The OTQ standards should have been 2:20 and 2:40... convince me I'm wrong

I guess the debate really comes down to what you think the purpose of the Trials is (to select a team or grow the sport) & how a smaller/bigger field affects race organizers & front packers.

I just think the Trials *has* turned into the one event that has kept the dream alive for post-collegiate runners. In triathlon, for example, you earn your elite status through your national governing body. Tons of people are elite. Once you turn pro, you can race in most races that have pro fields. For Ironman stuff, you just sign up. You only have to qualify for the 70.3 & 140.6 (Kona) World Champs. So those are more/less like Trials races where you'll only have 50 pro men/50 pro women. BUT you can compete all year long with the people going to the World Champs at basically any other race. In running, it's just not that clearly designed. If you run 2:18:30, you don't get the same treatment that a triathlete gets throughout the year when you are proportionally a pro. I get that 2:18 doesn't make you globally competitive & doesn't get you an invite to Boston but you're still in a high enough bracket that you should get some better opportunities. The Trials has turned into that forum because a 2:18 guy basically wins their Turkey Trot, pays $$$ to travel to some bigger/faster races, but gets their day at the Trials. It keeps them in the sport. It keeps them motivated, hungry.

I think you can keep a bigger field size & that race organizers wouldn't have to pay for everyone over X time. If your argument is that is should be 2:15 & 2:30 (or something), what does it matter at that point? Those times still aren't competitive. Either make it a truly elite event or recognize that road races aren't constrictive & use the event to grow the sport. Galen Rupp runs Chicago + Boston most years. What does he care if the Trials have 1000 participants. Design the course right. Fluids to only the 50 fastest seeds. Water/gatorade for everyone else. I liked the 2020 Trials & the coverage the women got. The move seemed to make it harder for them than the men based on the numbers we would have had last cycle. I think there is plenty else we can do to grow the sport but I think the Trials has the responsibility to do their part since the elite side of the sport has been decimated at the local level. For profit race companies don't care about elite runners. We don't have a better way to do things so I don't like the "there are other ways to grow the sport" argument. As of right now, there really aren't. Hopefully there will be & then maybe I care less about how this race looks.

Also, FWIW, this decision gets made above all of our heads. As USATF members, the long distance committee certainly didn't survey anybody in our running community on this. I don't love that either. Feels like the athletes didn't give input on this & the crowd that thinks tighter standards will make us globally competitive won the day.

logical wrote:

With all due respect and politeness, this might be the most illogical comment I've ever read in over 15 years of following this site. How on Earth do you think it's possible that having slower standards contributed to the success of our top female marathoners, who would have qualified with faster standards? Do you think Molly Seidel won an Olympic medal this year because she had to beat a bunch of 2:38-2:45 women in order to make the team?

It's building the base. Look at the best high school teams, they often have the biggest roster sizes. Look at those incredible fartlek workouts that happen every week in Kenya with hundreds of people coming out and just trying to hang on.

The more people you have training hard and pushing for a goal like OTQ the stronger the top end of the field is. The more support systems that build up around them, whether it is clubs, coaching, small sponsorships, local media attention ect.

i agree with AXC. if you're a post-collegiate runner most of the road racing scene is pretty bad in terms of competitiveness. i still don't think i've seen a reason that having some 2:20 guys bringing up the rear at the trials is a big deal. all the complaints are very easily resolved and/or are unavoidable at any participation number (e.g. falls).

and i don't think it's fair to make a comparison with the equivalent track performances such as a 3:55 1500. there are some D1 guys that can run that off of pretty casual training. none of those guys could run 2:20 off of casual training. the volume needed to get there for any talent level will always filter out a lot of people.

So is CIM, Grandma’s, Boston, etc going to count?

I've often thought that we should make a BQ an automatic OTQ. This would obviously increase the size of the fields dramatically, but who cares? This would have the effect of drawing more attention to running, with a small logistical downside. You're an 80 year old woman that just ran a 5:10 marathon? You're in! Maybe just don't line up at the front.

This would also generate interest in running from the HS/MS level all the way up through D1 NCAAs. It could be similar to the ekiden culture in Japan.

AXC wrote:

It's building the base. Look at the best high school teams, they often have the biggest roster sizes. Look at those incredible fartlek workouts that happen every week in Kenya with hundreds of people coming out and just trying to hang on.

The more people you have training hard and pushing for a goal like OTQ the stronger the top end of the field is. The more support systems that build up around them, whether it is clubs, coaching, small sponsorships, local media attention ect.

This is comparing apples and oranges. In high school, the motivation for most runners is to make friends and/or to build up the extracurricular activities section of their resume in preparation for college. In Kenya, the motivation is to escape poverty. Plus Kenya doesn't even have a marathon trials; they just select their very best runners, so nothing about that country is relevant to what our qualifying standards should be.

If an American is seriously aiming to make the US Olympic team (which is the only reason we have the Olympic Trials), then having slower standards does not help them meet that goal. The only thing that will help them meet that goal is being talented and fit enough to be in contention for the top 3. The 2:19 men and 2:39 women have no chance!

Let the abundance of big city marathons be the places for the masses to meet their personal goals and build the base. Leave the Olympic Trials for people who actually have a shot at making it to the Olympics.

AXC wrote:

I'll never understand the disconnect that most runners I meet in person are incredibly pleasant and encouraging people, many of whom regularly read Lets Run. And yet the dominant culture of LRC is so vindictive, toxic, and nasty.

Anonymous posting brings out the troll in everyone. Except for Sham 69, he is the essence of trolling

AXC wrote:

Finally with the faster standards the final qualifiers are going the be the amateur professionals. The people putting off real life to dedicate themselves to running for a couple more years... kinda depressing. In 2020 the final qualifiers were the professional amateurs, those who are not putting off the rest of their lives but continuing to run at a high level... totally inspiring!

Most people watching the race on tv are inspired by the runners at the front of the race, who are actually getting covered by the broadcasters, not those in the back who are anonymous faces in a crowd and rarely even shown on air.

Watching the 2020 trials, I was inspired by Molly Seidel and how she overcame her eating disorder and mental health challenges.

I was inspired by Abdi Abdirahman and his ability to still run at a high level over the age of 40. I was inspired by his return to the podium after so many recent disappointments and people thinking he was done.

I was inspired by Aliphine Tuliamuk and Sally Kipyego and their immigration stories.

I was inspired by Jake Riley qualifying for the team as an underdog.

I was inspired by the consistent excellence of Galen Rupp.

There was more than enough inspiration from those who achieved their dream of making it to the Olympics.

Good to listen to the podcast this week and hear that ROJO also thinks that 2:20/2:40 are the right standards. He should have credited his sources though ;)

inspired wrote:

Most people watching the race on tv are inspired by the runners at the front of the race, who are actually getting covered by the broadcasters, not those in the back who are anonymous faces in a crowd and rarely even shown on air.

There are multiple kinds of inspiration. I was inspired by the runners who made the Olympic team too. But I was also inspired by the pre-trials media coverage of all the people who made the standard while having a career and family at the same time.

People keep saying that the soft OTQ standard is just for rich kids to live the dream for a couple years post-college on their parents money. I'm saying that the non-2020 standards were for those people, but the 2020 standards opened it up to a much larger group of runners who did not have to put off real life to pursue something that is very cool but inherently an amateur achievement.

AXC wrote:

Good to listen to the podcast this week and hear that ROJO also thinks that 2:20/2:40 are the right standards. He should have credited his sources though ;)

All of these opinions are moot. The men’s standard is already too soft.

The arguments in favor of slower qualifying standards are based on false, shaky, or unproven premises:

Premise #1: A talented runner will be inspired by watching someone from their hometown barely qualify for the trials and then finish 10 minutes behind the winner; that talented runner will then go on to win championship races in the future - I have never seen any evidence of this. What I have seen over and over instead is today's great runners citing the great runners who came before them as their sources of inspiration. Deena Kastor inspired Shalane Flanagan, who then inspired many of today's most successful American women. Today's top American men were inspired by the likes of Bob Kennedy, Meb Keflezighi, Alan Webb, Dathan Ritzenhein, and Ryan Hall, all of whom broke barriers and showed that Americans can be competitive on the global stage. Even contemporaries can inspire each other. This week, Athing Mu cited Ajee Wilson and Sydney McLaughlin as sources of inspiration. Greatness inspires greatness. Mediocrity just inspires more mediocrity.

Premise #2: There's no harm done to the elites by having more runners - Keep in my mind that each additional runner and their entourage makes it that much more difficult for the elites who have a legitimate chance to qualify for the Olympics to book a room in one's preferred hotel at a reasonable rate, find convenient parking near the race site, access a Porta Potty before the start, meet up with loved ones at the finish, etc. We should not make these important details more difficult to manage for our top runners vying for a spot on the Olympic team. They have enough to worry about!

Beyond these important logistical race day matters, there's the very real possibility that allowing more runners in the field will diminish the prestige of the Trials, which could hurt our top runners financially in terms of their sponsorship contracts. If any 2:19 runner can make the Trials and generate buzz, then why should a shoe company sponsor someone like Ben True or Noah Droddy? These elite runners were not sponsored leading up to the New York Marathon. I wonder if that can be attributed to the slower standards that made those runners seem less special in the eyes of potential sponsors.

Premise #3: Slower standards will grow the sport - Where's the proof that people are joining the sport because they came across the slower trials standards and thought to themselves, "Hmm, I think I can beat that time, so I'm going to start running!" Slower standards don't encourage newbies to join the sport. They just benefit people who are already very good runners but not quite at the top elite level.

There is also plenty of evidence that suggests the sport is already quite healthy in terms of participation. At the high school level, track and field is the most popular sport for girls and the second most popular sport for boys, only behind football:

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/statistics-on-school-sports-how-many-students-play-sports-which-sports-do-they-play/2021/07

At the adult level, running or track is among the top five sports that adults participate in, along with golf, basketball, baseball or softball, and soccer:

https://media.npr.org/documents/2015/june/sportsandhealthpoll.pdf

The New York Marathon needs a lottery system because so many people want to run that race. We're good!