If you can't get it up for 1 meet every 4 years stay at home, you don't deserve
to go. If you can't handle the pressure of do-or-die in the Trials how are you
going to handle the pressure of do-or-die in the Olympics? There's dozens of
athletes in your event that have worked just as hard as you have and have
performed well that day. Pretty soon everybody will want a 3 meet series to
decide Olympic medals, or no-places-awarded competition just like non-scoring
4-year-old's soccer so we don't hurt the feelings of those who can't perform
when it is required.
s.devereaux
Ed & Dana Parrot wrote:
> > ---From: Lawrence Peter-P54163 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > The trials format would be 2 meets, 2 weeks apart.
> > > The first spot on the team goes to the winners from the first meet.
> > > The second spot on the team goes to the winners from the second meet.
> > > The third spot is awarded based on most points scored in the two
> > > meets.
> >
>
> > Hmm, about 3/4 of the stars win their event in the first meet and have no
> reason to compete in the second meet? You're > then left with basically an
> all-comers' meet that no one gives a damn about. No offense, but I'd say
> that's the poorest > alternative that's been presented thus far. I'd
> rather see the best run 5 unneeded meets and run themselves
> > into the ground. At least we'd get to see the best competing...
>
> I am not in favor of the two day format (not that my opinion will have any
> impact!) but I don't agree with this criticism. If you removed the first
> place person in every event from the trials, you'd still have a great meet.
>
> - Ed Parrot
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
