Already 10 men and 13 women qualified for the US Marathon trials- are the standards too easy?

can we make puppies at the start and finish lines of all races a thing though....

This isn't a rational assumption. If Rupp had to be top 30 to be in the OT, you can be damn sure he and Salazar or Smith would have ensured he hit the performance to be there. Same for Seidel. Anyone else who feels it "harder" to get there isn't going to do anything other than trickle in far behind the bronze medal finisher. It simply doesn't make us more competitive. What makes us more competitive is putting a primary, if not exclusive focus on the marathon.

Best post on this thread so far. This is the sad state of affairs that explains why we simply won't see US medal contenders aside from the occasional Rupp or Seidel.

Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:

I think ideally the top 100 men and women?

Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.[/quote]

No city would bid for the Trials if the fields were that small. It's a qualifying event, but it's still an event in and of itself. Once that requires a city to clear streets, post security, aid/refreshment stations, etc. In other words it costs money to hold the Trials.

I think keeping them around 2:20 and 2:40 allows someone who could be a contender to have a bad race or run through an Injury and still get to the trials. It also allows a talented runner the chance to run a less optimal race course like NYC or any sort of hilly marathon with crappy weather and still get to the trials. If you make the standard to narrow than certain courses or weather conditions might play to large of a factor.

The standard just needs to get a few hundred great runners to the trials.

Probably yes wrote:

What does too easy mean exactly? How many people is the ideal amount of people you want to compete at the trials?

4

Les wrote:

Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:

Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.

No city would bid for the Trials if the fields were that small. It's a qualifying event, but it's still an event in and of itself. Once that requires a city to clear streets, post security, aid/refreshment stations, etc. In other words it costs money to hold the Trials.

Well why not? Sure, the costs for shutting down the streets and holding a race on them is the same. Yet for Atlanta, that cost wasn't defrayed because there were more than 100 entrants because all entrants had their travel covered. Now Atlanta may have offered plum discounts to the organizers because of the requisite spike in tourism dollars for that weekend, but is that confirmed to actually be the case? Is there automatically or even usually a reduction in overall costs by having a larger field size? As someone has already said, if you really want a bid that costs less money then have the race as the front corral at a race like Boston or NYC. No city wants to bid for a Trials like Atlanta's that lost huge sums of money.

1988 Trials. Mark Conover, 2:18 at CIM. Won Trials in 2:12.

No they're about right. You could argue bringing the women's time down a minute or two, but it's fine. Look at where people qualified for the last olympic trials. There are a handful of really fast, competitive races where most people qualify. Houston is one of them.

And DNF at the Seoul Games, not really beneficial having him on the team.

why do you hate women?

(isn't that the standard question any time anyone asks any question about female athletics?)

darkcloud wrote:

1988 Trials. Mark Conover, 2:18 at CIM. Won Trials in 2:12.

Not quite the same but Matt Pelletier ran 2:21 when the standard was 2:22 & then ran 2:17-low for 19th in 2007. Those stories are better than trying to cut down elite/sub-elite opportunities when the sport is all about raising up stories like this.

Flagpole wrote:

Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:

Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.

What's the harm in people in the race who have no shot at the top 3? It's such a small field anyway...easy for all the realistic hopefuls to navigate. Getting TO the trials is the dream of many. Why not let the have that?

As a spectator, it was so awesome to watch the large fields run the 2020 Trials. It was an event. And I have no hard data on viewership to support this, but it did seem that more people around the country watched and were excited about it than prior Olympic cycles. And I think part of that was that there were large fields of athletes through erring on the side of the inclusion rather than exclusion. That also allowed for new athletes to come to the fore.

For example:

Molly Seidel was ranked 500th in the women's qualifiers times and Kiera D'amato's qualifying time was 2:34 and no one could've even guessed she'd be a 2:19 marathoner 2 years later. Getting the opportunity to compete rocketed them to where they are now.

Les wrote:

Americans who can't break 2:10 wrote:

I think ideally the top 100 men and women?

Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.

No city would bid for the Trials if the fields were that small. It's a qualifying event, but it's still an event in and of itself. Once that requires a city to clear streets, post security, aid/refreshment stations, etc. In other words it costs money to hold the Trials.[/quote]

One of the more rational points made so far. I want to hear the purist that want a severely limited field pitch that to a host city.

"We want you to shut down a huge area of your city, provide traffic control, and all the necessary safety, antiterrorism efforts, and support to host this race, that will have 25 women and 25 men in it. The crowds will be in the hundreds and there will be limited spotty tv coverage. So who wants to start the bidding???????????!!!"

LetsNotBeTransphobic wrote:

darkcloud wrote:

1988 Trials. Mark Conover, 2:18 at CIM. Won Trials in 2:12.

Not quite the same but Matt Pelletier ran 2:21 when the standard was 2:22 & then ran 2:17-low for 19th in 2007. Those stories are better than trying to cut down elite/sub-elite opportunities when the sport is all about raising up stories like this.

Stories that have no traction outside of themselves and are quickly forgotten. Why would even fans of the sport be aware of or remember someone finishing 19th at the OT? It's cool to his loved ones and training partners, but that's about the extent. I remember Conover yet wouldn't know how he did at the Olympics unless I looked it up, because he didn't medal nor did he come close. Who remembers that Nate Jenkins beat Meb at the same race mentioned above except when he talks about it on a podcast? And I like Nate Jenkins, but it wasn't his OT finish that I find inspiring. Removing one alleged opportunity for elites and non-elites (sub-elite isn't real) isn't going to really matter to how well we develop marathoners in the USA. Those who want to run fast will rise to the challenge and get the right support to get there. The 2:14+/2:35+ (on legit courses) marathoners don't help produce more Rupps, Seidels, Kastors, and Mebs. Their efforts are ends unto themselves. I'd much rather see a team of 3 Rupps and 3 Seidels but clearly we don't know how to develop talent to achieve that or else we just aren't willing.

ClubRunnah wrote:

Les wrote:

Top 30 or fewer of each gender. If you want to shut out pretenders, do it right.

No city would bid for the Trials if the fields were that small. It's a qualifying event, but it's still an event in and of itself. Once that requires a city to clear streets, post security, aid/refreshment stations, etc. In other words it costs money to hold the Trials.

One of the more rational points made so far. I want to hear the purist that want a severely limited field pitch that to a host city.

"We want you to shut down a huge area of your city, provide traffic control, and all the necessary safety, antiterrorism efforts, and support to host this race, that will have 25 women and 25 men in it. The crowds will be in the hundreds and there will be limited spotty tv coverage. So who wants to start the bidding???????????!!!"[/quote]

Did you rationally read what you just wrote? You cannot be serious that you think thousands of people turn up for the 2:14+/2:35+ entrants. The majority of the crowd wants to see the Rupps and Seidels, the ones with a real shot at top 3, the ones they know from racing on-camera at WMMs and shoe ads and social media. People who are talking about the stories of local yokels getting in are running on emotion. You pitch it being the Olympic MF Trials, you don't tout having a large field of also-rans. Wow, just wow.

Shoes and courses like CIM are how we got the large fields in 2020. Full stop. There was no intention for that level of entrants.

That marathon guide ranking put Seidel's half time behind 499 marathon seed times? That makes zero sense, dude. Has D'amato cited running the OT as something that made her want to run the AR? Or are you simply assuming? Why not assign The Marathon Project as much or more importance in her progression and motivation? D'amato obviously has other motivating factors; not saying the OT had no effect (especially since it was the only high level competitive domestic marathon that year other than Houston) but don't overstate it just to fit your narrative.

The trials should include a fair share of runners.

I usually don't like comparing the pro team sports to running, however if the trials are like the playoffs, and being top 3 is like getting to the championship game, then you have to wonder why -over the years- most leagues expanded their playoffs to include more teams, not less. (Just look at baseball.) Obviously there is a big money factor there, but it also keeps more fans interested. The same can be said for our trials, why are we looking to shrink coverage and exposure? For the men, that 2:20 range has always been a big goal. Keep it in that range.

I also think covering the costs of either the top 20-30 (or meeting a certain time ~2:14 for the men), is the way to go.