2016 Marathon Trials Standards

it wont matter in 2016 we will probably have 3 sub 2:09 or better guys to make the team. 2:14-2:18 guys dont have much of a prayer to make the team anyways.

last time with the softer standards 2:22 there were i believe 179 mens qualifiers now with harder standards 2:19, 1:05, 28:30 there are 158, i like the longer window they had this time, start the window for 2016 marathon trials on january 1st 2013 until 1 month before the trials race.

i like not having runners slower than 2:18, because those runners rather than be a couple of miles behind the contenders in the trials, could wind up a de-facto pacer for a girl who breaks radcliffes 2:15.25 world record for a mixed race, which would be a bigger impact on the sport.

i would set the standards at

10k-28:30 same as now

half marathon-1:04

marathon-2:14

it wont matter in 2016 we will probably have 3 sub 2:09 or better guys to make the team. 2:14-2:18 guys dont have much of a prayer to make the team anyways.

last time with the softer standards 2:22 there were i believe 179 mens qualifiers now with harder standards 2:19, 1:05, 28:30 there are 158, i like the longer window they had this time, start the window for 2016 marathon trials on january 1st 2013 until 1 month before the trials race.

i like not having runners slower than 2:18, because those runners rather than be a couple of miles behind the contenders in the trials, could wind up a de-facto pacer for a girl who breaks radcliffes 2:15.25 world record for a mixed race, which would be a bigger impact on the sport.

i would set the standards at

10k-28:30 same as now

half marathon-1:04

marathon-2:14

douglas burke wrote:

it wont matter in 2016 we will probably have 3 sub 2:09 or better guys to make the team.

Yeah some naturalized Kenyans and Ethiopians. OK, Ryan Hall may still be active in 2016 but Meb will certainly have retired. Ritz is injured too much. Who on your list shall run sub 2:09?

Nutella1 wrote:

douglas burke wrote:

it wont matter in 2016 we will probably have 3 sub 2:09 or better guys to make the team.

Yeah some naturalized Kenyans and Ethiopians. OK, Ryan Hall may still be active in 2016 but Meb will certainly have retired. Ritz is injured too much. Who on your list shall run sub 2:09?

rupp, derrick, solinsky, teg, wesley korir and sammy chelanga have applied already for USA citizenship, lots of people will emerge.

Seems like pretty obvious telegraphing that USATF wants to go back to NY. Accomodations in Houston are at least half price to what you have to pay in NY. Thus, USATF wants to have the majority of the field pay their own way in NY. Probably a demand of NYRR to enable them to hold both events the day before NY marathon.

US marathoning has become so stratified that the trials are not making a lot of sense. Wish as we may that a star will be born at the trials, there will more than likely be a big gap between Ritz/Hall/Meb Goucher/Flanagan/Davila and the rest of the respective fields. Might be time to consider scapping the marathon trials and go with a selection process that would get US runners out competing with the best in the world instead of having a contest to see who is the best of the rest.

i see no point to having the standard be 2:18. 2:18 is nowhere good enough for top 3 and it's also a bit too fast to have a solid sub-elite draw. the standard should either be 2:13 or 2:23. if the times keep getting a little further out of reach, the 2:25 guy doesnt have much reason to press on. so are the trials intended to satisfy the olympic team only, or is it a challenge that sub-elites should look towards. right now it's not much of either

Is there any confirmation of this new standard?

I would support the new "A" standard, if we are going back to "A" and "B" being the "A" standard for the Olympics. That would make sense to me.

Why not make the A standard 2:06 and B standard 2:08 and charge an entry fee of $500 for the A and $800 for the B? That way the U.S. isn't sending anyone to the Olympics that can't medal. USATF will also be able to generate generate revenue. Also, instead of closing down a major city, why not have it on a 4 mile country loop in the middle of nowhere.

Really, the point of the Olympic Trials is to make the Olympics. I mean, not that a 2:19 is a Joe Schmoe, but in the grand scheme of things, when guys are running 2:03, you have to face the music that you are not a professional runner.

The Trials "A" standards for track are: 1:46.5, 3:39.0, 13:33, 28:15. All are much more competitive than a 2:18.

Why should the USATF support a 2:18 runner? Not being a dick, but seriously. Unless he is in college (early college), he's probably not going to get down to 2:08. The people most likely to run 2:08 have displayed potential at shorter distances and by the time they hit the marathon are ready to debut in 2:10-12. I think it's cool for the average guy to train and feel like he can make the Olympics -- it sounds nice to your folks but you really aren't that big of a deal. We have guys like Wardian running 2:17, running 100 races per year.

As far as people tuning in to watch it on TV, nobody in the race will be visible unless you are either in a) the lead group or b) the chase pack.

With that said, I think their should be 1 standard and a performance list as someone else has stated. 2:14 or whatever, you get your 20 guys that are really in the race, and the descending order list for the people who just want to fill out the field and tell their family, "I was in the Olympic Trials in 2016."

Either that, or it should be an open invite marathon to all U.S. competitors. The top 3 advance to the Olympics. People can still say they are training for Olympics if they wish (even 2:30 guys).

firefly wrote:

so are the trials intended to satisfy the olympic team only, or is it a challenge that sub-elites should look towards. right now it's not much of either

It's certainly taking care of the former. I'm all for a 2:19/2:20 marathon B standard, but this isn't an event for the sub-elites, it's the OLYMPIC TRIALS. Again, unless I'm mistaken, A standard track & field qualifiers are not getting travel paid for (B level qualifiers certainly aren't), so why should a 2:15-2:19 marathoner get their expenses covered?

USATF wants to limit the field to legitimate contenders and cut costs by limiting who they will pay for travel. Most B level runners should have a local running club or minor contract which would cover travel to the trials.

What I would like to see is how many runners today would have qualified for the 08 trials under the old standard. I'd bet it is significantly higher.

I applaud USATF for tightening the standard. A 219 is not going to medal in the olympics. At least limit the field to people with a chance such as a 215. Same thing with women. A 247 marathoner will still have 4 miles to go when the winner is crossing at the olmpics.

curious? wrote:

firefly wrote:

so are the trials intended to satisfy the olympic team only, or is it a challenge that sub-elites should look towards. right now it's not much of either

It's certainly taking care of the former. I'm all for a 2:19/2:20 marathon B standard, but this isn't an event for the sub-elites, it's the OLYMPIC TRIALS. Again, unless I'm mistaken, A standard track & field qualifiers are not getting travel paid for (B level qualifiers certainly aren't), so why should a 2:15-2:19 marathoner get their expenses covered?

im not talking about expenses. i couldn't care less about getting those paid for. the trials are a lot of people's ultimate goal with running. so to put the standard just out of their reach yet still slow enough to allow "noncompetitive" runners into the race is ludicrous

So is Boston - but both races have to tighten the standards to limit the onrush of people. Yes it stinks for people who were within 15-20 seconds of qualifying, but you have to keep in mind that no matter what there are going to be people disappointed with a tightened standard.

The point of this race is to choose the Olympic Team members, not to make certain groups of people feel accomplished. Yes it's cool to tell other people you ran in the Olympic Trials, but at the end of the race, a 2:19 marathoner is 2 miles behind the winner.

that's half my point. a 2:18 guy is 1.8 miles behind the winner then. either make the standard 2:13 or make it over 2:20. anything in the middle is pointless

The trials standard (since '68) has always been between 2:22 and 2:19:04, and the number of qualifiers has fluctuated (more or less) between 100 and 200. I completely understand making the A standard very fast, like 2:12-2:15, the USATF shouldn't pay the way for guys who almost definitely won't make the team? What I don't get, is why suddenly it's a problem to have 100 guys in the 2:18-2:22 range paying their way to the race. It's not like there's a high cost of having 100 extra guys finishing 10-15 minutes behind the leaders. It's not turning the race into a dog and pony show, it's not preventing the leaders from establishing who the best 3 marathoners in the country are, it's not ruining the quality of the field. All it does is fill out the field so it looks like a full fledged race, attract spectators to the course, and give hundreds of runners a long term goal to chase that could very well turn into the accomplishment and experiment of a lifetime. If 500 guys were hitting the standard, then sure, tighten it up, but the field size has been the same almost every time. Why change something that has worked well in the past? Why take that opportunity and experience away from so many dedicated American runners when the upside to the USATF and race itself is almost nothing?

The extra 100 to 200 people who would qualify for the trials if the standard is 2:21 or 2:46 hardly qualify as an 'onrush'. You can't tell me it costs a dime more to run the race with 30 people or 300. They already charge a $50 entry fee to take the line. I presume that covers your chip and what not it sure isn't a drop in bucket for holding the event. The cost for closing down the streets is going to be fixed regardless. I don't have a problem with making the A standard harder if USATF doesn't want to foot expenses for the B qualifiers. I doubt if the B standard qualifiers would have a hard time finding their own hotel rooms and getting to the race. In my opinion the biggest thing this will do is eliminate anyone who is not a full time professional runner from competing in the trials. That goes completely against the Olympic ideal. Admittedly the ideal of amateurs competing for the love of the sport died many years ago but it would still be nice to think regular 8-5 people could work hard and make it to the starting line with the people who are going to go the Olympics. Also well as picking the team I think the trials is about a celebration of the sport. Making that celebration that much smaller will only help relegate our sport even father into the shadows. In track it makes sense to limit the field to the professionals, there are only 8 lanes. In the marathon the winner's performance is not going to be affected by the guy finishing 2 miles behind him in 2:19. Nor will it inconvenience the race venue to hold the course open for an extra 10 minutes. Does any other country have a special race to pick their marathon team? If we just want to have the best 3 guys and girls on the line at the Olympics then the holding the trials is foolish anyway. We would probably be better of just sending Hall, Ritz and Meb without a trial and letting them train for the games. (or pick up a few bucks on the roads)Hopefully USATF reconsiders the stupidity of this decision but as I said in my first post it was a rumor which came from Mike Morgan's twitter feed.

my guess at this madness wrote:

So is Boston - but both races have to tighten the standards to limit the onrush of people. Yes it stinks for people who were within 15-20 seconds of qualifying, but you have to keep in mind that no matter what there are going to be people disappointed with a tightened standard.

The point of this race is to choose the Olympic Team members, not to make certain groups of people feel accomplished. Yes it's cool to tell other people you ran in the Olympic Trials, but at the end of the race, a 2:19 marathoner is 2 miles behind the winner.

The "amateur" runner ideal went out the door years ago when the Olympics started allowing professional athletes to participate. Thinking back to Pre's financial struggle to remain an amateur so he could participate in the Olympics.

In this day and age, in any Olympic event that allows professionals to compete, it is a rare occurrence where an amateur makes the team.

Is it too bad? Yes. Will tightening the standard stifle the runners out there who work full time and bust their butt to fit in the training? Yes. But it is the reality of the situation. A 2:19, 2:15 guy, whatever, is not going to make any kind of impact at the Olympic Games anymore. Not when a 2:07 marathon is now a commonly run time at international competition. (Yes I acknowledge the Olympic record is Wanjiru's 2:06, but that time is definitely getting demolished next summer).

As for the 30 vs 300 runners, there is an organizational crunch to put on a race for 300 people compared to 30. In addition, the Olympic trials should be an elite event. I am amazed at guys I train with who can run 2:18, 2:20, but when they compete in major marathons they are never in the running for any kind of prize money.

Or, since USATF seems to follow IAAF for every rule imaginable, they might as well adopt its standards for A and B for men which are 2:15/2:18.

http://www.iaaf.org/mm/document/statistics/standards/05/97/61/20110415082248_httppostedfile_entrystandards_london2012_24135.pdf

Let's get one thing strait. THE USATF DOESN"T PAY FOR ANY ATHLETE! The host organization foots the bill, it is part of the bidding process. The wigs at the USATF just get to select the city and take all of the credit like they are in charge.

1/10

Got a lot of them to bite