All this standard chasing is stupid. Hasn't USA proven that its athletes are quality in just about every event (by making the finals again and again). It may hurt performance for athletes to try to peak in May and June just to have a chance to compete in August.
Wow, if I was going to plant someone to start a thread this would have been it.
Our Quote of the Day Tuesday will touch on this and its also mentioned in our Week that Was.
"A" Standards if they exist should be by country and probably over a longer window. If the US has 3 "A" standards, then it can send whichever three guys it wants to the Worlds.
Instead now we encourage people to go time trial and then make our Championships confusing to fans depending on who does or does not have the "A" standard.
Competition at meets also loses its significance because athletes are more concerned about the standard than what place they finish.
Let's change the rule because Americans are stupid.
Ok....
I think if they made the time window longer it would solve a lot of problems. Most guys would already have times from the end of last season so they could really focus on being ready when it counts.
Do the top 3 at the trials make the team for the Worlds or do they only do that for the Olympics? I'm not American and I always thought that was such a stupid way to pick the team.
I would have only the winner of the trials auto selected. The other 2 selected by a common sense committee. For example, if Rupp somehow finished outside the top 3 in the trials he still gets selected so long as he can prove his fitness because he's Galen MF Rupp.
You must have the A standard to be selected but I would extend the qualifying period to a full year so it includes the previous years outdoor season.
Think before you write. Then, when you're done writing, proof read what you've written.
So would ethiopia and kenya have 6 each then and shouldnt we limit weaker countries too say 1 A standard for Every european country, plus australia. Because letting there be a diverse yet still qualified field seems to make you guys angry.
No committees. No committees. No committees.
Out of the ordinary wrote:
No committees. No committees. No committees.
No kidding. A committee probably would've sent Khalid Khannouchi and Alan Webb to Beijing.
I love our system. If you run fast enough, nobody can keep you out of the team.
If you impose the standards for some countries and not others it will create a whole new set of problems/controversies.
No committees. Just extend the window so it includes the previous outdoor season, like it does for the 10k and the problem is solved. It's ridiculous that the window is so short.
If you extend the window, you'll probably have to increase the standard, otherwise there will be more qualifiers from countries that normally don't send 3.
I think Wejo's idea wasn't for special treatment. It was that every country gets a slot for each A qualifier up to 3.
I would be hard pressed to think of a (semi-serious) notion that would have a lower likelihood of being passed. Why?
You want to give the US a pass while still making a bunch of little countries work hard and have few opportunities. Thin US senate, where the low-population states get as many senators. The IAAF is like the Senate on steroids. The US gets one of 200+ votes.
Besides, how many walkers, wTJers, men Jav, ... are really competitive (how many A or even B marks) and you want the US to have a unilateral pass?
800 dude wrote:
I think Wejo's idea wasn't for special treatment. It was that every country gets a slot for each A qualifier up to 3.
I don't see how this changes anything from the current system? If the USA has 3 A qualifiers and then enters 3 people, they all go. It is up to countries to determine the selection procedure they use for their teams.
Historically, the window has always been extended to the prior year except for these recent World Championships.
And the current standards are still harder than ever with the short window.
I don't like the short window. I think the IAAF does it to promote fast early season races to the detriment of its athletes.
But I don't like the OP's or Letsrun's idea of a country that has three A athletes in total to send any three they choose, regardless of how fast they have run in the given period.
Go back and look at the recent US championships and see what that would have changed for team selection. Basically nothing since 2008.
And as soon as you have Rupp, Centro and Symmonds finishing 4th and losing a spot to someone who never even achieved a B standard, people will be whining about that.
And what other country would utilize this system?
Someone that had an injured A or B athlete and just wanted to send a filler.
Oh, I see the difference now, brain cramp.
The olympics and WC are the pinnacle of the season, you have to be able to pull out your best performance on demand, it doesn't matter how many A's you can do on the circuit if you cant perform under the pressure of a big meet. The US and Jamaican trials are set up so that the athletes have to show they can perform under pressure or else they wont make the team, if you cant perform at trials how are u expected to be able to perform under the stress of a major champ.Nothing should change, if your injured or out of form for trials that come down to bad race prep.(some exclusions may apply, ie dropping an iron on your foot so u cant run or something stupid like that).
England have it good, top 2 at trails then they choose the third. Nothing needs to change
Selection by committee (i.e. the USATF) would horrible for two reasons:
1) At every step, the USATF has proven itself to be utterly incompetent.
2) Nike basically owns the USATF. Incompetence aside, I can't imagine an unbiased selection process.
Sprintyouth wrote:
Selection by committee (i.e. the USATF) would horrible for two reasons:
1) At every step, the USATF has proven itself to be utterly incompetent.
2) Nike basically owns the USATF. Incompetence aside, I can't imagine an unbiased selection process.
Yes, look at the way the appeal process works?? (favoritism towards athletes, lack of accountability, lack of transparency) and apply that to the entire selection process. Do you want your WC, Olympic teams decided that way?
Look at the awful politics in other countries (Kenya) that already select via committee.
Yes, selection would be horrible.
Duane Solomon would have probably been replaced with Charles Jock last year if they selected a team or just selected the third spot.
Solomon went on to get 4th in the Olympic final in 1:42 and change.
And he earned his spot at the Trials.
The whole process could be similified by just doing away with the B. Each country gets up to 3 athletes per event, provided they have the A.
I understand the reason for the B as it allows smaller countries the chance to send athletes, but no one that cannot hit the A (in an extended window) will contend for a medal. And it would result in fewer athletes in each event and reduce the number of qualifying rounds.
In the U.S. the top 3 at the trials with the A go. Period. Just extend the window to include the previous outdoor season.
Would that be so difficult?