USATF qualifying standards changing?

[gh]

A couple of events have apparently been tweaked (and not without good reason):

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/displa ... p?id=32099

[Guest]

Listed beneath the standards on usatf's webpage:

Notes
The Sport Committee Chair may adjust the standards, where necessary, forty-five days prior to the competition, based on received entries at that time. Therefore, early submission of an entry close to the standards is advised.

[gh]

and you perhaps think those written rules never get rewritten?

[polevaultpower]

and you perhaps think those written rules never get rewritten?

Especially in the first year of a new system.

[Charley Shaffer]

As of Thurs., May 14, at 11:00 p.m. PDT, USATF had not yet posted any tightening of the men's "standards," and that day was exactly 45 days before the last day of the USATF meet.

So, was USATF simply slow in updating their Web site (updated May 20), or did they not tighten the standards until after what I interpret as being their own deadline for making any changes?

I noticed about a month ago this single standard business, and I also noted that every mark was identical to the "B" standards for 2007. I figured that this might result in fields of about 50 entrants in some events!

In addition, the "Notes" are poorly written. It states that "submission of an entry close to the standards is advised." Close? Didn't they mean as good a mark as possible? "Close" might leave you out if the standards get tightened.

If the single standard was supposed to avoid fiascos like Adam Goucher at the Trials, then I'm not at all sure this is an improvement.

And, no, I wouldn't put anything past Chaplin.

[EPelle]

Since this new organisation was unveiled, USATF has attempted to strategically increase the sales of its "product" with the general public, to bring in more advertising and long-term support with its sponsors and to gain commitment and support of the athletes whom USATF govern.

Unfortunately, USATF is committing a huge mistake by setting higher qualifying targets for those same athletes who are meant to buy into that without properly devising or communicating strategies to achieve those targets in this short amount of time.

Granted, those who should qualify for the world championships have had no business looking at the previous "B" lists, there are others in some instances - not the 1.500m or 10.000m, but the triple jump, for example - who will fall through the cracks on this go-around. They'll need to wait two more years to qualify for another major championship.

These are a few athletes who, again, should have already qualified and been prepared to face what is likely the second-stiffest competition they will face at all this year, but the mistake being committed here is that one should not set course, steer a ship and suddenly change direction into a storm if the waters were calm.

USATF want to be transparent and want athletes to have a clear understanding of USATF's goals and expectations, but do they really have a clear understanding of athletes' aspirations and how to minimise barriers to success?

[gh]

....
Unfortunately, USATF is committing a huge mistake by setting higher qualifying targets for those same athletes who are meant to buy into that without properly devising or communicating strategies to achieve those targets in this short amount of time....

I think you've got the problems backwards here; the standards in too many cases are ridiculously weak, not strong. They've created a logistical nightmare. (Hey, just like a 2-site Regionals!)

[EPelle]

Yes, I may that backward, and, as I hoped to convey, those who are looking at the "B" standards aren't the ones who will be contending for medals in nearly every case. However, USATF should not reverse a course a month before its championships and have only now communicated it. I think it (the lack of timely communication) leaves folks vulnerable to, "what's next?"

[gh]

see front page for updated story w/ clarifications from Mr. Chaplin... get ready for sections in the distance races!

[ndamix]

Play DA....

What about the fact that this is a national championship where only the best need qualify for a berth on a national team to compete @ meets like the WC or OG?

While it's nice to have full event fields, isn't it counterproductive to cater to a group of athletes that may not have a chance of actually making it on a national team?

[knite]

There should be a cap off...a finite number of entrants per event.

[ndamix]

There should be a cap off...a finite number of entrants per event.

I mos definitely agree with that.

I wouldn't want to lap-count 30+ entrants in a 10,000.... :shock:

[wineturtle]

3 section 5000m final w/about 17 per would yield break points about
sub13:32
sub13;41
les autres


about 50 currently have the standard

[polevaultpower]

3 section 5000m final w/about 17 per would yield break points about
sub13:32
sub13;41
les autres


about 50 currently have the standard

I'd be surprised if more than 25-30 entered.

[TrackCEO]

the standards in too many cases are ridiculously weak, not strong.

Standards for men's and women's masters exhibition events, on the other hand, are too stiff.

Only one woman has entered the 1500 and five men in the 400.

Details:
http://masterstrack.com/blog/005656.html

K E N