I believe that the standard for the US Men's Olympic Marathon Trials has been a point of debate since it was first put in place in 1972. Up until that point it had been an open championship just like we have in every other non-Olympic year to this date.
Ironically (I think) we are the only country in the world that has an entire marathon set aside for only a handful of runners to compete in to determine our Olympic Marathon Team. Why we don't just have it as part of a major marathon like everyone else (like all other US Marathon Champs as well) is beyond me.
Certainly there are numerous compelling arguments from many angles of what the standard should be and what it involves.
However, I agree with Kevin when saying that if you are going to have a race every four years that attracts the attention of the running community and "Joe Public" then you need to use that as a positive tool to help the sport.
The difference between the marathon and the track trials is obvious....numbers. Track&Field is confined by lanes and schedules whereas the marathon is more like a cross country race, only longer. It doesn't matter if you have 100 people or 200 people in the race, it doesn't change anything. Realistically the financial expenditure is bib numbers and cups of water and Gatorade, both of which are drops in the bucket.
As for other costs, it's simple. Anyone who has achieved the Olympic A standard already then pay their expenses and everyone else has to pay their own way. Or if they hit the Olympic A standard at the trials then reimburse them. Fair enough?
As for who runs...this is a marathon, it is a different animal. It's not the 5000m or 10,000m on the track. There are so many unpredictable variables that determine success and on top of that 90% of this board would not argue that it takes time and years to develop in the marathon. Guys coming out of college are rarely going to run their best marathons before the age of 25. And as someone pointed out, the bigger the base of quality runners, then the more that will develop from that group and push upwards creating even more "elites" at the next level.
Again, this is just my opinion, but here are some safe and quality standards.
A) 2:14:00 (Olympic A standard - expenses paid)
B) 2:25:00 (pay their own way, simple as that)
Why 2:25:00? Seems like as logical of a number as 2:19, 2:22 or 2:30. I think most would agree that in order to run a sub 2:25:00 marathon takes a lot of work, however it is a mark that many good college runners could realistically shoot for within their first 3-4 years out of college. In return your base of quality runners overall is higher and hopefully with that experience will come the incentive to stay in the game and push forward into their prime years or early 30's.
And as we all know, for example say you have 200 men who actually qualify. That would be a pretty good group. To have 200 men under 2:25 in the US would be a step in the right direction. Also of those 200 men how many would actually make it to the starting line or finish the trials? There are always DNS's and DNF's. Unlike track, you NEED numbers to make a marathon interesting because of the attrition.
And as for the media side goes, you must be living under a rock if you don't think that having your local neighbor receiving press for running in the US Olympic Trials is a good thing. Any positive press this sport can get then the better. To run sub 2:25:00 is no joke and a majority of these guys are working regular jobs, etc. Our sport only survives because of the die-hard people, volunteers and folks who do it because they love it. Without them, you have no sport and no one would care what the "elites" do. You can't have a race without competitors and you can't have sport without people.
Just my 2 cents.