No More Olympic Trials?

the olympic trials also serve a purpose of determining who's capable of running rounds and who isn't -- some of those up-and-comers could be maxed out by the finals, whereas the veterans will have bid their time.

marathon i can understand kinda

Zante wrote:

the olympic trials also serve a purpose of determining who's capable of running rounds and who isn't -- some of those up-and-comers could be maxed out by the finals, whereas the veterans will have bid their time.

marathon i can understand kinda

You didn't understand OP's post at all.

No, the top 3 will still qualify as long as they are ranked high enough on the world rankings or, if s/he doesn't have a world ranking, if s/he has met the exceptional mark that will be set by the IAAF for the standard.

What is considered high enough? Top 30? Top 150?

And the exceptional mark is top 10 of previous year, which is extremely exceptional and probably won't happen because this up-and-coming athlete probably hasn't been in any of those paced time trial diamond league races since they've been competing in the NCAA stage and not the diamond league meets.

They really need to go with a system that if a country has three athletes meet the standard based on world rankings, than that country can bring any three athletes of their choosing. So if a 1:47 guy makes it into the trials and gets top 3, he could still make the olympics because the USA had 3 runners meet the standard.

I get that they are trying to make the "regular season" more important, but I don't think that really translates over to fan interest. Is the fact a meet in Dubai has more people running in a fast time trial really going to connect that race to more viewers worldwide or build more interest in the sport. I think it will detract from it, particularly in the US where it will take away from the trials, make them a whole lot more confusing if 7th placers are making the team, and make for less "fee-good" athlete stories at the olympics (ie Sydney M. in 2016.)

This isn't exactly what occurred. The IAAF had previously announced that the rankings would be used for Doha and Tokyo. USATF and other Member Federations and constituencies objected to this announcement and voiced displeasure. The IAAF subsequently announced that the rankings wouldn't be used for Doha. We don't know about Tokyo yet. The elimination of the USA Olympic Trials was never discussed.

you seem to be referring to track but I always wondered what would happen if there was a Boston 2018 at an Olympic Marathon Trials since everyone races together

imagine a year where all the pros crashed and burned from unexpected glycogen bonk due to bad weather and some relatively unknowns all took the podium to make teamusa

it would be fascinating, at least to us?

but I think what you are worried about is the exact opposite, the newbies/amateurs get locked out of any chance or motivation because a (notably corrupt) committee like the IOC is picking the already established pros

given its the IOC and then Nike practically owns IAAF and USATF, I say follow the money to understand this change

What Is High Enough wrote:

What is considered high enough? Top 30? Top 150?

And the exceptional mark is top 10 of previous year, which is extremely exceptional and probably won't happen because this up-and-coming athlete probably hasn't been in any of those paced time trial diamond league races since they've been competing in the NCAA stage and not the diamond league meets.

It depends on the event and the quota the IAAF/IOC sets for that event. E.g., for the field events it's likely to be top 32 once you've adjusted for the 3-per-country rule. For most track events it will be more than that. For example, IIRC, the IAAF quota for the 1500 is 48 athletes.

The exceptional standard is not designed for the up-and-comer (who has the world rankings route to qualify through) but rather as a way to qualify exceptional athletes who, for whatever reason, haven't accrued enough performances to have a world ranking.

formerbosox9yo wrote:

... I think it will detract from it, particularly in the US where it will take away from the trials, make them a whole lot more confusing if 7th placers are making the team ...

Isn't that what happens at present though? If one of the top 3 doesn't get the standard then the place goes to the next highest-placed athlete with the standard?

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm British but I'm pretty sure I've heard/read how that has happened in some events at Olympic Trials/US Championships in the past.

To formerbosox9yo, yes that can happen. That happens in events like javelin where few US athletes hit the olympic standard... But in most events there are multiple people with the olympic standard and the top 3 go to the olympics from the US championships/Olympic trials. In events like the 200 for women, there will potentially be 20 women with the olympic standard. If they don't take the top 3 at the olympic trials and they instead go off of this world ranking list, it's very possible someone could finish 7th or worse at the so-called 'olympic trials' and they will still advance to the olympics because they have a higher world ranking.

formerbosox9yo responder wrote:

If they don't take the top 3 at the olympic trials and they instead go off of this world ranking list, it's very possible someone could finish 7th or worse at the so-called 'olympic trials' and they will still advance to the olympics because they have a higher world ranking.

So, IF this is the new rule, there is no point in having the trials in most events for Team USA as with the exception of a few field events and something like women's steeplechase, there is almost always at least 3 people with the A standard.

Why would any athlete show up and risk injury if they knew their spot was secure.

What's the cutoff date for the Top 3?

How are the rankings determined? If runner A from a country shows up to a middle of nowhere meet and runs a good time and wins, yet runners B and C (from same country) run a DL meet, run the exact same time and finish 5/6, does runner A jump ahead of them in the rankings? Maybe B&C ran against a better field.

My own take based upon the thread (and who knows..the OP could be trolling..ha):

This is sounding more and more like FIFA and their way of determining their "World Rankings" in terms of national soccer teams. Absolutely NO ONE understands their ranking system at all and it's known to be a huge joke amongst the followers of the game. Yet, this is what they abide by when determining "seeding" for the World Cup.

Calm down everyone. :)

I haven't heard the IAAF or IOC saying that countries will have to take their 3 athletes with the highest world ranking.

So, unless the USATF decides to do that, expect it to be "business as usual" with the top 3 at the trials going subject to having a high enough world ranking or, if they don't have a world ranking, whether they've met the exceptional IAAF standard. At present, the question is "do each of the top 3 have the standard?", so it won't be as much of a change as some are making out.

By the way, for the poster above, the qualifying period is due to end 2-3 weeks before the championships and so will end after the trials.

makes you go hmm wrote:

you seem to be referring to track but I always wondered what would happen if there was a Boston 2018 at an Olympic Marathon Trials since everyone races together

imagine a year where all the pros crashed and burned from unexpected glycogen bonk due to bad weather and some relatively unknowns all took the podium to make teamusa

it would be fascinating, at least to us?

but I think what you are worried about is the exact opposite, the newbies/amateurs get locked out of any chance or motivation because a (notably corrupt) committee like the IOC is picking the already established pros

given its the IOC and then Nike practically owns IAAF and USATF, I say follow the money to understand this change

Good point. So we'll be getting world rankings and athletes entered based on how many shoes they'd sell and not necessarily who most deserves to be there. Assuming that is also the same athletes that would increase viewership, maybe this is good for the sport (if they get it right)?

It appears months before the official announcement it was already known that the olympic trials as they were is going to be a thing of the past