Those poor college athletes

[Guest]

. . . who had to compete at USATF with only one week of rest. Twelve of them got spots on the USA team for the Worlds (pending qualifying standards) and two of them won events.

The last time we picked a worlds team, ten collegians made the top three and only one of them won an event at USATF. They got a three-week break that time. Looks like it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference!

[gh]

Re: Those poor college athletes

Excellent research. But the real key here is that the damned meet was at least a month too early. Hopefully I'll get proved wrong, but history tells us that most of those collegians--and many of the non-collegians--are going to look like doodoo at the end of August at the Worlds.

They'll have no idea how to get back to a peak at that point, particularly with virtually no shots at any real competition. I understand USATF's desire to have its Nationals occupy a fixed place on the sporting calendar, but if the meet being qualified for jumps about, then the Nationals must do likewise.

[blacklily]

Re: Those poor college athletes

>. . . who had to compete at USATF with only one
>week of rest. Twelve of them got spots on the
>USA team for the Worlds (pending qualifying
>standards) and two of them won events.

The
>last time we picked a worlds team, ten
>collegians made the top three and only one of
>them won an event at USATF. They got a
>three-week break that time. Looks like it
>doesn't make a dime's worth of difference!

Contributing factors. No Michelle Collins, Jearl Miles-Clark, or Latasha Colander-Richardson in the women's 400. That alone would knock the tally down to 10, if not 9 (Dee Dee Trotter wouldn't be Paris-bound, I'm not sure Richards would be either vs. these women). Doubtful the two who need qualifiers will make it, go down to 7 or 8.

Sanya Richards won her event, yes. However, the NCAA schedule also prevented her from a 200-400 double at champs, so so-so athletes could run there. That aided in her rest.