2008 USA Oly Team Selections

[tafnut]

The way it looks right now, all Kim Kreiner has to do is 'show up' and she's on the team. The likelihood of two more A's is slim.

[Zat0pek]

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!"

I agree with all of that, and the sport has big enough problems with "tentative" results already. "A NEW WORLD RECORD...oh, wait...check that...the wind was 2.1. Never mind."

Then of course there's always, "Pending the results of the "B" samples, the medal winners are..." Of course, even this is subject to revision seven years later after the winner pleads guilty and ships her medals back.

What I DON'T like about this change, however, is that hurts those who inevitably decide to take one last shot at the Olympics. Usually an aging vet who may have retired or semi-retired and comes back out of dry dock for one last hurrah, they likely won't have the "A" coming in because they may have not even competed the previous year. Those folks always add a nice dimension to the trials, and now they may be discouraged from coming back due to the lack of an "A."

[tandfman]

The way it looks right now, all Kim Kreiner has to do is 'show up' and she's on the team. The likelihood of two more A's is slim.

But if any other thrower has or gets a 'B' and beats Kreiner at the Trials, Kreiner is not on the team.

[BCBaroo]

The way it looks right now, all Kim Kreiner has to do is 'show up' and she's on the team. The likelihood of two more A's is slim.

It would take 3(!) other A qualifiers....so yeah. Book your ticket Kim K.

[tandfman]

The way it looks right now, all Kim Kreiner has to do is 'show up' and she's on the team. The likelihood of two more A's is slim.

It would take 3(!) other A qualifiers....so yeah. Book your ticket Kim K.

To where?

[tandfman]

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?

No, if a single A qualifier finished behind a B qualifier, the B would be on the team and the A would not. The point is that if there can be only one on the team (which could be an A or a B), that one will be he/she who finishes highest in the Trials.

This, by the way, is the way it has been for quite some time.

[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?

No, if a single A qualifier finished behind a B qualifier, the B would be on the team and the A would not. The point is that if there can be only one on the team (which could be an A or a B), that one will be he/she who finishes highest in the Trials.

This, by the way, is the way it has been for quite some time.

Yes, it has. That's what I thought to be a departure from previous policies. So, if there is one A behind the B, B goes. If there are 2 or 3 A's behind the B, B stays home and the A's go. Correct?

[tafnut]

Two women have B's

195-8 Dana Pounds
189-11 Rachel Yurkovich

[BCBaroo]

Tandfman I'm not sure I follow you. This from higher up in the post, seems to indicate that Kreiner would need to be beaten by 3 other A's to NOT go. If she loses to even 3 B's. It sounds to me like she still goes. Obviously if she loses to 2 A's, she would also go. So it takes 3 A's to knock an A out.

----
Posted on USATF.ORG this week.
NO "B's" if "A's" are available!

and from GH post:

Seems completely clear to me (seriously), that BBBAAA would result in AAA going.

I read it to say, in essence, "no B athlete will displace an A athlete, regardless of OT order of finish."

------

Sheesh. Why does this stuff confuse me everytime. Maybe I'll be clear by June.

[tandfman]

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?

No, if a single A qualifier finished behind a B qualifier, the B would be on the team and the A would not. The point is that if there can be only one on the team (which could be an A or a B), that one will be he/she who finishes highest in the Trials.

This, by the way, is the way it has been for quite some time.

Yes, it has. That's what I thought to be a departure from previous policies. So, if there is one A behind the B, B goes. If there are 2 or 3 A's behind the B, B stays home and the A's go. Correct?

That's my understanding.

[tandfman]

Tandfman I'm not sure I follow you. This from higher up in the post, seems to indicate that Kreiner would need to be beaten by 3 other A's to NOT go. If she loses to even 3 B's. It sounds to me like she still goes. Obviously if she loses to 2 A's, she would also go. So it takes 3 A's to knock an A out.

That would be true if there are other A's. But if she's the only A (as she is now), a single B can knock her out by beating her at the Trials.

----
Posted on USATF.ORG this week.
NO "B's" if "A's" are available!

I don't know where it says that, but in any event, it's true that no B's go if A's (plural) are available, but if only one A (singular) is available, a B can go by beating the lone A.

and from GH post:

Seems completely clear to me (seriously), that BBBAAA would result in AAA going.

I read it to say, in essence, "no B athlete will displace an A athlete, regardless of OT order of finish."

No, it says, in essence, that no B athlete will displace multiple A's.

Sheesh. Why does this stuff confuse me everytime.

I don't know why it should. It's the way it's been done before, and it's not all that complicated.

[gh]

You actually typed that with a straight face?

[tafnut]

You actually typed that with a straight face?

It's 50 times less complicated than this past season's nightmare.

[tandfman]

That's pretty much what I was going to say (without the number). One of the reasons I don't think it's overly complicated is that until the IAAF introduced the A+B business this year, USATF had been doing it this way for many years. The operating principle is fairly simple. You base the team selection on results of the Trials EXCEPT where you could send more athletes by by-passing a B in favor of an A.

[rasb]

I understand the concept of sending more athletes. What I don't get is that a B standard achiever who wins the Trials is LESS worthy of being selected to the Games if he/she beats 2 or 3 or 16 A standard bearers, than only finishing ahead of 1 A standard. In an individual sport, that makes no sense at all...