NERunner053 wrote:
Have you seen all of the articles that have come out since CIM? A lot of them are detailing people who barely qualified. People who are holding down full-time jobs, who overcame difficult obstacles in training or out, it's all really moving. I think those articles do more to build the sport. I don't know how to measure it, but I'm sure outlets like Runners World have stats on social media to backup that some of the articles they're moving right now do better than an elite marathon race recap or the training of a sub-2:10 runner.
I think a softer standard keeps more people going in the sport and that reaches deeper in the running community. You know someone from your local club who is chasing 2:18 or 2:44 so you start paying attention to the elite side of the sport a little more and the races they run. You get local press hits that wouldn't otherwise go out.
Whatever, some people think we should just line up the super fast & that's fine but that's not really how road running goes. There's mass participation at pretty much every elite race. I'm not saying to go to that but I think 2:22/2:45 would be a good thing. This isn't a track event. We don't have to be as worried about overcrowding. Then we get to hear more and more stories.
I like softening the men's standard a tad to 2:20, and tightening the women's a tad to 2:40 (6:10/mile). Those times are nice and round, more equivalent, and not so hard to hit for those trying break into the elites. I agree with your analysis, soft B standards are good for the sport. The A standards should be made harder (they should be the olympic standard).