Already 10 men and 13 women qualified for the US Marathon trials- are the standards too easy?

I feel a more important issue (as opposed to the field size for the Trials) is to have some continuity between the Trials course and the Olympic course:

If the Olympic race will be run on a flat course, in hot weather, then the Trials course should be run on a similar course with similar weather.

I'm really surprised that this topic hasn't gotten more attention...

Want to bet on that? Reducing the size to 10 people per gender will not be an enticing investment for a city to close their busiest streets and pay for the planning and arrangements. This is running in U.S. It's not profitable for a city unless they have certain number of runners who bring in their own supporters/tourists. TV Coverage would want more contestants if it means more spectators or viewers I assume. They would soften the standards the very next cycle if only 10 men or 10 women qualified. This sport isn't big enough in the U.S. to reel in more fans because Galen Rupp gets to race only 9 other people at the Trials unless there was speculation he was trying to break 2 hours or something. Some of you people really think that making this sport even more exclusive in the U.S. wouldn't hurt the sport. There has to be a balance of fostering the up and coming as well and the new Standards still accomplishes this objective.

I don't understand the arguments against a bigger field. As the rest of the thread has pointed out; they simply don't hold up.

How about this, bring back the A/B standard. For men it could be 214/222 and for women it could be 230/240. Give the A qualifiers a preferred starting line spot, and pay for their expenses. Everybody wins.

I give you credit for knowing how to get more participants interested and invested. You're less clear on how to get more stakeholders and spectators invested and interested, which is what drives pro sport. LA Marathon has far more entrants than the OT yet with such an anemic prize purse who's going to pay any attention? It wouldn't matter if you had 200 finishers 2:16-2:20 there if the winner ran 2:15. It's not the entrant numbers that make sporting events compelling, it's the quality of competition. How come single-A baseball isn't on ESPN? It's still guys getting paid to play ball, right?

It's really not that difficult to throw a lasso around less than 50 runners to come up with the 3 who will make the podium out of any larger field, going to 100 or more is simply clumsy largesse that is merely an end to itself.

Bdubs wrote:

I don't understand the arguments against a bigger field. As the rest of the thread has pointed out; they simply don't hold up.

How about this, bring back the A/B standard. For men it could be 214/222 and for women it could be 230/240. Give the A qualifiers a preferred starting line spot, and pay for their expenses. Everybody wins.

Homie, you're a little behind here. A & B standards have been announced for 2024.

GS,

Touche.

I still think a tougher A, and weaker B would accommodate both arguments.

Guys running 2:18 will never be anywhere near getting on the olympic team. In all honesty, the olympic trials are a lifetime achievement in itself. 99% of the people that make the olympic trials don't event think about making the olympic team, they are happy to just get there. It is a standard to reach. In a few years it will be 2:16 and on and on. But for now, it makes guys like me have something to train for and reach one day. Being dead last at the olympic trials would be an amazing achievement!

I was being sarcastic, replaying to a guy that said it does need to be reduced down to just a few runners because all anyone cares about are the top 3-5 entrants.

I agree with you. Keep a tough, but reasonable standard. You are shutting down streets, this aint some 8 lane track. If the street is shut down for 10 might as well be 100 or300.

If you think a city is going to shut down streets and provide traffic control for a total of 50 runners (or less?), I don't know where to go from there. Magical thinking- just flat not going to happen.

We all know the guys running 2:19 2:18 arent going to podium, but we know this about people that barely make the trials standard on the track as well.

We could just do away with trials and just pick the team like other countries, there is certainly logic to that approach.

Gentleman Savage wrote:

Bdubs wrote:

I don't understand the arguments against a bigger field. As the rest of the thread has pointed out; they simply don't hold up.

How about this, bring back the A/B standard. For men it could be 214/222 and for women it could be 230/240. Give the A qualifiers a preferred starting line spot, and pay for their expenses. Everybody wins.

Homie, you're a little behind here. A & B standards have been announced for 2024.

Did I miss something? Where were A/B standards announced?

I have no issue with the standards as set by USATF/LDR and I am speaking as someone who has had 8 different athletes qualify over the years. What does need to be addressed are the courses used to achieve these standards. Allowed courses should be IAAF, record eligible, certified courses. Full Stop, no exceptions. USATF should do their homework and publish a list of eligible races using this criteria. If they want to grandfather in any WMM races, then that may be debatable. In addition, the times must strictly be adhered to, ie no appeals! None of this, "I would have made it if I didn't trip, have to use the bathroom, didn't run out of gas, stopped to tie my shoe" bull$h!t. And while I'm on my rant, The whole pacing debacle should be given another look.

I got you, Ray:

Also, don't disagree with you. Standards are plenty generous, hold the line on legit courses and allowing appeals.

runn wrote:

I have a good friend who ran in the trials back in the 1980's. He was never going to make the team but it was a great accomplishment nonetheless and something we old timers talk about to the newer runners in our community.

And a chance for some encouragement for runners who might never make an OT!

BITD (1972) the standard for men was 2:30. That year I raced an OT qualifier five times at various distances and beat him thrice. I was no threat to make the Trials but it was a boost to know that I could beat a "good" runner.

Ray wrote:

Did I miss something? Where were A/B standards announced?

Just verified that you're right, no B standard unless you want to consider the 1/2 a secondary standard.