Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

how about first 3 don't go from the Olympic Trials?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    This talk of picking the defending WC is probably a nonstarter. After all if the our defending Hero doesn't have to compete, than the OTs will lose the stars and that won't do.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Conor Dary
      will lose the stars and that won't do.
      Remember they have a rule that those prequalified for the worlds still have to compete. Granted they are less likely to be blazing fast times, but isn't that the whole point?

      Comment


      • #63
        i like the notion of a time and place where people peak for...

        and you make your selections based on that performance...

        if on that given day, you do not perform, tough cookies..

        who's to say that day would not be the day of an olympic final too...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by az2004
          ....and you make your selections based on that performance...
          There is no doubt this simplifies selection and gives you a fantastic trials. I don't think anyone disagrees with that point.

          Where it gets cloudy is can athletes realistically peak twice in a year?

          And even if the answer is yes, are they at a disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors who only have to focus on the main event?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Daisy
            Where it gets cloudy is can athletes realistically peak twice in a year?

            And even if the answer is yessuspect we , are they at a disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors who only have to focus on the main event?
            It seems to me that we've been doing it that way for a long time, and we've done quite well. I can't prove that we wouldn't have done even better using some other system, but I suspect we would not have. It's every bit as likely that we would not have done as well.

            Comment


            • #66
              a. you could throw some bogus 'honest effort' rule in to induce pre-selects to show up for the OT, but it'll still be an awesome meet even if the few pre-selects do decide to opt out and continue their training. That will just make the OG that much better!

              b. The odds of a 'pre-select' candidate having a bad day at both the OT and the OG are low, precisely because they HAVE proven themselves before. But there are still appreciable odds that someone could have ONE bad day, and that's what we're trying to avoid becoming a problem, by preselecting some people.

              What some of you are not taking into consideration is - if we had had pre-selects all along and suddenly went to a 3-past-the-post selection system, you would be having the same fit you are having now, saying how UNfair the 3PtP system is, because it puts too much emphasis on ONE day to qualify.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Daisy
                Originally posted by Conor Dary
                will lose the stars and that won't do.
                Remember they have a rule that those prequalified for the worlds still have to compete. Granted they are less likely to be blazing fast times, but isn't that the whole point?
                What if they just feint injury. Or just show up and go through the motions, what are they going to do then? What is the incentive to run hard at all.

                Frankly, I think the current WC should be on the team. But as gh as stated the Trials are a huge money machine and that means having the stars there and performing well.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by tandfman
                  It's every bit as likely that we would not have done as well.
                  We'll never know. But I suspect having a major star absent might not have helped the medal count.

                  As for the trials losing their appeal I'm not sure I buy that either. Note that Sanya Richards would not have been preselected in this scenario. You are only talking about a few elites here; there would still be some amazing match ups and races.

                  And what stops the preselected from pretending to be lame? Nothing but if that fits their preparations for the games, more power to them. Obviously some amazing match ups would be lost, such as a real Wariner/Merritt fight. But, if anything, it sets up a "trials winner vs preselected pretender" fan interest that can be used for marketing, a little like Dave vs Dan, except this time you'll know they are both going to be at the games.

                  The more I think about this, I can't see any down side to the idea.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    It's actually a good point about the preselected ones pretending to be lame or otherwise giving an obviously half-assed effort.

                    That could be mitigated with some sort of objective requirement to perform at a certain level -- preferably a level that takes some nontrivial effort, but doesn't heavily risk injury or force them to peak at the OT. For example, give the preselected ones a bye into the final, and to be on the team they only have to place 7th.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by sprintblox
                      For example, give the preselected ones a bye into the final, and to be on the team they only have to place 7th.
                      Doesn't work. Nursing a niggling injury requires that pre-selects sit out the OT. As I said before, this will NOT diminish the drama at the OT as much as it will increase the drama at the OG (aka The Big Show!). We want the pre-selects to train through the OT - give themsekves that extra advantage. Wariner would have been a pre-select and I definitely think that would have been to his enormous advantage in Beijing, which, by the way, he earned the old-fashioned way, by winning the previous OG and WC!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Wariner would have been a pre-select and I definitely think that would have been to his enormous advantage in Beijing
                        But to Merritt's disadvantage. I know you could argue that Wariner would have earned the pre-select if that had been the rule, but it could also be argued that it is not fair to give one of our athletes an advantage over another.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by tandfman
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Wariner would have been a pre-select and I definitely think that would have been to his enormous advantage in Beijing
                          But to Merritt's disadvantage. I know you could argue that Wariner would have earned the pre-select if that had been the rule, but it could also be argued that it is not fair to give one of our athletes an advantage over another.
                          But it would be an earned advantage, like when the NBA team with more wins gets the home court advantage in the playoffs. The opportunity to seize that advantage was also open to Merritt.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by sprintblox
                            But it would be an earned advantage, like when the NBA team with more wins gets the home court advantage in the playoffs. The opportunity to seize that advantage was also open to Merritt.
                            Zackly. Why do we even do seeding if we're not supposed to give the best an advantage?!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              boy that was a nice try to spin this thing Marlow. But you know as well as I do my point was in reference to choosing any of the team members not a bye for the defending champ.
                              And for the record giving a bye to the champ does not necessarily resolve the perceived issue here. This is about the Games which is 4 years apart not the Worlds. And in what way does this guarantee we send a better team than first three at trials?
                              Something that has not been mentioned is time. It is not the selection process per se, it is the time between trials and Games. 6 weeks was just not enough. It has proven to be not enough a few times now. The intensity of our trials requires more time for preparation and recovery. trials should have remained and should remain in mid June. 8 weeks is the ideal time window for us. 6 weeks and later leaves it up to chance. And NO other country goes through what we go through. Especially in the sprints and hurdles.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Smoke
                                boy that was a nice try to spin this thing Marlow.

                                6 weeks was just not enough. It has proven to be not enough a few times now.
                                Thanks

                                but some people have logically argued that 6 weeks is too MUCH time, that it should be 4 weeks, so that the peak does not have to be held so long.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X