There are too many runners in the U.S. Olympic Trials marathon

Agreed.

I'd say it's more due to the emergence of CIM as a popular course. 57 of the men's qualifiers only had a qualifying mark from CIM between 2:17 and 2:19:00... The -350 net downhill is easily worth 90 seconds, possibly up to that full two minutes. So that's between 20 and 25% of the qualifiers. Was CIM a popular qualifying race before this? For the women there were 87 that ran between 2:43 and 2:45:00 on CIM and that was their only qualifying course.

And you would assume people get faster over time. Look at NCAA track and field qualifying times from the year 2000-2005. These people were qualifying for olympic trials marathon between 2004-20015. Now look at the NCAA cutoffs from 2011-2016, these people are making over half of the qualifications for this year's trials race, and these people generally had faster 5k and 10k track times during college than 15 years ago. It'll continue getting faster, look at the indoor 5k cutoff this year, 13:41 is the cutoff. A few years ago 13:44 was the cutoff and that was the record for fastest cutoff. Go back a decade and it was 13:50 for top 16 indoors 5k. In the 90's I'm pretty sure it was pushing 14 flat. There are more and more people running fast as time goes on, so if 2:19:00 is some standard, more and more people will hit that over time.

USATF generally treats distance running like crap. The trials is the one time USATF shows some generosity and a commitment to athlete development and expanding the popularity of the marathon with sub elite runners. Elite marathoning in the US is very much a product of a tiny handful of sponsored training groups. Having a wider net for the trials means that more runners will dedicate themselves to training on an elite level. That means more runners to support the top 10% of the field that has a chance to get a spot on the team. So, if you turn the trials into what Japan does, you will end up with maybe two or three elite marathon training groups. And if you cannot get into one of those groups, there is no reason to try to be an elite marathoner.

Who cares how big the field is as long as it isn't over 600-800? It's not like the favorites will be slowed at the start. The elites will separate themselves within a few hundred yards. The way they use to determine qualifying times was by using the 100th fastest time run in the previous year.

So what are you going to do about that?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

So what are you going to do about that?

Realistically the USATF is going to do something about it. I don't think they really want this many runners in it either, it's too congested. The fluid stations are already going to be a mess the first 10k.

The standards are only 2:19:00 and 2:45:00 because that's what the previous olympic standards were. Now that they are much faster, USATF will have the freedom to make their own new standards, and they will obviously be faster. I keep saying it'll probably be in the rance of 2:17:00 and 2:37:00. This will result in about 100-150 athletes in each race. You do want more than a couple dozen, because it starts to look and feel weird if you only have 15 people on a big road for 26 miles and it starts to not feel like much of a road race.

Cool, no doubt the USATF representatives are reading threads like this one.

in my opinion, they should allow anyone who is "sub elite" be in the olympic trials. there are lots of people out there who know that they are never going to "make it" in running, but at least let them reach their goal of making it to the olympic trials.

Several years ago Kenya used the Boston Marathon as its Olympic Trial marathon. The size of the field was not an issue. People were able to get their drink bottles. If having upwards of 10,000 people in your trials race was manageable 260 and 510 or so will be a logistical breeze. The expense of paying expenses for every qualifier was the ATC's decision. There was no obligation to do so. There have been Trials where expenses were paid for runners who'd met a faster standard and those who didn't paid there own way. No reason that couldn't be done again.

And as much as I admire Japanese marathon running, US men have won 11 Olympic medals overall to Japan's 5. Since 1968, after we adopted our current trial format, the US has a 3-2 edge on Japan. Their women have a 4-2 edge on ours so based on Olympic results there's no reason for either country to base their selection procedure on what the other does.

Easiest fix: this December, the USATF LDR committees declare that anyone who made the Olympic standards for this year (2:11:30/2:29:30) is in with the provision that if World Athletics changes the standards, they have the right to change it (you can't have a trials standard tougher than the Olympic standard).

After that, fill the field to hit a target number (whether it's 100, 150, 200 or whatever), and close the qualifying 60 days before the Trials date.

BTW, how much money does the Atlanta Track Club stand to lose on hosting the trials? Also, thoughts of getting rid of Sacramento as a qualifying race? The number of qualifiers coming out of Sacramento seems quite high.

Japan has a wholly different running culture and marathon developmental structure, far better funded owing to far less focus on events 1500m and below plus field events, in relative terms. You can't just pull their trials format out of their culture and drop it into ours and expect equally good results, in fact that would predict an absolute digression in the US.

Agate Street wrote:

Easiest fix: this December, the USATF LDR committees declare that anyone who made the Olympic standards for this year (2:11:30/2:29:30) is in with the provision that if World Athletics changes the standards, they have the right to change it (you can't have a trials standard tougher than the Olympic standard).

After that, fill the field to hit a target number (whether it's 100, 150, 200 or whatever), and close the qualifying 60 days before the Trials date.

BTW, how much money does the Atlanta Track Club stand to lose on hosting the trials? Also, thoughts of getting rid of Sacramento as a qualifying race? The number of qualifiers coming out of Sacramento seems quite high.

It's something like $300 airfare plus a couple nights in a shared room, for about 700 runners. So they're pushing $300k. They likely got a lot of help from extra sponsors that came with being able to host the olympic trials, so in a sense it's not all on Atlanta Track Club's shoulders.

Agreed. Limit our trials to a few dozen runners and I think you'll see a greatly reduced number of runners who run the marathon seriously. The Japanese love the marathon and the interest in it attracts serious runners. US runners generally do not love running marathons for their own sake but do them if there's enough reward, e.g., a berth in the Trials.

I say only the top 10 should get to run and only the top 30 should be allowed to watch. Why cater to hobby joggers and mere "fans" of the sport?

They need to drop the female standard so it is consistent with the men. 500+ is crazy

CIM = fast course

CIM = not an easy course

the reason there are so many people in the trials is due to a number factors- 1. being that more younger runners are gravitating to the marathon right out of college and using the speed they have, 2. social media has sparked interest in obtaining an "OTQ", 3. the women's standard is relatively soft perhaps lower it a couple to a few minutes.... maybe even under 240 4. shoes are better now

Precious Roy wrote:

USATF generally treats distance running like crap. The trials is the one time USATF shows some generosity and a commitment to athlete development and expanding the popularity of the marathon with sub elite runners. Elite marathoning in the US is very much a product of a tiny handful of sponsored training groups. Having a wider net for the trials means that more runners will dedicate themselves to training on an elite level. That means more runners to support the top 10% of the field that has a chance to get a spot on the team. So, if you turn the trials into what Japan does, you will end up with maybe two or three elite marathon training groups. And if you cannot get into one of those groups, there is no reason to try to be an elite marathoner.

Who cares. By your logic we may as well turn it into a fun run and let any hobby jogger do it. We can rename it "The Hobby Jogger Olympic Trials." Let everyone be an Olympic Trials runner. I can imagine the movie "Brittany runs in the Olympic Trials."

train how you fight

in the actual Olympics there will be 150 to 200 runners in the race, not a dozen

HRE wrote:

Agreed. Limit our trials to a few dozen runners and I think you'll see a greatly reduced number of runners who run the marathon seriously. The Japanese love the marathon and the interest in it attracts serious runners. US runners generally do not love running marathons for their own sake but do them if there's enough reward, e.g., a berth in the Trials.

I truly don't care whether some 2:25 dude decides to stay in the sport. If he or she wants to quit because the Trials qualifier is tightened up, let them quit.

By your logic maybe we should lower the standards to 2:30 for men and 3 hours for women. Or just let everyone under 4 hours in?