Proposal for US Olympic Team Selection

[Fortius19]

I like the idea of an objective criteria to ensure we send our best team to the Olympics.

However, I would not want to dilute the OT competition either.

As much as I love the OT, it seems it can sometimes work against us sending our best team to the Olys as some athletes have to peak for the OT and then do much worse at the big show.

[Marlow]

i think this is our second favorite long term topic to debate on this board (with why cant the us host the world championships probably being the favorite).

Fixed!! Eugene 2019, done deal!

some athletes have to peak for the OT and then do much worse at the big show.

Happens all the time. Serendipity strikes often, and some athletes get the meet of their lives at the OT, never to be repeated. My favorite was Melvin Lister, 2004 OT, 58-4 TJ, and then ***bink***, disappears. and !

[optimistic]

About marketability of an athlete, that shouldn't be a criteria for who gets to be on the Olympic Team. Those who market certain athletes expecting them to be in the Olympics, much less win a medal, should know one thing. In sports, the only thing certain is that nothing is certain.

It is not in the criteria and I agree that it shouldn't be. My point wasn't that an athlete should make the team bc of their marketability. My point was that when a gold medal favorite doesn't make the team bc of a fluke; it hurts the sports marketability. I am arguing nothing more than that.

The mens 100 meter may not even be shown on TV if Bolt isn't in it.

[Pego]

The mens 100 meter may not even be shown on TV if Bolt isn't in it.

[optimistic]

the bye ignores how important it is for a struggling sport like track in the U.S. to present its biggest stars in a home environment. A bye only makes the sport more invisible at a time when it needs all the high profile it can get, and the OT is as high as it gets for most U.S. athletes.

The bye does not preclude the athlete from competing at the trials entirely.

Thousands watch the trials; millions watch the Olympics. You ask any fan in attendance if they would want a fluke to keep MJ (in 2000) out of the mens 200 just so they can see him run at the trials.

But is, 'the Olympic Trials is such a great meet' really the only reason to not have (a very select few) preselected (bye) athletes? (this is meant as a real question)

[optimistic]

The mens 100 meter may not even be shown on TV if Bolt isn't in it.

LOL; this was (purposely) an overstatement. But I think you get my point. Much of track and field coverage was cut in favor of swimming in 2008 because of Phelps. The exposure he brought swimming was amazing. I've even watched a few meets since then.

[sprintdoc]

This whole argument is going to be a much bigger deal in a few days with one of your pre-selecteds already coming off injury and their true health uncertain going into Trials and another elite reportedly suffering some injury in practice today. If this rumor proves true then will this be the year the system is tweaked going into 2013 or 2015 if not able to consider in time with the great speed USATF is known for displaying on many issues.

[j-a-m]

Athletes who have preselected status (PS) shall be announced within 3 business days of attaining all requirements for preselection.

How would this work? Wouldn't you have to wait, because your proposed criteria include being in the top such and such in the current year, and that can still change any time?

[optimistic]

Athletes who have preselected status (PS) shall be announced within 3 business days of attaining all requirements for preselection.

How would this work? Wouldn't you have to wait, because your proposed criteria include being in the top such and such in the current year, and that can still change any time?

You're right. The top such in the current year is to prove fitness in the current year. So there would instead have to be some sort of cut off date; perhaps 2-weeks before trials. I think that should suffice to let other athletes know if there are 2 spots/3 spots up for grabs or how many lanes are already claimed in the final of their event.

[18.99s]

I like the general idea of the proposal described in this thread. It gets away from the false dichotomy that the selection process must be either the trials alone or involve a selection committee. It is possible to have a method that can be decided by punching results into a computer.

But it's never more than 2 or 3 athletes who place outside the top 3 at trials and trigger a near-universal reaction of "OMG how can we leave them off the team!!?" Usually just 1. So I'd give this consideration to just one male and one female athlete on the whole team.

Start by looking at all athletes outside the top 3 trials placers in each event who have met all the criteria described for ESA and PSA at the start of this thread (note that when I write "PSA" I'm only referencing the criteria -- there would be no actual pre-selections). Most who meet that criteria would have placed in the top 3, so for most events (and sometimes all) this would be moot.

Now if there are still more than one male or female we need to narrow them down to one of each.

The first tiebreaker -- how high did they place at the trials? Whoever placed higher in their respective event gets preference.

Still tied? Where does each athlete's best performance of the season fall on the world list? If they're both #1, world record takes precedence over American record, which takes precedence over non-record.

Next tiebreaker: Whose season best is higher on the American performances list for the season? If still tied, then whose was more recent?

[optimistic]

.... So I'd give this consideration to just one male and one female athlete on the whole team.....

Thinking outside the box...refreshing. I'll call what you are proposing a wildcard for one athlete on the entire team.

The only problem that I see with this is that you would have to remove someone from the team in order to implement this. So let's say the wind is swirling. Some people are getting wind-aided marks and others are against the wind (this has happened!). So Reese ends up 4th in the long jump with all of her jumps being wind-hindered and the others are wind-aided (has happened!-not at trials). She meets PSA standards. The lady who finished 3rd has made the team, but can be removed if Reese ends up being the wildcard.

I just think that is a little messier and it is better for athletes to know - going into the event - I have to make top 2 or top 3. But you are absolutely right, it is usually 1 or 2 athletes, so I would take your proposal over the current system any day of the week. Only the mens 200 in 2000 comes to mind with Maurice and MJ pulling up lame (that was for the games right?)....imagine the publicity track would have gotten with the mens 100 champ vs the mens 400 champ meeting in the 200...darn missed opportunities- we ended up last in the 200 and should have had 2 medals!

[optimistic]

Just to complete the list for this Olympics, I have now done all events:

* = they don't have a top time this year so truly they don't qualify, but if they knew they needed this time, they may have gotten it by now (seed mark is used in final only events like 10k)

if an event is not listed, then there are no ESA / PSA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

ESA’s
ESA = has a pass to the final of the event, but must finish top 3 to make the team

dec - ESA: Hardee & Eaton --- ESA is meaningless in this event bc there is only a final
w400 - ESA: Felix
w800 - ESA: Monstano
w1500 - ESA: Uceny
m1500 - ESA: Lagat
w10k - ESA: Flanagan
m10k - ESA: Rupp ---- ESA is meaningless in this event bc there is only a final
w100h - ESA: Harper
m110h - ESA: Oliver, Richardson
wShot - ESA: Carter
mShot - ESA: Hoffa, Cantwell
mLJ - ESA: Phillips*
wHammer - ESA: Jessica Crosby
wdiscus - ESA: STBrown
wHJ - ESA: Lowe
mTJ - ESA: Taylor, Clay

-------------------------------------------------------------------
PSA’s
PSA = has a spot on the team in their event as long as they compete at trials (in any event or in qualifying round of the event---just fyi, the reason I don't say let them in the final of their event is because there are 2 spots opened and you want as many athletes as possible to fight for those 2 spots in the final; including the high school phenom; but I totally understand opinions that want them there for a good meet).

w100 - PSA: Jeter
w200 - PSA: Felix
m200 - PSA: Dix
w400 - PSA: SRR
m400 - PSA: Merritt
m800 - PSA: Symmonds
m5000 - PSA: Lagat
w400h - PSA: Demus
m400h - PSA: Jackson
wLJ - PSA: Reese
wShot - PSA: JCWilliams
wPV - PSA: Suhr
mHJ - PSA: Jesse Williams

[Marlow]

ESA’s
PSA’s

Your ideas have far too much merit to ever be considered, but I like the cut of your jib, sir!

[preston]

So would a 1995 Kevin Young have received a PSA?

[18.99s]

.... So I'd give this consideration to just one male and one female athlete on the whole team.....

Thinking outside the box...refreshing. I'll call what you are proposing a wildcard for one athlete on the entire team.

The only problem that I see with this is that you would have to remove someone from the team in order to implement this. So let's say the wind is swirling. Some people are getting wind-aided marks and others are against the wind (this has happened!). So Reese ends up 4th in the long jump with all of her jumps being wind-hindered and the others are wind-aided (has happened!-not at trials). She meets PSA standards. The lady who finished 3rd has made the team, but can be removed if Reese ends up being the wildcard.

I just think that is a little messier and it is better for athletes to know - going into the event - I have to make top 2 or top 3.

To clarify -- under my proposed system (which is of course a modified version of yours), any A-standard athlete in the top 2 places is automatically on the team. So is any 3rd place A-standard holder who meets ESA. And don't put anybody on the team only to remove them later ... assign the 2 automatic spots, sort out the wild card, then name people to the 3rd spot.

[gh]

i think this is our second favorite long term topic to debate on this board (with why cant the us host the world championships probably being the favorite). .... it is hard to pin point why some of those upsets happen: MJ and Mo Greene went into the 200 final in 2000 injured from running too many fast rounds......

The MJ/Greene blowups in the Sacto '00 200 have become a bit of lore that is dredged up every time somebody thinks that there are too many rounds in the meet.

I would just point out this (not having noticed it before): at Atlanta in '96 (when MJ set ARs in the 200 and won both the long dashes), the 100/200/400 were all 4-round races. At Sacto in '00, where the workload was apparently too much, all three were just 3-round races!

[Barto]

As long as the transparency of the system is without question, I see lots of potential for this proposal.

The handful of athletes exempt from the trials truly do benefit team USA by being assured of a spot. They have proven their mettle on the field of battle, and we will be better off with them than without them - period.

The athletes getting auto spots in the final still have to show up and perform to make the team. They are simply being protected from injury by having to run fewer rounds. Again, they have earned it. It is a bit like a heavyweight title fight. "If you want to be the man (woman), you got to beat the man (woman)." Close fights go to the champion. I don't see how the Trials suffers at all as a meet with this system. The best still have to show up and finish in the top 3 to make the team.

My only concern with the proposed team selection process is the weight given to yearly and current marks. I have no problem with using marks as a criteria, I only wish to point out that not all marks are created equal. I would like to see some consideration as to where and when a particular mark was set. #4 US yearly mark at the Diamond League meet in Helsinki far out weighs the #1 ranked mark from Texas Relays.

All in all, I would love to see at least some high level discussion re a selection process similar to this.

[Conor Dary]

The MJ/Greene blowups in the Sacto '00 200 have become a bit of lore that is dredged up every time somebody thinks that there are too many rounds in the meet.

I would just point out this (not having noticed it before): at Atlanta in '96 (when MJ set ARs in the 200 and won both the long dashes), the 100/200/400 were all 4-round races. At Sacto in '00, where the workload was apparently too much, all three were just 3-round races!

And it was such a nice theory.