There's going to be a lot of bitching when the at-large picks are made by the NCAA, but I really like this new format. That reminds me what the best way to pick the USA's teams for the big meets should be: top TWO are auto-qualified and then the third is picked by committee (or better yet, a race/jump/throw-off between the #3 finisher and the committee's choice). We leave way too many medalists home every time.
While we're at it, the 10000 and Dec/Hept should be contested before the others as they take more time to recover. The rest can be in a meet only a month prior. Too many Americans can't hold a peak, so they crash at the Big Meets. A month prior will give them an incentive to keep working hard - we're almost there. What would happen if you actually asked ALL the athletes involved?
you make an excellent point that many have been making since lewis (100 and 200), o' brien, greg foster, harrison (tj) failed to make the team in the 92 oly trials. i think the following should be exempt from this year's trials:
100 m: mo greene (already has a bye as defending champ, tim montgomery (as wr holder) so the battle should be for two spots
800 m: krumenacker (won world indoor this year, only top ranked american)
110 h: allen johnson (already has a bye)
sp: john godina (already has a bye)
deca: tom pappas (won world indoor and is only top ranked american)
1500 m: regina jacobs (won world indoor this year and has sub 4 time)
100h: gail devers (multiple world champion), anjanette kirkland (won in 01 and has bye) so battle would be for two spots
pv: stacy dragila (has bye from 01 plus is wr holder)
"the way we do it now is the only fair way to do it"
Oh, OK, you're right. . . not.
Flukes (a PV no-height, frinstance) are not 'fair'. Consistency at the highest level is a pretty good indicator of merit. A 'top two' system keeps your 'fairness' but also allows for the vagaries of competitive reality. Do you really think that the Trials third placer could consistently beat a world top 5 ranker, who just had a bad day at the wrong time? Fair, in very human terms, is getting another chance to prove yourself, if you have already established yourself as the best. If you look at the history of US Trials there are only a handful of athletes who would use this method, but they truly deserve a respite.
>(a PV no-height, frinstance) are not 'fair'.
>Consistency at the highest level is a pretty good
>indicator of merit. A 'top two' system keeps your
>'fairness' but also allows for the vagaries of
Why is it not fair? Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. If the # 1 seed loses to the # 16 seed in round one, should we say, oh, forget about that loss. We know you're the best team, so here's your rightful spot in the final four. No! You lose, you're out! That's sports. The best guy usually wins, but not always. Makes it interesting. No free passes!
You've got the wrong analogy. It's as if Kentucky loses the SEC tourney and they say you can't be in the NCAA tourney, even though you went 28-2 during the regular season. The Trials are supposed to help us pick our team. The IOC does not dictate the method. In the NBA (to continue your basketball idea) does not have a one game playoff, because (besides the $$$) they know it's not 'fair'.
You know, on second thought, I was wrong. Competition is no way to settle anything. The new process for picking our Olympic Team should go something like this:
What's your PR? That's real good. You could probably beat some Kenyans. You're in.
Wow, you give great interviews. You'd do great on Leno. You're in.
You would look great on the cover of RW! You're in, too.
There! We have our Olympians in the 5,000. Now, moving on...
Or we can put the guys on the track and settle it that way. Which ever works for you.
>You've got the wrong analogy. It's as if Kentucky
>loses the SEC tourney and they say you can't be
>in the NCAA tourney, even though you went 28-2
>during the regular season.
You must be young. This used to happen all the time. There were years when a conference got 1 bid to the NCAA.
The Trials are
>supposed to help us pick our team. The IOC does
>not dictate the method. In the NBA (to continue
>your basketball idea) does not have a one game
>playoff, because (besides the $$$) they know it's
I think that this is the best system. This avoids the lawsuits that arise where team selection is made based on some sort of coach's selection. Cycling gets sued every Olympics because there is a selection process. Rowing went through this in the 70s as well.