Should the US Olympic Marathon Trials field size be reduced? Or Increased in size to the top 1000 athletes?

I think this would be a fantastic idea.

Just make it really simple.

The fastest 1,000 US marathoners since the last Olympic Games.

The marathon is unique in that it can handle this amount of people without sacrificing competition. Especially if the top qualifiers are guaranteed a spot at the front of the start.

What's more, this would generate HUGE interest amongst "sub-elites" who would have a shot at qualifiying that they otherwise wouldn't.

Having a super small field for the US Marathon Trials seems a bit wierd, anyway. Think of how much bigger the crowds would be (and thus better for media coverage) if there were 1,000 competitors instead of 50) and all the friends and family watching, too in the crowd.

I doubt this will ever happen, however.

It's too promising of an idea.

Neither. Select the team with a panel that votes based on their performances in approved races during a set qualifying period of about a year, and other factors like injuries.

Your best chance to get a medal is to send Rupp and whoever else is near or better than 2:10. Stake it all on a mass-participation race and your 2:10 guys might lose to a 2:12 and a 2:13. Maybe they deserve it for having a bad day. Maybe Rupp will have a bad day too. But your 2:12 and 2:13 guys are not going to sniff a medal, especially after having to peak for a trials. Losing strategy.

I think it should be 500 in each field, make it even.

Choosing the 500 fastest (or 300 fastest, or whatever) would also make it more interesting because hoardes of people wouldn't be aiming at an arbitrary time standard. I thought it was kind of silly watching a giant pack of people trying to run exactly 2:45 at CIM (with the cheesy "I qualified" medals or whatever they were). Quite a few qualifiers actually ran their half marathon PRs when they qualified, because they were able to find the perfect race on the perfect day, with the perfect shoes and perfect pacing to run just under 2:45.

No time standard would force people to try to run the fastest time they are actually capable of, rather than an arbitrary standard, and that might raise the bar, and make things more interesting.

No. If the Olympics had been held when they were supposed to, and we used a selection committee the women's marathon team would have likely been Huddle, Sisson, Hasay or Hall. All either dropped out or performed poorly on a hilly course that mimicked the original Olympic course. Let the athletes self-select. Selection committees open up the very real possibility of politics and shoe company influence.

Les wrote:

No. If the Olympics had been held when they were supposed to, and we used a selection committee the women's marathon team would have likely been Huddle, Sisson, Hasay or Hall. All either dropped out or performed poorly on a hilly course that mimicked the original Olympic course. Let the athletes self-select. Selection committees open up the very real possibility of politics and shoe company influence.

Or....all just had a bad day;). Everything is a gamble, you're betting the odds. Hasay is top 3, period.

Les is More wrote:

Or....all just had a bad day;). Everything is a gamble, you're betting the odds. Hasay is top 3, period.

Or...all just weren't trained to handle a course like that, either in Atlanta or Tokyo. I think Atlanta gives you better odd.

How is Hasay top 3 period? You need to actually make a compelling argument to back up an authoritative statement like that.

I think a lot of people disagree with you which makes that period a little less definitive...

Leave the men’s the same. Lower the women’s standard. Qualifying as a woman is a joke and really diminishes the accomplishment

500 each and the first 50/50 get paid sounds like a great idea.

I thought last time it was ridiculous that there were so many more women starting. Obviously there qualifying time was too low or the men one to high.

More runners creates a better media event and hypes up the marathon better around the country. On the next day there should be a all peoples Marathon as well. That should make it way more interesting for organizers and cities to host such an event.

Not a fan. Cheapens the event. I would rather see a set time that targets around 150 per gender. I think the trials are meant to be our best. Frankly I thought it was embarrassing for the top end of the sport to have 500 in a gender at the event. Pretty soon we'll need starting waves. Adjust the times for shoes and knock a few extra minutes off the women's standard.

5 minutes off the women’s would probably cut the field in half. Keep the men’s the same.

I have posted this before, and I still like this idea:

Limit the Olympic trials field to replicate the same size as the Olympic Marathon field, 100-200 runners. Set the qualifying standards accordingly.

Have the trials 12 months before the Olympic marathon, in a city with similar altitude and weather as the Olympic host city.

Design a course similar to the one being used in the Olympic Marathon.

rojo wrote:

I don't like their idea of getting rid of half marathon qualifiers. Why in the heck should someone like Molly Seidel be forced to run a 2:43 just to get in. Her making the team in her first marathon worked well from the PR front anyways.

How about Rupp in 2016? He qualified with a half-marathon time and went on to win the trials in his first ever marathon, later winning bronze in Rio. Hardly suggests that allowing half-marathon qualifiers in the race is a bad strategy for selecting the team.

I like the idea of top 500. If you can lay out a loop for 250, you can handle 500.

More good runners is better!

I like the idea but I am pretty biased in that opinion

Well dang, if they opened up the field to top 500 I might go for it. I ran 2:27:28 in a solo TT marathon this spring. This coming year I want to run 2:25 in the spring and 2:20 in the fall at St George (ridiculously fast course). I think that would set me up to chase sub 2:20 at sea level spring 2022, and I bet that would put me top 500

no time standard wrote:

Choosing the 500 fastest (or 300 fastest, or whatever) would also make it more interesting because hoardes of people wouldn't be aiming at an arbitrary time standard. I thought it was kind of silly watching a giant pack of people trying to run exactly 2:45 at CIM (with the cheesy "I qualified" medals or whatever they were). Quite a few qualifiers actually ran their half marathon PRs when they qualified, because they were able to find the perfect race on the perfect day, with the perfect shoes and perfect pacing to run just under 2:45.

No time standard would force people to try to run the fastest time they are actually capable of, rather than an arbitrary standard, and that might raise the bar, and make things more interesting.

I would argue that a lot of those girls that run right at the edge of 2:45 are running at their limit and the course and pack is the only reason they are able to do it. Watching the finish line videos right at the time limits is amazing to see as a hobby jogger as people are pushed to their absolute limits. Obviously none of those people have a chance of making the team but the point is to inspire others and grow the sport.

If you didn't have a set standard you would have a bunch of people probably running by themselves in random races no one would ever see. Of course then you have the issue of the ability to see the rankings as you approach the qualifying window.

I don’t get how people complain about you tubers making more money than professional runners but then want to limit the field to elites. Most people find it incredibly boring to watch someone run for 2+ hours. They will never get advertising dollars like team sports will, but what separates running is the chance for normal people to run in the race with elites, you wouldn’t be able to get on the same court as Lebron. The more people that have a chance with that, the more people get involved, the more you can sell stories of everyday people running in the event, the more advertising and money to go to the sport.

If you only want the top few, don’t complain about pay for professional runners.