BAA releases new registration process AND new qualifying times

[VernRDH]

After all the hoopla about registering for this years Boston Marathon, the Boston Athletic Association is implementing a new registration process and has new qualifying times to boot.

Here is the link for the info. The new times are for the 2013 race.

The new registration process sounds interesting, I don't know if everyone will see it as "fair" but I think it might be.

Any thoughts WISHers?

 

[FireDancer]

I don't mind the new weighted registration process. I don't think the should have lowered the men's qualifying times though. I know this might not be the popular opinion but I think the separation between men and women in marathons has closed quite a bit and was hoping they would make the women's times a little tougher and leave the men's alone. A half hour spread is too wide IMO.

My goal will still be to qualify in the fall of 2012 so I'll just have to find an additional 5 minutes (well, 5:59 technically) I suppose.

 

[jmasgat]

Frank They're doing away with the extra 59 second buffer starting with the 2013 race.

I thought they would have tightened up/equalized the times to approach a more even age-graded standard, but they didn't.

As for me...my time would still allow me to qualify for 2012 on day 3 of registration. BUt I think I may be one and done, we'll see.

 

[VernRDH]

Frank, I agree I would think the womens times would be closer to the mens times. I know more women who are running great times and could probably still qualify even if you tightened up the timing. I am sure as things progress they may still do that.

I would be lying if I said I didn't want to run the Boston Marathon some day. I of course still have to RUN a full marathon, but pshh, small detail. What are my chances of a BQ at WDW in 2013?

 

[fashionista311]

i do think the weighted registration is the fairest way to do it (and honestly, i can't think of a better solution myself) but it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth. i just can't imagine working so hard on a goal for so many years, and finally crossing the finish line to achieve it - and then worrying if it was actually "good" enough.

but i have PLENTY of work to do before i'm close enough to even realistically dream of achieving a bq...and to be honest, i don't know if i ever will be able to get there. but i know i will work my hardest to get faster for me, not to what the baa dictates.

as far as the women/mens time difference goes - i've read that they keep the gap like that as a bit of "affirmative action" so to speak since they shut women out for so many years. who knows if it's actually true or not, but just throwing it out there.

 

[cewait]

Not sure that I fully understand their logic. I think they messed up a bit. I agree that they should have taken a little more of a fair and balance approach and addressed some of the inequities in the qualification times. The male vs female split does not represent the current state of the sport. Simply adding 30 minutes is not a realistic approach and I am not a fan of reparations for past sins. Just my opinion. Plus I feel that taking a flat 5:59 minutes off all qualification times is a short cut approach. I want to see the graduated entry work for a year or so before passing judgment. My initial thoughts are that it penalizes those who come off the couch and work for a 5-6 years and just barely make qualification…. but hey, it’s their race so they can do what they want. It does get past some of the issues of nearly elite athletes getting closed out.

Regardless, this IS 1000% better than the alternative lottery system and I do applaud them on not heading down the lotto route.

What they missed the boat on was not addressing the high number of sponsor and charity spots. The whole adjustment to qualification times and entry process is to keep the field size to a manageable number so they should have addressed those spots in some way. I do not think it right that a 30 year old runner who cannot run a sub 6 hour race has the ability to pay their way into the race while a qualified runner gets shut out due to a numbers game. Sorry if this offends anyone but this is an elite race and the BAA should move to setting some sort of qualification standard for those slots, also.

 

[jmasgat]

Charles I posted this on Aloha Jeff's Facebook page on the same topic...

"From an "age graded" standpoint, and figuring midpoint for age in each group, the BQ standard for men is fairly tight: 64-66%. For women below 45, the age-graded rate is lower--62-63%, but then it actually gets higher for older women and the range is wider--anywhere from 67-77%. So the disparity is really in the yougner women age groups. If BAA adopted some kind of age graded standard for BQ, then older women may actually benefit, and the bandwidth could be tightened/equalized for both men and women."

As for the charity spots....I respect the runners who do that. I guess, though, if you still want to call Boston an elite race, you should not let the proportion of charity racers to qualifiers get too out of proportion. But I have no idea what a reasonable proportion should be.

Maura

 

[cewait]

I was focussing on the lower end. Glad Jeff did the analysis. I can see where the seasoned end of the female standard could become wider... Definitely supports the challenge to the 30 minute flat rule....

If they were to settle on an age graded standard and adjust avery 5 years or so, that would be the ideal situation. That would take the current state of the sport into account. I thought they had performed that kind of analysis when setting the current standard (2002(?) - 2011).

I really want to add that it is BAA's race and they have a long tradition that they must satisfy. If they want to make it a race that everyone must contribute to a charity, or one that you must be a world class athlete or just another marathon they have every right to do just that. I just hate to see them make arbitrary decisions with little logic.

I was working to try to get a BQ in a fall marathon. I am not sure that I have the extra 6 minutes in the legs. If I do, I hate that I may be shut out because I am forced to wait a couple days before entering. Realistically, I need to find an extra 16 minutes in my quest, or a little over double my PR gap.The good news is that I get 10 of the lost minutes back in 2013 with a new age group!

 

[FireDancer]

Personally I think even the charity runners should have to qualify. I assume you are talking about things like TnT? The Boston Marathon TnT, Crones & Colitis, Livestrong, or what ever should have to provide proof of time before they get in. For those TnT runners who can't qualify and still want to contribute or run a marathon there are hundreds of other marathons to choose from. I understand the celebrity invites because it gets press coverage but even when Lance Armstrong got his celebrity invite he ran a race fast enough to have re-qualified.

I view the Boston marathon as completely separate from all other races. Even if the director of BAA called me up and offered me a free guaranteed spot I wouldn't take it until I qualified. I'm surprised more people that buy their way in, even though it is a good charitable cause, don't feel the same.

Like you said though Charles, it is their sandbox and they make the rules but I'd rather they fix the age disparity and make a higher percentage of the spots open for those that earn it as opposed to those that get in any other way. JMO of course.

 

[fashionista311]

while i personally don't disagree with anyone saying that a qualified runner should not lose their slot to a charity runner...but the reality of the situation is that the baa needs these charity runners. of course i don't have any real figures but i can only imagine the amount of money - both to the baa for the slots and the charities the money is raised for - that is flowed through the marathon. the amount of money that is required for each charity is set very, very high - i have a feeling that if the baa required each of these charity runners to qualify AND raise the required funds, we would see a big drop off in the charity runners...which is obviously not something the baa wants to see. also, i believe that the vast majority (if not at all) the charities that are benefited from marathon are all boston-specific charities, so it's the baa's way of returning the favor to the city that is hosting the race.

also, the baa also hosts a big medical group each year, and i know a ton of slots go to them as well. they do not have to qualify.

again are these slots fair in a perfect world? maybe yes, maybe no. it's not my race and it's certainly not my call. i'm just stating (what I believe/understand to be at least) the realities of the race

 

[FireDancer]

while i personally don't disagree with anyone saying that a qualified runner should not lose their slot to a charity runner...but the reality of the situation is that the baa needs these charity runners. of course i don't have any real figures but i can only imagine the amount of money - both to the baa for the slots and the charities the money is raised for - that is flowed through the marathon. the amount of money that is required for each charity is set very, very high - i have a feeling that if the baa required each of these charity runners to qualify AND raise the required funds, we would see a big drop off in the charity runners...which is obviously not something the baa wants to see. also, i believe that the vast majority (if not at all) the charities that are benefited from marathon are all boston-specific charities, so it's the baa's way of returning the favor to the city that is hosting the race.

also, the baa also hosts a big medical group each year, and i know a ton of slots go to them as well. they do not have to qualify.

again are these slots fair in a perfect world? maybe yes, maybe no. it's not my race and it's certainly not my call. i'm just stating (what I believe/understand to be at least) the realities of the race

Do they really need the charity runners? I think every spot that the charities lose because one of their runners doesn't qualify would be taken anyway by someone who did qualify even if it is not through the charity, especially if they had left the original times. I bet for every charity spot there is someone who qualified and got closed out.

BAA makes their money off of the race fees, not the money raised for charity, that goes to the charity. It's a good cause and all but the Boston marathon should only be for those that qualified. I think TnT for example would make just as much money for cancer if they chose a race other than Boston. Anyone who wants to run for the charity will still run, just somewhere else.

I know it comes off as mean to deny the charity runners which isn't my intention but I think everyone, or at least 99% of the people who start should have had to qualify.

 

[johde]

I think boston a pretty good job of redo the qualification process. I agree with Frank and Charles to a point that something should be done with the charity spot. This is coming form someone who probably will never BQ. They could extend try to extend the same structure they are instituting starting in 2012 for the bulk of charity runners. ie. Charity Running registering prior to October 15 must BQ outright. Oct 15-Oct 30 BQ +10 can Register Nov 1-15 BQ +20. Till Finally Jan 1 anyone can fill remaining spots. That way the Charity's can still get their money, Boston get the most competitve field it can, and more qualified, or nearly qualified running can run.

 

[VernRDH]

I think boston a pretty good job of redo the qualification process. I agree with Frank and Charles to a point that something should be done with the charity spot. This is coming form someone who probably will never BQ. They could extend try to extend the same structure they are instituting starting in 2012 for the bulk of charity runners. ie. Charity Running registering prior to October 15 must BQ outright. Oct 15-Oct 30 BQ +10 can Register Nov 1-15 BQ +20. Till Finally Jan 1 anyone can fill remaining spots. That way the Charity's can still get their money, Boston get the most competitve field it can, and more qualified, or nearly qualified running can run.

I was thinking something similar. That those who wanted to run for charity still would need to qualify. I too have no problem with those who wish to raise money for charity, but Boston is the pinnacle of races, not just anyone can sign up.

Like I said, I don't know that I will be able to BQ, but I know that that is what I would have to do to run in Beantown. I would feel bad taking a spot away from someone who truly earned it, and I personally would be self conscious being a "slow" runner, when everyone else is faster.

 

[scoolover]

Patriot's day essentially a 3 day weekend with the race on Monday. They have now added the 5K on Sunday. I don't see why they don't run two marathons that weekend. There is certainly enough interest for it. Of course it is logistically difficult but how much more than running one. To use a baseball analogy the Snday race could be the AAA race and the Monday race would be the big league race with the 12,000 fastest men and women running. The Sunday race would be the charity runners and the leftovers. The elites would like it and it wouldn't ruin it for the rest. Want to make the big race? Run faster next year.

As far as the entire debate, I am fine with the elites having a race of their own. I am a fan of clydesdale races so if I want my own races why shouldn't they have theirs.

...although at some point I may run it as a bandit.

 

[crewmatt]

soolover brings up an interesting way of doing it. Its actually very similar to how the US Olympic Trials work - its often paired on the same weekend as a major marathon. On the downside though, which race would be better spectated/etc? That would be a trick. Guess I now have to find 10 minutes not 5 to BQ. But I'm more interested in running NYC than boston anyway.

 

[Mark214]

I will be running my third Boston this April and have to say that the new registration process for 2012 has motivated me to train even harder. Instead of having a goal of simply hitting my BQ time for next year, I want to run fast enough to be able to enter during the first week of registration. I also like the toughening of the standards to qualify for the 2013 Boston Marathon; first as a motivational tool and more importantly to thin the number of potential applicants. I do wish they had looked at the gaping time distance between male and female qualifying times. They are an insult to both men and women.

I really cannot complain about the charity runners. They do raise a significant amount of money for good causes. A second Boston Marathon would never work out given the need to close down the route for a second day in a row. That would be a significant inconvenience for the people who live in the area.

All in all, the BAA does a fantastic job. They put on a quality event each year. Unlike NY, they do not gouge you with its $11 fee to enter the lottery for the marathon or try to stuff as many people as they can into the race.