USATF just announced the women's 10,000 at the Olympic Trials will be a 2 section final - Good idea or not? I'm VERY much oppose

Agree it sucks for anyone in the B heat, especially if the B heat is run first. Assume that's going to be the case?

Maybe they could run the B heat second and let anyone in the B heat switch to the A heat if they want to?

Still ample time for the B heat athletes who feel they belong in the A heat to run a faster mark, no? Yes this might mean a change in their plans, but if they're serious about making an Olympic team doesn't feel like an unreasonable ask to me.

This is the 10K we're talking about, and while there are 50 who have qualified, there might be 15 with the Olympic standard?

Say someone unexpected breaks through for the top three. They'll get the time qualifier, too, when they haven't gotten it yet?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Still ample time for the B heat athletes who feel they belong in the A heat to run a faster mark, no? Yes this might mean a change in their plans, but if they're serious about making an Olympic team doesn't feel like an unreasonable ask to me.

Are you joking? You think there is plenty of time to find a high-quality track 10,000 where they can run a sub-32? As if that won't impact their training.

USATF consistently shows they don't care about the dreamers. They really only care about the 2-3 medal contenders.

When I was at Cornell, there was an ex-Cornell runner who was in Eugene. She was like the next person into the Trials. They had a scratch. They didn't let her run.

The same thing will be true when they start like 27 people in the first round of the 1500. And get it down to 24 in round 2. IT should be 48 in first round , 24 in second and 12 in final.

The fans will be bored and 18 people who could down the road tell their kids their family they were OT participants will be sitting at home for no reason.

David S wrote:

Agree it sucks for anyone in the B heat, especially if the B heat is run first. Assume that's going to be the case?

Maybe they could run the B heat second and let anyone in the B heat switch to the A heat if they want to?

How does that make any sense? Everyone wants to be in the A heat.

Just run it on an Indy car track.

Yes, this is dumb. B race will be first and the runners in the A heat will know exactly the time to beat to make the team. Unless someone runs crazy fast in the B, the top three A runners will have no trouble matching the B time and will make the team.

Lame. It would be fun to watch Gwen or Keira pull a Drew Hunter and win from the slow heat but it's not the way it should be.

I believe they know Toyko will be cancelled before the trials . They will hold the trials for naming an Olympic team , like 1980.

So there's a few things worth noting here:

1. In the women's 10k, you NEED the Olympic standard to make the team. World Athletics wants a 27-person field, yet 29 athletes already have the Olympic standard (even accounting for the 3-athletes-per-country limit). So no one is getting in off of their world ranking.

2. There are 14 Americans with the standard right now, and all of them are going to be in the fast heat.

3. That said, there are some women projected to be in the slow heat (Vanessa Fraser, Keira D'Amato, to name two) who could potentially hit the standard at the Trials and make the team. Obviously that's not an ideal situation.

But I think it makes more sense to run a two-section final than to have 50 women on the track at once. I don't want a bunch of lapped runners in the way over the final laps. And if you didn't have the Olympic standard going in, you probably weren't going to make it anyway. In the last 10 years, the winning time at USAs has been sub-31:25 just twice, and I think it's going to be tough to do it in the sun in Eugene (6:44 p.m. start for the 10k).

Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. The bigger problem is the Olympic Trials standard (32:25) was too slow to begin with, and that was exacerbated with the super shoes and extended qualifying window. But now that we're in this situation, I don't have an issue with the two heats. I think it's the best option.

Also I do enjoy chaos and I think there is chaos potential if D'Amato, Fraser, and some others in the slow heat hatch a plan to work together to make it fast and really put the pressure on the women in the fast heat.

I agree with everything that you stated. I don't think that the B heat will be fast enough to impact the A heat though. The B heat can run faster than the A heat but if they don't hit the Olympic Standard, it is like it didn't even happen.

Split finals are always bad. You should always have to beat a runner that's in the race with you to win.

Lapped runners will be a problem, but don't make the cure worse than the disease. I would rather see them give the hook to everyone who is about to be lapped than have a split final.

Or go back to a semifinal and a final like the old days. With the trials you can space them a week apart.

I think 50 runners is too many. Gault is correct that the standard is too slow and maybe should have been about 30 seconds faster.

Maybe someone could rabbit the B heat and the others could pool together to pay her. Is this prohibited by the rules? What would game theory advise?

It's a 10k.. who cares? It's like having the NIT tournament along with March madness. Complaining that the 40th runner in a 10k doesn't get the chance to run against the top in a championship race is like complaining UC Irvine didn't have a fair shot at winning the NCAA men's basketball title because they weren't allowed to play in March madness despite finishing 2nd in the big west. Who cares?

50 is way too many to run in one heat.

USATF hasn’t announced anything. Runners World published an article breaking the basic details of the women’s 10k, but there isn’t enough info to know exactly how it will unfold.

The language in the rules being applied here make it sound like a 2 section final is the solution when a prelim round can not fit into the schedule. Is that actually the case? A second heat of the 10k can be added, but not a prelim?

Will USATF use actual qualifying times to seed heats, or will some athletes get moved based on speculative a potential? How about athletes that ran qualifying times in 2019?

So far, the information that has emerged makes the situation no clearer than it was before, when we knew that 50+ have the OT mark. Of course, none of this is one bit surprising for USATF. SNAFU

I agree that introducing an elimination round would help. Bring back the 10000 prelims!

You could, um, read the article,,,

With so many qualifiers, USA Track & Field (USATF) said today in a statement emailed to Runner’s World that the event would be held as two sections:

“The USATF Women’s T&F Committee has decided that due to the extraordinary number of women who are qualified for the women’s 10,000 at the 2021 US Olympic Trials, and are likely to enter and compete, a 2-section final will be held. USATF Rule 166.2 will govern the set-up for these two races.”

mrnekk wrote:

I think 50 runners is too many. Gault is correct that the standard is too slow and maybe should have been about 30 seconds faster.

Maybe someone could rabbit the B heat and the others could pool together to pay her. Is this prohibited by the rules? What would game theory advise?

They need to run the standard pace and count on the other heat being slow as the real contenders don't want to be the pace setters. If you are in really great shape (say you ran a 1450 5k) you could go nuts and try to solo like a 30:50 but that is a hard task. Better to try to get all the 1510 people to work together to get you to 8k on pace.

Now imagine you in the A heat and someone in the B heat drops a 31:10. Do you push the pace or do you race like you need to be top2?