Changed Marathon Trials numbers

Well what kind of support do you think a 29:30 guy should get? Should his running career be completely subsidized by the USATF? Would a $5000 stipend be enough? Would free shoes and travel? And where do we draw the line? Does a runner not have potential if he runs 29:31? And what about other events like the 100m or javelin; should the USATF give similar support to those borderline athletes? I'd love to hear your solution for funding this endeavor.Face it, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. In the case of the marathon trials, it's 2:19.

Not quite that simple wrote:

If there were major support available you might could say that. However, a guy out of college who has a 10k PR of say 29:30 might have a lot of potential at the marathon, but initially he's not gonna be able to make a living off running so he's not going to be able to choose it as his profession.

USATF is not NOW nor have they ever given training money to any marathoner. Even on Olympic Years USATF does not give out any money. NYRR will give $20k to each of the Olympians for training but USATF gives nothing. Dollars in distance running come from elsewhere.

That's a good point about having the mentality of shooting for 2:22 instead of 2:19, and it seems logical. However, looking at recent history, an interesting thing came to mind. I think Glenn said that the 2:22 "B" standard was added in(or after) 1996 to allow for more people in the race because the numbers were low. It was definitely in place in 2000, and we only sent Rod Dehaven to the Olympics. However, more people got to race in the trials and in 2004 we sent a very good team of Culpepper, Browne, and Meb. Still having the "B" standard in place, more people got to run, and some, like Sell, came back in '08 to make the team in what was one of the more competitive Trials race in US History. I would argue that having a lower standard didn't really hurt US runners development. The opposite appears to be true, but that seems like a stretch, and the resurgence is mostly due to groups like Hansons, Team USA Minnesota and So. Cal, Oregon Project, etc.

Developing runners at all levels 'raises the bar' at all levels.

No, idiot, I'm not saying a 29:30 guy should get a free ride from USATF. I'm just saying that one person says if you want to run in the Olympic Trials then choose to be a professional runner and it's not that simple. If I could be a professional runner, God knows I would, but I can't because then I wouldn't be able to eat.

I have seen the future of US distance running, and it is bleak. The harbinger of this long, dark cloud that dampened the rising tide of recent success for the Americans came in the waning days of the year 2007. A small, remote island in the vast blue Pacific sent a message to the mainland - "2:19, or else". For some the impact was an immediate and prolonged high fructose corn syrup fueled trip on the couch. It was over. It was the select few of this group, those who thought 2:22 was possible, but 2:19 was not, that brought the wave of confident US runners to neary a splash on the shore. The Americans never recovered. The historians are still baffled by this. How a few runners, who openly admitted they could not run 2:19, were able to slow that train leaving the station so much as to make a gap that could not be overcome. Not even a re-print of the cult classic "Once a Runner", in a last ditch attempt to bridge that gap could, could rekindle the fire. Oh sure, there was that one guy who ran 2:16, but that was on the much maligned St. George course....

If the old "B" standard allows a few more runners to dream and stick around to work towards the dream, that is a good reason to keep it. Why change what seems to have been working. The Brian Sell story is the best testimonial for keeping the B standard, the guy stuck around who might not have otherwise.

kcb wrote:

If the old "B" standard allows a few more runners to dream and stick around to work towards the dream, that is a good reason to keep it. Why change what seems to have been working. The Brian Sell story is the best testimonial for keeping the B standard, the guy stuck around who might not have otherwise.

Very good point. If you go to eliterunning.com right now and look at the news links, there are a bunch of articles from local newspapers about women who qualified for the Trials this past weekend at CIM. The same was true leading up to the men's Trials in NY. Lots of stories about local runners who had "made it big." If you reduce the number of qualifiers, those articles disappear and that means even less exposure for a sport that already gets very little press. The number of qualifiers was not unmanageable with a 2:22 standard, and while the 2:19-2:22 guys might not have been a threat to make the team, they weren't doing anything but positive stuff for the sport.

I think the whole B standard A standard thing was a great way to keep people shooting for faster and faster times. Thats why I hate to see it go. I think it would be a better thing to lower the A standard to 2:19 and the B to 2:21. And then, in the next four to eight years, the depth of the field has shifted down a minute or so and you can hopefully shift down to 2:18 and 2:20.

I like the tiered approach to giving people goals to work for. For instance, in 2000 a 30 minute guy graduates from college and barely eeks under 2:22, he then resolves to get under that A standard so he will be going for free next time. He improves to 2:19 in the next four years. At this point, in 2004 that is, he would be considering going to some major marathons and making some noise in the top 5 American area if he can get that time down to 2:16 lets say. If he runs 2:16 by 2007, he goes to the trials being ranked pretty high and realizes he can run with the 2:14 guys and so on.

Now, given some increased American marathoin depth, is a good time to shift that paradigm of 2:22/2:20 to 2:21/2:19, but not to just obliterate the first two tiers altogether.

People who keep using the Brian Sell '04 situation need to remember a few things. Brian chose to run the World Half that fall and ran Chicago 2 weeks later. His only goal in that race was to run sub 2:20 and it was his first marathon. He might have even gone out very slow (1:12 or something) and ran very fast the last half.

If the standard was 2:19 and he thought he was close he could have given up the world half (might have qualified anyway with a sub 1:05 performance in the half) and run 2:19.

Everything needs perspective. Brian would have still run in 2004 under the new set of rules. Whether it was a sub 1:05 or 2:19

Wasn't there some talk either 4 or 8 years ago about loosening the standard to like 2:25 because there weren't enough qualifiers? I know American distance running is a little better now, but I would think we had about the right number this past go round and therefore shouldn't mess with it until we get to a point where there is a much too large number. I wonder if there are only 40-45 qualifiers for the 2012 Trials if anyone will look back on this as a bad decision or if 40-45 is what USATF wants.

hmmmmm wrote:

People who keep using the Brian Sell '04 situation need to remember a few things. Brian chose to run the World Half that fall and ran Chicago 2 weeks later. His only goal in that race was to run sub 2:20 and it was his first marathon. He might have even gone out very slow (1:12 or something) and ran very fast the last half.

If the standard was 2:19 and he thought he was close he could have given up the world half (might have qualified anyway with a sub 1:05 performance in the half) and run 2:19.

Everything needs perspective. Brian would have still run in 2004 under the new set of rules. Whether it was a sub 1:05 or 2:19

We're not talking about 1500m here, we're talking about the marathon.

2:12 full OR 63:30 HALF MARATHON

Everyone in the trials that was a factor had run those times. Anything else was not to decide who was going to make the team, it was just fluff.

Since when did the USATF ever care about exposure for the sport?

If it was just about the 2:12 guys then they can run the damn thing on the track with the top 18 times (like they do for the 10k). The bottom line is it is bad for the development, dreams and goals of the second tier guys that ultimately break through and push the tier 1 guys.

You want another example look at Peter Gilmore's long improvement. There were a couple of 2:20-ish marathons in there before he had his breakthrough.

Why doesn't USATF just say "Top 3 American's at Chicago" (or whatever marathon) like they do for nationals. Then anyone can go, all runners sub 2:15 or whatever (the ones that count) and the rest 2:20 guys are in the sub elite group start. Then eveyone can pay their way or whatever and everyone stops complaining.

So let's open this thread up a little more and see how it runs...

In a way this thread is about development, or the lack thereof. The top end of the sport is becoming more and more "elitist". Does the NBA only pay the salaries of their top 65 or top 100 players? No. They pay them all, they develop every athlete in the sport. Does the NFL only pay their top players? Golf? MLB?

Actually, I am mistaken THE GOVERNING BODY DOESN'T PAY OR DEVELOP ANY OF THEIR ATHELTES. The owners do. Track doesn't have owners with deep pockets. In the beginning neither did the NBA, MLB, or the NFL. So, this begs the questions why? And how do we change it?

How much money do you really need to truely professionalize this sport? Let's look at the bare minimum....

I'm going to guess a professional marathoner can live and more importantly TRAVEL TO RACES on about $50,000 a year. Let's also cap the number of professional marathoners at 300...a bit less than the number of professionals in other sports. So, that's a total of $15 million dollars.

The next question is how do you get businessmen to become owners of a running franchise. How do you market it? How do you set it up?

What if you had 4 regions of the country (East/West/South/Midwest) and 5 teams in each region. 20 teams of 15 runners total. Teams in each region would compete in head to head road races from the 5k to the marathon and cross country races. Of course you would have cross-region battles (like the NFC vs AFC battles). You would score your top 5 runners. Win-Loss records would of course be kept. So in the end what would the cost of this be? Well, for each team it would be 5 x 30,000 or $150,000. Now it's just a matter of convincing someone with power and money to get it started. The NBA didn't start overnight, neither did the NFL or MLB.

Professional running has always been held back by the way it is handled. It is treated like an amateur sport, like many of the Olympic sports. Some of the sports, like basketball, overcame it's amateur status by finding people and businesses willing to put money into a risky venture. Currently we have Arena and Arena2 football as risky ventures that are doing well. One of these days I hope someone finds a way to bring professional running into the spotlight and fully professionalize it.

Alan

Here's the rub:

PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAY TO WATCH THE NFL, MLB, ETC.

Hell, there's a minor league hockey team just south of me in Stockton, CA that routinely draws thousands of fans every game. Professional sports are entertainment, not for international development. People own sports franchises because they are lucrative investments, not because they want to develop the best American football players in the world. They own teams because people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to watch men play games, both in person and from home.

Now outside of the Olympic Trials, what track and field meet in the States sells out? How many meets in this country draw more than, say, 5000 fans? Not many. And those are events in a contained venue that take place in a set amount of time. Are you telling me you can get more people out to a professional road race where most spectators would not be able to view most of the action? Aside from major championship races (like the Olympic Trials marathon), how many people do you think would pay admission to watch a road race? Look at the viewership numbers for the NCAA xc meet: just over 8000 people tuned in to watch the meet FOR FREE on the internet. How many do you think would watch if they had to pay?

I've heard proposals for track leagues and road racing leagues brought up dozens of times over the years. They never make sense, because the main point of professional sports leagues (ENTERTAINMENT, NOT DEVELOPMENT) is missing.

Are you really comparing a NBA player to a 2:22 marathoner? Wow.

Some key points:

A 2:22 guy will never push a 2:10 or better guy to new level. Neither will a 2:15 guy.

The Olympic Trials is for 2:15 or better guys, and even then, the 2:12 or better guys are the real competitors.

Most guys who will break out and run sub 2:15 can run a 1:05 half to qualify.

2:22 is not good at the Olympic level. Period.

If you don't like the standards qualify for one of the track events, oh wait, that's right, they don't give free passes to wannabes.

I am getting tired of the "run faster, stupid" argument being made ad nauseum by the troglodytes on this board. This change in qualifying standards is as unnecessary as it is arbitrary. It's a "because I said so" move. There has yet to be a coherent argument justifying the change. I don't have any reason to believe it is anything but a power trip by out-of-touch egomaniacs.

-Need to raise the bar?

We have the best stable of young marathoners perhaps in the history of this country with the existing standard!

-Need to reduce the size of the race?

If you can't run a road race with 130 people, perhaps you should hire the dude that puts on the local fun run on the Fourth of July in every town in America.

-2:22 marathoners were acting like divas?

Is there a job in the country where people don't act like divas? Either get them what they want or tell them to shove off! Is this really that challenging!?

-2:22 isn't competitive on the world stage?

Neither is a 2:19. That argument sucks worst of all!

-The standards for other track and field events are much, much more difficult, and the marathon should follow suit?

First of all, see above. Second, marathons are set up to accommodate THOUSANDS of people, not a track where all kinds of things go wrong if the race is too big (lapping, lap counts, meets that run on forever). None of these problems exist with the marathon.

Third, bigger races are much more exciting and draw more fans. When there is a big race going through town, fat people sit on their lawns at 8am and pass out oranges. When they see a bunch of college guys running on the sidewalk wearing their college gear, they lean out their car windows and call them f******.

What casual fan would want to watch a 35 120-pound dudes running in a big pack through a park at 8 in the morning on a Saturday? Those elites could be running 10 minutes miles and it wouldn't make them care any less or more. Americans love a spectacle. Everyone loves watching a big, competitive marathon, I don't care who you are. BIGGER RACES ATTRACT MORE FANS AND THAT'S A FACT. And hm... what does this sport need?

Fourth, there are far more variables in the marathon and far more people are competitive. Some 3:44 1500 guy isn't going to take out Alan Webb, unless Webby spikes himself in the face. However, our Olympic silver medalist just got destroyed at the Trials by Nate Jenkins! Plus, Meb didn't even run badly! While a 2:22 guy probably won't contend, he MIGHT, and that's part of the marathon's appeal.

Fifth, running should be as democratic as humanly possible. This decision to change the standard was made by a governing body that most runners either don't understand, don't really know exists, don't care about, don't pay attention to, or think is completely full of crap. I guess I fall into all categories. I forget about them until they do something asinine. They made the decision in Hawaii, the distance running mecca, and very few people saw it coming. Even fewer saw the NEED for a change!

Apparently, it was just what the sport needed, though! That's what they tell us. The people in charge of the press release said NO ONE objected, yet many people on Letsrun think it's a joke. How does this happen? Well... Saddam got 100% of the vote when he "ran" for president back in the day. When you have a monopoly, you do what you want.

But what should we expect from the USATF? People used to care about running, and under the guidance of our fearless and ever so wise leaders, our great sport is now a sideshow event for skinny freaks. We can trust them.

What a joke.

hmmmmm wrote:

People who keep using the Brian Sell '04 situation need to remember a few things. Brian chose to run the World Half that fall and ran Chicago 2 weeks later. His only goal in that race was to run sub 2:20 and it was his first marathon. He might have even gone out very slow (1:12 or something) and ran very fast the last half.

If the standard was 2:19 and he thought he was close he could have given up the world half (might have qualified anyway with a sub 1:05 performance in the half) and run 2:19.

Everything needs perspective. Brian would have still run in 2004 under the new set of rules. Whether it was a sub 1:05 or 2:19

just so you know, sell went out in 1:10-high at chicago in 2003--there was a HUGE pack at that point, all trying to run 2:22 or under. it would have been a bloodbath if all of us had tried to go out in 1:09:30 (although closing fast at chicago felt quite easy). the comraderie was great, though. people passing their water bottles around to those who needed it--everyone trying to beat the clock.