I agree that we should all do what we can to make people's experiences better. A female poster's comment (perhaps in another thread) about how the bro-culture in triathlons can be unwelcoming for women is very helpful in that respect.

I am also supportive of IM's switch to a two-day format and its overall commitment to expanding women's participation in triathlons (even if it is a bit self-serving for IM). I hope it is just one of many measures IM and other triathlon organizations take to facilitate greater participation across the board; triathlon would be better if it were less white, male, and rich. And while I expect there will be hiccups along the way, in the long run giving women their own day for the WC will help grow the sport. And, even if it doesn't, it's just the right thing to do.

That being said, I am sympathetic to the position of people who worry that rapidly expanding the field size detracts from their own experience of qualifying for and completing in a WC. Maybe I'm a crappy person, but I take some satisfaction from doing things other people can't. I like knowing that I can run a marathon after biking 112 miles when most of my colleagues can't run a 5k. I like standing on the starting line of an IM knowing that I will finish ahead of just about everyone around me. I liked qualifying for Kona more than the 70.3 WC because I know it was harder. Maybe besting others is a shitty, shallow way to derive a sense of self-worth; maybe it's just the honest reality of having a competitive personality.

My point is that I do think it is fair to express a concern that the recent changes (and possible future field expansions) will make qualifying too easy. I actually don't think it will. I expect once the dust settles you will still have plenty of competition to qualify; both races will be full of highly accomplished athletes. But I can't predict the future any more than anyone else can.

If I had my way, qualifying for a WC, whether as a man or woman, would require finishing on or very close to the podium. In the short run, I am certainly willing to sacrifice competitiveness for the goal of increasing participation, but in the long-run I would not want to see roll downs going well beyond the top ten on a regular basis. Whether that is an appropriate standard is certainly open for debate; reasonable people can disagree as to how hard qualifying should be.

I am certainly willing to sacrifice competitiveness for the goal of increasing participation//

But this is the exact point myself and a couple others are trying to make, you "increase" competitiveness, not sacrifice it. No need to go over the old vs new process again, but cliff notes is that many, many more top women will now get to race. And yes when you add 1800 more women, there is also increased participation too. Both things can be true, just wish this myth of a less competitive race would go away now that it is exposed for what it really is...

"Competitiveness" is a myth when you have a roll down system.

A person has to accept "pay for" a KQ slot. That in no way insures competitiveness. So saying the old system or the new one (I'm in favor of the new system BTW) will increase or decrease competitiveness is just not true. It's not like there is a playoff system or anything else that resembles a system where the cream rises to the top. When you are talking about armatures (and now some pro) that have to pay their own way economics will always be a consideration. So when you have a race where the KQ rolls down to #27, which has happened in the old system, diluting "competitiveness" has always been the case. Now do the math for a multiple qualifying races around the world and the numbers get worse/better for "competitiveness" depending on how YOU look at it. You can't definitively say one way or the other.

It's a crap shoot either way.