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

masacote wrote:

walter j wrote:

I don’t understand these threads.

For 2016 the standards had to be loosened when the Olympic standards were released so that the OT standards weren’t faster.

They rolled with the same standards (adjusting the half standards down) for 2020 so as not to be in the same position again, as the Olympic standards hadn’t changed.

New qualifying process for the Olympics came out with a stricter time/ranking process, but the qualifying cycle had already started and wasn’t going to be made harder.

With those faster Olympic standards in place, USATF will adjust their standards for 2024 to fit what they want for a projected field size.

These threads complaining are pointless.

Can’t a country have stricter standard than the Olympic standard? Yes? No? Source?

USA cannot per the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. It's the law, son.

No, the large field is due to the shoes and weak standard. Last time in 2016, the 9th place trials finisher (Katja Goldring, 2:35, at the hot LA course, only 5 min off from making the team) qualified through CIM in a slow 2:40.

I'd say the women's standard should be more like 2:39

[2:41, minus 2 min for improved shoe technology].

completely stupid wrote:

masacote wrote:

The trials marathon is to select the US team, not to grow the sport. To grow the sport we already have numerous USATF CERTIFIED races, once you get to the trials it should really mean you have developed and are competitive enough to have a realistic shot at making the team.

The only way to grow ANY sport is to make it marketable to fans. In a sport like the marathon where roads are big enough to support 500 runners you will have WAY more people watching it on TV than if it were 30 runners. The cream will rise to the top in the race...the extra runners will not prevent that. But if more runners are striving for Olympic Qualifier times and more fans tune in on TV it is a big victory.

Yes that is what most are missing. We have to market our sport better. Agree the extra runners will not get in the way of selecting best team.

Why can’t the U.S. trials marathon serve to select our Olympic team and grow the sport? Because you say so? Your thinking is killing our sport. You are stuck in a box. More people running=more people following or watching the race. Why is that so complicated?

<<It's cool to have more runners to run with during the race for those who qualified but have little chance of making the team. Could run in larger pack and perhaps push to get a new PB. Maybe make some new pals and build connections in the running world. How is any of this a bad thing?

The purity you want isn't the trials, it's the olympics. The race that really matters.

Plus, it'll only be "too many runners" for a little while at the starting line. Then the runners with a chance will move to the front together and it'll be similar to the Japan race.

relax.>>

You've nailed it (+771)!

To OP: Sorry you didn't make the cut, but there's no point in raining on everyone else's parade. Work harder and maybe you too will be able to toe the start line in 2024.

2:15 for the men, 2:30 for the Woman, end of story. Any times slower than this, there is zero chance of making the team.

OP-You’re not thinking on a big enough scale. GLOBALLY.

In the eyes of the GLOBAL COMMUNITY we have 771 POTENTIAL OLYMPIANS... in just the FULL ‘THON.

How many countries have those numbers in a single event?

colorunner123 wrote:

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?

You get better results from a big pool than a small one. A group of a thousand serious marathon

runners is likely going to produce more sub 2:20, 2:15, 2:10, and beyond performances than group 100 serious marathoners will. A group of 10,000 serious marathoners will do even better. There is no downside to encouraging people to take marathoning seriously.

But you can make your standards so tough that the small pool gets so small that it's producing almost no one really fast because few people see running those as realistic for them to do. Yes, I would ease the men's standards at least to 2:25. The best US finish in the Olympics came when the qualifying standard was 2:30. I do not get why people care about how many runners get into the Trials Marathon as long as the race is managed so that the handful with the best chances of making the team aren't impeded. Again, once, in the '90s I believe it was, Kenya selected its Olympic Marathon team at Boston. The other 10,000 plus entrants had no impact on that process.

If the Atlanta Track Club isn't complaining, why are people here?

masacote wrote:

Atlanta2020 wrote:

Everyone advocating to decrease field size please stop. You are not helping grow the sport. If you want more people to care about our sport give them a reason. story lines coming from the sub elites and so Many more people will be looking to follow the race this year. Be nice to see 400-500 men and women. Your elitist attitude is killing a sport that is already not that popular to watch on tv. Let get field sizes to 400-500 on both sides.

The trials marathon is to select the US team, not to grow the sport. To grow the sport we already have numerous USATF CERTIFIED races, once you get to the trials it should really mean you have developed and are competitive enough to have a realistic shot at making the team.

Selecting a team and growing the sport are not mutually incompatible. You can do both in your trials race. Just because someone has no realistic chance of making the team in the current trial does not mean they won't continue to improve over the next four years. The experience they get from running the current trial could help get them into the next Olympic team. And once more, no one complaining that the fields are too big are giving any reasons other than their own preferences for saying so.

For me, it is sorta like how we need the XFL--get depth that the NFL can use to keep roster depth strong.

You make a good point about depth and motivation.

If I was a 2:21 guy out of college and thought I had a shot even at the Oly B standard by age 30, I'd be stoked and try to get myself under 2:17, etc. Get to the trials and maybe pull an Eli Manning (hot at the right time). Unlikely but that would keep me going.

Similar to how Boston keeps hobbyjoggers going--you know that guys need 3:05 and women need 3:30--if you are a 3:10 guy or a 3:35 woman and you know you want to keep pushing to get that BQ.

2:20-2:40 guys--I'd kill for those times. Some of them don't realize how lucky they are to even be under 3.

The women's standard at 2:45--one could argue it's slightly soft but not overly slow. And for the general public 2:45 for a full would be insane. Hell, below 3 is considered Olympic speed by average non-runner types.

It's similar to those arguing women should have a tougher BQ (3:30 for the hardest standard and easier from that point forward), so at least 3:15 or 3:20 for 18-34F.

Then you and everyone who feels this way should pay for the Trials personally. If the fields were limited to Japanese-size fields no city would bid to hold the Trials. It costs a significant amount of money to close roads for a marathon field, regardless of size.

You get it--if the Trials coverage and the controversies get Joe Public to get off his couch and start training for his first 5k, and learning about running in 2020;

--that could turn him into a decent runner, who gets his friend, a washed-up runner, to get motivated about running;

--which in turn gets the old graybeard back into a HS assistant coaching kids;

--those kids tell their friends how cool running is and more join XC/track.

You never know but I love your point about the spillover effect.

Non-runners turning into hobbyjogger 5k runners.

Hobbyjoggers trying to hit their first 13.1 or 26.2.

Average marathoners aiming for the BQ.

BQ runners gunning for a OTQ.

OTQ field gets deeper and deeper and in a few years there are kickass Americans. Iron sharpens iron.

Running movies, like McFarland, Brittany, Overcoming, are sorta cheesy but it's damn nice seeing interest in the sport!

There are obvious benefits to having a large Trials field.

What are the downsides? I can think of only 2:

1) Cost.

This only becomes an issue if everyone's travel is paid for. Atlanta chose to do it, but future hosts won't have to do it. To the extent that we're worried about too many A qualifiers, we can just adjust that standard, and still let people pay their own way (which they will).

2) Damaging the brand perception of the event, which could have other trickle down effects.

I think we're far from this being a concern. The only people who think that 2:45 women are hobby joggers are the people BOHICA was talking about (full of "envy, self-loathing, and misogyny."). If you're one of the top 500 football players in the country, you're an NFL starter. And nobody says that March Madness is pointless because most of the teams have no chance of winning a national title. Once we accept that we're going to have people competing who can't win (which, let's be honest, is also the case on the track and in every other sport), it just becomes a question of what number will maximize interest in the sport.

If I were in charge, I'd actually experiment with a much larger field. I would probably target 1000 on each side (it's a nice, round number, and you really can't say that someone in the top 1000 nationwide isn't really, really good at their sport). I'd look at the descending list of performances for the last Olympic cycle, and set the qualifying time at roughly #1000. Then, going forward, you don't have to debate what the "right" time is anymore (obviously there isn't one). If the standard gets tougher, it's just the natural result of people getting faster.

completely stupid wrote:

masacote wrote:

The trials marathon is to select the US team, not to grow the sport. To grow the sport we already have numerous USATF CERTIFIED races, once you get to the trials it should really mean you have developed and are competitive enough to have a realistic shot at making the team.

The only way to grow ANY sport is to make it marketable to fans. In a sport like the marathon where roads are big enough to support 500 runners you will have WAY more people watching it on TV than if it were 30 runners. The cream will rise to the top in the race...the extra runners will not prevent that. But if more runners are striving for Olympic Qualifier times and more fans tune in on TV it is a big victory.

And that’s why there are a lot of USATF Certified road races, to develop the sport, so the cream will rise to the top, the Trials is not the place for that. Again, you are missing the point, the trials is to select the US Team, not to serve as a selfie opportunity for runners who don’t stand a chance.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot wrote:

masacote wrote:

Can’t a country have stricter standard than the Olympic standard? Yes? No? Source?

USA cannot per the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. It's the law, son.

Thanks pops.

No, you've missed the boat by a wide margin. You may truly believe that yet it's quite clear to many of us that this is not the sole point of the OT marathons. Those of us who know the sport and have a clear view of the past can understand that. That's why, since 1968, we haven't simply selected the top 3 from a descending order list. It's okay if you want to rigidly choose to believe otherwise but also understand that it's okay to choose to take an enlightened view.

I think a good idea is have very strict qualifying standards. Say, top 50 men and top 50 women. Then let anyone who wants to race pay a high entry fee. Say $500 to enter. I'd bet 1,000 runners would pay that to be at the Olympic Trials. Then they can turn around and use that to have much larger rewards. Say, $100k for first, $50k for 2nd, $25k for third, $10k for 4th-10th, $5k for 11th-25th, and $2,500 for 26th-50th.

This would get US running off the ground because there's a lot more motivation for being the best in the country.

broken arrow wrote:

2:15 for the men, 2:30 for the Woman, end of story. Any times slower than this, there is zero chance of making the team.

No, no,no. You are missing the point. Our sport, despite more participents, has no awareness amongst the masses. We want track on tv, but nobody watches it. By increasing the size of the field local newspapers will write stories,about,the hometown hero, who to most people is far more interesting than someone living with a training group and running full time

Here in New Jersey almost every day there are articles about Roberta Groner, a 40ish women who works full time as a nurse or Matt McDonald, who is working on his doctorate. These stories will raise interest with the public.