Grow Up Slackers! wrote:
All those fragile egos will be irreparably damaged.
That sums it up right there. A bunch of post-collegians with no other reason to get out of bed each morning will have their last Peter Pan fantasy stripped away. Nevermind the potential gains of a new system, we have to keep the status quo so that second tier talent and unimaginative old men will have some pathetic meaning in their lives.
What are the "potential gains" over the team picked for 2004?
Mr. Finke,
I am suprised to see that you are getting into this mess with the rest of the illegit posters. You are starting to stoop to defending everything. Stop posting and save face. You have to have more important things to do.
The goal of the Olympic Trials Marathon should be to pick the best 3 Olympic Marathon Runners. As a 2:21 runner is was great to run in an "elite" field in Alabama but the trials are not for that they are to select our best team. A few thoughts:
Marathones are unpredictable...
-The "new" proposed system would give the "best" marathoners 2 shots to get on the team.
Deena and Meb did not win the 2004 Trials...
-Our two medalists finished 2nd in 2004 but they only needed to be in the top 3. The races would of been much different if only the top runner got to go.
US marathoners media exposure...
-Chances are in 2007-08 an American would win a major marathon. I dont think Meb, Deena, Alan C. and Ritz? would all be shut out in the 3 marathons. That would increase marathon exposure and hype the upcoming Olympic Games and maybe Boston would consider having an Ameican Only Elite Field which would give the winner of the race an Olympic Berth.
The 2:20-2:22 guys...
You may not get your elite only field with 100 runners but the 3 marathons would probably treat there top runners like royalty. I ran NYC with a PR of 5+ min. behind the top women runner (Paula) and I did not feel slighted in their hospitality at all. It was similar to the 2004 Trials.
Stick with tradition...
Having more than one selection race is nothing new. In 1960 the USOC used Boston and Yonkers Marathons as selection races.
Lastly, this new system may not be perfect but the three major marathons will back up with $$$ with is crucial in our sport. I support the new option.
Not saying you're wrong on teh cap logos, but are you sure they were larger than 20cm2? Can't really fit much more than that on those caps.
Don't drink the Kool Aid wrote:
I guess that I am not familiar with "The College of Nike", but that was on more than one cap (I just went back to the tape). Speedo was on others. There was even an athlete that pulled of a solid colored cap and replaced it with a sponsors baseball cap as he was getting out of the pool and wore it for his entire interview. Riddle me that. I hate when USATF officials try to justify their unwillingness to help their own athletes. Face it, Masback is chicken shit when it comes to USOC. Why is that? Because his office has done such a poor job of marketting themselves that they are totally dependant on $$$ from the USOC. If USATF did it right they would be big enough to tell USOC how things are going to be handled instead of begging for permission.
I think it is interesting that so far, two runners at the lower end of the qualifying window support this idea of a three race qualifier. I bet there are several more that do as well. I think the hardest thing to do is to accept change. This is the only problem.
EricMBlake wrote:
US marathoners media exposure...
-Chances are in 2007-08 an American would win a major marathon. I dont think Meb, Deena, Alan C. and Ritz? would all be shut out in the 3 marathons. That would increase marathon exposure and hype the upcoming Olympic Games and maybe Boston would consider having an Ameican Only Elite Field which would give the winner of the race an Olympic Berth.
Meb, Deena, and Alan C. have been in several major Marathons in the last several years and have been shut out, I don't see why it would be any different.
I'm too lazy to go back and read all of the posts on this thread, but I'm assuming that someone has been astute enough to point out the following: if this theoretical new format of using 3 races to determine the US Olympic marathon team would be used, then Boston will be the big winner by far. You have to figure that any top runners who have a shot of making the team will dnf at Chicago as soon as they are out of contention, thus saving themselves for New York (and another shot) two weeks later. Although Boston is still 5.5 months after NYC, you've got to figure that a good number of top runners who, once again realizing that they are out of contention, would dnf the NYC in order to be able to train harder for their last shot at Boston. Thus, Chicago and NYC are potentially faced with large numbers of US runners dnf'ing at their race- counterproductive to the goal of having large numbers of US runners in the top 20-30. Everybody and their brother would be racing Boston (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, just kind of funny that Boston would have to resort to coersion in order to stack the field with top Americans). Since Boston is their last chance, everyone would finish the race and saturate the top 30 with Americans. This is all hypothetical... perhaps many of the 2:19-2:22 guys would choose to finish their fall marathons, but I could totally see a good number of them dnf'ing in order to go all out at Boston. How would the race organizers at Chicago feel about having 20 runners dnf after paying for their travel and room/board? Just curious if anyone has discussed this yet. My bad if it's already been covered...
True they have not won a major marathon but they have placed 2nd ,3rd and 4th in major marathons/olympics. A Win will happen in the near future. Plus the "big names" would benefit from appering in NY or Chicago. If it was true that NYC was giving about 200K last year to their top few then think about the appearance fee battles between NYC and Chicago for Deena, Meb, Alan and other big names.
That battle (appearance dollars) will take place without them hosting the trials. It will be significantly less if they are hosting the trials.
Exactly those runners will already be at the major US Marathons with or without the Trials being there. See recent examples of Meb at Chicago and NYC. Deena at NYC. Culpepper at Boston.
Not in trials years they won't. Culpepper ran Boston because it wasn't a trials year and didn't conflict. Deena and Meb ran Chicago because they had their medals and were free to go for a payday.
Boston is notoriously weak (more so than usual) in trials years. NYC and Chicago the previous fall do better since they offer runners time to recover, but are still affected.
Sorry, I meant to say that Meb ran NYC, not Chicago
Are there any updates on this. Is there gonna be a vote?
what about logos in the new format? Will USATF or USOC have any say over what athletes wear if the trials go to a this new format? It seems like they really couldnt do that.
mr finke and mr latimer. please do not listen to people who tell you not to post here. i think most people on this board appreciate your attempts to keep people updated. maybe you arent reading this anymore so you wont see this but please dont let the all the rude responses here turn you off. people want to hear what you ahve to say
Average_Joe wrote:
Not in trials years they won't. Culpepper ran Boston because it wasn't a trials year and didn't conflict. Deena and Meb ran Chicago because they had their medals and were free to go for a payday.
Boston is notoriously weak (more so than usual) in trials years. NYC and Chicago the previous fall do better since they offer runners time to recover, but are still affected.
Huh?
Meb ran Chicago 2003, there wasn't a Chicago Marathon closer to the Trials then that. He also ran NYC in the Trials/Olympic year.
Deena ran NYC 2004 in the Trials/Olympic year.
Culpepper never races.
You aren't going to get ALL the top Americans to run all three Marathons if that's the goal. Plus the Trials probably wouldn't be mixed into the Marathon anyways (seperate race).
Miles and Miles wrote: Plus the Trials probably wouldn't be mixed into the Marathon anyways (seperate (sic) race).What makes you say that?
Double "Huh?" wrote:
Miles and Miles wrote: Plus the Trials probably wouldn't be mixed into the Marathon anyways (seperate (sic) race).What makes you say that?
"...and look, coming across the line the US Olympic team...5th, 10th, and 11th place! Go USA!"
That's why.
Alan
Double "Huh?" wrote:
What makes you say that?
Just the impression I get from talking to people about the sport that actually know something.
Miles and Miles wrote:
Just the impression I get from talking to people about the sport that actually know something.
"Trust me, I know it all"? What have they said??