Update on the Olympic Trials Process

A Little common sense needs to put the crack pipe down and take a break. Breathe my man.... breathe.

Miles and Miles wrote:

Boston would be great, especially for those of us concerned that NYC wouldn't be enough time to get a qualifier (extreme fringe "qualifiers").

Substitute "only" for "especially" because anyone who's a threat to actually make the team (the reason to have the trials race in the first place) is not that concerned, they only want to know so they can plan out their preparation.

thanks for the male attitude teddy.

.

Tradition and history nothwithstanding (I am a big fan of the Boston Marathon), Boston would be the absolutely WORST place to host the trials. It is quite likely to be too hot and humid in the spring there, and the downhill pounding really takes its toll on elite athletes, so much so that it has sent many former greats to their early graves. Even if you could still find some justification for hosting it in Boston, there should still be at least 9-12 months to recover from that pounding. What a joke. As usual, the bureaucrats don't have the athlete's best interests in mind, and the USA representation will suffer as a result.

1) It has already been mentioned about 100 times that Boston would NOT be on the normal course but a loop.

2) If you need 9-12 months to recover from a few relatively tame hills, you should take up another sport. The only relatively skilled runners who would see Boston's hills as truly intimidating would have to be from Iowa or Kansas or some pancake place like that.

I've run it twice and recovery was maybe 1-2 days longer than Chicago.

I agree.....big fish in a little pond. In Minneapolis and Akron it will be front page headlines and the city will embrace it...in New York? Boston? I don't think so.

That and it wouldn't happen at noon I am sure. Probably an 7 or 8 AM start on Saturday or Sunday. Just a guess.

"As usual, the bureaucrats don't have the athlete's best interests in mind, and the USA representation will suffer as a result."

Did you bother to read the original link - no bureaucrats but leading athletes and coaches, etc. making the decisions.

Your whole post is ridiculous and factually incorrect in so many ways.

So why not have the trials in a normal race? Have people where a special number and hype the race. Kenya does it at Boston, the UK does it with London...why not here?

USOC regs do not allow it currently

NY might ignore it

Boston would embrace it - ever been there on marathon weekend? the whole city is caught up in it

Downhill if fun on a bike wrote:

So why not have the trials in a normal race? Have people where a special number and hype the race. Kenya does it at Boston, the UK does it with London...why not here?

This has also been debated to death. Can you picture this..."...And in 10th place, the first US finisher and Olympic Qualifer...". Not going to happen. Holding it in conjuction with another race would water down the supposed "significance" of the race..:) IE: It does not look good for USATF/USOC.

Alan

Only partially correct - it can't be done currently because of sponsorship issues with USOC.

What's the problem with the USOC the tri qualifies at world cup events and even the world champs?

We can select the team from New York or boston, the problem is we couldn't call it the Olympic trials. that's where the sponsorship issues arise. See Art's explanation as to why we don't just go ahead and do that. In addition, it probably wouldn't get the same finances as a trial race.

I think now its going to be NY men, Boston women. No way 90% of men want a fall marathon but Meb, Alan and Dan were the 3 athletes on the committee and they don't race on the track much anymore so they might actually prefer a fall race. It gives them more time to prepare for the Olympics and severely limits anyone who tries to run the World Champs in the marathon or the track in 2007.

There should be a little more media coverage with the race in NY but New Yorkers exagerrate this (the lowest rated world series was the yankees-mets one). There actually is a big world outside of NY. Any race that gets national tv coverage on a network will have big coverage. The local market in NY is obviously much bigger. The key is whether the trials race get prominent coverage on a network or whether it is packaged as just part of the 1 hour NY highlight show on NBC which would be a shame. It needs some of its own coverage. If it doesn't get this having the trials in NY won't result in more publicity for the runners. If I have a race in Des Moines and put it on NBC it will get more coverage than a race in Manhattan with no network coverage.

Wejo,

Your comparison of the OT Marathon to the Subway Series (for you people who live outside of the northeast that was when the Mets lost to the Yankees in the 2000 World Series) is a terrible one. If you want to compare apples and oranges....

Yankees/Mets both have their own cable station.

In Tampa FL you can listen to the yankees on the radio. (Tampa is not in NY)

Does Iowa have a baseball team? (AAA?) again no one cares.

Let's compare apples to apples.

"If I have a race in Des Moines and put it on NBC it will get more coverage than a race in Manhattan with no network coverage."

NYRRC races are on YES on their monthly show. YES can be seen accross the US with a Dish. When was the last time a race in Iowa (BIX?) ever seen across the county.

Again MEN in NY

Women in Boston like i said last week.

Northeast Bias wins out. like it should.

I found these ratings with a quick google search. Since 2000 there have been worse ratings, including last year. These measures are "ratings" and "share".

1996 FOX 17.4

29

1997 NBC 16.8

29

1998 FOX 14.1

24

1999 NBC 16.0

26

2000 FOX 12.4

21

2001 FOX 15.7

25

2002 FOX 11.9

20

2003 FOX 13.9

25

2004 FOX 15.8

25

2005 FOX 11.1

19