2015 USA Half Marathon Qualifying Standards

No issue with time standards changes. If you are running a 1:07, you aren't going to win. Hate to say it, but it's true. Marathon qualifying standards have increased for the OT each time since 08. Use it as a catalyst to train harder.

IAAF needs to change its restrictions on what can be shown on a uniform. Runners need to be able to have more individualized uniforms (with numerous logos) so they will make more money from sponsorships and runners can better individualize themselves. That will bring in more money for an individual runner and it may even bring in more attention to the sport. Presently, runners live and die by their shoe contract.

The sport itself needs to find better ways to bring in an audience, such that television gets more interested in putting the events on air for free. Right now, most races can only be viewed on a pay-per-service basis (Universal, FloTrack, etc...). A handful get shown on ESPN2. Hard to get people who are only slightly interested to want to pay money to watch it. But building up an audience will lead to more money from sponsors. More money from sponsors will lead to better budgets for travel/lodging/race time bonuses.

How to build up an audience? Perhaps having races where the best in the world compete against one another. Unfortunately, that only seems to happen at the Olympics. There is an occasional diamond league EVENT (not meet, but event), worth watching.

What I would suggest to fix that is to make the prize money for a win so damn high, that the best want to show up and win it. $150,000 for a major marathon win brings some competitors, but not all. This should be beefed up to $500,000 - just for the win. Make 2nd worth 400,000. Find a way to get a few million in prize money for a marathon and you'll get the big names to show up. Same can be said for track meets. If there is a lot of prize money on the line, the best will want to show up and compete. I know that it's tough to attract sponsors to meets because they tend to be slow-paced, but there has to be a way.

10000000000x more difficult to accomplish than by me merely typing it above. But that's what needs to happen.

I have been surprised that the standards have been as relaxed as they have the last three years, at both Houston and Duluth. It's been great for a 1:08ish guy like me to be able to go race with the big dogs and feel important, but I had a feeling I was on borrowed time for the hotel room and VIP treatment. I don't deserve a hotel room at a U.S. Championships race.

I am a little surprised that they won't let a guy like me pay for an entry in the race, however. While I'm not going to win or even finish in the top 50, I certainly don't do anybody any harm trying to hang off the back, and it gives me the chance to try to PR. Why not let me pay for an entry, book my own hotel, and race?

wasn't last year the deepest half (maybe in US history?) by far in terms of the number of sub-1:05 guys? and sub-1:09 guys? so from a business standpoint, doesn't it make sense that they tighten the standards a bit to save themselves $$$ and not "waste" it on a bunch of guys between 1:07-1:09 (including myself)?

going into the race if you are not already a sub-1:07 guy at some point during 2014, you probably have no shot at popping a fast one & getting the 1:05 standard....so in a way they are only providing comp entry to guys with a legit OT qualifier shot. fine by me.

Time for some changes wrote:

The sport itself needs to find better ways to bring in an audience...

Making tougher and tougher standards leading to smaller and smaller fields does the exact opposite of this. If there's a local sub-elite in the race that people see from time to time in races they run, they're interested in checking out the Trials or whatever the race is to see how the guy does. Plus, the local media may cover the guy as well, giving the sport more local and regional exposure. Let's face it, the majority of people who run don't care about the true elites, but they might be interested in a local guy they actually know mixing it up with those elites. I get it that the race doesn't want to pay for a bunch of 1:08-1:10 guys, but let them in with maybe a comped entry and have them pay their own way just like was once the case with the "B" standard in the marathon Trials. Sure they're not gonna win (neither are the 1:05-1:06 guys), but they're good for the sport and if they're paying their way, what do they hurt?

Everything written below is complete bullshit. I don't know what planet you are living on to get the idea that anyone in Houston besides a 1:08 or 1:09 runner's immediate friends and family members, if even that, wants to go watch this individual "mix it up." In fact, the only thing that might happen is that the few people who might have seen this guy comfortably win 5Ks in 15:15 and 10Ks in 31:00, and therefore may assume he's Really Good, will watch him get the living shit kicked out of him as he loses by literally a mile even if he has a good day.1:08 guys are no more "good for the sport" than 1:38 or 2:08 guys. They're good for their own egos when they can win something but that's it. USATF is right not to coddle them.

Couple questions while reading the qualification standards.

1. What is the difference between a 10k and a 10000m time? They accept 10k times but no 10000m times. Aren't they the same thing essentially? Does it mean a 10k road race rather than a 10000m track race?

and

2. Why are the age restrictions different for men and women? 14 years old to compete as a female and 16 years old to compete as a male.

So I presume you don't think having a 2:17 standard for the British team for the Commonwealth Games was "good for the sport."This allowed Steve Way's 10th place 2:15 to become one of the stories of the CGs even though it is over ten minutes off of the world record.

Correct response.

We shouldn't spend a dime on getting someone to the race who isn't remotely in the hunt. Let alone hundreds/thousands for travel and hotel.

As for howaboutthis's theory above, more people care about the 1:38 guy from their office running NYCM than they do about the 1:08 guy from the running store getting whipped in Duluth.

Fro Marah wrote:

Couple questions while reading the qualification standards.

1. What is the difference between a 10k and a 10000m time? They accept 10k times but no 10000m times. Aren't they the same thing essentially? Does it mean a 10k road race rather than a 10000m track race?

and

2. Why are the age restrictions different for men and women? 14 years old to compete as a female and 16 years old to compete as a male.

10K means road 10000 means track. Fair enough they want to make you sure the time was run in a legit race not someone using the perfect weather and pacing of the 10 races run at Stanford to qualify.

As far as the age difference. My guess is that girls mature earlier than guys?

I'm ok with them tightening the men's standards. I always though they were kinda easy.

But leave the womens standard alone. 2h44m was hard enough as it is.

So based on this logic, you would have eliminated a grand total of 23 guys from last year's race who would not have met this year's new standards. Are we saying a race the size of Houston can't handle 23 extra guys, even if they're given no financial support and pay their own expenses? And this is why the USA gets our butts handed to us in major races. Guys that have potential are never given the opportunities to develop it, and are instead told they suck and should just quit.

JustSomeDude wrote:

So based on this logic, you would have eliminated a grand total of 23 guys from last year's race who would not have met this year's new standards. Are we saying a race the size of Houston can't handle 23 extra guys, even if they're given no financial support and pay their own expenses? And this is why the USA gets our butts handed to us in major races. Guys that have potential are never given the opportunities to develop it, and are instead told they suck and should just quit.

Patently false that "the USA gets our butts handed to us in major races" due to lack of opportunities for 1:08 post collegiates.

Agreed with many posters on here that they should be able to pay their own way, but fine with financial support standards being shored up.

So what about the reduction in support for guys that do have the standards? You want a good competitive US championship race, but will the 1:04-1:05 type guys even still bother to come when they're getting less upfront support for travel and lodging than they did last year, as well as less of a time bonus incentive during the race itself? They almost reduced the payout for those guys to not even make it worth the effort.

Why would you pay any support to these 1:04-1:05 guys? It's not like anyone comes to watch them besides their family. Why bother?

Keep in mind, this is different than for example the CrossFit Games where you get an intense competition with 100% exhaustion rate.

" . . . priority will be given to Half Marathon qualifying times over Marathon and 10K qualifying times."

What exactly does this mean? Is there a limit on the number of people who will get elite entry and travel support? If so, how do you know whether you "really" have a qualifier or need to get a half marathon time to be sure?

JustSomeDude wrote:

So what about the reduction in support for guys that do have the standards? You want a good competitive US championship race, but will the 1:04-1:05 type guys even still bother to come when they're getting less upfront support for travel and lodging than they did last year, as well as less of a time bonus incentive during the race itself? They almost reduced the payout for those guys to not even make it worth the effort.

Similar feelings to them not allowing the slower guys to pay their own way - I'm not thrilled about them cutting the time incentives payouts.

1:04 guys should go as they could get the most competitive race they'll have and it's basically for free (free lodging, $200 for travel, $200 for running 1:04).

Sorry, another $250* for running another 1:04, not $200.

[quote]Uncle Tom Thumb wrote:

Everything written below is complete bullshit. I don't know what planet you are living on to get the idea that anyone in Houston besides a 1:08 or 1:09 runner's immediate friends and family members, if even that, wants to go watch this individual "mix it up." In fact, the only thing that might happen is that the few people who might have seen this guy comfortably win 5Ks in 15:15 and 10Ks in 31:00, and therefore may assume he's Really Good, will watch him get the living shit kicked out of him as he loses by literally a mile even if he has a good day.

1:08 guys are no more "good for the sport" than 1:38 or 2:08 guys. They're good for their own egos when they can win something but that's it. USATF is right not to coddle them.

[quote]

You have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm sure there's no convincing you of that, probably in part because you're one of the 2:08 half marathon guys you mentioned. However, I've personally witnessed local media stories about sub-elites in my area qualifying for races like the US Half Champs as well as the Olympic Trials Marathon (back when the standard was 2:22). Whether or not those guys stand a chance at being competitive, that generates interest and at least gets the sport some exposure. I can also say that when there haven't been any local runners in these races, there has been ZERO local media coverage, including the Trials Marathon. Most people don't care about elite running but they do sometimes get interested when there's a local tie. Again, I'm sure there's no convincing you of that though. The letsrun bravado never ceases to crack me up. Why don't we just set the Trials Marathon standard at 2:11 or faster, line up 10 guys and see how exciting that is. After all, there's only about half a dozen guys with a legit shot at making the team and everyone else should just become a hobbyjogger.

They don't need to become a hobbyjogger, but a 1:08 guy shouldn't expect handouts.