The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:58 am

If you read T&FN's special "How do you make the World Champs" article, you know that the quaint notion of the first three finishers making the team is an obsolete concept (for all you still clinging to that canard). Making the team is inching closer to what many of us (though not precisely in this manner) have been clamoring for: protection of the Stars. With a Wild Card being given to WC or Diamond League Champions, plus the mandate that a 4th place finishing 'A' replaces a second B in the top 3, this isn't your father's qualification any more.

The likelihood of losing a preeminent star is much more unlikely now (though still possible, Aries Merritt!). I'm glad. I'm sure some more wrinkles will be ironed out as we proceed through the decade - I'd love it if a 5th team-member could be added if a nation had 3 A's, a WC AND DL champ (if that's Kenya in a future Steeplechase, that's great). I also think ANY defending WC/OG medalist should get a bye.

Now for the down-side: This year's USATF has a number of stars not competing in their specialty or only showing up for the first round. That devalues the meet, esp. for fans who crave the showdowns. I LOVE (LOVE!) the OT and WCT meets, but even I prefer seeing all the stars at the OG/WC, so if the meets get a little more watered down by increased Wild Cards, so be it. Yes, I know that USATF and the LOC may lose some $$ for the coffers (and T&F $$$ are dear), but I don't think it's enough to risk not sending the best team.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby tm71 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:15 am

agree, but the only wild cards taking it easy will be jeter (injured) and hardee (why take the risk of being injured 10 times). i like seeing people like taylor in their secondary event trying to make the team, especially when they are so much superior in the event they have the wild card in.
tm71
 
Posts: 2301
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Thu Jun 20, 2013 11:46 am

tm71 wrote:agree, but the only wild cards taking it easy will be jeter (injured) and hardee (why take the risk of being injured 10 times). i like seeing people like taylor in their secondary event trying to make the team, especially when they are so much superior in the event they have the wild card in.

Oh good; I was under the impression that someone else was only going to compete enough to be team-eligible.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:28 am

Thanks to T&FN for a clarification on the team in today's headlines, but to further illustrate where we are now, this gem:

mLJ: Kitchens, Phillips (Wild Card).Henderson will be added if he or Kitchens gets A.Taylor will be added if he gets A or gets B while Kitchens/Henderson both get A.Hartfield will be added if he gets A and either Henderson or Taylor do not.Dendy could be added if 2 of Henderson/Taylor/Hartfield do not get A.

:D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:03 am

I can only hope that USATF never goes to a selection; that it will only be the first 3 past the post. The best way to stop all the permutations is to NOT allow the entry of any athlete who doesn't have an A-qualifier. No IAAF B's, no USA A or B's. Make the yearly chase as much about making the standard as making the team; if the USA sends fewer than 3 (4), so be it.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:56 am

batonless relay wrote:that it will only be the first 3 past the post.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, sunk to the bottom of the sea and hopes for salvage are forlorn. I do agree that a 'committee selection' is the worst way to go, but the current set-up (RubeGoldbergian as it is) is actually closer to being 'fair', IM(perverse)O, than a simple 3-past-the-post. Anything that diminishes the 'breaks of a single day' is a good thing in my eyes. I simply want the BEST to go, not just 'the-best-that-day', which will come soon enough at the OG/WC.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:26 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:that it will only be the first 3 past the post.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, sunk to the bottom of the sea and hopes for salvage are forlorn. I do agree that a 'committee selection' is the worst way to go, but the current set-up (RubeGoldbergian as it is) is actually closer to being 'fair', IM(perverse)O, than a simple 3-past-the-post. Anything that diminishes the 'breaks of a single day' is a good thing in my eyes. I simply want the BEST to go, not just 'the-best-that-day', which will come soon enough at the OG/WC.

If you're that post-collegiate, with no "name-coach", no shoe contract, no sponsors, no agent, no circuit races, no real job and really no significant PAST performances - just the stupid belief that what you look like, where you went to school, where you're from...just doesn't matter; that the hard, smart work that you've done makes you as qualified to make the team as anyone else; that the Horatio Alger stories and ethos of American exceptionalism lives in you too; that in sport NAMES DON'T MATTER and in competition, past performances, CERTAINLY DON'T. If you're that post-collegiate, if you're that "past their prime(r)", hell, if you're that high school kid, then there ain't no "closer to being fair", there ain't no kind of fair, and there ain't no fair "but...", it's first 3 are the best 3 and best 3 go. That's fair.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:33 am

batonless relay wrote:If you're that post-collegiate, with no "name-coach", no shoe contract, no sponsors, no agent, no circuit races, no real job and really no significant PAST performances - just the stupid belief that what you look like, where you went to school, where you're from...just doesn't matter; that the hard, smart work that you've done makes you as qualified to make the team as anyone else; that the Horatio Alger stories and ethos of American exceptionalism lives in you too; that in sport NAMES DON'T MATTER and in competition, past performances, CERTAINLY DON'T. If you're that post-collegiate, if you're that "past their prime(r)", hell, if you're that high school kid, then there ain't no "closer to being fair", there ain't no kind of fair, and there ain't no fair "but...", it's first 3 are the best 3 and best 3 go. That's fair.

I think I just felt a tear roll down my cheek. What a great Disney movie idea! [/cynicism]
I actually do like what that all represents (and it was well written, so maybe, somewhere/how, we can make peace :D ), but sport, at the highest levels is a mean MF, where only only the best dare tread. If you're a fluke qualifier, yay for you (**sniff**), but if the USA wants to field its BEST team, you'll need to be more than a fluke; you need to prove your worth again and again.
I hate being the cold-hearted one here, but them's the facts, Jack! :twisted:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby unclezadok » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:45 am

The "first three" method is almost guaranteed not to pick the best possible team and to cause some really horrible omissions.
unclezadok
 
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:54 pm

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Smoke » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:02 am

Marlow you do not really make sense in your points. And it is not because your thoughts are illogical, it is because you are ignoring the governor in this scenario, ONLY 3 GO! As long as, the IAAF sticks to three representative scenario, to three is the fairest way. Anything relying upon to judgment of others is inheritently worse and political, just ask the countries that do it currently.

What I want to see in our evolution is an abandonment of the Olympic ideal of only 3 from each country. I propose, take at minimum three with all the current qualifying standards. In addition to I want to see automatic entries to World's for the top 16 in every event from a predetermined ranking entity, be it TFN, all-athletics or some new ranking system. As long as, we know before hand whatthe ranking procedure is, it is fair. What this ensures is the best will be at our WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS.
Yes, that means in the sprints and hurdles we will see USA and Jamaicans everywhere. It also means in the distance races we would see East Africans everywhere. OH WELL!!! This is about the best of the best. Not the best of those that have qualified. Which is exactly where we are now. For example, Asafa Powell will not be in Moscow yet he is currently the fastest Jamaican.
The individual NGB's can make their own parameters, i.e. in order to be declared you must compete at our national championships. I think this is fair and healthy for the sport. It is never good for the stars to be absent from US nationals.
More importantly, this will encourage the athletes to compete regularly on the circuit and force the creation of more meets for ranking opportunities.
At least on my fantasy island this makes a ton of sense
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:09 am

Smoke wrote:you are ignoring the governor in this scenario, ONLY 3 GO! . . . What I want to see in our evolution is an abandonment of the Olympic ideal of only 3 from each country.

My 'given' has always been that only 3 go, because that's what's been allowed, but I totally agree with your idea that more should go if A-qualified. MOST sports have no nationality restrictions - seems to work for them. The OG and WC keep the limit because they are governed by a body that includes all the little countries that don't want to be shut out of participation. Blame it on Baron DeC!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:13 am

unclezadok wrote:The "first three" method is almost guaranteed not to pick the best possible team and to cause some really horrible omissions.

Guaranteed not to? Who didn't make the 2012 team that would have made the finals or medalled in London?
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:24 am

batonless relay wrote:Guaranteed not to? Who didn't make the 2012 team that would have made the finals or medalled in London?

a. 2012 was a great year for USA track all around. Everyone who needed to have been there, was. That is not always the case.
b. The 2012 USA team was definitely NOT 3-past-the-post. It was subject to the current A-B protocols.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Smoke » Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:31 am

Marlow that is the fallacy they float to us, there is no reason to not include the small countries. The same guarantees can stay in place. I am just not excluding the best of the best, which we do now. We is Kenya forced to threaten their athletes to come to camp and go through a cookie cutter preparation, just so the governing body can have a uniform measuring stick to chose 3 guys out of 4000 that can win World's?! That is just bad business.
Why are we in the US forced to leave 5 men in the hurdles at home that would be national record holders in 99% of the world?!
There is also a big picture effect, in 2008, we saw 2 key injuries take the air out of an event. Liu Xiang and Trammell go down and all of a sudden the most anticipated final in the games was reduced to watching the wrh in a time trial. Things like this are minimized, not eliminated, but minimized if we have more quality in the field.
Smoke
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby gh » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:15 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:Guaranteed not to? Who didn't make the 2012 team that would have made the finals or medalled in London?

a. 2012 was a great year for USA track all around. Everyone who needed to have been there, was. That is not always the case.
b. The 2012 USA team was definitely NOT 3-past-the-post. It was subject to the current A-B protocols.


Yes, but A-B protocols are not subject to decision by committee, or analysis of subjective criteria. The performers are still selecting themselves in a fashion that's hard to argue with (other than that it becomes rather convoluted!)
gh
 
Posts: 46322
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:02 am

batonless relay wrote:
Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:that it will only be the first 3 past the post.

That ship has sailed, hit an iceberg, sunk to the bottom of the sea and hopes for salvage are forlorn. I do agree that a 'committee selection' is the worst way to go, but the current set-up (RubeGoldbergian as it is) is actually closer to being 'fair', IM(perverse)O, than a simple 3-past-the-post. Anything that diminishes the 'breaks of a single day' is a good thing in my eyes. I simply want the BEST to go, not just 'the-best-that-day', which will come soon enough at the OG/WC.

If you're that post-collegiate, with no "name-coach", no shoe contract, no sponsors, no agent, no circuit races, no real job and really no significant PAST performances - just the stupid belief that what you look like, where you went to school, where you're from...just doesn't matter; that the hard, smart work that you've done makes you as qualified to make the team as anyone else; that the Horatio Alger stories and ethos of American exceptionalism lives in you too; that in sport NAMES DON'T MATTER and in competition, past performances, CERTAINLY DON'T. If you're that post-collegiate, if you're that "past their prime(r)", hell, if you're that high school kid, then there ain't no "closer to being fair", there ain't no kind of fair, and there ain't no fair "but...", it's first 3 are the best 3 and best 3 go. That's fair.



In some events there are only a few "A"s in the whole of the sport. The US position should not be essentially dictated by where that line is set and when they set it. In some events, it is difficult to get enough opportunities to set such a mark. For instance, for a graduating senior the entire championship season requires running three 10,000s that will almost certainly no result in a mark. They then have to run a 10,000 at the Trials that will not set a mark most of the time. Thus, either the mark is obtained in April or a fifth, peak 10,000 has to be run between NCAAs and the Trials, and that would diminish the ability to place top-3. And, if you are from northern climates, getting fit for an A standard 10,000 in April is very difficult.

I think that the elitist position in this application is mistaken.In many events, there will not be much competition below the top level and then soon there will not be a top level.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby aaronk » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:04 am

Thanks for the updated explanation of who's going, who might go if, and so on.

As soon as my Rhodes Scholar degree from Oxford University is achieved, I just might be able to understand it......maybe. :shock:
aaronk
 
Posts: 3348
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:16 am

Smoke wrote:Marlow that is the fallacy they float to us, there is no reason to not include the small countries. The same guarantees can stay in place. I am just not excluding the best of the best, which we do now. We is Kenya forced to threaten their athletes to come to camp and go through a cookie cutter preparation, just so the governing body can have a uniform measuring stick to chose 3 guys out of 4000 that can win World's?! That is just bad business.
Why are we in the US forced to leave 5 men in the hurdles at home that would be national record holders in 99% of the world?!
There is also a big picture effect, in 2008, we saw 2 key injuries take the air out of an event. Liu Xiang and Trammell go down and all of a sudden the most anticipated final in the games was reduced to watching the wrh in a time trial. Things like this are minimized, not eliminated, but minimized if we have more quality in the field.


My reading of prior postings by gh is that the majority (vast majority) of IAAF voting members would feel disadvantaged by this mechanism and so it will not happen. In addition, if you allow a lot of runners in a distance event team tactics can be played, to the detriment of countries with thinner representation.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:27 am

gh wrote:Yes, but A-B protocols are not subject to decision by committee, or analysis of subjective criteria. The performers are still selecting themselves in a fashion that's hard to argue with (other than that it becomes rather convoluted!)

Indeed and we all like that.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Fortius19 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:56 am

Smoke wrote:There is also a big picture effect, in 2008, we saw 2 key injuries take the air out of an event. Liu Xiang and Trammell go down and all of a sudden the most anticipated final in the games was reduced to watching the wrh in a time trial. Things like this are minimized, not eliminated, but minimized if we have more quality in the field.


This is the best reasoning I have ever read for including more than three per nation if they have the "A"!
Fortius19
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:18 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:34 am

26mi235 wrote:In some events there are only a few "A"s in the whole of the sport. The US position should not be essentially dictated by where that line is set and when they set it. In some events, it is difficult to get enough opportunities to set such a mark. For instance, for a graduating senior the entire championship season requires running three 10,000s that will almost certainly no result in a mark. They then have to run a 10,000 at the Trials that will not set a mark most of the time. Thus, either the mark is obtained in April or a fifth, peak 10,000 has to be run between NCAAs and the Trials, and that would diminish the ability to place top-3. And, if you are from northern climates, getting fit for an A standard 10,000 in April is very difficult.

I think that the elitist position in this application is mistaken.In many events, there will not be much competition below the top level and then soon there will not be a top level.

If distance runners, after KNOWING that the marks chasing has been abolished and that there will be no B's in the trials and they only have 3-4 attempts in the calender year, continue to run in the stupid "lets all follow" manner in which we see today, then they deserve to not make the team. If you're a collegiate athlete and you believe the season is not set up for A-standard achievement, then redshirt or quit. If a northern Climate bothers...move south. I really have no pity for the distance runners. They should mostly be an afterthought for trials consideration based upon their performances (it's the near equivalent of gearing the venue and selection of trials based upon wTJ). If every other event can go to the trials and do their best, or attempt to, then distance runners should be expected to do the same. (If I were King of the USA, I would edict that every time an athlete fell behind A-standard pace that they be removed from the race. Kicking and screaming if need be). In 2011 if Centrowicz knew he needed the A to enter trials I'm betting that he would have had it. (figured I would pre-empt you. :lol: :wink: )
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby KevinM » Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:27 pm

batonless relay wrote:They should mostly be an afterthought for trials consideration based upon their performances (it's the near equivalent of gearing the venue and selection of trials based upon wTJ).


Except that the US is now one of the deepest distance running nations. But continue flogging away on this dead horse as if it's still 1995-2004.

With the ludicrous time window set for qualifying this year, I would argue that getting a qualifier between at some point between Oxy/Pre/Adidas and the WC makes more sense than spending the early spring chasing marks. The goal should be to get fit, round into form around Pre/Adidas, put yourself in position to make the team, and if needed, get the mark in the month+ afterwards. From the results of the last week it looks like the 1500m guys had things figured out (the US and Kenya lead the world with 8 athletes each achieving the A standard during 2013).
KevinM
 
Posts: 2645
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby TN1965 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:13 pm

batonless relay wrote:I can only hope that USATF never goes to a selection; that it will only be the first 3 past the post. The best way to stop all the permutations is to NOT allow the entry of any athlete who doesn't have an A-qualifier. No IAAF B's, no USA A or B's. Make the yearly chase as much about making the standard as making the team; if the USA sends fewer than 3 (4), so be it.


So someone with a B cannot compete in the trial, although they can make the ream without improving the mark (the World Championships team can be AAB)? And no one is allowed to achieve the A standard at the trial itself? (No Ritz or Conley from 2012) For what purpose?
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:22 pm

TN1965 wrote:
batonless relay wrote:I can only hope that USATF never goes to a selection; that it will only be the first 3 past the post. The best way to stop all the permutations is to NOT allow the entry of any athlete who doesn't have an A-qualifier. No IAAF B's, no USA A or B's. Make the yearly chase as much about making the standard as making the team; if the USA sends fewer than 3 (4), so be it.


So someone with a B cannot compete in the trial, although they can make the ream without improving the mark (the World Championships team can be AAB)? And no one is allowed to achieve the A standard at the trial itself? (No Ritz or Conley from 2012) For what purpose?

I long ago said that if the rules were different many of these athletes WOULD get the standard BEFORE the trials. Also, Though the WC team CAN be AAB, the mission, according to Marlow was to find the best team and so if the "A" got 5th but was a known quantity and everyone ahead of him only got a B, the A would still go. That's BS. No one should be "elevated" over anyone. You lose on the day, you lose on the day. That's sports. And, if you don't have the standard or you're not even allowed entry without the standard it makes it impossible to make the argument of what you could do. All A's, less fuss, no permutations.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:16 pm

batonless relay wrote:if you don't have the standard or you're not even allowed entry without the standard it makes it impossible to make the argument of what you could do. All A's, less fuss, no permutations.

That is by far the most ****** ** thing you've ever posted :wink:
Peaking at the right time is a real (and important) concept. You GET the A at the Trials, if you don't already have it. Having only A-qualifiers (have you REALLY looked at how high they are?!) show up makes it the WORST meet ever, with tiny (or non-existent!) fields in the majority of events. The OTs are a great celebration of the sport in America and you'd reduce it to virtually nothing. There's little chance of meaningful competition, competition that can battle-harden you.
I think people are already trying as hard as they can to get the A now - your idea is not going to suddenly 'force' people to get it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:00 am

Marlow wrote:
batonless relay wrote:if you don't have the standard or you're not even allowed entry without the standard it makes it impossible to make the argument of what you could do. All A's, less fuss, no permutations.

That is by far the most ****** ** thing you've ever posted :wink:
Peaking at the right time is a real (and important) concept. You GET the A at the Trials, if you don't already have it. Having only A-qualifiers (have you REALLY looked at how high they are?!) show up makes it the WORST meet ever, with tiny (or non-existent!) fields in the majority of events. The OTs are a great celebration of the sport in America and you'd reduce it to virtually nothing. There's little chance of meaningful competition, competition that can battle-harden you.
I think people are already trying as hard as they can to get the A now - your idea is not going to suddenly 'force' people to get it.

Marlow, please remember that we're talking about the easiest way to make the trials fair. And, to me that would include no marks chasing. And, the only way to stop marks chasing is to require that everyone get the A BEFORE entry. Does it bother me that there is marks chasing now? No. But it would bother me tremendously if the "favorites" were pre-selected - I might even consider that ****** **.

Also, there is NOTHING about going through an extremely slow race (which is what usually happens at USOT/USATF) that "battle hardens" any mid-distance runners for what will happen in the medal territory of the world stage. So, I might consider MOST distance races meaningless.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby Marlow » Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:07 am

batonless relay wrote:Marlow, please remember that we're talking about the easiest way to make the trials fair.

Perhaps I did misunderstand. The way you posted it made it sound like this was a real viable idea that you thought should actually be done, not a hypothetical scenario to be 'fairest'. Mia apologia.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21084
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby TN1965 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:01 am

batonless relay wrote:And, the only way to stop marks chasing is to require that everyone get the A BEFORE entry. Does it bother me that there is marks chasing now? No. But it would bother me tremendously if the "favorites" were pre-selected - I might even consider that ****** **.

Also, there is NOTHING about going through an extremely slow race (which is what usually happens at USOT/USATF) that "battle hardens" any mid-distance runners for what will happen in the medal territory of the world stage. So, I might consider MOST distance races meaningless.


Did any one chase the mark after the trial last year? NO. Was the trial entry limited to A-qualifiers? NO. So why do we have to require the A-standard for entry in order to prevent chasing? Makes absolutely no sense.

And what would be a good way to prevent extremely slow pace mid-distance races? Having runners who are trying to hit the A-standard at the trial.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:26 am

What the heck is the problem that there are several permutations in several of the events. It actually adds some interesting discussion and drama.

I do not see it as a problem that needs solving, much less the extreme 'solution' of sending no one in some events (including ones where we might eventually send a full compliment), having fields of 2-4 for the Trials/National Championships.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16320
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Annual "3-Past-the-Post" Thread

Postby batonless relay » Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:52 am

26mi235 wrote:What the heck is the problem that there are several permutations in several of the events. It actually adds some interesting discussion and drama.

I do not see it as a problem that needs solving, much less the extreme 'solution' of sending no one in some events (including ones where we might eventually send a full compliment), having fields of 2-4 for the Trials/National Championships.

If the "offshoot" of the permutations is that Marlow can hope for a day where 'favorites' get a pass then it makes sense to do away with it now, imo. I will NEVER agree that is favorable to what we have now - that's why I came up with the only A's at trials; it becomes too hard to argue one A over another A (though obviously not all A's would be the same).
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dave, Exabot [Bot], GHM, wamego relays champ and 15 guests