Olympic Marathon Trials rumor

I heard that there might not be a trials while in ATL for the trials. The guy (can't remember his name, though I should) that designs all the courses mentioned that possibility.

A modest proposal:

(1) Keep the Trials race but the time qualifier for Trials must occur on a World Athletics qualification eligible course ("loop" course or point-to-point with net elevation loss of less than 1m per km). For example, NYC, Chicago, Grandma's would be okay but not CIM or Boston.

(2) Boston would be an exception to number 1.

(3) The top three finishers at the trials would make the Team as long as they had met the World Athletics time standard.

(4) If three runners did meet the time standard, it would go to a descending order list of people that did have the standard.

(5) The whole WMM top-10 qualification would not apply unless three runners could not be found by using (3) and (4).

It was evident that I was not a pro quality talent early on. Good enough to get some help with college costs, quick enough to score the occasional cash prize on the roads, but never fast enough to ever see my name in Track and Field News.

I fondly remember those competitive days of my youth but, I made the right decision to hang up the spikes and flats at 25 and join the adult world. After all, most of us outlive our ability to compete and past glory doesn't pay very well. I enjoy a great life with family and a good career headed towards an early retirement thanks to, as someone up thread said, counting those pennies and investing them wisely. No regrets.

Projection? Anger? Nope. I do enjoy taking the piss out of some on this board that react with far more seriousness than either the sport or this site deserves. I believe the kids call it "trolling"?

not horrific wrote:

jbdhdye wrote:

All I can add was that I was at the Atlanta trials as a spectator and it would be huge mistake to take away the trials. If growth of sport is the focus, it was an amazing atmosphere that gave some hope that our sport was a big deal to the entire country, not just to a small subset of the population

The crowds at Boston, Chicago and NYC are much bigger than Atlanta was. There's not going to be a marathon boom because people saw the Trials race.

What the Trials race does is lets American fans imagine a world where they don't have to compete against Africans and Europeans. It's a facade.

This. USATF only cares about growing competitive marathoners if they don't have to budget for it. After ATL, I'd be surprised if they get more than a couple weak bids for the OT marathon, if that many.

Ho Hum wrote:

Getting rid of the trials would remove one of the most entertaining US events, when they should instead be focused on getting even more out of it.

Maybe for a few dozen jobro minions…

Okay, just what was that eye-popping television rating the OT marathon pulled in on February 29, 2020?

Keep your shirt on, dude.

Kvothe wrote:

How is that? WAs standards would just change the standards for the trials, even if they required a 210 from a wa label race a few Americans would be eligible.

Because the world is at the mercy of what World Athletics decides. They changed their labeling for 2022, with a platinum elite label costing $50,000 and time standards of 2:09:16/2:25:47.

Ackley wrote:

A modest proposal:

(1) Keep the Trials race but the time qualifier for Trials must occur on a World Athletics qualification eligible course ("loop" course or point-to-point with net elevation loss of less than 1m per km). For example, NYC, Chicago, Grandma's would be okay but not CIM or Boston.

(2) Boston would be an exception to number 1.

(3) The top three finishers at the trials would make the Team as long as they had met the World Athletics time standard.

(4) If three runners did meet the time standard, it would go to a descending order list of people that did have the standard.

(5) The whole WMM top-10 qualification would not apply unless three runners could not be found by using (3) and (4).

I like all this. I'd add (6):

Make the qualifying time closer to one that could potentially achieve an Olympic qualifying time - 2:15 for men, 2:35 for women.

Gentleman Savage wrote:

Maybe for a few dozen jobro minions…

Okay, just what was that eye-popping television rating the OT marathon pulled in on February 29, 2020?

Keep your shirt on, dude.

Some of you are weirdly defensive about people actually wanting to watch running. It's OK, I promise no one's going to give you a wedgie.

Didn't find any numbers for 2020, but 1.2 million "jobro minions" watched in 2016. Not incredibly impressive, but a good opportunity to grow from. What are you replacing this with, some guy time trialing to 8th place on a Dutch livestream at 4 am? Awesome.

You'll prob be one of those guys with nothing to do but eat and drink during retirement. I see it a lot in thos who lived for work and obsessed over money. Once they finally start living they go full ham. I give you a couple years of enjoying retirement and then you'll balloon in weight. Nevertheless I wish you well, congrats.

Not horrific wrote:

The marathon isn't suited for a winner-take-all race. the only reason people like the Trials is it's essentially a US Marathon Championship. But it's a terrible way to pick a marathon team.

That's it.

That's funny. That's the opposite of how you told your life story in the "Posters over 40 regrets" thread. Sounds like I did in fact hit the nail on the head.

I agree that the field was too big in 2020 (especially for the women) but I like a field in the hundreds. I don't think the times need to be cut that much if #1 is implemented. According to the 2020 Trials site, the median men's qualifying time was 2:17:28 and the women's median qualifying time was 2:42:48.

Homer, I watched. And yet I'm not delusional. Networks aren't bidding on this, NBC has to take it in order to get the track trials and they're determined to max out paying for USOC property. It's not like they had to go up against NFL pregame or NCAA hoops that early on February 29th, either. I hope they outdrew QVC but I wouldn't bet on it.

Back of the packer wrote:

Not horrific wrote:

The marathon isn't suited for a winner-take-all race. the only reason people like the Trials is it's essentially a US Marathon Championship. But it's a terrible way to pick a marathon team.

That's it.

Yep, it's a beloved spectacle for tertiary reasons. A twitter poll could pick as good of a team.

Oh no, if the US stop having trials we might get american athletes that starts peaking for the olympics and/or the wc and not the trials - which might help their performances. Good for american athletes at least.

Ackley wrote:

A modest proposal:

(1) Keep the Trials race but the time qualifier for Trials must occur on a World Athletics qualification eligible course ("loop" course or point-to-point with net elevation loss of less than 1m per km). For example, NYC, Chicago, Grandma's would be okay but not CIM or Boston.

(2) Boston would be an exception to number 1.

(3) The top three finishers at the trials would make the Team as long as they had met the World Athletics time standard.

(4) If three runners did meet the time standard, it would go to a descending order list of people that did have the standard.

(5) The whole WMM top-10 qualification would not apply unless three runners could not be found by using (3) and (4).

You make wayyyy too much sense with your proposal...thank you!

If you are real serious about qualifying for the Olympic team, run in one of the World Marathon Majors race, and not in some BS race like CIM that World Athletics will laugh at even if you run under the WA standard.

CIM should be an exception if Boston is. Not everyone on the west coast can afford plane tickets, hotels, etc. There is like one small marathon in the fall half of the year in California (Long Beach) and that is it. Its way too unfair to expect everyone is rich and can just fly to chicago. Or has to be so good they can solo a qualifying time in some crap race where 2nd place is barely under 230.

I hung it up at 25, too, and only run a few times a week now. I'm fitter decades on, though, than I was at 25, by a long shot.

What I am not, any longer, is 25.

Kvothe wrote:

Ballin More wrote:

You make wayyyy too much sense with your proposal...thank you!

If you are real serious about qualifying for the Olympic team, run in one of the World Marathon Majors race, and not in some BS race like CIM that World Athletics will laugh at even if you run under the WA standard.

CIM should be an exception if Boston is. Not everyone on the west coast can afford plane tickets, hotels, etc. There is like one small marathon in the fall half of the year in California (Long Beach) and that is it. Its way too unfair to expect everyone is rich and can just fly to chicago. Or has to be so good they can solo a qualifying time in some crap race where 2nd place is barely under 230.

This ^

The country does not halfway, much as it appears to.