Discussion: USATF may not honor order of finish at marathon trials for 3rd men's spot - will go with World Rank instead!

I posted on a Gault thread on the Orlando time change before seeing this thread.
I have been posting about this scenario leading into Chicago. Seems Eyestone wasn't getting clarity about the selection rules going into Chicago.

Don't know what the big deal is. For track trials it has been 3 highest places with the standard as long as I can remember. No one ever makes a stink about that. Why is it such a big deal for the marathon but not the track events?

My other post asked what would happen if Mantz Young went 1,2 and Rupp 3rd in a time over 2:13. Rupp's NYC half pulled his world ranking down below top 80. A 2:13+ I dont think would improve his ranking above 80 and he would need to run a half like sub 63 before May 5 2024 qual period closed to move into the top 80. It seems like USATF just realizied this, or least first time that want to admit the top 3 at trials might not go. Again no idea why this is such a big deal.

Race performance is the only thing that matters. If you are top 3 at the trials and have the standard (or finished top 5 at a platinum marathon), you make the team.
it is the exact opposite of college football.

In addition to the auto time, all of those in the top 65 on the filtered World Athletics list on 1/30 are qualified. So if the US has 3 on that list by 1/30, before the trials, then the US has three spots to award at the Trials. Those can go to the top three at the trials as long as each has run 2:11:30 or better. If someone in the top three hasn’t run 2:11:30 or faster then World Athletics doesn’t allow that runner to go to the Games regardless of the number of slots a country has to award. So in this case the US will move down the finish order until 3 with that result have been selected. Hopefully no one has to be skipped. If it happens, its because the athlete isn’t fast enough.

The US isn’t allowing athletes to chase 2:11:30 between the trials and May 5. This allows a team to be selected at the trials, rather than selection being on hold for months.

Right now the US has 3 in the top 65 filtered and we’ll know more solidly after Valencia results are on the WA list. There are not a lot of other opportunities before 1/30 for the list to change.

The part of the system Rojo is fixated on is only if the US doesn’t have three spots to award on 1/30 per World Athletics rules. The US is not going to award a spot at the Trials that it doesn’t know it has to award.

So I’m this case, this final piece of the system becomes active because the US didn’t have the spot to award at the trials in the first place.

So what if Fauble decided to go crush Houston Marathon and ran 2:08:11… fast enough to be top 64 world ranking (maybe?) but not fast enough to unlock another Olympic spot for US. If I'm understanding this right, he could just jog in Orlando and be selected, based on ranking?

with 61/80 spots already filled by people with the standard not many athletes from any country will go unless they can get under it.

US men that haven’t run 2:08:10 yet are probably better off chasing the time somewhere else if the Trials aren’t expected to be fast.

It won't matter because they will have at least 64 on the Road to Paris list under the 2:08:10 standard by the time it is updated this week:

worldathletics.org

Road To | World Athletics

Link:worldathletics.org/stats-zone/road-to/...

Correction - it was just updated to count Valencia and Fukuoka from today. It sits at 61 with the sub 2:08:10 standard.

Possibly Houston could add someone. Not sure of any other international marathons between now and Jan 30th that would produce a sub 2:08:10

The Jan 30th Top 65 (actually any runner 'under' the 65th Road to Paris list) refers to spots that locked and cannot be lost between 1/30 and 5/4. Each country has the option to assign that spot to any runner under 2:11:30. A 2:11:30 is right about the points to be in the top 80 it seems.

After the Jan 30 lock date, the remaining spots will be filled according to rank on the Road to Paris list to get to the 80 runners. The list has already been updated for today's Fukuoka and Valencia) Right now we have 17 guys in the top 80 (CJ I think will be on after his win at CIM). We are going to send 3 just a matter of how we pick them.

Literally could not care less about what method they choose to use for selecting the 3rd team spot. It's basically guaranteed that person won't finish better than 30th, is that really even worth the expense of sending them?

Then they picked Alabama over 13-0 Florida State.

If Fauble finishes top 3 at the trials, he goes as long as he still ranked within top 80 on the Road To Paris (RTP) list. Anyone top 80 RTP can go.

Fable should be high enough on the list to be safe. Only from countries without all three qualifiers above Fauble can displace him.
3 qual countries (before today was) BEL CHN ERI ESP ETH FRA GER ISR ITA JPN KEN MAR UGA

Boston counts towards RTP qualifying, it just scores less in qual points.
His 2:09:44 Boston counts for 1211 points while CHESEREK 23 NYC 2:11:07 counts only a little less 1197 points. Whether his Boston time can be used to in case of using unlock spot seems irrelevant.

The only interesting case to me is Rupp coming top 3 with a slow time. Historically trails have been championship style races that start slow so this trials will have a different fell and that's not a bad thing.

Interesting take Rupp's RTP ranking would be high enough if he didn't run the 64 NYC half.

Good chance Rupp makes top 3 in a time good enough to push him into the top 80. But he'll have to run a time (2:10ish?) with enough cushion to not fall off the list by qual period end. Could be interesting...

Do I have this right?

1) USA has two guaranteed spots.

2) A 3rd spot might be unlocked on 5/4 via top 65 on world rankings.

3) If Mantz and Young finish top 3 at the trials they are the only ones guaranteed to be named to the team.

4) Anyone else (outside of Mantz and Young) finishing top 3 at the trials is not guaranteed a spot unless they are ranked top 65 on Road to Paris rankings 5/4.

5) You can't chase the 2:08:10 standard after 1/30?

I thought that was a "fail safe" in case one of the top three finishers doesn't have the Olympic B standard, in which case the spot could be reallocated to someone who does have the standard.

well, this.

And if the 3rd (or all?) of the top 3 are ineligible based on WA selection criteria, how ITF would even send the third guy??? Don't you have to send a qualified athlete? With the standard or ranking or whatever?

What if something totally effed up happens and 3 rando 2:14 guys sweep it? They ain't going under any circumstance. So, what is the problem?

If Fauble improves his ranking to top 64 by January 30th he would guarantee a third spot for the US - and thus he'd be screwing himself over, because he'd then have to place top three at trials on tired legs. Same would go for anyone else who tries this at Houston.

1) yes

2) no. locked spots determined on jan 30. since a country can select a replacement runner with a time of 2:11:30 or better in their place. so place is locked up for your country.

3) yes

4) Not guaranteed, but as long as they are on top 80 (not 65) on Road To Paris (RTP) list as of May 4th, they go.

5 yes

So correct me if I got this wrong...
The genius at USATF decide to enact a rule that, unlike track event oly qualifiers, you can't chase a qualifier afterwards. The intent being they so desperately want to bill the event as top 3 go.

The problem is when your selection event is before the end of the qualifying window, you can't know definitely who's qualified or not.

Consider, for arguments sake, we do have a hot & humid day, and the trials go Mantz, Young, Matt McDonald, Rupp, Fauble. 3rd-5th place tight around 2:11+ - Times that may get them into top 80 but not hold up to Top 80 RTP list by May 4th.

By USATF not letting them to improve their rankings after the trials, they have to sit on their ranking hoping they hold up. If not Fauble may roll-in on May 4th. In this case the no-chase rule did not achieve its desired result. It may in fact prevent someone who did perform at the trials not getting in by of the very rule enacted to prevent this scenario.

Why not skip the "trials" all together? Orlando is expected to be a slow race, so expect one of the runners with a top time to skip the race and get in by selection. Why race is you know no one can match your existing time in the trials?

As expected since ESPN owns the media rights to the SEC and ESPN owns the rights to televise the CFP selection dog-and-pony show. It was obvious since the start of the season that an SEC team would be in -- no matter what. The selection committee came across as a bunch of clowns fumbling to explain that FSU was left out for not winning convincingly, while ignoring that Alabama needed a miraculous reception with seconds to play to beat lowly Auburn team.

The point being the same can happen with the trials "selection." Once people, some who have never run a marathon, decide who is most "deserving", any explanation to justify their pick will be picked apart by runners who know what's involved.