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

Let's make it simple! Sub 2:20 for Men, sub 2:40 for woman! The woman"s current mark of 2:45 is inferior to the men"s 2:19.

In my mind, the track trials are clearly way too small.

You have 3 rounds of the 1500 and only 30 people. That's insulting to the fans. We haev to watch a round of the 1500 where they elimiante at most 6 people (it normally ends up being like 2 or 3 after scratches).

2 heats of the 5k with only a total of 24 people. WHy not have 16 in each race?

It's like that in event after event. Seems crazy to me.

https://www.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=49&do=news&news_id=584802

Is the main purpose of selecting the US Olympic marathon team to grow the sport or select the top 3 runners that have the best chance to actually medal at the games?

People seem to like the drama and sub elite incentive of the current time qualifying/attend the race format, but is that the best way to get people to try to run fast enough to medal?

Yes it is an incentive to try to be in the top 1000, 500, or to achieve a time that would qualify to run in a trials race, and that is an amazing accomplishment for anyone. But the 219 male and 245 female, or the 500th fastest marathoner are not going to be competitive at the games,

I like how Japan has done it, with major $ awarded to those who run fast, and multiple races in which you can qualify. They have succeeded in that many of their top marathoners are running faster than ever. It remains to be seen if this translates to medals at the games, but I believe their runners will do well. They have a great amount of depth among their top marathoners now.

So the US can have a special Oly marathon qualifying race where only the top 1000 fastest of each gender are allowed to start. But only the winners of that race automatically qualify for the team. Second and third place finishers provisionally qualify, if their times hold up.

There should be two other US marathons selected at which the top two US finishers can qualify. The two fastest times of the top US finishers in these two other marathons, or the US trials qualifying race, should be the next two runners on the team.

The three races would be spaced over a year+ to allow runners to do two if they want, and still recover in time to run well at the games. They should match the expected course type and weather of the Olympic mara course as much as possible.

There should be a tiered system of cash incentives for US runners that break 208, 207, 206, (222, 221, 220 for women) etc. on legit courses. Bigger prizes for setting a new US record. This could go down to 211/229 , but those times are not really that competitive on the world stage now.

The top 50 fastest male and female marathoners in the US each year should receive some funding, to encourage depth , running fast, and help some of the sub elites.

This would provides a good mix of drama and incentive to run faster.

Thanks for the information https://www.oursainsburys.biz/

1000% in favor of an expanded field size/less strict time standards. & I really don't understand the naysayers who oppose it. Our sport is special because of mass participation. The women's race this year had more eyes on it, more story lines, and more excitement because of the 2:45 standard. This race does not improve, IMO, with 2:10/2:30 type standards.

The roads are not constricted in the same way tracks are. An ever changing top-1000 list would bring excitement/buzz to the running community. I got into the sport back when a local club guy ran 2:21 when the standard was 2:22. They went on to be competitive at the Trials and set a huge PB. Maybe that doesn't happen with a 2:18 or 2:19 standard even though they ran under that in the race.

Let's face it, the Galen Rupp's of the world won't notice and won't care about 499 runners behind them. It's easy to make sure that the 50-100 fastest get priority on the start line. The focus for commentary will be the front of the race during the race but let's face it -- nobody can name the top runners. It's more likely that people catch stories about the 2:21 & 2:44 types that are regular people still logging high mileage while holding down careers.

I think there's something to be said to keep developing American talent and giving post collegiate runners something to train for. People will not stop trying to break 2:10 with looser standards. Building this event is unrelated to developing the very best. This is about putting eyes on the sport. It's time to play to our strengths. We are an inclusive, mass participation sport. We're not ruining the sanctity of it by still having a tough but reasonable limit like top 500 or 2:20s/2:40s.

Judd wrote:

An issue with the 500 per gender number is that the last-chancers and on-the-bubble types will have a really hard path in the two months before the selection. Most will probably run another marathon to incrementally improve their position to not be bounced out by new performances. You will still have all of the negatives of "the chase" that we see at CIM, with a little hostility between runners thrown in. A time standard puts everyone on the same team, including race directors who know what to market.

I like what someone else said about figuring out where the 400th-ish best time on the men's/women's side & calling that an auto qualifier with a very specific role down process/last date. Some people might get bounced but at least most folks will be safe. Might end up with 1100 runners or whatever but can still market it as the 1,000 best in the country.

I like keeping the half standard. & FWIW Bromka changed his mind on it after receiving feedback proving you don't have to double down on positions and that you can still have actual conversations in this day/age. Believe it or not this isn't some ploy to get himself into this event. Folks, myself included, have been pitching ideas like this for years. Have a 1:02/1:12 half standard then 2:25ish/2:43 (maybe 400ish, idk). Fill the final spots on a roll-down. You think numbers 501 won't be motivated to keep training? The point is that the expanded field helps grow the sport -- more stories, more fans in person & in general. Plus you can charge everyone 101-500+ & put that into the top athletes.

I think it looks like it will be a good idea. But it will be more accurate to follow later.

It continues preparations in Turkey.

www.samsungazetesi.com/spor/emre-sakci-olimpiyat-hazirliklarina-tam-gaz-devam-edecegiz-h1396810.html

The Olympic Trials Marathon is our greatest celebration of long distance running in the USA but we should never lose site of the main purpose - and that is to select our Olympic Team. The key is that there needs to be a balance of the size of the field in regards to the limiting factors of the event.

The one key aspect that few are talking about is the requirement that the athletes must have the option for personal refreshments along the course.

The Atlanta Track Club did something no other race every did - provide personal refreshments for over 600 runners!!

Some would argue that only runners with under "X" qualifying times in the marathon & "Y" times in the half should be allowed to have them. But think about it, would you want to be the Referee/Jury that day when the fourth place finisher was a long shot and wasn't permitted to have his/her personal refreshment bottle? The basic fact is that you must provide the same for all from the time the gun goes off to the time the runners cross the finish line. Yes in major road races around the world they only do that for the "elite" division but that is actually a separate race within a race.

The other limiting factor is the course. Large numbers would reduce the possibility of have a loop courses. There are many benefits to having a loop course.

rojo wrote:

This weekend, the USATF governing board may pick new Marathon Trials standards for 2024. Peter Bromka & Esther Atkins write that they think the large women's 2020 Trials size was a big success this year (there were 511 women and 261 men) and it should be kept moving forward. They throw a couple ideas around but the one I like the best is a field of 500 per gender with only the top 50 getting paid for. I think that's a good way to do it.

The top 1000 marathoners in the US is easy to market. 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.

https://bromka.medium.com/what-is-the-us-olympic-trials-marathon-f1b297789468

I think it should be reduced so that is only ~100 each.

Or, make it completely open to all comers. I think it’s as silly to have dudes running 2:20 in the Olympic trials race as it is to have dudes running 3 hours. So if it’s not going to be elite, it should just a large race.

I would also be cool with the Men’s trials standard being the just faster then the women’s world record.

There are zero events on the track where a man can “train for the Olympics” and be slower than their female counterparts.

either wrote:

I would also be cool with the Men’s trials standard being the just faster then the women’s world record.

There are zero events on the track where a man can “train for the Olympics” and be slower than their female counterparts.

This is a dumb take

this and this wrote:

Is the main purpose of selecting the US Olympic marathon team to grow the sport or select the top 3 runners that have the best chance to actually medal at the games?

It's not an either or question. It can and should be both, those goals are not mutually exclusive.

Every Turkey Trot Age Group Champ gets a free invite as well... And if you start a thread that gets linked to the front page you get an invite. ... And high schoolers who can break 10 in the 3200 but can’t break 4:30 in the 1600 you have the mitochondria necessary for the full ‘thon.

Top 50 max for each that have run a Marathon.

+

Top 5 sub 29 10k for men sub 32 for women or something to that degree.

That’s it.

This should not be made into a circus where no names try to lead for the first few miles with some stunt. Like all other Olympic Trial events in track and field it should be for the elite only. Not the semi elite or for anyone that has absolutely no chance at making the team.

On the subject of loop courses. If you are caught from behind by the leader on a five mile loop course that person should be escorted off the course because of the potential for them to block competitors at water pick up zones, etc.. I have watched several trials and there are always one or two that jog it off the back because they were recovering from something or who knows why. I hate to sound cold about this but that’s how it should be at that level.

I love how the Japanese pull runners out of Fukuoka if they are off pace. It’s explained that it is a spectator race and not a participant race.

Trials should not be a participant race.

If the US wants to compete with the world's best they need to lower the qualifying times to get rid of the Walter Mittys

out there. For men, 2:12 or lower. For women, 2:28 or lower.

1000 is too big

500 is too big

150 is about right, but there should still be a time standard for entry. It needs to go way down for the women, and maybe a bit down for the men. We should sell the public that the guys running this event are pro athletes, the best of the best. We should have a pro running circuit and a means for hundreds to make a living off running and thousands to make a living off running and a part time job. Some idiot will tell me the hundredth place finisher doesn't deserve anything other than a local newspaper article, yet with a straight face tell me that the 180th best football quarterback deserves to make six figures exclusively from football.

either wrote:

I would also be cool with the Men’s trials standard being the just faster then the women’s world record.

There are zero events on the track where a man can “train for the Olympics” and be slower than their female counterparts.

Wait for the "next Caster Semenya".

I like the middle ground of roughly 300 per gender. Incentivizes the non-pros but still appropriately elite. So leave the men's standard at 2:19 and drop the women's to 2:43. These times would serve as auto qualifiers. Then if fewer than 300 meet this threshold, there could be "wild card" qualifiers. So for example if 260 men qualify by running under 2:19, the next fastest 40 are invited to the field to reach 300 entrants. So that opens the door for maybe a 2:19:20 guy or a 2:43:20 woman sneaking in. Would add even more excitement / motivation for the fringe folks and make every second count in potential qualifying races.