The Women's "B" OTQ Standard should be 2:40

The women's time is definitely soft.

I still wish they'd just pick a number and let that many racers in. So, top 150 times in the racing window get a shot at the trials, or something like that. Probably won't happen.

So barring that, go back to 2:20 for the men and 2:40 for the women. That would potentially make things about as even as they could be.

youreprobablyright wrote:

The women's time is definitely soft.

I still wish they'd just pick a number and let that many racers in. So, top 150 times in the racing window get a shot at the trials, or something like that. Probably won't happen.

So barring that, go back to 2:20 for the men and 2:40 for the women. That would potentially make things about as even as they could be.

Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t they limit the field size in the other events? I haven’t had an athlete at that level since I resigned so I can’t even remember if there was field size limits.

So many pathetic "men" on here obsess over the women's OTQ standard.

same as it ever was wrote:

So many pathetic "men" on here obsess over the women's OTQ standard.

True that... while there is a point to his gripe.

Just make the standards +20% of WR .. thus

same as it ever was wrote:

So many pathetic "men" on here obsess over the women's OTQ standard.

So many pathetic people on here obsess over getting into the trials. When it should be a competition of the best of the best. Tighten up the men's standard too. 2:12 as the B standard for men and 2:30 for the B standard for women. We should expect excellence from people who want to be in the Olympic trials. This should not be held as some charity event. If you don't have a legitimate chance of making top ten at the Olympics, you should not be in the trials.

Just eliminate the qualifying times all together. Let a panel of "experts" decide who goes to the Olympics. Similar to how USA Basketball decides who gets named to the roster(s).

Problem solved.

Chances are it is the guys that are just outside the Olympic trials qualifying standard for men that are doing the complaining. Nobody else would really have any skin in the game to even care how many women are in the race?? I assume they want to be able to say they were an OTQ. If that’s the case why not just argue that the men’s field should be larger?

Desi Linden ran just under 2:45 at her first marathon. Two years later she ran 2:31 in Chicago. Samantha Roecker ran her first marathon in 3:02 just to qualify for Boston. She then set a goal of getting to the trials and worked her way down to a 2:30 and 3rd place finish at CIM. The women's standard is a little bit more forgiving because the trials are a good way of finding talented women who were not very competitive in college and would otherwise probably give up on professional running but for the goal of making the trials. It is necessary because a lot of women are lured away from the sport to start a family right about when they would be reaching peak form for the marathon.

I think people are saying the women's standard is soft because it is producing a field of unprecedented size. The "right size" for the Trials is of course arbitrary, since there's no real limit on the number of runners that you can put in the field, but historic numbers give people a sense of what they think is appropriate.

Personally, I'd aim for a much, much bigger field. We're already including people who have no chance of making the team, so why not shoot for a field of like 1000. Sure, it's slightly watered down, but in any other sport, you'd still say that being among the top 1000 in the country is a big deal. Every qualifier generates media coverage in their local market. It might also keep a lot more serious amateurs competing for longer, since they've got something slightly more attainable to shoot for.

The way I'd do it is just pick a target field size, then see what time would have produced that field size in the previous cycle, and make that the time qualifier for the current cycle. That way you don't have people getting bumped at the last minute and not knowing what they have to run. If more people run the time, then the field is a little bigger, and you can set a new time standard next year.

341 is too many women for the winner to be able to fake hug at the finish. They definitely need to cut that number down.

I agree with 800 guy. To me, we need the field size in the marathon to be large so that you don’t have these massive gaps throughout the course. It cannot be cheap to put on the marathon and although the entry fee isn’t crazy high (I am totally assuming this) even at $100 that’s $35k+ towards the expenses.

There are some very talented women that try to make the jump. Women who were sub 34:00 10k and this gives them a solid goal. I just don’t see why a larger field size in the marathon is such a big deal? It’s the only event that can really say that.

A 50 year old woman has qualified for the OTQ. Good for her, but if that's not a sign the standard is too soft nothing is.

The course had to be changed to account for potential bottlenecks due to field size.

I don't have a problem with a large marathon, my main point was that the women's standard doesn't line up with the men's in terms of relative difficulty.

I'm way too slow to ever have a chance at qualifying so it's not a personal anger, I just thought 2:45 seemed a lot easier for a woman to hit than 2:19 is for a man, which does seem to be the case.

Don’t really have an issue with where the standards are at right now. The Olympic Trials I feel are more about promoting road running and creating something for many post collegiate runners to shoot for. ONLY 3 people get to represent the USA. So many in this race will fall behind the pace in the opening 10k. There are also a ton of people in this race that have 0% chance of making a World or Olympic team in the future. You could still put 500 in this race and ONLY 3 are going. At this point, the trials are just turning into a small scale marathon that is an elite version of Boston with a harder time standard and smaller field size.