How is this building interest in the sport and for whom? This seems like a cliche line, a weak argument against an unpopular decision, and the equivalent of crying, "Won't anyone think of the children?!".
Can someone please explain how having more competitors and slower standards makes the sport more popular? Do TV networks not care about 150 runner fields but suddenly go nuts over 250 runners? If 200-300 post collegians don't make the Trials due to a harder standard, do Nike or New Balance go belly up? Do middle school kids decide not to go out for high school track? Does the local 5K industry disappear into the ether?
Does anyone have a quantifiable answer?[/quote]
I'm in favor of loose standards. I think 2:22/2:45 guarantees most recreational runners knowing of someone in their community who is going to the Trials. What kind of coverage did you consume before the 2020 Trials pre-race? There were so many stories about runners in the women's field working full-time jobs, raising children, etc.
I think that's better for the sport than tightening standards which, on the surface, are tougher on the women.
If the goal is to simply select a team then 2:18/2:37 are meaningless. Why not 2:13 & 2:30 at that point? Why not run it on a track?
The marathon isn't like track racing in the US. Casual runners run the marathon instead of the 800 + 1500. They understand the race. Plus you don't have constrictions on the road. Galen Rupp does the Chicago Marathon every year. It doesn't matter to him that people are gonna run 4 hours. Why should it matter if people are going to run 2:20? The front end race coverage will be the same.