Yeah, I get it, and I didn't mean to sound so salty. I'm just getting tired of the discussion, and a lot of people having no empathy or understanding of that international teams actually go through to get to worlds.The USASF Open divisions are new. That hasn't been an option previously. I hate the massive number of divisions we have now, but we absolutely will send more and more teams toward the USASF side when possible. Few events award paid bids in "International" divisions, so paid bids in those divisions are much harder to come by. Also, I think paid bids are generally harder to get than people think. We regularly see more defending medalists competing than there are bids at an event.
Olympics is set up as a country-vs-country event. You represent your country there. It makes sense. (FWIW, I don't love the rule in gymnastics that limits the all-around finalists).
In my mind, it should be more like Wimbledon, Tour de France, Boston Marathon, Australian Open, Ironman, etc. where athletes/teams represent either themselves or their private clubs. There are no rules that say the Wimbledon finalists can't be two Russians. You could have the top 10 Boston Marathon finishers all be Kenyan and no one would bat an eye.
I get the other side and I can respect that view, however. I just don't see it that way.
But all those events aren't world championships and crown world champions. All world championships I know about has a limit on the number of participants. Even say cross country skiing, where the athletes compete and win as their own, not really their country, has a
4(/5, if you are the reigning world champ you get a free spot) per country rule. Even for the world cup there's a maximum quota of 6 athletes per race.
We are still a young sport, and there are for sure kinks to iron out, but having limits on the amount of teams allowed to move on is not that far fetched.
Skickat från min EML-L29 via Tapatalk