Have IAAF World Championships adopt NCAA Indoor System

I agree with most of this

Would all the WCAP athletes change their nationalities back? I guess it wouldn't matter as much because they're shooting for time regardless.

I could see this type of system discouraging competitors from countries that don't have the depth of Kenya/Ethiopia in the distance events and the USA/Jamaica is the sprints (for example).

Although I do agree that there needs more alternative qualification methods for the IAAF World Champs beyond national champs and/or selection teams. Maybe not take the best 24 or whatever, but if you are top 5/10 in the world for that year, you are in automatically in the World Champs. Might get more people competing more often and chasing good marks.

Okay so upside. A lot of NCAA athletes this year would actually be top 24 in the World in their event. I mean a college FR Michael Norman is #1 in the World right now. If world indoors were a week later than NCAA's, we could have a shot at some collegians taking on the world stage. This would give them a lot of experience. I mean, who wouldn't want to see some American collegiates Devin Dixon (#24 in 800), Elinor Purrier (#1 in mile, but would still make it on conversion), Karrissa Schwiezer (#13 in 3k) sling it out with the world's best?

That's just for indoor. Outdoor we would definitely have some collegiates in the top 48 and it would give them more incentive to chase fast times in the summer.

The only downfall is the US Championships would be a lot less competitive.

Nice idea but many of the smaller nations would never have anybody in the championships which just making it to them is a big deal. So why then should they be part of the IAAF?

jenapharm wrote:

Nice idea but many of the smaller nations would never have anybody in the championships which just making it to them is a big deal. So why then should they be part of the IAAF?

The nation thing could be many ntained for the Olympics

36 per event would be enough however.

I am perfectly fine with a set up like that.

I'd take it a step further and have the top 8 get a bye into the second round of their event. That even further promotes the very best to try to run fast times during the season.

The World Championships should have all of the very best athletes and not replace sub 13 Kenyans with 13:20 Canadians.

Only if all athletes have to train in one place all year and are monitored because of doping. not somewhere in africa or in the usa where nobody cares

If you want the sport to survive you need to keep a large base of interest and that includes smaller nations that go through cycles where they may have no one in the top 24/48. A model that maintains representation by most countries that want to participate and provides additional at-large bids would probably be better. Eddie the eagle has purpose in maintaining a large spectator base necessary to support track and field as a professional sport.

Another Option wrote:

If you want the sport to survive you need to keep a large base of interest and that includes smaller nations that go through cycles where they may have no one in the top 24/48. A model that maintains representation by most countries that want to participate and provides additional at-large bids would probably be better. Eddie the eagle has purpose in maintaining a large spectator base necessary to support track and field as a professional sport.

Which is why I think the Olympics still needs to be set up the way it is so at least every 4 years smaller nations can be represented. But honestly someone from a smaller nation would have to get the A standard the way the system is now anyways.

You take a guy from Argentina who runs 13:22, he barely got under what would have been the IAAF standard of 13:23, the 48th person in the world last year was Justyn Knight (which is crazy to think as he got 9th at World's) with a 13:17. So the Argentinian was still only 5 seconds away in the new system. And even then, it's not a guarantee that the first 48 (no pun intended) will even declare.

Men's 800m standard 1:45.90, 48th guy last year 1:45.44

Men's 1500m standard 3:36.50, 48th guy last year 3:35.92

Men's 5k standard 13:22.60, 48th guy last year 13:17.51

Men's 10k standard 27:45, 48th guy last year 27:48.51

Women's 800m standard 2:01.1, 48th women last year 2:00.62

Women's 1500m standard 4:07.5, 48th women last year 4:05.71

Women's 5k standard 15:22, 48th women last year 15:11.83

Women's 10k standard 32:15, 48th women last year 31:59.94

So the standards aren't a whole lot slower than where the cut off would be last year and still some people won't declare

48 is too many

As you said, many will not declare. You don't want to go too deep in the world ranking

Top 36 is enough

Nope. National athletics federations are not going to go along with being TOLD how to select their national teams. THEY will decide their national teams. The Ethiopians already do this -- they have no trials, they go by times and (presumably) internal politics. The results have not been great, certainly no better than countries with trials.

With no fixed standard, just "top 48", the qualifying marks would constantly be changing up till the last minute, forcing athletes to compete far more than desirable just to meet the standard before the deadline.

The IAAF is composed of national delegations with an elected council. It is not a body that can unilaterally impose qualifying standards on its members national teams. It doesn't have that power. If a country wants to pick its national team solely on their looks (as long as they meet the qualifying standard), they can do so.

This is a great idea from a fan perspective, like the top 16 NBA teams all advancing to the playoffs, regardless of what conference they are in, but there are practical problems to this.

For distance running, the Kenyans and Ethiopians with their great depth would vote FOR such an idea, but every other nation without their depth would vote AGAINST it. If it was strictly by performance depth, countries without that depth would get cut out.

Les wrote:

Nope. National athletics federations are not going to go along with being TOLD how to select their national teams. THEY will decide their national teams. The Ethiopians already do this -- they have no trials, they go by times and (presumably) internal politics. The results have not been great, certainly no better than countries with trials.

With no fixed standard, just "top 48", the qualifying marks would constantly be changing up till the last minute, forcing athletes to compete far more than desirable just to meet the standard before the deadline.

...seems to work for NCAA.

Nothing forces an athlete to declare

I would ban countries with apartheid like Israel the same as the ban on South Africa in the 1970s.

Les wrote:

Nope. National athletics federations are not going to go along with being TOLD how to select their national teams. THEY will decide their national teams. The Ethiopians already do this -- they have no trials, they go by times and (presumably) internal politics. The results have not been great, certainly no better than countries with trials.

With no fixed standard, just "top 48", the qualifying marks would constantly be changing up till the last minute, forcing athletes to compete far more than desirable just to meet the standard before the deadline.

The IAAF is composed of national delegations with an elected council. It is not a body that can unilaterally impose qualifying standards on its members national teams. It doesn't have that power. If a country wants to pick its national team solely on their looks (as long as they meet the qualifying standard), they can do so.

But this means athletes aren't screwed over by their athletics federation even though they deserve a spot at World's, just look at South Africa's team last year at Worlds. A bunch of athletes with world standards not able to go, because the federation didn't think the athletes could medal.

Plus the whole "forcing athletes to compete far more than desirable just to meet the standard before the deadline." it works fine for the NCAA. A lot of athletes just take the loss if they aren't about to hit a fast enough time in advance. Of course there will be a few "last chance" meets around the world, but I think that's great for the sport.

Unihnhuuhnn wrote:

48 is too many

As you said, many will not declare. You don't want to go too deep in the world ranking

Top 36 is enough

Top 48 as listed above is relatively close to the IAAF standards as they are now.

48 athletes per event would allow a:

straight final for the 10k

semi-final and final for the 5k

quarter, semi and final for the 1500

quarter, semi and final for the 800

first round, quarter, semi, and final for the 100, 200, and 400

The same way it is now. The 10k with 48 could be a problem, but there definitely doesn't need to be a final so maybe limiting the 10k to 36 would work.

#NCAAFB uses Super Computers and Sports Writers to pick it's so-called 'Final 4' (a misnomer). It's a phony system that saves green house gases so I'm o.k. with it. Why not use Super Computers and Flotrack to pick entries for a four-hour yearly FINALS ONLY World Championships.

NCAA is the governing body for ONE COUNTRY. Individual schools do not get to vote on standards for championships. It gets vastly more complicated when you involve multiple countries, delegates and councils who can vote on standards. It's like getting multiple political parties to agree on one candidate -- very, very difficult in reality. Countries are going to put their own interests first above the interests of the sport as a whole.

It's unfortunate that not all athletes who make standards get placed on national teams. but that ignores that the fact that a lot of countries have government sponsored sports programs. The people who run those programs have to show results to justify their budgets. Just putting athletes on teams (however deserving they may be) isn't going to be enough unless they make a final or compete for a medal. If in the judgment of those who select national teams an athlete doesn't have much of a chance to make a final or compete for a medal, they're not going to be selected. Canada does that. It's a money thing. In the States there is no government-funded athletics development program and no selection committee. Athletes self-select through a cutthroat trials process. The US can afford a team of 100+, even if most have no chance of competing for a medal. Few countries can do that.