Olympic Trials / USA National Championship Marathon

Just an idea wrote:

I have an idea that I heard Kevin Hanson talking about recently.

3 months before the Oly trials marathon you have a pre trials.

You make it 20 miles in distance so that athletes can honestly come back in 3 months and race the trials.

You charge $100 entry fee.

Make it a popsicle stick type of finish with no awards or bells or whistles or anything else that costs money.

The top 10 qualify for the Marathon Trials. You could probably generate $25,000 in entry fees. You only add 10 athletes to the trials and they come in as non funded.

These athletes have no chance of making the Olympic Team, but it does add some interest and possibly the motivation to allow athletes another reason to continue training.

ok, I read the entire 11 pages. This was the only post that made sense to me. Although I am sure that the 2:28 marathon guy will see it as unacceptable because he wants something for nothing.

ok, I read the entire 11 pages. This was the only post that made sense to me. Although I am sure that the 2:28 marathon guy will see it as unacceptable because he wants something for nothing.[/quote]

You're generalizing. Most 2:28 guys don't want something for nothing. They just want to be taken as seriously as the 2:22 guys.

We can argue back and forth where the cutoff for "serious" runner should be. If you look at it from a standpoint of who might someday be able to mix it up in professional running, then 2:22 is too slow. A lot of 2:22 guys have no significant talent at all.

The counterpoint to that is that the sport of serious competitive marathoning is a fringe sport in the USA because there are about 100 guys every 4 years who can qualify for the club. Anyone outside that club is considered a weekend warrior or running hobbyist who should devote 5 years of their life to an austere nomadic existence before they will be taken seriously. Does anyone wonder why there are so few?

In college, you can call yourself a serious runner if you can make the team. There are thousands of "serious runners" in college. The day after graduation we reduce the ranks of "serious runner" from thousands to 100. Why do you think so many people bail out so soon?

I'm of the opinion that some structure needs to be created to the post-collegiate running scene. There are a lot of ways to do this. Lowering the bar on the marathon trials is one of them. It's an easy quick solution that would keep a good number of people in the sport. These people are future fans and sponsors...

Does this cheapen what a 2:22 guy did? No. A 2:22 is still better than a 2:30.

The only people who seem to have ego problems are the ones who are offended at the idea that another hard working runner would be allowed into their little club.

Lowering the trials standard is not the only way to fix this problem nor is it even necessary. But right now we're lacking many viable solutions. I don't see where diluting the trials is going to cause any problems. The same 3 guys are still going to make the team.

Maybe we should have a regional qualifying standard, say 2:40, and then a regional half marathon among these guys and take the top 25% into the trials. I don't know. But the status quo is pushing a lot of people out of the sport who should still stick around...

if one wants to be commercial pilot, but does not meet the standards, should the standards be lowered?, or should the aspiring pilot work harder to meet the standards?

Run5k wrote:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that you're guilty of faulty logic. You are essentially arguing one side of "the chicken or the egg" fallacy.

You are forgetting that the standards are usually set 2 or 3 years in advance of the actual trials. So the in 1983 when we had 32 runners under 2:14 they where all chasing the fastest standard we had set to date (2:19:04). By 1983 the 1984 standard had already been set, just as marathoners now (2005/2006) are chasing the 2:20/2:22 standards we have already set for 2008.

Actually I somewhat agree what the standards don't really have much of a determination on development of marathon talent but from a statisical stand point my theory holds more water than Mark's original theory.

Wineturtle is correct. We are arguing the wrong thing here. The trials are for selecting a team, period. The problem of US marathon development has relatively nothing to do with the trials. Its more about developing opportunities for post collegiate runners to make a living and develop at the sport. Competing in the trials does not give them the opportunity to make a living in the sport.

Logic wrote:

You are forgetting that the standards are usually set 2 or 3 years in advance of the actual trials.

this is not true.

I think everyone against lowering the standard is looking at it from a competitive stand point rather than a business stand point.If you just lower the B standard what I feel it does is it gets more people in the trials that are paying their own way. This brings a little more money to the host race in the form of hotels, restaurants, entry fees, etc. etc.I doubt any 2:28 guy (me being one of those) really thinks he has a shot, it is more a chance to run it. Maybe set a PB, and create a great memory while doing it. I would probably end up spending $1000 easily after flying my wife as well as other family and friends wanting to be there.USATF and the host race have costs that they have to cover in addition to providing support to the athletes with a chance. A sport that does not generate much money needs all they can get so adding a couple hundred more runners to the race does more good than harm in my opinion.

darkness wrote:

I don't think somebody said it, but what other reason would there be to include a 2:29 marathoner in the Trials than the idea that this demographic has a shot at making the team?

That is the point of the Trials. Deciding the TEAM.

If even you agree that someone whose best effort over time have yielded 2:23-2:30 HAS NO CHANCE AT the 2:10 level, then why are they there?

Without sarcasm, I am trying to understand what purpose this serves and what positive things it can do for the sport to include people who are clearly too slow for the Olympics in the Olympic Trials?

doug225550 wrote:

if one wants to be commercial pilot, but does not meet the standards, should the standards be lowered?, or should the aspiring pilot work harder to meet the standards?

Nobody dies when a marathoner runs a 2:30. Your analogy skills are poor. If you don't like the idea of a 2:30 marathoner in the trials, just say so...

I will agree that we don't have to let slower guys in the trials as long as somebody can put up a plausible idea about how we're going to keep borderline guys around the sport. If you don't think borderline guys are important to the sport, that's fair too...but explain to me how you are going to create a fan base when 100 people every 4 years are annoited as serious runners and the rest are considered hobbyists. In college you are respected as a competitive runner if you are on the team; there are thousands of competitive runners. As soon as you graduate you are now considered a hobbyist unless you've hit a trials qualifier. No wonder so many people stop running...

Check out wikipedia "minor league baseball" and see how many teams and leagues there are. Do you think these professional athletes are correspondingly better at baseball than the 2:30 guy is at running? Are there only 100 golf pros in America?

I'm finished arguing this. I respect everyone's opinion and perhaps in the future some more ideas will be thrown out that we can debate.

I just have to agree with you that doug225550 might have made the worst analogy ever...that doesn't even make sense.

Citizen Dick wrote:

[quote]doug225550 wrote:

if one wants to be commercial pilot, but does not meet the standards, should the standards be lowered?, or should the aspiring pilot work harder to meet the standards?

Nobody dies when a marathoner runs a 2:30. Your analogy skills are poor. If you don't like the idea of a 2:30 marathoner in the trials, just say so...

darkness wrote:

We haven't created that. It is as old as time. A free market. The best runners win the races and they are attracted to the races that suit them the best and pay them the most. This was the same in the 70's as it is now. The only difference was that U.S. citizens won most of the places at these races.

How is it good for development to proetect U.S. runners from those who are better than them?

Darkness,

Clearly some competitions should be absolutely open. What I sense is happening today in the US is that young runners feel that there is no opportunity in racing because they can't get recognition because the Kenyans get it (though in a more limited way due to language skills, etc.) and don't get prize money. What happens at the trials matters less than what happens week in and week out during the several (5?) years leading up to the Olympics. If these guys see a path to eke out a living while succeeding at their sport, then they may stay with it, if not, they walk away and we are left with the very thin fields up front, so the trials becomes a way to pay the top 1 or 2 men and women with a lottery for the next few. The argument here is that $$$ means athletes staying in, which means DEVELOPMENT over the long-term.

Scopes wrote:

Logic wrote: "You are forgetting that the standards are usually set 2 or 3 years in advance of the actual trials."

this is not true.

Actually I think it is true. They've already been set for the 2008 trials, haven't they? And I seem to recall knowing the standard for the 2004 trials as early as 2001/2002.

How is it that the OT standard keeps people in the sport?

You either love it or you don't and if you are a 2:25 guy right now (or a 31+ 10ker) and you think you have it in you to reach 2:21:59 you will try for it. If you think 2:25 is your all-time potential, you will not try to make the Trials.

But why does that have to equal forcing you to quit completely? Nothing is any different for you because you didn't make the Trials Marathon. You can still continue to run and race as you did before.

Making the OT doesn't make you legitimate in the eyes of anyone except the other hardcore runners. It doesn't make you any money or make the training easier. It doesn't pay your bills or make your parents say, "Jimmy, you now really have it together and have a 'real job'!" You guys are somehow making the Trials qualifier into some kind of status symbol or rite of passage that it isn't.

If they relaxed the standards there would not be any prestige for the 2:20-29 crowd. In fact I doubt many of them would even make it a priority.

To those who say it will "make a lot of money" or drum up more publicity ... that is just garbage. Spend a little time in a big city like Atlanta, Chicago, or LA near a trade show or any convention center and you will see that car travel, air travel, and hotel stays happen EVERY DAY in every city in the US in such huge volumes that another 40-100 2:25 marathoners coming to a race every 4 years wouldn't even register in the economy.

The Trials is a "big" event and it is a special event that is that way because there is a high standard.

Why the fascination with 2:30? Anyone who knows what time it is knows that the OT standard is set by looking at previous performance lists and allowing a similar number into the Trials. If it was 2:30 in 1972, that is because the depth was much weaker THIRTY-FOUR years ago. Making the standard 2:30 would not make us place three guys in the top-10 like it did back then.

Also, all those who say that marathon is a "fringe" sport, do you think that letting in a subset of slower runners every FOUR YEARS is going to change that significantly?

My local paper (demographic of 250,000 people) doesn't print results from HS State Championships, World XC Championships, World Track Championships, or major marathons. Do you think that they will start because of ONE Mid-Michigan guy qualifies for some obscure race every four years, in another state? They don't even understand the purpose or rules of the Trials.

Even if they did, this isn't going to make the sport more popular, or make people stay in the sport longer.

I always thought part of what made distance running cool to me was that IT WASN'T FOOTBALL.

Citizen Dick wrote:

Check out wikipedia "minor league baseball" and see how many teams and leagues there are. Do you think these professional athletes are correspondingly better at baseball than the 2:30 guy is at running? Are there only 100 golf pros in America?

Minor league baseball players and local golf pros ARE better at their sports than 2:30 marathoners.

I don't see any movement to let AAA ballplayers and club-pros into the World Series or the Masters, do you?

As I implied earlier, there are two sides to that story, and the opposing view has just as much statistical validity...

No, I haven't forgotten that at all. However, there are often extraordinary circumstances surrounding statistical "spikes," and 1983 is no exception. That was the year that the very first Track & Field World Championships were held in Helsinki, and the Boston Marathon was used as the WC Trials race. Many of the nation's best marathon runners lined up that day in Hopkinton, but believe me, for those of us who were there the Olympic Trials qualifying standard was a tertiary consideration. It was all about finishing in the "top 3," and the combination of decent weather and good competition led to a bevy of fast times. People like Meyer, Tabb, and Durden simply did it faster than everyone else!

==========================================================

Making the OT doesn't make you legitimate in the eyes of anyone except the other hardcore runners. It doesn't make you any money or make the training easier. It doesn't pay your bills or make your parents say, "Jimmy, you now really have it together and have a 'real job'!" You guys are somehow making the Trials qualifier into some kind of status symbol or rite of passage that it isn't.

========================================================

If it isn't "some kind of status symbol" why are you so worried about keeping people out?

========================================================

If they relaxed the standards there would not be any prestige for the 2:20-29 crowd. In fact I doubt many of them would even make it a priority.

========================================================

I disagree. I think a lot would go. Some for the once in a lifetime experience, some to get experience for when they get faster, some to get a PB, some to support the USATF, etc etc

========================================================

To those who say it will "make a lot of money" or drum up more publicity ... that is just garbage. Spend a little time in a big city like Atlanta, Chicago, or LA near a trade show or any convention center and you will see that car travel, air travel, and hotel stays happen EVERY DAY in every city in the US in such huge volumes that another 40-100 2:25 marathoners coming to a race every 4 years wouldn't even register in the economy.

========================================================

I personally said it would make some money - can you point out where your quote of "make a lot of money" came from? Of course there is a large amount of travel every day, thanks Mr. Obvious, but the race organizers don't see that. If you add 200+ runners that are paying their own entries you can add easily $15,000 to the race budget. This can be used to help with finance for some of the top runners. Plus, the last trials were in Birmingham and St Louis, I don't think either economy would turn down a few hundred runners and their families coming in and spending money.

I like the multiple marathon selection process, Boston, NY Chicago idea.

Reality bothers you? wrote:

Minor league baseball players and local golf pros ARE better at their sports than 2:30 marathoners.

That is debateable (at best). I would love to see the statistical comparison between the total number of minor league baseball players versus the number of American men who have run a sub-2:30 marathon within the last year. I think it's a safe bet that the first number would be higher!

That being said, I think that I'm going to QFE myself...

Run5k wrote:

Good grief gentlemen, are some of you who seem to be so dead-set against this 8-minute adjustment to the "B" standard even listening to yourselves? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen even one compelling counterpoint against this proposal. The vast majority that I have seen are heavily tinged with a condescending sentiment that seems to come from "distance running aristocracy."

Run5k wrote:

That is debateable (at best). I would love to see the statistical comparison between the total number of minor league baseball players versus the number of American men who have run a sub-2:30 marathon within the last year. I think it's a safe bet that the first number would be higher!

That statistical analysis would only show that sub MLB and PGA players are closer to their sport's "big show" than 2:30 marathoners are to our sport's big show? And none of those minor leagers and club pros belongs their sports championships.

Run5k wrote:

Well Scott, you will have to forgive me. There's something inherent with being a coach (as well as a former Olympic Trials participant) that likes to actually see the sport progress, rather than stagnate as it has for the last 20 years. It's certainly a despicable trait, and one that you obviously don't possess.

Of course, it was also my hope that some of my more stubborn brethren (like the gentlemen quoted above with the sentences that are in desperate need of Viagra) might actually be open-minded about the entire matter. Apparently, that is not going to happen either. Instead, they prefer to maintain a condescending, elitist, mediocre status-quo, and that is truly sad.

Mr Run5k, I think I have the pulse of the sport equal to just about anybody. I'm not sure if you're referring to me as being condescending, etc, but that certainly wouldn't describe me. I'm practical and believe a whole lotta good comes from lots & lots of consistent hard work. I'll assume you encourage your athletes to continue to work a little harder, reach a little higher w/each season.

I do not feel lowering the men's OlyTrials standard to 2:30 will do much to develop American distance running. Sure, you'll get a few guys w/in sight of the lower standard give it a shot but it will not do much to further our chances on the international stage. There will be no Cinderella stories emerging from 2:30 runners. The Trials are not about development; they're about selecting our Oly team. If we want to talk development, fine, but lowering OlyTrials standards is not a tangible way to develop future Olympians.

someone wrote:

If it isn't "some kind of status symbol" why are you so worried about keeping people out?

No one is "worried" about keeping people out. They don't want to see 2:30 marathoners added for the same reason that they don't want to see 3:30 marathoners added. They don't belong there.

>I disagree. I think a lot would go. Some for the once in

>a lifetime experience, some to get experience for when

> they get faster, some to get a PB, some to support the

> USATF, etc etc

The "get some experience" argument is an empty one. There is no shortage of major marathons every year with people running UNDER 2:20 in which 2:30 marathoners who need experience can go get it. Boston, New York, Chicago, Twin Cities, etc. There is absolutely ZERO need to add the once-every-four-years trials race into the mix. Unless of course, the motivation is something besides getting them some experience.

And that is it, of course. I suspect there are a few people on this board flirting with 2:30 (or who know such a person) who are dying to be able to tell people that they "ran in the Olympic Trials" It IS a status thing and it is an effort by wannabes to cheapen that status for those who have truly earned it.

We don't let 2:30 marathoners into the Olympic Trials for the same reason we don't let them into the Olympics. They don't belong there.