2016 Marathon Trials Standards

Still haven't seen any confirmation. This was one tweet from one guy, who basically said that it was uncomfirmed. Five pages of discussion over nothing.

I'm all for a tiered standard that helps encourage people to keep training hard (something in the 2:20-2:22 range is ideal in my mind), so tightening it on the men's side seems like a very poor decision. That said, I remember hearing a big part of the reason the standards were tightened on the men's side was due to a few of the B qualifiers making absurd demands of the organizers, such as having relatives picked up at the airport and things like that. I haven't heard this directly and might have picked it up on the internet, so I may be out in left field here, but the way they changed the standards for the 2012 trials theoretically addresses this issue by making everyone an A qualifier and eliminating 2:20-2:22 guys. Whether this is true or not, it is a very poor decision to make a change to the standards without seeing what happens at the trials. As people have mentioned, there are elites who blow up in their first marathons but then run the race they can at the trials. What if the marathon was the only way to qualify and Gotcher's first one was his 2:18/2:19 in the spring before the trials? Obviously it isn't the case, but it is theoretically possible and he is a guy who can make the team. It's also pretty easy to see if the 10k/half qualifiers all do well or all blow up, if only the 1:04 guys run poorly but the 1:03/1:02 guys are solid, etc. It is too early to make a change, and to echo some of the previous posters, a local runner in the trials generates publicity all over the country that only results because of the local runner. If that isn't a good thing for the sport, what is?

I've heard the same thing about the demands of the 2:20-range qualifiers from a few different sources, so I tend to believe most of that stuff was true. I suspect that's a driving force behind the tightening standards, which is dumb for days.

Sage talks about the plight of the 2:14 to 2:18 marathoner. I would say the same plight exists for the 2:18-2:30 marathoner. They do it for the love of the sport and to see what the true capability is of their athletic prowness. Am I, the 2:30 marathoner ever going to pull on a red, white and blue singlet and represent the USA at Worlds or the Olympics? NO. But what I do believe is that I'm a part of the "depth" of American distance running. I believe that I play a critical role in the success of the US at the international level of competition. I believe that the more 4 hour marathoners there are, the more 3 hour marathoners there will be. I think the more 3 hour marathoners there are, the more 2:30 marathoners there will be and the more 2:20 marathoners there will be. I think that model follows through until you reach the 1 or 2 individuals capable of running in the world leading 2:03-2:04 range. If you don't believe me, then take a look at Kenya. They have more people running per capita than any other country on Earth. Guess what? They also have the best marathoners on the planet. A 2:05 guy will be left of the Kenyan Olympic marathon team this year and the USA doesn't have 3 guys that can beat their number #4 guy. The point of the story is that the bigger the base, the higher the peak, and I feel as though the more people we can get running at any pace or any finishing time, the more guys there will be to emerge at the top tier of US and world marathoning.

If you accept the idea that "the bigger the base, the higher the peak" then your next logical question should be: "how do we get more people running?" There are a lot of answers to this question, starting with creating successful running/training programs in elementary, secondary and high schools, colleges, running clubs, and other organizations. I also think that there needs to be graduated levels of measurement in which to measure running success. Let's take a quick look at the high school system. In high school, a kid can join his school's team, compete weekly in open xc races and have the time of his life. He/she can also race at the conference meet, then the district meet, then the sectional meet and then the state meet. After state there are even more levels; nationals (footlocker or NXN), and then worlds. At each of those events the number and geographic range of runners grows, making each next level bigger, better, and more selective than the one before. To make it through each of those events and to move on to the next speaks volumes to a high schooler or to a running fan. Although this system is not without its flaws it is well developed and it works in developing high-school level talent. I think there is an under developed system of "graduated levels of measurement" for post collegiate athletes, and that gap is what we need to work on to continue developing the best runners in the US. What graduated levels of measurement exist for a US marathoner? What is pushing me (the 2:30 marathoner) to keep going? Finishing the race? Boston Qualifier? Olympic Trials? I need to run 3:10 to qualify for Boston and a 2:18 to qualify for the OT. Doesn't that 3:10-2:18 range seem like a pretty big gap with no real mark in between? I think the Olympic Trials (OT) could serve as a continuation of the high school and collegiate systems. That system is the carrot dangled out in front of a runner that keeps them driving for fulfilling their potential as Sage suggests, while playing a critical role in the depth of American distance running.

The mission of the USATF is "USA Track & Field drives competitive excellence and popular engagement in our sport." The mission of the USATF OT is to select the best US marathoners to represent the US at the Olympics and then for those athletes to bring home hardware from the Olympics. I also feel as though another purpose exists for the USATF OT. That purpose is to "drive competitive excellence and popular engagement in our sport." It's not that crazy of an idea as it's the actual mission of the USATF, the same governing body that is putting on the race. I think the trials race, regardless of the standards or number of entries is going to select the best Americans to represent the US in the Olympics. I also think that in addition to selecting the US's best, the trials race could get more bang for its buck in terms of meeting the mission statement of the USATF and their goal of "USA Track & Field drives competitive excellence and popular engagement in our sport."

Here is how I think the gap between the high-school and collegiate systems and the elite world of marathoning can be narrowed while at the same time creating an event which fulfills the true mission of the USATF. I think it makes sense to put the A standard at whatever the Olympic A standard is for that cycle. If it's good enough to compete at the Games, it's good enough to get your expenses covered to run in the USATF OT selection race. I'm also suggesting a B standard somewhere in the 2:22-2:26 range or so. This mark would still keep the field pretty limited, would give sub-elite guys something to shoot for, and if those 2:22+ guys would like to put up the money to go and race in the OT the more power to them and the USATF for hosting an event. Think too about how many friends, teammates, co-workers and family members would go and be a part of that race if it had 150-200 people instead of 20-30. Wouldn't that add interest and increase the popularity in the sport of running? (In reality I would like to see the B Standard guys also have their way 100% paid for by the USATF, but I don't think that is economical within the current state of US Economy and the state of the USATF). One other thing that including 2:22+ guys does is it creates story lines all over the country for the media to get a hold of and run with. These stories of guys working full time, raising families, dreaming big and running fast are what inspires me and the next generation of runners. I relate more to the 2:24 guy in my running club that is not sponsored, working full time and has a family than I do Ryan Hall who has corporate sponsorships and is only concerned with running full-time. A B Standard in the 2:22-2:26 range also narrows the canyon of a gap that exists in US marathoning (that 3:10 to 2:20's range) while taking nothing away from the true contenders (the Ryans, Mebs, Dathan's, and Sell's) of the Trials race. Who does it hurt to have a 2:24 guy in the same race as the eventual top 3?

The more people racing in conference, district, sectional, state, national events the more that will continue to rise to the challenge posed at each subsequent level of competition. That system should continue post college with graduated levels of achievement upon which we can compare ourselves. An A and B standard at the times suggested accomplishes that goal. The more people we get out, training, racing and shooting for these levels, the higher the likelihood is that people will hit each standard and will push into the upper echelons of marathon racing ultimately being able to compete against the world's best in the 2:03, 2:04 range. The USATF needs to give me and the thousands of other guys like me the opportunity to increase the depth American Distance Running, to push the limits of human potential and to give the US it's best shot at medaling at the Olympic Games. If the OT was not only used as the race to select the best that America has to offer, but as an incentive for the thousands of runners looking for that next challenge and that next time to train and race for, then the USATF will fail in its mission, and thousands of aspiring runners will never take the steps needed to make their dreams a reality.

You know, if they are going to do away with the 2:14 and up marathon runners and only have essentially professionals run, maybe someone could come up with a U.S. Amateur marathon championship for those Blue Collar runners.

agreed. just spoke my mind. (but replace with female times)

is there any hope for me to get it 2 years after college, if i run 18:30 5k as a high school sophomore? i mean i could be under 15 for 5k by senior year and then train very long runs.

I agree, anyone hitting a weaker standard is not going to be factoring into the Trials race in a big way.

However, if you look at the Trials as a way to help play the numbers game, then it is a great tool to encourage more post collegiate guys to keep training.

There is an uncounted number of guys who tried to hit the standard and failed.

Also, if you are a 2:19 - 2:22 guy, how easy/often is it for you to find a race with a ton of guys around you and go duke it out? A big part of NYC being interesting is the lack of pacemakers and letting the race play out.

The women's standard is weak, and their race seems to work out fine.

Looking forward to hearing the official ruling on this.

Just another 2:30 Guy wrote:

If you accept the idea that "the bigger the base, the higher the peak" then your next logical question should be: "how do we get more people running?"

I absolutely agree with what you've posted -- I would clarify that you mean (I think) "how do we get more people running COMPETITIVELY". Tons more people running every day, but it seems that more and more of them are simply running to complete the race and get the schwag, not to COMPETE.

I'd even like to see some sort of national "grading" of runners from USATF -- i.e. if you hit these standards, then you're graded "A", these standards, you're graded "B", etc.

Basically give people a series of steps to shoot for. Not just OTQ or bust. Additionally, different races could base entry requirements on these "grades" - for example, Boston could offer entry to any runner who was currently graded "E"; with priority entry to runners who were graded "D" or above.

Best decision ever.

US runners need to understand that they must perform at a higher level to be competitive and dumbing down qualifying is not helping athletes achieve.

What?! They dropped the standard by one minute? I quit.

There is no doubt that we have very competitive women. There is also no denying that the women have weak OTQ standards. I don't think that a slower qualification time is going to hinder achievement.

I think the slower standard encourages more people to step it up. Even 2:25 is a very fast runner that most would consider elite. The guys in the sub 2:15 range don't care about the standard, they are motivated to win races. A 2:19 standard does little to motivate a 2:27 guy, but 2:22-25 may encourage a horde of runners to step it up thus putting more pressure on the 2:1x guys.

The NCAA tournament makes basketball extremely popular, and everybody knows that seeds 13+ have no chance to win the tournament; they make the good teams look good. Our sport could gain a lot of interest with no additional cost or logistics, it could even make a bunch of money if they charged $1k for the 2:20s guys to enter.

What is the point if we dont get Olympic medals? Let's just cut the trials and only send runners whose 3rd slowest time is faster than the previous bronze medal time.

As someone who hit the A standard (2:19's both times) for the 2004 and 2007 trials, I can say that lowering (the time of) the standard takes away from the sport. I think 2:19 is a fair standard which encourages guys to keep training hard to reach a new goal in the sport they love. Making the trials was the thrill of a lifetime for me--I crossed the line with a huge smile on my face the first time. My teammate also qualified, hitting the B standard after crashing and burning in his first marathon. And there we were in 2004, both in the top 16 (with PRs), when all was said and done. Had the standard been different we both wouldn't have been there. (It should be noted that in 2007 my team had six qualifiers. 2:18 standard? We would have had one.)

Sure, lowering the standard would make guys "step it up" and overall you'd see faster times of guys on the borderline. But 2:14/2:18 is ridiculous. There's so little money in running as it is, not having to worry about travel (especially in a place like NYC--my family packed everyone into one room in 2007 because it was so outrageous) and making runners feel like they are actually elite athletes is good for the sport. Granted I would have paid my own expenses regardless, but being treated like royalty for a couple days made it feel like our athletic accomplishments were significant to someone other than ourselves. True, we should run for ourselves, but I can't say I didn't feel a HUGE amount of pride for my family knowing they could tell their friends that their son/brother/cousin was going to "the trials."

It's those family members and friends that line the course, stay in the hotels, and eat at the restaurants, which help make the trials a legitimate event for the host city. And I agree with other posters who say that it generates plenty of positive press for running and the Trials in the local press. No one in my hometown (or where I live now) could give a sh!t about marathon running until one of their own is "trying to qualify for the Olympics." Like the Milwaukee Bucks will never win another NBA title, a 2:18-high guy isn't going to make the team (although Trent Briney almost pulled it off). Doesn't mean they don't belong in the same league as the Mebs, and Halls, and Ritzes of the world, though.

If you've never had the experience of an Olympic Trials marathon it's easier to see it from the USATF's financial standpoint and say, "raise the standard!" But as someone who's been there, who has supported USATF, and who knows that big things can happen for guys who "don't belong there", I say let it be. There are guys who work or go to school full-time who still contribute to the sport, and deserve recognition for it. (One of the things I was most proud of in 2004 was that, I believe, I was the first finisher with a full-time job that wasn't related to running.) Can anyone tell me that Tim Tollefson's story wasn't great for the sport? That the sport of running and the status of USATF would be worse off by him qualifying? The photo of him near the finish is what running is all about for guys "on the fringe." And like it or not, it's those guys who make up the majority of competitors at the Olympic Trials marathon, and they deserve to continue to do so.

Fact is it's time for many of the posters here to get into USATF from the inside and get on the LDR committees, so that the changes talked about here can take place. The disdain and arrogant disrespect for distance runners shown by USATF and its committees will only continue till then. This will be a long, slow process, but needs to be done, IMO.

blanderbush wrote:

Best decision ever.

US runners need to understand that they must perform at a higher level to be competitive and dumbing down qualifying is not helping athletes achieve.

This line of reasoning makes me think 2:18 would be way too soft. If US runners "need to understand that they must perform at a higher level", then why not just drop it down to 2:07 and really send the message to elite marathoners they need to step it up. Dropping it to 2:02 would probably help our medal chances even more.

I'm no one, just a 2:20s guy, but I agree with the new mens standards. Lets only have the best at the OLYMPIC TRIALS. It's not Boston or NY, its the OT's.

I'm a 2:20s guy too, it would be nice to have 1 race every 4 years that there is a good group of guys running fast.

What is the downside to a slightly more relaxed standard? We are talking about letting what, 50+ more people in a race max? Are those extra 50+ guys really going to diminish the honor of being in the race?

Races like Boston and NY have little appeal to me over any other random marathon. What do I usually get to do? Hope there are 2-3 guys running near me for some part of the "race" which is really just a sanctioned time trial.

I believe there is a huge pool of 14:00-15:00 5k guys from college who have the potential to be good marathoners (say sub 2:15), but seem to just hang it up. What in the current college system highlights marathoning talent? There isn't any. All I suggesting is make just a touch easier for a whole group of decent 5k guys to justify taking the risk on taking a serious crack at the marathon.

I'm not suggesting we open the doors to thousands of people. Hell, just put a cap on the number of people who can get in. "Here is the list, be in the top 200."

There is a huge chasm between Boston an the OT. Getting the top 300 americans in one race would be great.

World marathon majors is like the bcs, it prevents deep competition pools