The US has discretion over who it sends. If this is solely aimed at improving the US champs, then you should be lobbying USATF to ignore the bye, not WA to change the qualification system for the whole world to improve the national championships for a single country.
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.
The US has discretion over who it sends. If this is solely aimed at improving the US champs, then you should be lobbying USATF to ignore the bye, not WA to change the qualification system for the whole world to improve the national championships for a single country.
I think USATF should never (like literally never, no exceptions) select any athlete for a team who did not finish top 3 at USA’s.
Not “top 3 with the standard”, not “top 3 plus byes”, not even “someone in the top 3 got injured and now we’re sending 4th place”. If you’re not top 3, you’re not on the team.
It should be whoever won the previous year’s Global Championship gets the bye. So instead of Budapest, only consider Paris.
And World Ultimate Champion where applicable for off years. I’d protect the DL final bye at all costs and not do the 4/country limit. Adds exciting stakes and rewards for a reg season champion as it were.
The US has discretion over who it sends. If this is solely aimed at improving the US champs, then you should be lobbying USATF to ignore the bye, not WA to change the qualification system for the whole world to improve the national championships for a single country.
Agreed. Stop trying to solve USATF by changing the sport for everyone.
If you want USATFs to have higher stakes, I guess, but they're already the most competitive meet in the world. If anything, giving the defending champ a bye makes USATFs better by opening up a 4th slot. Making a US team is already brutally hard, I don't think throwing a defending champ into that gauntlet adds enough to be worth the carnage.
If you think the idea of letting the previous Worlds champ defend their title is unfair, I just disagree. You bring up the NFL, but I think it's more like boxing-- to be the champ, you gotta beat the champ. I have no problem with giving the reigning champ a shot to defend their title.
I'd be on board with getting rid of the bye. But the alternative suggested, giving it to the country makes no sense. It's an individual sport, the country doesn't earn anything so I'm not sure why it should be given a special prize to distribute however it wants.
It should be whoever won the previous year’s Global Championship gets the bye. So instead of Budapest, only consider Paris.
And World Ultimate Champion where applicable for off years. I’d protect the DL final bye at all costs and not do the 4/country limit. Adds exciting stakes and rewards for a reg season champion as it were.
I agree with both of these ideas. I don't agree with the LRC proposal. Glad to see Sebastian Coe has already rejected it.
Also: can the LRC staff please get off Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone's back about not attempting the 400/400h double? We've been through this before. That double is not feasible when the two events overlap in the schedule like they do.
Disagreed with the take. It is extremely difficult, especially in the sprints, to make a US team. I am perfectly fine with the defending champions to earn this privilege so that they do not have to peak for the brutal USAs.
The only change that I will make for USATF is that if a country has two byes in the same event, the athlete with the better SB gets to go. Currently, the defending champions take precedence over the DL champions.
This whole article is ironic because the whole bye system was introduced because of the USA first 3 selection process.
Michael Johnson didn't qualify for world's in 1997 due to injury and the IAAF introduced the bye system so he would get to run!
He went on the win worlds btw!
A bit of research into the origin of the bye system to worlds would have been good for this article.
And don't forget that the system for qualifying for the Olympic marathon was changed entirely because of US special pleading so that the top three in their trials didn't necessarily have to run the qualifying standard. And that was after a previous case of US special pleading to make their marathon trials platinum label before Tokyo 2020 so that the top 3 would automatically qualify even if they didn't run the standard. How much of track and field is setup around the US being special little boys and girls?
This whole article is ironic because the whole bye system was introduced because of the USA first 3 selection process.
Michael Johnson didn't qualify for world's in 1997 due to injury and the IAAF introduced the bye system so he would get to run!
He went on the win worlds btw!
A bit of research into the origin of the bye system to worlds would have been good for this article.
And don't forget that the system for qualifying for the Olympic marathon was changed entirely because of US special pleading so that the top three in their trials didn't necessarily have to run the qualifying standard. And that was after a previous case of US special pleading to make their marathon trials platinum label before Tokyo 2020 so that the top 3 would automatically qualify even if they didn't run the standard. How much of track and field is setup around the US being special little boys and girls?
USATF just needs to send any athlete who:
1) got top 3 at USA’s
2) meets the standard
If that means they sometimes send only one or two athletes, that’s fine. Don’t overthink it, no special treatment for anyone.
If you want to change it in anyway, maybe make it so that the World ULTIMATE champion gets a bye. That gives athletes an incentive to show up for the new format and gives the event some stakes instead of just being a side show.
I agree with both of these ideas. I don't agree with the LRC proposal. Glad to see Sebastian Coe has already rejected it.
Also: can the LRC staff please get off Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone's back about not attempting the 400/400h double? We've been through this before. That double is not feasible when the two events overlap in the schedule like they do.
100% agree. I'm not a Sydney fan but that double is a moronic topic that never should have surfaced in the first place, let alone lingered.