2008 USA Oly Team Selections

[Chrome Dome]

As it stands now, I think there are some events with very few "A" qualifiers:

MTJ = 4
MHT = 1
MJT = 3
WHJ = 2
WTJ = 1
WSP = 4
MJT = 1
WHT = 3

And several with only 5 or 6 qualifiers.

So the next few weeks should see a lot of focus on chasing the Games "A" level! Should be exciting to follow.

[gh]

Time for an update. Lagat still lacking in the 5,000, Kara Goucher missing it in the 10,000.

We should expect Cardinal, Pre, etc. to be barnburners, no?

Lagat took care of his "problem."

[Marlow]

On the first page here it says any A will displace any B, but now we know (don't we?) that if there's only one A, and the OT winner is a B, the B will go. What events can that apply to? mHT? wTJ? wJT?

[26mi235]

Time for an update. Lagat still lacking in the 5,000, Kara Goucher missing it in the 10,000.

We should expect Cardinal, Pre, etc. to be barnburners, no?

Odd that winning the WC 5000 does not trump a time mark, or even medaling in the WCs.

[Zat0pek]

Time for an update. Lagat still lacking in the 5,000, Kara Goucher missing it in the 10,000.

We should expect Cardinal, Pre, etc. to be barnburners, no?

[tandfman]

It's at the end of the athlete's event, not the end of the Trials.

[gh]

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.

One perhaps radical thought about "chasing" in '08 (much as I hate the concept):

I haven't seen the Eugene schedule, but somebody in Lane County could probably do somebody(ies) a favor by setting up an all-comer's meet or two for the second half of the OT (say at South Eugene High?) and at least those who had events in the first 4 days (well, heck, even days after that in some/most events) and they could make one last try at it.

That's assuming that the USATF protocol is written as "as of the end of the Trials" and not "as of the end of your event."

[tandfman]

I don't think this year's rules complicated things at all! Indeed, there were fewer events in contention than ever before. It was a great advance.

USATF complicated things w/ a complicated explanation system, and one that wasn't announced until the eve of the meet.

I concur with gh. I liked the flexibility of having one B in the mix, which might have made the number of truely unique permutations larger in some methods of enumerating the possibilities but was actually easy to figure out.

Also, I think that it is a mistake to say that a rule that is more complicated is worse than a simple rule.

I do think that adding a B to one or more A's makes it a little more complicated. But I agree with gh that the USATF explanation was not timely and was not well done--it made things more complicated than they needed to be. I also agree with 26mi385--I said it was more complicated, but I never said it was worse. It's not.

[26mi235]

I don't think this year's rules complicated things at all! Indeed, there were fewer events in contention than ever before. It was a great advance.

USATF complicated things w/ a complicated explanation system, and one that wasn't announced until the eve of the meet.

I concur with gh. I liked the flexibility of having one B in the mix, which might have made the number of truely unique permutations larger in some methods of enumerating the possibilities but was actually easy to figure out.

Also, I think that it is a mistake to say that a rule that is more complicated is worse than a simple rule. The ease of explicating a rule tells you little about how good a rule it is, although we know that in many situations simple rules throw the baby out with the bath water. Finally, what was complicated about the rule is, in part, people's incomplete understanding of the rule and hence a lot of back-and-forth (e.g., if only one A, does BA imply A or A?, which was a factual element that was stated incorrectly not at a complication of the rule, per se).

[gh]

I don't think this year's rules complicated things at all! Indeed, there were fewer events in contention than ever before. It was a great advance.

USATF complicated things w/ a complicated explanation system, and one that wasn't announced until the eve of the meet.

[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.

Except USATF has different rules for OG and WC (and has years w/ no rules). Instead of all the complicated verbiage, why not simply have a chart that lists all the possible permutations for those of us who comprehend at an elementary school level? It's not as if it would require something the size of the Rosetta Stone to spell out.

Actually, with the exception of this year, when the IAAF changed the rules, I believe the USATF procedures have been consistent. Perhaps I should have stated the principle differently. USATF sends the most athletes it can in each event. If they can send only one, they send the A or B qualifier who finishes highest in the Trials. If they can send more than one, they send the A's who finish highest. I agree that the verbiage on their web site seems complicated, but the procedure really isn't that complicated.

The bad news is, of course, that the IAAF seems likely to stick with that A+B business that they used in Osaka. And that system does complicate things, especially when chasing a standard is possible.

[gh]

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.

Except USATF has different rules for OG and WC (and has years w/ no rules). Instead of all the complicated verbiage, why not simply have a chart that lists all the possible permutations for those of us who comprehend at an elementary school level? It's not as if it would require something the size of the Rosetta Stone to spell out.

[tandfman]

If an athlete with only a B the day before the Trials, looks at his competitors and sees a group of athletes with As he is under a lot more pressure knowing that winning may well NOT be enough to give him a place on the Team.

Actually, if there is a group of A's, the B knows that the only way he can be on the team is by finishing in the top 3 and getting his A mark in the process. But that B athlete had the same opportunity as the A's to achieve the A. He's had a year and a half to do it, and if he hasn't done it by then, he has put himself in that situation.

[tafnut]

Just so the Americans have a greater chance with their As of winning the Olympics, and bugger the poor winner of the Trials.!!!

Seems unfair, especially since the Winner has always been so highly regarded in your Trials. Thats my reading, after flogging thru the last umpteen threads.

I'm not sure that 'fairness' is the right word here. If the criteria are laid out, and the necessity of an A is clearly emphasized, anybody with only a B should not be too surprised that they weren't chosen. It's only in the case where it's one A and one B that it's 'logical' (i.e., fair) that the winner goes. Two or three A's in lieu of one B seems eminently 'fair' to me.

[bennyg]

J. Dope with only a B qualifier beats an athlete with an A standard to win the Trials and the rest of the top eight are all Bs( highly unlikely!!); then J.Dope goes to the Olympics, and the A athlete,F. Bloggs, in second place, does not go.

The same situation as above, but the athletes in second, fourth and fifth , for example, have all achieved the A standard, so, as I read this thread , the A athletes go to the Olympics, but not the Winner, with his B standard,. Is that meant to be a reasonable, ethical rule.?

Just so the Americans have a greater chance with their As of winning the Olympics, and bugger the poor winner of the Trials.!!!

Seems unfair, especially since the Winner has always been so highly regarded in your Trials. Thats my reading, after flogging thru the last umpteen threads.

If an athlete with only a B the day before the Trials, looks at his competitors and sees a group of athletes with As he is under a lot more pressure knowing that winning may well NOT be enough to give him a place on the Team.