Is it time to change the Olympic Trials Qualifying procedures?

Ok.

I get the appeal of the trials as they are. It really fits Americans' idea of "merit." And certainly - you win (or place in the top 3) and you qualify is as straightforward of competition as you can get. On the other hand, you could argue that there are other forms of merit - showing consistency over a longer period (one year, 18 months, 2 years), best times overall, etc.

I could get on board with top 2 qualify at the trials, 3rd is a wildcard based on the past 1-2 years. As long as all the competitors know the selection process in advance. But, I highly doubt that will ever happen. The selection of the wildcard could get messy. If it did, I'd imagine that in a lot of events the top 3 trials finishers would still be the team. The wildcard should only really be used in situations such as where a top athlete is injured or otherwise unable to compete at trials. But, again, I doubt it will ever happen.

You can count on this discussion coming up every 4 years.

This is similar to what figure skating does. We don't want to be like figure skating.

You have to race the race. Sometimes it's not about the time; its about the ability to race. Rarely is the Olympics about the time.

Maybe the standards should be set higher including getting out of Prelims to get rid of the riff-raff and games.

Sure disappointed watching Matagno try to run up Martinez back.

With how much influence Nike already has over USATF do we really want to open up a spot to be decided by committee?

Really?

The only change I would allow is one "bye" per event where a very top athlete gets a pass directly to the Olympics. This would only be in certain situations, not every event would have an athlete get a bye.

I would say the standard should be something like the US's top performing athlete in the event at the previous world championships if they medaled. And they must do something to display fitness as far as performances this year. Of course if this ever happened USATF would politic it up so much it would be a disaster.

I actually don't mind the current system so much, although I will say, for example, Sean Furey, in the men's javelin that finishes 11th.....throws horribly in a championship meet with everything on the line (69.49m) and makes the team because if threw the Olympic standard almost a year ago. To me - that doesn't show he is ready to be at the Olympic Games. I think that you have to at least be in top 4.....and if someone in the top 3 doesn't have the standard, then you can go.....but anything outside of 6th....too bad.

As for setting the fields at 48.......that is crazy. It would be like going to an NCAA Regional. Half the field doesn't belong to be there.....not qualifying for a shot at being on the World's greatest track and field team. Just my thought.

The system we have now is the fairest system in the world.

The U.S. does just fine at medaling the Olympics and World Championships, so there is no reason to change it.

The trials should stay the same as they are, because you want someone who can win a race, not a time trial. Manzano and Centro medaled in the WCs / Olympics not because they were the fastest, but because they were prepared to race. The Olympics typically are not a time trial, but a race, that is why the trials exist.

like for me in HS wrote:

My suggestion would be a blend of the two previous suggestions.

For the 10k, top 3 at the trials make the olympic team. For all other events, the top 2 at the trials make the olympic team. One week later, a run-off meet is held - 3rd placers in the trials compete 1 on 1 vs. the athlete with the best performance to date in the calendar year, if that athlete wasn't in the top 3 at the trials and wishes to compete in the 1-on-1 run-off. In 2 weeks we'd have Brazier vs. Jock 1-on-1 in the 800m as an example.

I think this would be fair enough for the athletes, would likely make for a better US olympic team, and give the fans one more interesting meet to watch.

a 1 on 1 800 race could easily end up being jog the first 600 in 2+ minutes, sprint the last 200, neither will want to lead

Rupp does it all the time wrote:

Just Take the Fastest wrote:

I stopped believing in the validity of the USATF Olympic Trials in 1988 when Jim Spivey was left off the 1500 team after finishing 4th behind the illustrious Jeff Atkinson and Mark Deady. Seriously?

Someone should have gone to Atkinson and Deady and said, "Congrats on going 1 - 3 in a stupid tactical race, but you both know that Spivey would kick your a$$ nine out of ten times. He's going."

Is it really that hard to choose the best runners in each event?

Valid point

Then the athletes should not make it a tactical race.

You really want usatf picking all athletes to go to the Olympics?