This is one of the reasons I'd really like to see the US adopt a 2+1 system at some point. I know politics get messy at times, but too many times have athletes either risked injury or have been forced to show up when they are not at their best because of the way the US trials works. Not to mention there being way too many heats and all that nonsense.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
the U.S. qualification system, again [split]
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jerome MarrowThis is one of the reasons I'd really like to see the US adopt a 2+1 system at some point. I know politics get messy at times
-
Originally posted by MarlowOriginally posted by Jerome MarrowThis is one of the reasons I'd really like to see the US adopt a 2+1 system at some point. I know politics get messy at times
Comment
-
Nope.
(as in, these guys can't even come up with an understandable A-B system)
The bottom line is that by-the-numbers systems just don't work well; in the end somebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not. And even once creates havoc.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ghsomebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..
The system is in place before the Trials. The only way to beat out the #3 finisher is through objective criteria - exactly as is the case now, when the 3rd finisher doesn't have a B qualifier. Only USATF sets the criteria, not IAAF.
1 and 2 make the team (as long as they have an A). #3 (assuming a 'this-season' A) is thrown into a qual pool with anyone else that has a current A. Then we have such things as these as possible criteria:
a. defending USA champion
b. meets a USATF ''AA' standard
c. two more comps before the roster is due (best 2 of 3 and current #3 already in one-up)
zero smoke-filled-room decisions.
Yes, our system is FAIR, but it doesn't send the BEST team, and isn't that USATF's stated goal?
Comment
-
Originally posted by MarlowOriginally posted by ghsomebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..
The system is in place before the Trials. The only way to beat out the #3 finisher is through objective criteria - exactly as is the case now, when the 3rd finisher doesn't have a B qualifier. Only USATF sets the criteria, not IAAF.
1 and 2 make the team (as long as they have an A). #3 (assuming a 'this-season' A) is thrown into a qual pool with anyone else that has a current A. Then we have such things as these as possible criteria:
a. defending USA champion
b. meets a USATF ''AA' standard
c. two more comps before the roster is due (best 2 of 3 and current #3 already in one-up)
zero smoke-filled-room decisions.
Yes, our system is FAIR, but it doesn't send the BEST team, and isn't that USATF's stated goal?
And on top of this, why the hell do we have 4 or even 3 rounds for these events? What is the point? I don't know of many (any) countries that consistently do this. Invite the top 16-24 athletes and have two rounds. Save a lot of headaches and strain on the athletes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jerome MarrowThis is one of the reasons I'd really like to see the US adopt a 2+1 system at some point. I know politics get messy at times, but too many times have athletes either risked injury or have been forced to show up when they are not at their best because of the way the US trials works. Not to mention there being way too many heats and all that nonsense.
Either way injuries can and will occur whenever & wherever, just look at Asafa Powell or Jeremy Wariner who got injured in practice, however, with this system everything is at least settled on the TRACK. How it should be.
Hell with a plus 1 system, Dawn Harper may not have even made the Olympic Team last year since she finished 3rd at trials and beat Powell who has more name recognition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MarlowOriginally posted by ghsomebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..
The system is in place before the Trials. The only way to beat out the #3 finisher is through objective criteria - exactly as is the case now, when the 3rd finisher doesn't have a B qualifier. Only USATF sets the criteria, not IAAF.
1 and 2 make the team (as long as they have an A). #3 (assuming a 'this-season' A) is thrown into a qual pool with anyone else that has a current A. Then we have such things as these as possible criteria:
a. defending USA champion
b. meets a USATF ''AA' standard
c. two more comps before the roster is due (best 2 of 3 and current #3 already in one-up)
zero smoke-filled-room decisions.
Yes, our system is FAIR, but it doesn't send the BEST team, and isn't that USATF's stated goal?
And secondly why isn't the fairest system the best to use? I guess the BCS is the best way to decide a champion, so USATF should look into a computer program to select the team? :roll: (Maybe you are hoping to get invites as one of the experts casting a vote?) :P
Decide it on the track or field like it ought to be decided. Not marlow lost so its best out three, maybe five, no seven, OK nine.?.?.?
Comment
-
Originally posted by TDBI don't know how a plus one system would avoid this problem. Take last year for example. If we had top 2 plus one, Wally would have been off of the team for the 200 in place of TYSON. However, by the time Beijing rolled around Tyson was healthy and capable of running 20.X so he would have been able to pass any physical, but he missed too much training time and wasn't in peak shape while Wally on the other hand wound up beating the guys who took 1,2 at trials and finished 3rd in the olympics.
Either way injuries can and will occur whenever & wherever, just look at Asafa Powell or Jeremy Wariner who got injured in practice, however, with this system everything is at least settled on the TRACK. How it should be.
Hell with a plus 1 system, Dawn Harper may not have even made the Olympic Team last year since she finished 3rd at trials and beat Powell who has more name recognition.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JnathleticsFirst off its not best two out of three in the Olympics (or WC's), so why because you don't feel the best team was selected do we have to have a do-over or a mulligan? Isn't the best team those who prove they can beat the others trying for the team?
And secondly why isn't the fairest system the best to use? I guess the BCS is the best way to decide a champion, so USATF should look into a computer program to select the team? :roll: (Maybe you are hoping to get invites as one of the experts casting a vote?) :P
It is the "fairest" because of its simplicity and straightforwardness. It is the fairest to the athletes on the whole. It does not, however, send the best teams and routinely puts athletes in a bad position. Ironically, it isn't the ones that have a hard time qualifying or that need a mulligan or are on the fringe that would benefit most from the system. It is the elite of the elite athletes that, for one reason or another, would not have it in their best interest to compete in a given race/heat/round, but certainly have the fitness and can demonstrate the readiness before the major. Tyson Gay being a great example. Lolo Jones as well. You could probably add Walter Dix to that list if he hadn't had to go to trials and get hurt EVEN WORSE and be out for basically the season. This happens nearly every year and will continue with such a system.
Decide it on the track or field like it ought to be decided. Not marlow lost so its best out three, maybe five, no seven, OK nine.?.?.?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jerome MarrowAnd on top of this, why the hell do we have 4 or even 3 rounds for these events? What is the point? I don't know of many (any) countries that consistently do this. Invite the top 16-24 athletes and have two rounds. Save a lot of headaches and strain on the athletes.
Look no further than the 28:40 guys who were complaining they didn't get to line up, finish 20th, and pin their number up on the wall of their sh*te apartment they share with a bunch of other guys "chasing the dream" while a guy with an actual shot at making the team (A. Goucher) got to run.
If people want this sport to be professional, they shouldn't complain when it isn't HS track. I've no problem with The Jordan Rules, as long as you've earned it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JnathleticsFirst off its not best two out of three in the Olympics (or WC's), so why because you don't feel the best team was selected do we have to have a do-over or a mulligan? Isn't the best team those who prove they can beat the others trying for the team?
Originally posted by JnathleticsAnd secondly why isn't the fairest system the best to use? I guess the BCS is the best way to decide a champion, so USATF should look into a computer program to select the team? :roll: (Maybe you are hoping to get invites as one of the experts casting a vote?) :P
Originally posted by JnathleticsDecide it on the track or field like it ought to be decided. Not marlow lost so its best out three, maybe five, no seven, OK nine.?.?.?
Comment
-
The IAAF should intervene and personally invite any unselected athletes who are World leaders or possible medalists. An international committe could sit down before the champs and say, right....add him and her and him and her.
Fountain, Jones and Faulk should be at worlds. Plain and simple.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3aThe IAAF should intervene and personally invite any unselected athletes who are World leaders or possible medalists. An international committe could sit down before the champs and say, right....add him and her and him and her.
Comment
-
Well to be honest, that may need some looking into.
Where as this sport needs to really compete with the likes of others, they may need to consider some of these options, I'm not saying that they develop as system where say an event will have 10 entrants from one nation, but they should at least open up some discussion on these situations.
Comment
Comment