2021 multi-event

[miketandf]

Arona, Spain GL multi-meet this Fri/Sat... no complete start lists or live results link that I have seen, if anyone has, please post...
A few folks looking for the Q, or more likely, getting a lot of place points and try to move into the top 24 via ranking:
Men: Sintnicolaas, Urena, Roe, Helcelet, Ushiro...
Women: Vicente, Ruckstuhl, Mills, Lagger...
https://www.worldathletics.org/compe...nal-arona-2021

[deca]

The fact that you think that money is not affecting athletes' results is mind boggling.
The argument that the higher standard in D1 is a reflection of higher number is more valid but not supported in the data.
The table below presents the number of annual performances in D1 and D2 for various scores.

	6000+	6700+	7000+	7300+	7500+	7700+	7900+	8100+
D1	2115	1011	628	337	207	118	61	28
D2	438	185	91	38	10	2	1	0
%D2	17%	14%	13%	10%	4.5%	1.7%	1.6%	0%

The table clearly demonstrate what even a quick look at the D2 data would reveals - there is a huge gap in quality between the two divisions and it is not driven by the larger size of D1.
For example, of all 7,000+ performances almost 10% of D1 performances are above the current qualification mark for the trials (7900), compared with roughly 1% of D2 performances.

Now to the NCAA final

You are setting up what is called a straw man argument and arguing against a number of points that you are attributing to me that I never made. Your data is interesting and appear factual. My statements are also all factual.

[deca]

The fact that you think that money is not affecting athletes' results is mind boggling.
The argument that the higher standard in D1 is a reflection of higher number is more valid but not supported in the data.
The table below presents the number of annual performances in D1 and D2 for various scores.

	6000+	6700+	7000+	7300+	7500+	7700+	7900+	8100+
D1	2115	1011	628	337	207	118	61	28
D2	438	185	91	38	10	2	1	0
%D2	17%	14%	13%	10%	4.5%	1.7%	1.6%	0%

The table clearly demonstrate what even a quick look at the D2 data would reveals - there is a huge gap in quality between the two divisions and it is not driven by the larger size of D1.
For example, of all 7,000+ performances almost 10% of D1 performances are above the current qualification mark for the trials (7900), compared with roughly 1% of D2 performances.

Now to the NCAA final

Final will be fun. Who said anything about money having anything or nothing to do with it? Again - I made no mention of it. Not sure your point on the percentages you share besides again showing there are many more D1 decs and a higher % of them score big #s? No argument here. I just continue to accurately state that many of our best came from D2 and lower schools (and even the D1, many are tier 2 D1 - which represent many of the big scores you highlight).

Money not mentioned.

[gm]

Thanks - so I should read "not accepted" as "temporary not accepted".
Here is a suggestion maybe USATF should use a word like "pending" not to confuse the readers.

... and then everyone asks what pending means!

[olorin]

They will fill the field to 18 in both the heptathlon and decathlon from the list of entrants.

Thanks - so I should read "not accepted" as "temporary not accepted".
Here is a suggestion maybe USATF should use a word like "pending" not to confuse the readers.

[donley2]

Well, it seems that USATF don't accept anyone without the qualification mark (7900 & 6000).
There are few collegiate that competes over the next few days that are still without decisions, but most of the rest, even with 78xx and 59xx are not accepted.
So, probably a small and very high quality field in the multi-events.

They will fill the field to 18 in both the heptathlon and decathlon from the list of entrants.

[olorin]

I didn't give any false impression about level of D1 vs. D2. What I said, and it is still accurate, is that a significant # of the 8K+ scores come from tier 2 D1 or non D1 colleges. Including 3 of the top 4 all time (O'Brien, Clay, Johnson).

The current gap of top scores, I'd guess is most likely a combination of selection bias - and also the rule of raw numbers (you just get more total athletes competing in D1, so going to get more high performances in every event and fewer % of top performers from D2, D3, NAIA (not sure if you factored those into your last 10 year calculations above).

The fact that you think that money is not affecting athletes' results is mind boggling.
The argument that the higher standard in D1 is a reflection of higher number is more valid but not supported in the data.
The table below presents the number of annual performances in D1 and D2 for various scores.

	6000+	6700+	7000+	7300+	7500+	7700+	7900+	8100+
D1	2115	1011	628	337	207	118	61	28
D2	438	185	91	38	10	2	1	0
%D2	17%	14%	13%	10%	4.5%	1.7%	1.6%	0%

The table clearly demonstrate what even a quick look at the D2 data would reveals - there is a huge gap in quality between the two divisions and it is not driven by the larger size of D1.
For example, of all 7,000+ performances almost 10% of D1 performances are above the current qualification mark for the trials (7900), compared with roughly 1% of D2 performances.

Now to the NCAA final

[olorin]

Source: https://www.usatf.org/events/2021/20...ying-standards

Well, it seems that USATF don't accept anyone without the qualification mark (7900 & 6000).
There are few collegiate that competes over the next few days that are still without decisions, but most of the rest, even with 78xx and 59xx are not accepted.
So, probably a small and very high quality field in the multi-events.

[miketandf]

Solomon Simmons showing pretty good form this past weekend in a mini tune-up for the Trials, doing selected deca events at Texas meet:
11.12 (-0.7) (PR=10.60), 7.44/24-5 (-1.8) (PR=7.52), 1.93/6-4 (PR=1.97), 49.72 (PR=49.21), 14.34 (+1.0) (PR=14.02), 48.06/157-8 a new PR (previous PR=47.44), 4.65/15-3 (PR=5.00)

At same meet, Scott Filip also with some relatively good marks:
14.34/47-0 3/4 (PR=14.88), 1.99/6-6 1/4 (PR=2.08), 48.30 (PR=47.58), 14.44 (+0.8) PR (previous PR=14.58), 4.85/15-11 (PR=4.91)

Gonna be one heckuva decathlon at the Trials...

[deca]

Originally posted by deca View Post
Interesting analysis. I was looking at all time - and I’d still argue that a number of the 8k+ at D1 schools are not top tier programs, but you’re right, was only 1 in the last 10 years. That doesn’t tell us the reason for it, merely tells us that it is a fact.

Your post gave the (false) impression that the level in D1 and D2 are similar while in reality they are in a huge gap between the two. I was looking at various events in order to learn more about D2. I examine over the last 11 years how many D2 athletes would have being ranked top 24 if they were competing in D1. That is how many D2 athletes have a result that is better than the athlete ranked 24 in D1.
The results (total number of athletes over the 11 years) are:
SP - 26
HJ - 24
100 - 16
400 - 11
Dec - 8 (on average less than one a year)
PV - 7
As for the question why this gap exist - the main two reasons are selectin bias (better athletes compete in D1) and more resources in D1. Are you suggesting something else?
Last edited by olorin; Today, 08:52 AM.

I didn't give any false impression about level of D1 vs. D2. What I said, and it is still accurate, is that a significant # of the 8K+ scores come from tier 2 D1 or non D1 colleges. Including 3 of the top 4 all time (O'Brien, Clay, Johnson).

The current gap of top scores, I'd guess is most likely a combination of selection bias - and also the rule of raw numbers (you just get more total athletes competing in D1, so going to get more high performances in every event and fewer % of top performers from D2, D3, NAIA (not sure if you factored those into your last 10 year calculations above).

[Davidokun]

Does anyone know what is the policy regarding invitation for non-qualify athletes? In the past it seems that it was under USATF discretion. I wonder if this year (Coronavirus) they will just invite the top-18?

All verified entries who have met the standard within the prescribed period and at a bona fide meet (see guidelines below), shall be qualified to participate in the U.S. Olympic Trials. Additional verified entries from the rank order list of those who have entered and declared shall be invited to participate in the Trials only to the extent that the indicated field size has not been filled by those with the standard. An invitation will be extended to these additional persons based on verified entries in their performance rank order.

Source: https://www.usatf.org/events/2021/20...ying-standards

[olorin]

Three days before the deadline all the 8000+ decathletes are entered to the US trials.

Additionally, four collegiate are entered with Ballengee only 5 points from the qualification mark (7900). Other American collegiate decathletes that their sum of PRs is greater than 7900: Daniels (8077)*, Martin (7941)*, Swaby (8028)* and Walder (7977)*.
Three freshmen that may not be smart enough to realize that one "shouldn't" score above his some of PBs (West, Turner*, Baldwin*) will be also on my radar.

In the women side Zamzow is the only one missing from the big guns. Brooks is entered both in the Heptathlon and the 100h. Again, several collegiate heptathletes are already entered without the qualification (6000 points) mark.
Marsh has a good chance to join the party, while Holmberg has the highest sum of PBs, but seems slightly out of form. Both Reynolds and Taubert have an outside chance. Obrien (FR-1) would be interesting to watch although 5879 sum of PRs maybe too far to have a realistic chance.

*not entered yet
Last edited by olorin; Today, 05:21 AM.

Zamzow-Mahler is entered and no less than nine heptathletes with 6,100(+) are entered to the trials to compete against each other and the auto-Q.
In the men side all the missing (*) entered except Turner.
Does anyone know what is the policy regarding invitation for non-qualify athletes? In the past it seems that it was under USATF discretion. I wonder if this year (Coronavirus) they will just invite the top-18?

[miketandf]

Worth noting that Shkurenyov doesn’t currently have ANA status so may not be eligible for the Olympics...

Yes, certainly worth noting... looks like that may open another deca slot. After today's WA announcement, he's still not on the list of eligible ANA athletes... and for what it's worth, he also has not competed since February of this year, at least according to WA's stats.
https://www.worldathletics.org/news/...tes-7-jun-2021

[olorin]

Originally posted by deca View Post
Interesting analysis. I was looking at all time - and I’d still argue that a number of the 8k+ at D1 schools are not top tier programs, but you’re right, was only 1 in the last 10 years. That doesn’t tell us the reason for it, merely tells us that it is a fact.

Your post gave the (false) impression that the level in D1 and D2 are similar while in reality they are in a huge gap between the two. I was looking at various events in order to learn more about D2. I examine over the last 11 years how many D2 athletes would have being ranked top 24 if they were competing in D1. That is how many D2 athletes have a result that is better than the athlete ranked 24 in D1.
The results (total number of athletes over the 11 years) are:
SP - 26
HJ - 24
100 - 16
400 - 11
Dec - 8 (on average less than one a year)
PV - 7
As for the question why this gap exist - the main two reasons are selectin bias (better athletes compete in D1) and more resources in D1. Are you suggesting something else?
Last edited by olorin; Today, 08:52 AM.

[miketandf]

Three days before the deadline all the 8000+ decathletes are entered to the US trials.
...
In the women side Zamzow is the only one missing from the big guns. Brooks is entered both in the Heptathlon and the 100h.
...

Certainly expect Zamzow with her recent 6291 to be entered? Looks like no comebacks from Taiwo and Nwaba (on initial formcharts). Good to see Lawson giving it a go after not completing a deca for Kent St. this year.