2008 USA Oly Team Selections

[Chrome Dome]

When I say it will be simple, I mean that by the time of the Trials it is possible there will be no events with fewer than 2 "A" qualifiers. So those making the team will simply be the highest finishing "A" qualifiers in the Trials. [/b]

[tandfman]

When I say it will be simple, I mean that by the time of the Trials it is possible there will be no events with fewer than 2 "A" qualifiers. So those making the team will simply be the highest finishing "A" qualifiers in the Trials. [/b]

You're assuming that all 'A' qualifiers will compete in the Trials. But if there are only two 'A' qualifiers, and one of them doesn't show up for the Trials (injured, perhaps), then the highest 'A' qualifier will not make the team if he/she is beaten by a 'B' qualifier.

[tafnut]

In any case, I applaud the PTB for simplifying the mess we had this past year. I like the idea that the window closes as of the OT and also that if there's only 1 qualifier that it be the winner, A or B. When the meet ends, we know our team (excl. injuries). We should have the most complete team in years. What's the record for fewest team holes going into the Games, since the current "3 per team if A-qualified" rules?

[Zat0pek]

So if Ritz wants to run the 10,000 instead of the marathon, he needs an "A" this spring. I don't see him on the list of "A" qualifiers.

[tandfman]

Goucher and Kastor don't have qualifiers in the women's 10,000, either. I imagine that Kastor will not bother with the 10,000 if she makes the marathon team (which she surely will, barring injury).

[gh]

How is a "B" athlete going to Europe after the national championships to chase PRs 1) any different than what they would/should be doing anyway, and 2) a "horrid waste of time and resources"?

Not a waste for the athlete; a waste for the U.S. team effort.

I don't have hard stats to back this up, but the conventional wisdom is that when you get people chasing A's (and we're almost always talking 1500 or 5K people here), they have been put in a position to do so because they're only marginal A-quality people, but had the big kick needed to get a high place in the Trials meet off a slow pace.

They they run themselves into the ground in Europe trying for the elusive A. If they finally get it, they're so beat up that the almost-guaranteed outcome is a poor performance in the heats of the OG/WC.

Meanwhile, a "better" runner (one who already had an A) stays home. (There's no guarantee that these A's who couldn't make the team off the slower pace will do any better, of course.)

I also think chasing makes for poor theater for the paying customer, who at the end of some events has no idea who's on the team. Imagine going to a ball game and at the end of the day having the announcer say.... "and in a moment--well, 3 weeks actually--the thrilling announcement of who won the game!"

[tafnut]

There ARE some 'pluses' in chasing:

a. the suspense to see if they'll get the A
b. giving someone who finished higher at OT the opportunity to make the team
c. the chance to fill out a team with 3 A's.

but . . . all in all, gh's reasons outweigh these benefits methinks. Having the OT truly be do-or-die makes for the best theater of all.

[26mi235]

One option to address the 'chasing' issue is to allow one attempt to qualify, which must be made within a period of, say, two weeks of the Trials. This leaves ample room for recovery and the athletes are supposed to be at their peak anyway. One complication is that an athlete might have plenty of quality performances but that they are all wind-aided, so wind-aided semi-"A"s might be given at least one additional shot. This rule might be applied only to the winner with a "B" mark (or an otherwise "A" mark that is wind-aided). That is, only the winner and the first "A" finisher are eligible to go. This fails gh's criteria that you know the winner at the time, but that is a little misleading. You know the winner of the race, you just do not know if they qualified for the next phase. This happens all of the time in team sports and has some occasionally silly consequences -- trying to outscore your opponent by as much as possible to win a tie-breaker (a rule that has now been dropped).

[James Fields]

USOT procedure

GH wrote, "I also think chasing makes for poor theater for the paying customer, who at the end of some events has no idea who's on the team.

tafnut wrote, "Having the OT truly be do-or-die makes for the best theater of all."
--------
Agreed. That's how I remember the 1952 men's USOT (before introduction of OG qualifying marks) which was a two-day meet with finalists from preceding weeks championships: AAU, NCAA, and U.S. military.

[tafnut]

KISS (NTYAS!)

[Bob H]

One option to address the 'chasing' issue is to allow one attempt to qualify, which must be made within a period of, say, two weeks of the Trials.

For Beijing, that's not an option. It's my understanding that the USOC is requiring that USATF finalize the team no later than the end of the Trials.

[26mi235]

One option to address the 'chasing' issue is to allow one attempt to qualify, which must be made within a period of, say, two weeks of the Trials.

For Beijing, that's not an option. It's my understanding that the USOC is requiring that USATF finalize the team no later than the end of the Trials.

I concur. My comment is that the rules are new and this option provides a mechanism to address the worst of the problems from before without entirely doing away with the 'victor goes', which has been so much apart of the Trials.

[Pego]

I have a question. Does a single A qualifier (or perhaps two or three of them) just have to show up at the trials and post a mark in order to be on the team? That is, how it sounds to me.

[BCBaroo]

I have a question. Does a single A qualifier (or perhaps two or three of them) just have to show up at the trials and post a mark in order to be on the team? That is, how it sounds to me.

I think, though a remote possibility in some cases, they darn well better show up just in case the field goes bananas and 3 athletes who only had a B all get A's and finish ahead of what once was a sole A.

[26mi235]

I was under the impression that an "A" qualifier in such a situation had to be a finisher. Letting someone that has an "A" from sometime in the past but is not even contesting the event or is not good enough to get into the final instead of the Trials winner with a 'mere' "B" qualifier seems a mistake. The two athletes might differ in their best mark be a trivial amount and thus there is not necessarily a real quality signal in the "A"/"B" difference.