch our heads so much and its not just about the format or the presentation, it is about publicity and good sponsorship. I am not a marketing specialist but look at all the Red Bull promoted sports...they seem to grow: High diving, skydiving, F1, etc, all about risk. Then we have other sports that are trying to grow and I think there is not so much room for so many sports. At the end the cake is not that big... I often do the exercise of thinking "what if I were not a triathlon follower and amateur...would I like the sport as it is presented?" I think either the Collins Cup or Hawaii are mainly followed by age groupers, because someone who does not follow the sport wont sit down for 4 to 8 hours in front of the TV...thats why the format of superleague may be more appealing, despite I am sort of a purist and I like the standard distances (olympic and IM). I think at the end its all about a good sponsorship behind, a not long and consumptional broadcasting, and simplicity (I do understand how the Collins works, but someone who is not that follower has no clue).
And as I said in a post some weeks ago, World Triathlon, PTO, IM, Challenge, Clash, Superleague should sit down, discuss and simplify. They should agree at some point because there cant be 3 long distance world championships every year. People get lost.

---

Spaniard. Sorry for my english for the sensitive ones :P

Like you said, Red bull programs are almost always an extreme sport. High flying, speed, dangerous, possible death and young athletes. They don't drug test and if they did most would fail because of weed. Youth can relate to those athletes. It's also cheap to get a skate board, BMX bike, jump off cliffs, a snow board, etc... Now compare that to triathlon where you spend your entire life training alone, sleep being your greatest recovery method, eating high quality, high priced foods for most and then you race alone. It's a reclusive sport and a very expensive sport. It's a different audience and I'm not sure that you can make it exciting.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

How about US/Canada as North America and GB split out from Europe like Brexit. That would reduce European dominance and improve US but weaken International who will still have Oceania and South Africa etc

You may not see the reason to increase the prize money but I think the athletes would see it differently 😉

The Collins Cup pays the athlete's based on their qualifying position, so technically it's not an appearance fee, it's money they earned through the ranking system based on race performances. The lowest qualifier (18th position) made $20K, while the top 3 made $90/80/70K respectively. If you add two more teams like the idea above (which I like) you have 24 more athletes, but keep the prize purse the same, that would be divide up the pie quite a lot more. I honestly don't think the athletes would agree to that and you can't blame them. It's not my money but I think the PTO could increase the purse if they saw value in doing so long term, but increasing the total number of participants from 36 to 60 may not fly otherwise.

True.

But do we need 6 + 6 in each team? 12 x 3 = 36. How about 3 + 3 in each team and 6 teams? Same number of athletes, "only" 6 matches with 6 in each match and pretty tough to squeeze in on some of the teams.

Yes that would be an option but don't see the athlete's agreeing to that either because it cuts in half their chances of participating in the CC and all that comes with that, financially and otherwise

Well actually, 6 teams of 3+3 is the same number of athletes. And the chances of participation will be roughly the same, except for the USA bottom 3+3 who are well down the ranking lists anyway.
GTN review at 10:12

Not sure if it's been suggested yet but as this is a show match more than anything else, I'd like to see some categories like 'best young racer' and 'best old racer'. Hell, make a team of the top under 25 guys and the top over 40 guys and have them compete head to head. Would be a great way to get some different names in the spotlight while potentially providing some solid entertainment.

---

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors

But do we need 6 + 6 in each team? 12 x 3 = 36. How about 3 + 3 in each team and 6 teams? Same number of athletes, "only" 6 matches with 6 in each match and pretty tough to squeeze in on some of the teams.


I had a lengthy phone discussion with Host Commentator Barrie Shepley about this, earlier this week after he returned home. The format may need some tweaking, and there are active discussions behind the scenes to have a look at this. One possibility is adding a 4th Team - say, "The Commonwealth Team" or "The Americas" The challenge is as it stands now, with all due respect, the U.S. just does not have the depth, to compete at this level on it's own! It's always going to be individually (with a few exceptions), and surely collectively, because that's what's key in a Team situation, a distant 3rd to these two other teams - "Europe" and "International"

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Yes and no. With 6 teams of 3 (an idea proposed as an alternative to another alternative of 5 teams of 6), the chances of participation would also be cut in half for team International. For example, based on the qualification rankings, Laundry, Royle & Wilde, and, Salthouse, Duffy & Lopes would not have made the team...unless under the 3 person per team format they allowed 2 auto-qualifications and a captain's pick - in that scenario the Int'l team would have been Sanders & Currie + captain's pick (likely Royle or Wilde), and Findlay & Gentle + captains pick (likely Duffy).

The other teams it would impact slightly under the proposed 6 team format (current 3 teams + UK, Scandinavia and one other TBD), is Scandinavia as Daniel Bakkegard would not have been on the team for the men (unless taken as a cp over Ditlev) and Europe as Spirig would not have made it unless a cp instead of Philipp.

One advantage of 3 person teams is it would be better for the teams that are (currently) lacking depth, i.e. USA.

This is all just fun speculation of course and an interesting thought exercise to try and come up with a list of teams and # of spots per team that would make the CC as competitive and compelling as possible. In reality there's many variables and factors that the actual organizers would have to consider which makes it's much more complex I'm sure than just tossing out ideas on ST forum, lol

Thanks for sharing that info Steve!

The main issue seems to be the current dominance of team Europe so a potential new format would ideally split part of it out, i.e.GB and/or Scandinavia.

Results split out by match: https://thecollinscup.protriathletes.org/results/
or combined at https://www.trirating.com/...he-collins-cup-2022/
and/or https://stats.protriathletes.org/...ins-cup/2022/results

PTO rankings have also been updated: https://stats.protriathletes.org/rankings/men

Biggest mover by far is Brownlee up 187 spots 😲 into 5th (1/100 of a point ahead of Baekkegard) thanks to his IM Sweden victory and now 3 solid results within the 2022 rankings window

Yes (off topic) but some interesting (for the aficianado) moves in the rankings.
This is mostly a result of the move from pre- to post-Collins Cup scoring protocols.
It's now the best three scores (with bonuses as applicable) in the previous 365 days.
So anyone using their 2021 Collins Cup score will lose that next update (eg Iden and LCB). Haug will lose her superb score from Roth 2021 in early September (and drop back below Ryf). LCB (who climbed 41 places) will drop right back down next week.
But, literally, these movements matter not: it's the rankings at year end that determines the PTO annual bonus.