The trials are our only insulation from shoe companies and corruption.
Other countries have been known to only take Nike athletes championships for example.
Imagine agents, shoe companies, TV contracts, USATF picking their favorites!
Totally agree with this. I don't read Citius, but, from the snippet I read, it sounds like they're framing the argument a little different from how rojo presented it -- pro athlete/calling out countries that have qualified athletes & still don't field full teams. The US Trials work. GB, for example, denying opportunities for developing runners isn't it imo. Not sure the focus is on point, at least from looking at the initial post/responses.
Top 2 from trials then the 3rd spot is discretion. That way a big chance won't miss out. Say someone who is not quite ready for trials but can medal with a few more months training
I hope they're playing devil's advocate. We will get a crack at seeing how it plays out when World Rankings is king at World Ultimate Champs. Even there, they have carve-outs for World and Olympic Champions.
For distance running, the discussion is even sillier because rankings are based almost solely on time while global championships are unpaced. The Trials system is great and really the only flaw is that they don't have allocation like a poster said.
It can be a significant disadvantage for athletes that need to basically peak twice when you have five competitors that would make a global final. Seen it plenty of times where a top runner gets pipped by someone who's sharper on the trials day, then the qualifier tails off as the season comes to its conclusion.
I hate how you can finish Top 3 at trials and not go. I think if your country “unlocks” a certain number of spots, the top 3 at trials should go regardless. Why else have trials? Yeah, it’d suck for the guys who unlocked the slots to get pipped at the line in a trials race, but that’s racin!
This is just my opinion, but I would like to see 1 spot in each event that could be discretionary. The other 2 decided at the US Champs regardless of meeting standards or ranking. I agree with people on here that say “be the best on the day”, but I also think the US is at a disadvantage at world events when out athletes have to try to time two peaks. I wonder if we could have our best in each event there having been able to train through and peak solely for worlds if we would fare better. I have heard so many interviews where athletes say the worry about making the top three at US Champs is intense.
The thing I would like to stop is the second tier runners who put all of their chips in at US Champs because their goal for the season is to qualify for worlds. Once their goal of making the team is met, all momentum dies and they run like a plow horse at worlds. There were a few at the Olympics that did this and it was not enjoyable to watch their mediocre performance, followed by their post race interview where they shrugged it off with “just wanted to get here.”
Someone remind me not to read their stuff for at least a month. They need to be put into a corner and have timeout for at least 30 days after coming up with an idea this dumb:
Citius wrote:
You could, for the sake of argument, view national governing bodies’ role in the process as more of a middleman with a frustrating tendency toward inconsistency. Rather than Team GB holding out developing athletes, shouldn’t it be up to World Athletics to say who’s invited? Instead of Kenya not announcing the Trials location until a couple weeks before, World Athletics would simply give the Kenyan federation a list of accepted names. In lieu of Australia hosting qualifying meets five months in advance, World Athletics could save them the trouble.
Rather than leave everything up to Seb Coe sitting alone in a room with a whiteboard and a telephone, WA could simply double- or triple-down on its touted world rankings system.
The top three ranked eligible athletes from each country are selected. Hard stop.
What's crazy is they compare their idea to the NFL system. It's a TERRIBLE analogy.
Citius wrote:
Every NFL team understands what needs to happen to play in the Super Bowl; each division doesn’t set its own playoff rules. Similarly, track and field could benefit from a lot more international consistency about “the rules” – and whether or not you think World Athletics should hold all the power, they have the ability to create a system that’s more streamlined for global championships to come.
They must not watch or understand sports.
Yes, comparing Olympics to Super Bowl is fine. We agree on that. But the playoffs are the US Trials. And to get to the Super Bowl, you have to do well in the playoffs.
Their (dumb) idea would be the equivalent of putting the top 2 teams from some sort of power rankings database (probably DVOA) without even holding playoffs or looking at their actual record.
Here is why Citius idea is stupid.
I don't care what your world ranking is. I care if you are in current form. Current form > world ranking.
Do you know who the top 3 in the US right now are in the men's 800 world rankings?
#1 Josh Hoey #2 Bryce Hoppel #3 Donavan Brazier
What a joke.
So Cooper Lutkenhaus wouldn't be on the team?
In the women's 5000 and 10,000, Jane H would be nowhere to be seen. Molly Seidel wouldn't be an Olympic medallist. -Rojo