Only serious posts are allowed. Let’s have a contest that comes up with the best solution to the current problem with Team USA selection because of the canceled nationals race. No commenting on other peoples’ ideas on this thread. Only post your own and we’ll see who comes up with the best. Then we’ll post that one on the USAT board and actually do something with our time, instead of bitching and moaning and accomplishing nothing. Do it to it.
Eric
Top 10 race ratings in the 2005 season.
Sucks for people who didn’t race in 2005 or raced Ironman (not sanctioned by USAT or are Ironman races rated until the end of the year only?).
In every age group category, there about 5 people who have a known history of great racing ability and are head and shoulders above the rest. We all know who they are in our own age group. Those people should be given the chance first. The age group commision has little time and less resources to devote to this process so…the simplest solution is from those who attended the nationals, go by last years age group rankings. The cream of the crop generally are high in the rankings. If you didn’t have a ranking last year, go by 2003 rankings. The system is already in place…why not use it? I am not biased here. I wouldn’t make it based on this recommendation…it’s just quick, easy and measurable. They could fall back on past worlds competitions for another perspective.
include only those people who picked up packets
Use the rankings points system based upon last best three USAT sanctioned races (adjusts based upon field size and relative placement) in 2005 and 2006. Timberline timing has all of this data.
roll down 18 slots in each age group.
Ranking as of 08-13-2005 based on best two races.
good idea. give the top 12 from shreveport first dibs. whatever is left over go with 2004 and current ranking of people who showed up for the race. 2004 world team members that showed up in kc should be given strong consideration . if they do all this my horse will make the show =)
I’ll throw my hat in this:
Follow what the NCAA does with Cross Country qualifications:
Have a set standard: Use the number of people that have either qualified for worlds or are “highly qualified” to be in worlds. (this would be decided by USAT or the powers that be) These would be like the automatic qualifiers as in the NCAA
Put those who are interested in being on the team in a pool against all of those people who are the “standard”. Those who have beaten people who have already qualified will earn a point and subsequent points for those who have already qualified or who are “standards”.
This way, there is someway to compare individuals’ races throughout the year. Kind of like how everyone is separated by six moves from Kevin Bacon.
I think this would work fairly well, as it would directly compare and contrast performances throughout the year.
Eric
Only serious posts are allowed. Let’s have a contest that comes up with the best solution to the current problem with Team USA selection because of the canceled nationals race. No commenting on other peoples’ ideas on this thread. Only post your own and we’ll see who comes up with the best. Then we’ll post that one on the USAT board and actually do something with our time, instead of bitching and moaning and accomplishing nothing. Do it to it.
Eric
Don’t waste your time… it’s already been done… read Dan’s article:
"While USAT will not have a national champ in each age group, it still had the job of qualifying a Worlds Team. The top-10 in each age-group would’ve garnered a slot for the World Age Group Championships in Oahu next month. As a result of no qualifying event, USAT has granted a Worlds slot to all who picked up their race packets in Kansas City. This may mean as many as 80 or 100 competitors in the fatter age groups (men’s 40-44 and 45-49) would have a chance to go to Worlds.
The International Triathlon Union was notified of USAT’s dilemma on Saturday, when officials were frantically casting about for a solution. The ITU has given its blessing to USAT’s fix, according to a source at the ITU. This means that certain waves in Oahu could swell from 80 to as many as twice that size, half the field being Americans. It is not anticipated that this will happen, however, as many athletes decline their qualifying slots."
I’m not wasting my time. Until I hear something concrete, I’m keeping ideas going. Why don’t you challenge something else Mr. Diablo, instead of constructive ideas. You think USAT can handle this??? HAHAHAH. You are sure doing a good job of being the Devil’s Advocate.
Eric
I’m not wasting my time. Until I hear something concrete, I’m keeping ideas going. Why don’t you challenge something else Mr. Diablo, instead of constructive ideas. You think USAT can handle this??? HAHAHAH. You are sure doing a good job of being the Devil’s Advocate.
Eric
It’s done… thereby you are wasting your time… however it’s yours to waste, so plod on…
Then if you are the Devil’s Advocate, do I have to post my opinion on this situation to hear something from you? What happens if I post two different opinions, will you actually be agreeing with me? Ha, funny. Anyway, what do people think about Dan’s article. Is everyone booking their plane tickets to Honlulu? I find this laughable to the point of absurdity.
I’ll play. This is the bulk of the actual email I sent to Skip Gilbert.
*I got thinking about the whole Honolulu situation, and some of the feedback I’ve seen on various triathlon boards raises the concerns as to whether Bill Burke’s race organization would be able to accommodate a large number of extra athletes over the 16 to 18 slots allotted per age group, per country. Granted it is a huge expense to commit to traveling to race like that, but I think some of the more egocentric age groups will get a lot of entries. *
*For myself I’m struggling with the issue of whether I want to go without having legitimately qualified. I am one who likes to earn that right, and I feel a little funny about going to Honolulu without actually qualifying based on some standard. I feel I was on the cusp of qualifying this year, and it was all going to come down to what I did on that bike course, and then holding off the fleet of foot. Unfortunately like everyone else, I didn’t get the chance to prove myself. *
*As I was getting involved in some of the discussions on slowtwitch.com I came up with an idea that might resolve the issue too many people going who probably shouldn’t go. The Boston Marathon uses age graded time standards to qualify, so why not do the same. So what would the criteria be? My idea would be to use last year’s Nationals as the standard. Use the 10th place finish time of each age group as the cut off to qualify for Honolulu. I picked 10th place since that was what the cut off in this race would have been, not taking pass downs into account. Allow anyone at the Kansas City race that had done a USAT sanctioned Olympic Distance triathlon between last years nationals and this year’s nationals that falls within the time standard go to Honolulu. The same Top 18 criteria among USA finishers to be an official Team USA member would still apply if age groups have more then 18 athletes. *
*To save you the trouble of looking back at last year’s results I have done the work for you. Ms. Stoic here finally cut loose on her frustrations and spent over an hour putting this information together. I am a statistics freak, and have a tendency to pour over race results, so it wasn’t much trouble and actually was an interesting education in how competitive the various age groups truly are. *
*These times could be rounded up or down to make a standard. Maybe even a few minutes should be added to compensate for the planned 27 mile bike ride and 6.3 mile run that were part of this year’s course. *
***AG 10th Place Time ***
*F20-24 2:20:21 *
*M20-24 2:04:44 *
*F25-29 2:17:59 *
M25-29 2:06:07
F30-34 2:22:09
M30-34 2:03:19
F35-39 2:20:25
M35-39 2:04:05
F40-44 2:31:13
M40-44 2:07:20
F45-49 2:31:13
M45-49 2:16:22
F50-54 2:45:16
M50-54 2:19:30
F55—59 2:53:04
M55-59 2:25:12
F60-64 3:26:26
*M60-65 2:37:29 *
F65-69 3:57:49
M65-69 3:00:47
**
*I didn’t include the 70+ age groups since getting swamped in those age groups are not an issue. In fact I think in anyone over the age of 60 should not need a qualifying time. Those age groups are small enough as is. *
I think these times set a high enough standard that people who qualify based on these times would feel justified in going, and it wouldn’t cheapen the event. I glanced at the Top 10 times at 2005 Saint Anthony’s Triathlon; Southeast Regional Olympic Distance qualifier, and in a lot of cases the 10th place time was considerable slower. Saint Anthony’s was raced in cooler temperatures then last year’s Nationals, and also the swim course was lengthened at Shreveport to compensate for the current that ended about being a total non-factor. I could go really nuts and start looking at other region’s championships, but I think we get the idea. If some people used a ½ iron as their qualifying event you could set some time standards there too. Sprints have too many variables in distances to set up time standards for people who may have qualified via a sprint.
I got thinking about the whole Honolulu situation, and some of the feedback I’ve seen on various triathlon boards raises the concerns as to whether Bill Burke’s race organization would be able to accommodate a large number of extra athletes over the 16 to 18 slots allotted per age group, per country.
Don’t you think that Bill Burke can make that determination on his own… or maybe that he has already been contacted in that regard by USAT?
I got thinking about the whole Honolulu situation, and some of the feedback I’ve seen on various triathlon boards raises the concerns as to whether Bill Burke’s race organization would be able to accommodate a large number of extra athletes over the 16 to 18 slots allotted per age group, per country.
Don’t you think that Bill Burke can make that determination on his own… or maybe that he has already been contacted in that regard by USAT? DUH, yes!!! That statement was simply some of the background of what got me thinking about this. I copied my email into the thread. Maybe I didn’t need to include all of the background stuff, but I did. Is that all you can focus on is an observation made in my introduction? Maybe you think my idea is even dumber then some of the other so called solutions. I gave it a lot of thought, and I think it’s a possible solution. After looking at the room rates for the Team USA hotel I’m not sure there will be 80 Americans in the larger age groups. At $440 a night, who can afford that?? I don’t even think that includes meals! The hotel 10 minutes away was $400 a night.
<< After looking at the room rates for the Team USA hotel I’m not sure there will be 80 Americans in the larger age groups. At $440 a night, who can afford that?? I don’t even think that includes meals! The hotel 10 minutes away was $400 a night.
where did you see $400 a night???
I think you might have misread that.
**Land Only Package (October 5-10) ** 5 nights accommodations Team Dinner Course Training & Tour Onsite host
Price:
From 400.00 + 11.42% (tax) per person (based on 2 persons) at Waikiki Sunset
From 440.00 + 11.42% (tax) per person (based on 2 persons) at Waikiki Beach Hotel
to me, that means $400 per person for the whole deal (5 nights)