2016 Marathon Trials Standards

Now I wish I would have gone even more to fight against this poor decision.

So, in other words, they don't want to pay for the runners to get down there and run. How many made that A standard for the 2012 trials?

Why is the women's standard so much slower? Do they want more women?

2:14 A is roughly 10 - 11 minutes slower than the world best.

2:18 B is roughly 14 - 15 minutes slower than the world best.

2:37 A is roughly 20-22 minutes slower than the world best.

2:43 B is roughly 26 - 28 minutes slower than the world best.

What gives? If the men's were equal to the women's it would look more like;

2:23 - 2:24 A and 2:27 - 2:28 B.

Wowza - won't this put a big damper on C level guys going after it after college?

Looking at the status of entries for this Trials, we have 9 sub 2:14s (Meb is not entered which would make 10) and 26 (27) sub 2:18s. What is the point of having an A and a B if there are going to be less than 30 men running?

If this is true, the USATF is so idiotic it's not funny anymore. I completely disagree with the idea that the standards should be made harder. They should be made easier--the men's at least. I think the women's standard was about right where it was at 2:46 for the B standard.

They must have some of the stupidest marketing people in the business. If the standards are made easier, then more regular working people will be training to qualify for the trials. In turn, that gets more non-running people interested in spectating marathons because then they could follow their family member or coworker's progress as they try to qualify. And if they do, they will want to watch the event on TV when it happens.

As an example, take the women from Chicago who were trying to qualify this year. Somebody was so interested in their story as working people who also train hardcore for marathons that she decided to make a movie out of them! Here is somebody who is VOLUNTEERING to give the marathon trials more exposure, and it's because the trials were made accessible to regular people who train for the trials.

As of now, most people don't even know that USATF selects the marathon team for the olympics. Hell, most people don't even know that USATF exists. They should do themselves a favor and make the trials more accessible to regular people.

spyder webb wrote:

Looking at the status of entries for this Trials, we have 9 sub 2:14s (Meb is not entered which would make 10) and 26 (27) sub 2:18s. What is the point of having an A and a B if there are going to be less than 30 men running?

Meant 35 (36) sub 2:18s.

Yea, it just goes to show that women's distance running is light years away from the men's, especially on the US level. They should just do away with women's athletics in general, nobody cares.

get ugly wrote:

They must have some of the stupidest marketing people in the business. If the standards are made easier, then more regular working people will be training to qualify for the trials. In turn, that gets more non-running people interested in spectating marathons because then they could follow their family member or coworker's progress as they try to qualify. And if they do, they will want to watch the event on TV when it happens.

Exactly. Make it the US champs for open class for that year. Anyone sub 2:30? A 2:28 dude is as far from making the team as a 2:18.

Sayer of Things wrote:

The men will have an A standard of 2:14, and a B of 2:18, no word on the half time. Women's A will go down to 2:37, and B to 2:43, 1:14 half.

Hope they take into consideration this was nearly a perfect year of marathoning at several majors (Boston, LA, Grandma's, CIM). Since when do you get so many point-to-point courses, with tailwinds, in a single year? Many ran 3-4 min. faster (if not more) than what they had run on other recent courses. On the other hand, it seems like the '08 Trials cycle had some of the absolute worst conditions at many of the majors (extreme heat at Chicago, Twin Cities, Grandma's, rain/wind at Boston).

Make a C standard. Like 2:26 or so for the men and an equivalent for the women. Then charge $500 entry fees to this category to collect additional revenue. The infrastructure is already in place: streets blocked, volunteers out, etc.

To a certain extent, I'll agree with you. People love to identify with the working class/sub-elite crowd simply because it's where most of us fall into. It gives us something to aim for. Not everyone has the luxury of working part time and training full time...but people love to see stories about their local accountant who works 50 hours/week go out and runs 120 miles/week and just barely qualifies. If they lower the standards, there may (will) be less people like this.

BUUUUTTT....remember when they changed the standard from 2:22 to 2:19? Everyone on here (including myself) was saying it was ridiculous because there would most likely be less than 50 guys in the race. You know what, guys stepped up to the challenge. There are currently 158 men who qualified. Granted, only 82 of them had a sub-2:19 marathon...but still far more than most of us expected.

As someone who is an extreme longshot to hit the OTQ standard in 4, 8 or even 12 more years...it disheartens me to see the standards possibly get stricter. As a fan of the sport, I think it's a good thing.

If anything, the men's standard should've stayed the same. Going to 214/218 is a much bigger jump than the 220/222 to 219 standard. While the argument that raising the bar will result in faster times, diminishing returns will appear.

If the race only has 30 people in it; they're probably the only 30 who have a chance, but there still probably isn't a reason to keep B level runners out.

This leads me to ask why the women's A/B difference is 6 minutes why the men's difference has been 2 and 4 minutes previously. Perhaps 215/222 would be better for the men.

Finally, there is no doubt the the women's standard is soft. IN my day a 243 marathon was "easy." The other women's Q times would've much harder for me to achieve, and I really think of myself as a 5k/10k runner.

My point is that 15/16 minute 5k guys really don't have much business thinking about the trials at any distance, maybe 18/19 minute 5k women shouldn't either.

Equal Rights wrote:

Yea, it just goes to show that women's distance running is light years away from the men's, especially on the US level. They should just do away with women's athletics in general, nobody cares.

I hope you never have a daughter.

What point is there for a 2:15 guy to even keep on going? You can't get travel expenses to your national championship and you have run a time that is the Olympic A Standard and much faster than the World Championship A standard. Great job supporting athletes USATF.

It's quite ironic that they named Ryan Bak their athlete of the week this week, and under the new rules, his performance that earned him that award (2:14:17 at CIM) would not qualify for travel expenses to the marathon trials under the new standards.

get ugly wrote:

It's quite ironic that they named Ryan Bak their athlete of the week this week, and under the new rules, his performance that earned him that award (2:14:17 at CIM) would not qualify for travel expenses to the marathon trials under the new standards.

Yep, awful.

USATF, this isn't Kenya. These rule changes won't help make it like Kenya.

get ugly wrote:

It's quite ironic that they named Ryan Bak their athlete of the week this week, and under the new rules, his performance that earned him that award (2:14:17 at CIM) would not qualify for travel expenses to the marathon trials under the new standards.

Does USATF pay travel expenses for A standard qualifiers for the track & field trials?

I agree! I don't know if I could take it.

Wejo & Rojo,

Can you pressure the USATF into releasing a justification for this decision. I'd like to know why they're doing what they're doing. Effective communication from them on this point (and other decisions as well) would go along way towards making our sport better for fans and athletes.