Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Olympic Trials Standards

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Important to remember here that the men's and women's committees are totally different entities (unfortunately, at least in this regard), so the same protocol obviously wasn't used, with the men's side apparently being tougher than the women's.

    also need to remember that they're scared shitless of too-big fields, both from a financial standpoint and also in terms of being able to get the meet run off in good order. Which is in no way defending what appears to be a pretty shabby job.

    Just saying that you can't just pick the "best" number and then say "close enough" when the shit hits the fan.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by gh View Post
      Just saying that you can't just pick the "best" number and then say "close enough" when the shit hits the fan.
      It wouldn't take that much statistical analysis to plot out the Nth (N=number you want, say, 24) best mark over an Olympiad, see how much it jumps up in the Oly year and forecast the 'N-4'th spot pretty well. There could be as high as another 4-6 overshoot the standard, and I'm betting they could accommodate the extras in the field events and distances pretty painlessly. In the laned events the cut-off could be 'N-6'th, so you don't have the need for an additional round. It's not rocket surgery!
      Last edited by Atticus; 12-17-2015, 10:12 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        well, actually it kinda is…. do get back to us when you have some actual hands-on experience running a meet with the size and financial implications of the OT.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by gh View Post
          well, actually it kinda is…. do get back to us when you have some actual hands-on experience running a meet with the size and financial implications of the OT.
          It's doable and considering the good will engendered, it should be done.

          Comment


          • #20
            yes, but not doable by wannabees, who stand on the outside and think they have the answer to everything (sorry, but call 'em as I see 'em)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by gh View Post
              yes, but not doable by wannabees, who stand on the outside and think they have the answer to everything (sorry, but call 'em as I see 'em)
              No problem. I am certainly no wannabe for Vin Lananna. I have my hands full just trying to run a little 600-athlete meet by myself. My problem is that I keep trying to be athlete-centric, when I should just be looking out for myself (no slam on VL; certainly a slam on USATF). If VL had to accommodate the extra athletes, he might grumble a bit, but then he would do it and do it right. He's that kinda guy.

              Comment


              • #22
                left hand calling right…...

                by my quick count, if you look at USATF's desired number of OT contestants and look at the 2015 yearly list of how many have the number so far, the men's side is 58.2% full, the women's 84.0%!

                the event it's best to be in? women's 200, where the desired field of 30 already has 42 (!) in. Women's 100 has 37 of 32. Closest to "full" on the men's side is the 100 at 33 of 32. Worst is the men's PV and hammer, each at 8 of 24.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Though using the yearly list to determine qualifiers is a tad misleading (except for 10K, walks, and multis) because marks before May 1, 2015 don't count for qualification. Only 4 men have vaulted the required 5.65 since May 1. And only 6 men have cleared 2.28 in the HJ.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    true that, but it does give an idea of what's going to happen with a full year in play.

                    but the main thrust of where I was going is in the differing percentages on men's and women's sides. As I said, left hand calling right.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      With the mandate that standards not be tighter than the OG/WC, USATF is a victim of its own bounty of sprinters!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Agree with that. The women's standards are generally easier than the men's, in some events significantly easier. That 23.20 standard in the women's 200 wouldn't have made the yearly top 40 since 2011, when it would have been #40. So using it with a target of only 32 is way off course. In fairness, though, the Rio standard is the same; USATF may have wanted everyone with the Rio standard to be eligible for the FOT.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Whoops, gm beat me to it. And much more concisely, too.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            in reality, the 200 standards need to be markedly easier than "reality" because of the incredible dropout rate from teh longer race that so often happens.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X