1. I have this feeling that 90% of the "keep standards high" crowd is represented by bitter ex-Div 1 runners who "weren't good enough" to achieve their goals. And since they were never given a shot at the OT, nobody else should. Point taken.
2. Has it not been said that in order to produce a 2:0X runner, you need a large pool of 2:1X runners? Following this logic, in order to produce a 2:1X runner, you need a large pool of 2:2X runners. This is called the "network effect".
I don't know about you, but where I live there are currently zero 2:0X runners, zero 2:1X runners, two 2:2X runners, and maybe five 2:3X runners. This is a talent pool that will not produce a "network effect".
Suppose this talent pool is a representative sample of USA running talent: sporadic pockets of talent, but no pocket deep enough to produce 2:0X runners (Yes, the plural "runners") because the 2:1X and 2:2X pool has not reached critical masses necessary to produce "network effects".
Local running communities are deep enough to produce 2:5X, 2:4X, and 2:3X runners. The USA Olympic marathon pipeline breaks down at the local level at 2:2X.
Let the "A" standard be 2:15, expenses paid. Let the "B" standard be 2:25, expenses not paid. Because you know there are enough 2:3X runners who will say, "dammit, I can get that 2:25 before my rival can". So your 2:3X local runners begin to organize/compete/network/train and build the culture necessary on a local level to produce a 2:25. Now you have more 2:2X runners (deepr pool bothh local and national). Many go to the trials and do not make the team, but the same process begins with 2:2X runners gunning for 2:1X. Repeat. Now 2:1X runners are gunning for 2:0X. Repeat. Now USA is on the medal podium.
I get the "high expectations" argument for one OT standard of 2:1X. But if you understand the dynamics necessary to unleash an individual's competitive zeal, then you realize carrotts must be shown as stretch (but realistic) goals.
So the mantra goes, "I am pleased but not satisfied".