Race Qualification Methods

Alaska Mike · Oct 18, 2010

The 2011 Boston Marathon sold out in about 8 hours this year. Last year, it was right around Thanksgiving. The year before, it was some time in February. Prior to that, you could sign up a few weeks before the race in April. So unless something changes it is highly likely that it will sell out in less than an hour next year.
 
I started at 9 am ET (which was 5 am Alaska time) and couldn't get signed up for an hour and 15 min this year. There has been some speculation about the various methods that BAA might use to limit the field size and make it less of a internet-rush to sign up. Various methods they could utilize include:
 
- making the entry qualification standards tougher (i.e. lowering the time requirements for various age groups).
- instituting a lottery system similar to the one used for New York City marathon.
- making certain races qualifiers and having a certain number of slots per race (similar to IM Hawaii)
- increasing the cost
- allowing current year racers to sign up for next year's race before everyone else
- leave it as it is
 
What do folks here think? Any systems you would prefer they implement?
 
Mike

Alaska Mike · Oct 18, 2010

I think the fairest method is to lower the qualifying standards. The current standards are fairly arbitrary and have been lower in the past. Current qualification is based on your ability to run fast relative to your age and if they are getting too many applicants, then the lowering the qualifying times will decrease the number of people who qualify. Of course, that works well for me as a 2:40 marathoner. It's brutal, but fair.
 
I'm sure that BAA will continue to hold entries open for charity runners and for Boston-area athletes.
 
If they go with a lottery system I hope they implement something similar to NYC where there is a qualifying time that allows you to bypass the lottery. Because, again, I'm looking out for me. <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/rolleyes.gif" title="">
 
Mike

hobey · Oct 18, 2010

I'm with you re: making the qual standards tougher but they can't do it until I've had a shot to qualify at 3:45. <img alt="" src="http://files.kickrunners.com/smilies/wink.gif" title="">
 
I do like NYC's system with the lottery and the chance to bypass with a minimum qualifying time and they could also make the qualifying period shorter and not allowing for fall races to count for 2 years.

KitKat · Oct 18, 2010

Lowering the qualifying times is the logical approach but what if they reduced the qualifying period to one year instead of two? I'm wondering if that would limit numbers enough to make a difference.

mmoonptdeux · Oct 19, 2010

There are temporary stop-gaps you can implement (say, making eligibility good for only one year and making the qualification times tougher) but let's face it, just by sheer population gains as well as continued growth in the running/triathlon world, numbers are going to overwhelm any fixed-number-of-participants event, especially one with a certain level of prestige involved.
 
Provided they don't want to anything like a second Boston Marathon-type event, it's probably going to eventually have to come down to something like a lottery, maybe similar to what the NYC Marathon or perhaps Western States has.

hobey · Oct 19, 2010

A great idea kicking around on our club board...
 
Tough A standards kind of like NYC and a lottery-based B standard.

pcsronbo · Oct 19, 2010

Alcatraz had a blend of Qualifiers (this eliminates only those fast and flat courses which are all downhill and into the wind... ) and lottery
 
and in this case, maybe lottery could be a secondary standard for qualification (another layer of times)
 
Internet rush thing is, IMHO, stupid. What does it reward? Nothing

Yo Sake · Oct 19, 2010

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! 
 
I missed it. AGAIN. (Yes, again, I was taking too much time last year.....). I am on the road for business. I am contacting my 'back up plan' which worked last year. Please keep your fingers crossed that they would let me in. 
 
As for the way to deal with the current situation, I am for lowering the qualification time. Not much, though. Just 10min or so - I don't have that much cushion, like Mike does. I bet that 10min would significantly reduce the # of runners who would qualify.

mrscoby78 · Oct 19, 2010

There is buzz about that the qualifying standards are easier for women than for their male same-age counterparts. I think that's a good place to start. I also like the 1 year eligibility rather than 2.
 
I dont' know that I like a lottery system. I think I would feel ripped off if I did all I could in my training and racing to get in, and then missed out on pure luck.

mrscoby78 · Oct 19, 2010

<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550133914934718.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550133914934718.html</a>

fox-runr · Oct 19, 2010

I'm with Scoobs. The womens and mens standard have been out of line for awhile, should have been fixed years ago (kind of like when elite women were going low 2:20s while mens record sits at 2:05.......I'm tossing out Paula's insane sub2:20 ability). the 30 minute difference between men vs women was to get more women in the race. This is no longer a problem. Lower women's time 10 minutes..like Yo Sake suggested. 
 
 I don't like the idea of letting this years people in next years (unless they raced after the Sept date), it'll just make next year worse. tighten womens standard NOW...grandfather the times until end of year. I don't like the lottery idea........however, if you can say that you've actually qualified for NYC marathon, it has major bragging rights....however..........most people don't know that it's much harder to qualify for NY than Boston.

Yo Sake · Oct 19, 2010

I AM IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Phew, I thought I was going to get heart attack.
 
As for NYCM qualification times being harder than Boston, it is so true not many people know that. Also, an interesting thing about NYCM qualification times is, they are kinder toward the people who can run a decent half, but not a full.. I.e. female of my age qualifying time is 1:44 something half or 3:38 full. I haven't being able to fun 3:38 full but ran <1:44 three times in the last few years. DH and I have been talking about running it together, but the tricky part is the deadline for the qualified runner to register ENDS before lottery. So no way to ensure both of us get in, other than he misses the lottery two times in a row and waits for the 3rd time automatic entry.

Alaska Mike · Oct 19, 2010

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Yo Sake <a href="/forum/thread/70718/race-qualification-methods#post_1955354"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> I AM IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Phew, I thought I was going to get heart attack.
</div>
</div>
 
Woot! You, Thor and I will be lining up in Hopkinton. Who else is in?
 
I dunno about the half qualification being easier for NYC than the full. For a male masters the half qualifier is 1:30 and the full qualifier is 3:10. A 10 min slowdown seems about right. This discussion got me thinking about NYC again now that I'm racing Placid in mid-summer. Hmmm.
 
Your DH could always sign up as a charity runner to guarantee a slot.
 
Mike

AdCo · Oct 19, 2010

I'm still hoping to get a number.. I think I have one, but don't know quite yet. If I'm going through my running club, I probably won't know until Dec. I may get the same number as last year though. 
<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by Alaska Mike <a href="/forum/thread/70718/race-qualification-methods#post_1955381"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" style="border:0px solid;"></a> 
Woot! You, Thor and I will be lining up in Hopkinton. Who else is in?
 
I dunno about the half qualification being easier for NYC than the full. For a male masters the half qualifier is 1:30 and the full qualifier is 3:10. A 10 min slowdown seems about right. This discussion got me thinking about NYC again now that I'm racing Placid in mid-summer. Hmmm.
 
Your DH could always sign up as a charity runner to guarantee a slot.
 
Mike
</div>
</div>

4boysmom · Oct 19, 2010

I don't know. I've been shooting to BQ since '06, and with one or two attempts/season, I've yet to do it. It would suck if I had to knock out an even faster time!

niemsco · Oct 19, 2010

The woman's time being 30 minutes slower than the mens is ridiculous. That needs to come down 15 minutes minimum. 
 
I'd knock the women's time down 25 minutes and the men's time down another 10. That would still make my AG 3:05 for men and 3:20 for women ( I believe), That would be more than fair.

Alaska Mike · Oct 19, 2010

<a href="http://www.baa.org/news-and-press/news-listing/2010/october/a-statement-from-baa-executive-director-guy-morse.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.baa.org/news-and-press/news-listing/2010/october/a-statement-from-baa-executive-director-guy-morse.aspx</a>
 
I guess I'm kinda amused that BAA was 'shocked' that the event filled up in one day. Maybe I'm just used to IM events that fill up online in a matter of minutes and other local races that close out in a few hours, but to me this was utterly predictable. When last years race filled up by Thanksgiving and a good number of folks were shut out, it seemed obvious that people were going to be logging in at 9 am EST to register to ensure that they didn't miss out. It seems to me like BAA kinda flubbed this one.
 
Whatever solution they come up with, some people are going to be unhappy. After thinking about it more, some combination of tougher qualifying standards and a lottery probably makes the most sense to allow higher caliber racers the opportunity to race their way in while still allowing slower runners the option to experience Boston.
 
Mike

Race Qualification Methods

Top Contributors this Month