the U.S. qualification system, again [split]

[Jerome Marrow]

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.

[Marlow]

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

No politics necessary. Just have a different set of objective criteria to choose the third spot (can even be chosen after the Trials in further competition).

[gm]

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

No politics necessary. Just have a different set of objective criteria to choose the third spot (can even be chosen after the Trials in further competition).

Nope.

[gh]

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.

[Marlow]

somebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..

Nope.

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?

[Jerome Marrow]

somebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..

Nope.

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?

Agreed. I think in some instances it could create an even better overall meet and set-up more athletes for a good chance to do well overall. For example, I see no point in having had Tyson Gay compete in all 4 rounds of the 100m last year. He was the defending world champ in the 100/200, American record holder, and far and away the best American. Taking him out of the equation might have allowed him to get to the Olympics in one piece and create an Olympic Trials final which is overall more competitive and make it a bit easier for everyone to run well in the finals (versus having to possibly have Tyson in 3 rounds BEFORE the final).

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.

[TDB]

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.

I 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.

[Jnathletics]

somebody is going to have to make a subjective judgment more times than not..

Nope.

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?

First 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

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.?.?.?

[Jerome Marrow]

I 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.

He wouldn't have had to run 4 damn rounds in the 100m at a high level and the same for the 200m. In fact, even if you keep the 4 rounds, he would have had the chance to pull out of the 200m and still compete in it at Beijing in one piece with this system, so I don't see it at all. Not to mention, one would still need to demonstrate form. A strict 2+1 system would obviously require a person to demonstrate fitness, which Tyson would have been incapable of doing in your scenario.

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.

Yes, except it doesn't need to be "settled on the track" on an arbitrary date well ahead of the actual competition in a dumbass format. Your comments on injuries show why it is pretty dumb to have such strict top 3 only policies when someone can clearly be in much better shape than someone and an extremely minor injury (imagine someone just having issues with cramps) could be forced to compete at trials and risk significant injury AND still not get a chance to go.

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.

It would still be about who demonstrates the best form. You are confusing 2+1 with 2+Whoeverthebignameisatthetimefornoapparentreason. If an athlete does not demonstrate fitness leading into the Games or WC, they cannot be considered. If they are not overwhelmingly better and an overwhelming contender over the 3rd position athlete, they cannot be either. This can easily be determined through world rankings and top lists, along with competitions leading into the Games/WC.

[Jerome Marrow]

First 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?

This isn't exactly comparable to a mulligan because there are numerous other factors in play. It also doesn't address the fact that form can and often does change in the weeks and sometimes months between trials and a major.

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

Give me a break. Talking like this does nothing to advance any discussion.

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.?.?.?

This isn't the WC. This is the qualifier to the WC/Games and is about sending the best team and the best athletes. The current method is not the best way to decide that.

[K.I.R.]

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.

At some point, USAs became a participation meet.
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.

[Marlow]

First 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?

If the idea is to get the BEST team to the Games, any system that eliminates the best is not a good system. Micheal Jordan had bad days, and shot 35%. So you don't want him for the next game?

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

Repeat - no voting, no committee selection. Just rules that must be followed. Fair has nothing to do with best.

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.?.?.?

My system decides it on the track also. The current AB system is an example of a model that does not settle the team at the Trials. We just need to adapt to OUR best advantage.

[3a]

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.

[LopenUupunut]

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.

Then countries with serious medal candidates would intentionally fail to select any, thereby gaining extra spots when their best are given special invitations.

[knite]

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.