should the OT marathon be separate? [split]

[Halfmiler2]

Making it to the OT is the equivalent of the Olympics for those people - it is the tangible goal that justifies the investment.

I hear what you're saying, but doesn't the Marathon OT already allow MANY more entrants than any other event?

I'd love to see them make the OT Marathons much bigger- maybe several thousand runners - provided they spilt the race into seeded and unseeded sections that have the same starting time but different starting lines and only merge somewhere after ten miles. If someone in the unseeded section runs fast enough after ten+ miles to be with the seeded runners after they merge, so be it.

[Marlow]

I'd love to see them make the OT Marathons much bigger- maybe several thousand runners - provided they spilt the race into seeded and unseeded sections that have the same starting time but different starting lines and only merge somewhere after ten miles. If someone in the unseeded section runs fast enough after ten+ miles to be with the seeded runners after they merge, so be it.

Kinda defeats the purpose of 'qualifying' for the OT. The men's committee voted for a down-sizing, and all things considered, it's a benefit to those who qualified to be in a small elite race. And that's who it's for anyway, the elites who worked hard to get there. Sorta like the rest of the OT.

[Conor Dary]

Making it to the OT is the equivalent of the Olympics for those people - it is the tangible goal that justifies the investment.

I hear what you're saying, but doesn't the Marathon OT already allow MANY more entrants than any other event?

I'd love to see them make the OT Marathons much bigger- maybe several thousand runners - provided they spilt the race into seeded and unseeded sections that have the same starting time but different starting lines and only merge somewhere after ten miles. If someone in the unseeded section runs fast enough after ten+ miles to be with the seeded runners after they merge, so be it.

Or do the opposite and put the Trials into a race with thousands, such as Chicago. After all the 83 WC trials were at Boston. And the Brits do their trials at London. Why we need a separate race is a mystery to me.

[sprintblox]

Or do the opposite and put the Trials into a race with thousands, such as Chicago. After all the 83 WC trials were at Boston. And the Brits do their trials at London. Why we need a separate race is a mystery to me.

Exactly. It is a waste of USATF and city resources to block off roads and pay for the related logistics for a separate OT marathon. Just put the OT athletes in the elite section of a regular marathon like Boston.

[gh]

I have no druthers one way or another, so here's my unbiased analysis:

I suspect the real reason for a separate marathon is because it overall makes money for USATF, whereas folding them into another big-city race would not.

With a separate race, USATF solicits bids and the winner comes up with a package that--I assume--even if it doesn't mean a significant rights fee, absolves USATF of any costs of either staging the race or transporting/accommodating the runners. The locals bear all the burden. No USATF resources are required

Fold the race into an existing fixture and the incentive for the locals to pay anything is reduced by a quantum amount. The result likely being that USATF would then have to pick up a bunch of airfare and accommodation costs that they don't now.

Anybody with more knowledge of LDR operations than I (and you should be legion) care to comment?

[dl]

Or do the opposite and put the Trials into a race with thousands, such as Chicago. After all the 83 WC trials were at Boston. And the Brits do their trials at London. Why we need a separate race is a mystery to me.

Exactly. It is a waste of USATF and city resources to block off roads and pay for the related logistics for a separate OT marathon. Just put the OT athletes in the elite section of a regular marathon like Boston.

Do you really think that would be interesting? More interesting than the Trials race the NYRR put on the day before the NYC Marathon? Can you honestly say it would have been more exciting, and better for spectators and the athletes, to just lump the guys into the regular NYC Marathon the next day? Same with the women's trial in Boston?

A race within a race doesn't really work. Hall, Ritz, Meb, Khannouchi, Sell, Browne, Rohatinsky, et. al. would have been only watching each other, and not the non-Americans in the race. Sounds pretty lame to me.

USATF puts very little resources into the Trials race. The host pays the bills.

The men's Trials race was one of the most exciting marathons I've ever seen. Criterium course, great crowd, fantastic organization.

[mcgato]

Other possible drawbacks to putting the trials race into a bigger marathon:
--Does a top runner, like Kastor or Hall, go for the overall win and risk blowing up and not making the team? Or do they play conservative to make the team and finish 15th overall?
--Mixing the title "Olympic Trials" and "ING NYC Marathon" would mean serious conflicts with Olympic advertisers. Could just drop the "Olympic Trials" part though, and say that it is a selection race.

[Dave]

How long does it take for a world class runner to recover from a hard marathon?

How many marathons does an elite typically run in a year? Between the OT and OG, we remove two from their year.

[26mi235]

I like the idea of a separate race. I also think that, unlike all of the other events (except the walks, but they are too 'thin') you can have a large number of 'very good' runners without hurting the event. If, for instance, you had a cut-off of 2:30, there might be 350 runners qualifying, 250 running. If you created a "C" category that had not particular assistance at all for those beyond, say, 2:21 (and, say, "A" <2:16) then the cost is not particularly increased, more family and friends might show up etc.

The race would be both a Trials and a Development race.

This is NOT like having 250 vaulters even in the sense that there would be a greater problem with getting hotel rooms. I see the purists as making completely irrelevant comments about 'diluting' the Trials. As it is, the runners at the start are too few and it looks like a tiny group of runners showing up at to a completely failed road race.

[kuha]

I see the purists as making completely irrelevant comments about 'diluting' the Trials. As it is, the runners at the start are too few and it looks like a tiny group of runners showing up at to a completely failed road race.

I must not be a purist. A large field in an OT marathon has essentially no impact on the final result. It's easy to make this a "developmental" event, or a "feel-good" event, or whatever one chooses to call it.

However, there's nothing inherently wrong with a very small field--even as small as 25 or 30 starters. The point is a purely competitive one--to make the team--so all the action that matters will be up front.

[dfmonti]

I suspect the real reason for a separate marathon is because it overall makes money for USATF, whereas folding them into another big-city race would not.

The USOC owns the Olympic Trials for all sports. To stage an event called the "Olympic Trials" and have the Olympic rings present, strict USOC rules have to be followed on sponsorships. Primarily, the LOC cannot have any sponsors/signage which conflict with USOC sponsors. As a result, it's almost impossible for any LOC to incorporate the Olympic Trials Marathon into a larger, existing race which already has its own sponsors.

In New York in November, 2007, all of the signage for the ING NYC Marathon on Sunday had to be stored or covered while Trials occured on Saturday. Then, overnight, there was a complete transformation of the finish area into the ING NYCM. This was incredibly expensive and time consuming.

USOC gets a rights fee and controls the television rights for the Olympic Trials. The LOC takes a huge bath unless they can recruit a USOC-approved sponsor. The New York Road Runners paid for the Trials out of their general operating funds (they cost over $1,000,000) with essentially no revenue against that expense.

The Marathon Trials are wonderful as a stand-alone competion, but the present business model makes it very challenging to stage them.

David Monti, Professional Athletes Consultant
New York Road Runners

[Conor Dary]

I suspect the real reason for a separate marathon is because it overall makes money for USATF, whereas folding them into another big-city race would not.

The USOC owns the Olympic Trials for all sports. To stage an event called the "Olympic Trials" and have the Olympic rings present, strict USOC rules have to be followed on sponsorships. Primarily, the LOC cannot have any sponsors/signage which conflict with USOC sponsors. As a result, it's almost impossible for any LOC to incorporate the Olympic Trials Marathon into a larger, existing race which already has its own sponsors.

In New York in November, 2007, all of the signage for the ING NYC Marathon on Sunday had to be stored or covered while Trials occured on Saturday. Then, overnight, there was a complete transformation of the finish area into the ING NYCM. This was incredibly expensive and time consuming.

USOC gets a rights fee and controls the television rights for the Olympic Trials. The LOC takes a huge bath unless they can recruit a USOC-approved sponsor. The New York Road Runners paid for the Trials out of their general operating funds (they cost over $1,000,000) with essentially no revenue against that expense.

The Marathon Trials are wonderful as a stand-alone competion, but the present business model makes it very challenging to stage them.

David Monti, Professional Athletes Consultant
New York Road Runners

It sounds worse than I could imagine. A million dollars! I presume that is for travel and accommodations.

By the way, what good are television rights if they aren't televised?

What a mess.

[kuha]

The New York Road Runners paid for the Trials out of their general operating funds (they cost over $1,000,000) with essentially no revenue against that expense.

That's TRULY a losing formula. So is it really worth $1M of someone's hard-earned money to NOT combine the OT with an existing big-city race?

[Run DMC]

Sounds like a one sided business model to me. What did NYRRC get from the deal that they don't already have from the NYC Marathon? I don't get why anyone would even apply to host it.

[Powell]

I'd love to see them make the OT Marathons much bigger- maybe several thousand runners - provided they spilt the race into seeded and unseeded sections that have the same starting time but different starting lines and only merge somewhere after ten miles. If someone in the unseeded section runs fast enough after ten+ miles to be with the seeded runners after they merge, so be it.

What if someone from the unseeded section ends up making the top 3? Do they make the Olympic team or not? It would be awkward either way.