Breaking: 2020 Olympics qualifying will be focused on world rankings, not hitting a standard. How will this impact USA?

Overall this is a net positive.

1. This will force athletes to compete more and there will be deeper fields.

2. There will be more multis, 10,000s and steeples, etc.

3. This will disrupt the cycle for some dopers.

4. This does not appear to have any impact on the USOTs.

Why only want a field of 80 for the marathon? That seems pretty skimpy.

TrackCoach wrote:

Overall this is a net positive.

1. This will force athletes to compete more and there will be deeper fields.

2. There will be more multis, 10,000s and steeples, etc.

3. This will disrupt the cycle for some dopers.

4. This does not appear to have any impact on the USOTs.

I don't see how you can say #4. They need to make sure say if a country has 3 people with enough ranking points to get into the Olympics and you beat them all the Trials you get in.

We need to preserve the Olympic Trials and have it simple for fans. Top 3 go to the Olympics.

Work Commute Track Club wrote:

Let's say you need to be a 2:13 guy to be ranked in the top 80 (on a 3 per country basis. which is possible) to be eligible for the Olympics Q.

The USA third place finisher at the trials is a 2:14 guy (unlikely, but hey, it could happen). He doesn't crack the top 80 in the world rankings by the deadline. He doesn't get to go to Tokyo.

The IAAF have potentially changed the US trials system.

By the way, the "standard" outside of the ranking system that will be released in November is for exceptional athletes who are not ranked highly. It will be likely 2:10 or faster. I have had conversations with the IAAF regarding this.

My quibble with your post is that you directly equate time with ranking.

That is the system being replaced. Fields were filled out to the target number by going down a time ranking by event. if you didn't hit the standard, you might still get in based on that time.

The new ranking system is much more complex, with varying weights being given to different events. And with athletes' rankings falling if a good performance drops out of the ranking "window."

In the new system, it will be much harder to predict final rankings, which won't be known until shortly before the games and well after the US has conducted its track trials. You can't just look at the athlete's best time.

Yes, if the auto entry standards are much tougher, that will change things. That would have been true even if the new rankings system had not replaced time rankings as the way to fill out fields.

As I type, 80th place on the rankings is about 1070 to 1080 ranking points which works out to be worth about a 2:14 marathon using the IAAF points tables. This does not take into account extra points for placing in a gold label for example.

The ranking system is far more complex than simply equating an athlete's best performance to the points from the scoring tables, certainly for track events. And you acknowledge complications even for the marathon.

if it were simply a matter of translating times to scoring table points, there would be no need for the translation and for the new ranking system.

Also, you say, "As I type". That's a key qualifier. The final rankings used for selection won't be known until shortly before the games. That is going to be long after the US wants to select its team and, for example, know who is going to be on relay teams for purposes of practice and pre-games competition.

We'll see how this plays out.

Similar issues have arisen in a number of events in which top-three finishers at the U.S. trials had not met, and did not meet at the trials, the standard for the Olympic Games or world championships. USATF has tried various ways to address such circumstances.

The situation became notably problematic in selecting the U.S. team for the 2000 Olympic marathon. The IAAF had set an "A" standard of 2:14 for the men and 2:33 for the women, and a "B" standard of 2:20 for the men and 2:45 for the women. A country could send up to three entrants who had met the "A" standard, or alternatively just one entrant who had met the "B" standard.

Heading into the 2014 Olympic trials, only a small handful of U.S. men and women had met the IAAF's "A" standard, and no one met the standard in the trials themselves. Moreover, the winner of the women's trials had not met the "A" standard, nor had the second-place finisher in the men's race. Because USATF had decided that the team would be selected based solely on the finishing order at the trials without any "leapfrogging," and did not have the discretion to enter a combination of "A" and "B" qualifiers in the Olympic race, the U.S. ended up sending only the first-place finishers in the trials, leaving behind a number of individuals who had met the "A" standard.

I don't believe that the IAAF's standards in 2000 were terribly unreasonable; the problems for the U.S. team had more to do with the lack of depth in U.S. marathoning at the time, coupled with rather difficult course and weather conditions in the trials themselves. But if the Olympic standards for 2020 are considerably more stringent than the 2000 standards, then it is quite posssible that the U.S. may have to choose betweeen sending the top finishers in the trials or sending a full complement of three Olympic qualifiers in each race. That is especially true where strong contenders can qualify for the trials without running a marathon on the IAAF qualifying list, or indeed without running any marathon at all (as was the case with Galen Rupp).

this is where the college runner get the brown end of the stick

win & run 3:36 at NCAA & get about 1220 ranking points

8th & run 3:36 at a DL and get about 1260 ranking points

Avocado's Number wrote:

Heading into the 2014 Olympic trials, only a small handful of U.S. men and women had met the IAAF's "A" standard, and no one met the standard in the trials themselves. Moreover, the winner of the women's trials had not met the "A" standard, nor had the second-place finisher in the men's race. Because USATF had decided that the team would be selected based solely on the finishing order at the trials without any "leapfrogging," and did not have the discretion to enter a combination of "A" and "B" qualifiers in the Olympic race, the U.S. ended up sending only the first-place finishers in the trials, leaving behind a number of individuals who had met the "A" standard.

I thought the preference was always to send the biggest possible team. So if a B won and there was one other A, the B was the team, but if a B won and there were two or three As, the B was out.

It looked to me like it expands opportunities for every country in the sense that you can make it either by qualifying standard or world rankings. However, if the qualifying standards are far more stringent than the current ones, that is different.

Let's say that the 800m standard was 1:44.5. Maybe three Americans would make it. That's all we would need unless there was an upset. In that case, the guy with the upset would have to be among the world's best, but they don't say how many in the rankings would qualify. In the distances, so many Kenyan and Ethiopian runners would be ahead of American runners that fewer Americans would make any given rank, though if you subtracted any runners beyond three in the rankings, then it would be pretty good for Americans. In the sprints and jumps, I'd bet a lot of Americans would make the rankings and push others out.

I just noticed that I said "2014 Olympic trials," instead of "2000 Olympic trials."

But no, in 2000, the winner of the marathon trials was guaranteed a spot on the team, as long as he or she met the "B" standard, and even if that resulted in a smaller team. The outcome was quite controversial. I believe that the rule was different for track and field events that year.

I hope someone will post more details about the "ranking" system that will be used. I worry that it will be used primarily to force or steer potential Olympians into certain favored races and meets, like marathon majors and Diamond League competition -- which may be great for generating revenue, but not so great for athletes who lack the means or connections to participate in those competitions.

wont change a thing wrote:

It won't change anything with USATF-- if they have the IAAF standard time and finish top 3 at the Trials they qualify.

It will probably change things. The standards will likely be tougher than they are now, so less athletes at the Trials will have the standard. The rankings will continue to change between the Trials and the Olympics, so in many events, the team will not be finalized at the Trials.

Say you have one athlete with the standard. You can't just say the next two in the top 24 are on the team, because they could drop out of the top 24 before the Olympics... more easily than they did under the current system.

HElliot wrote:

this is where the college runner get the brown end of the stick

win & run 3:36 at NCAA & get about 1220 ranking points

8th & run 3:36 at a DL and get about 1260 ranking points

Seeing as a runner at NCAAs can fail a drug test there, and it will never be reported to WADA or the IAAF, I am OK with NCAA meets having the lowest value.

They are already crushing dreams by allowing Kenya and Ethiopia only three entries. Under the current rules, most of the world's top marathoners never get to compete at the Olympics.

Why not just allow entry to anyone < 2:14 and pay 500,000 to the winner? It would be a far better event.

polevaultpower wrote:

HElliot wrote:

this is where the college runner get the brown end of the stick

win & run 3:36 at NCAA & get about 1220 ranking points

8th & run 3:36 at a DL and get about 1260 ranking points

Seeing as a runner at NCAAs can fail a drug test there, and it will never be reported to WADA or the IAAF, I am OK with NCAA meets having the lowest value.

PVP good point

I just picked the NCAA as an example because I had jotted those figures down for a post elsewhere. t

The with or with ou Drug Testing is a valid reason to have a meet ranked on the D,E, and F end or the bonus points scale But anumber of good quality domestic meets are at the D.E.F scale.

Pulling IAAF permits should be as second nature as getting USATF permissions bynot allmeets have admin staff up to date on rules.

Work Commute Track Club wrote:

The Olympic marathon standard went from being 2:19 to about 2:14. The IAAF crushing dreams of the sub-elite.

Because there were many athletes with 2:17/2:18 B standards, achieved in fast courses like Berlin/Rotterdam (and.without being tested)...that athletes hadn't many chances of running sub 2:21 in Olympics.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong , but if you can still qualify on time, then what really is the difference. If anything this caters to the super elite, high-ranked, event "favorite", allowing them to race less and focus solely on a championship race.

As I understand it one aspect is to make the number of athletes participating more predictable. Supposedly in the Rio Olympics several 100 more athletes took part in athletics than had been originally planned because they had met the entry standards.

But if you say top 40 of some ranking list counted in such a way that not more than 3 from each nation can participate, you have 40 for a certain event.

The participation standards for other sports in the Olympics are far stricter. In rowing each nation can have only one boat for each type etc.

Apparently the participation in athletics has either increased more than expected or the standing of Track and Field as core of the Olympics is not what it used to be, so the other sports and organizing comittees demand smaller fields in T&F.

Sounds to me that IAAF/IOC are trying to create more year-round interest in track. Trying to create a league in which pros have to compete in order to make the OG. Enough of this dodging and weaving and racing twice each year. Yeah, if you can run 3:29 for 1500, you can do what you want. but If you are just another 3:33 guy, then you have show up and compete at the DL and other meets to get your rankings up.

That will create a show, with more talent, better meets and if we are lucky rivalries.

That's the goal here, clearly. Enhancing the popularity of track through the year and not relying on the OG.