Getting back to the initial question of the post, I'm going to try for my Trials qualifier at Chicago. Reasons include a solid race for me there this fall and the slew of guys who will beat me even if I run the A standard as opposed to the B.
As for the Hanson's v. Salazar debate, for my clarification to those deeming that Hanson's is a fad, could you provide some reasons? Even if some of Hanson's runners run wicked fast and receive big offers from Nike and the ilk, does that necessarily mean they'd leave the program. The guys seem (and by nature "seem" means this is a subjective statement) to think the Hansons are good coaches. From what I've heard, after his marriage, Verran bought a house that's spitting distance from the other two Hanson's houses so he could still train with the rest of the team. It seems to me that if a guy is willing to do that, start his family there, he must really like the program.
Concerning money vs. what I'll deem "program quality", runners seem to be less corrupted by the big money, which, for the most part, I don't think can be said for what has to be the majority of athletes in the big money sports (football, basketball, baseball and hockey). This is a sport where environment tends to matter a little more. Kevin Garnett can be nasty on a crappy team, and he'll receive the "appropriate" paycheck. Runner Joe likely will not be nasty if he trains with crappy runners, and he'll also receive the appropriate paycheck.