New Boston Marathon Qualifying Standards - Will it work?

Workout
Yesterday: 6.2 miles in 51:36
Today: 7.8 miles over hills

Last week the BAA announced revised qualifying standards for both the 2012 and 2013 races.  If you weren't aware, the qualifying standards came under scrutiny after the 2011 Boston Marathon filled in under 8 hours this past October, shutting out hundreds of runners who had met the qualifying standards, and leaving no space for those people making a BQ attempt in the latter months.  The new standards make an effort to resolve this problem, but the million dollar question is simply, will it work?


Registration for the 2012 race will open on September 12, 2011 and remain open for up to two weeks.  The first two days, registration is only open to runners who have exceeded the current BAA standards by 20 min or more.  In the next two days, those who have exceeded the standard by more than 10 minutes may register, and two days later anyone exceeding by five minutes can register.  The following week, starting on the 19th, anyone who has met the qualifying standard may register.  They will accept registrants on a first come basis until the race is filled.

The pros:  With a tiered registration system of this nature, the BAA most likely guarantees registration will stay open beyond just the first day (although we can't be sure...).  They have made the wise decision of keeping the preexisting qualifying times for another year, which is only fair for those people who raced marathons between the October and February, and were shooting for a BQ.  Finally, allowing your faster runners to register first increases the likelihood that the race will have an impressive pool of amateur athletes.


The cons:  With this method in place, plenty of people can achieve the qualifying standard and not ever get an opportunity to run the race.  What does it mean to qualify if you are shut out of actually running the race?  Additionally, the BAA has now moved the registration period to mid-September, long before the majority of increasingly popular fall marathons are held.  We know from last year that the race is sure to fill up in the allotted two weeks, if not sooner, so anyone making a BQ attempt is forced to do it this spring or summer.  Finally, with all of the waiting and lack of disclosure regarding race specifics, the BAA may have scared off a lot of would be runners who would prefer to take themselves elsewhere.

Registration for the 2013 race will open on September 10, 2012.  New qualifying standards will be in place, which are five minutes faster than the current standards in all age groups.  There will no longer be a 59 second grace period.

The pros:  With a tightening of the qualifying standards, the BAA is raising the bar for participation in the event and will likely push many runners to perform even better than they would otherwise.  Furthermore, it should decrease the number of qualified runners for a given year, leaving less people "shut out".

The cons:  There is no guarantee that the 2013 race won't fill up in 8 hours.  Perhaps the BAA has an idea of this likelihood (look at past races and the percentage of participants that were five minutes faster than the qualifying standards), but the general public doesn't know what will happen.  I'm concerned that the BAA has no long term solution that resolves these issues altogether, while upholding the tradition of excellence for this race.  Further, they have not taken into consideration the relative difficulties of the qualifying standards for different age groups.  It has long been argued that it is easier to qualify for some ages and genders than others.    Finally, registration is again opening in September, which negates all 2012 fall races for qualification.  If the BAA is going to keep their registration so early in the year, I really think they should consider lengthening the qualifying time frame beyond the current 18 months.

There are other issues the BAA has either not addressed to the public or has not considered.  For example, there has been no statement regarding increasing the field size for the event.  While I am aware that many of the roads used during the Boston Marathon would not easily accommodate a larger field, the 100th running of the race welcomed 38,000 runners without a wave start.  Compare that to the 23,000 runners divided amongst two waves in the past few years.  Additionally, it is common knowledge that thousands of unregistered, 'bandit' runners participate every year and are utilizing the races' resources including food, water and medical care.  Active discouragement of this could open up a few more spots for runners who meet those qualifying standards, but are shut out from registering.

I grew up in Boston.  I watched this race every year.  I qualified and ran it twice (2006 & 2007).  I love the Boston Marathon, it is a race like no other.  I understand why so many athletes want to run this race and achieving a BQ time is a major accomplishment that deserves to be rewarded with a run on that prestigious and historical course.  And that is why I, like most of the running community, want to see a well thought out qualification plan.  I for one am not convinced that the BAA has come up with a workable solution.  I do commend them for their action (even if it came later than they promised) and I am interested to see the new standards in action...will it work?

Boston Marathon Registration Fills in One Day

On October 18th, 9am EST, registration of qualified runners for the 115th Boston Marathon opened.  At 5:03 pm that same day, registration had filled and closed.  This is by far the fastest filling of a Boston Marathon in the race's history.

In February of 2009, about six months after moving to Texas, I ran the Austin marathon.  I had trained hard and had my eyes on a new PR.  My previous PR was set in 2005 at the Baystate marathon (my first) where I was luck enough to qualify for the Boston marathon, which I ran in 2006 and 2007.  In 2009, I was focused on getting faster.  Of course, a new PR would also mean another Boston qualification.  I was secretly hoping for an excuse to fly back in April 2010 to visit my parents and run my hometown marathon.

Starting line of the Baystate marathon,
October 2005

The Austin marathon came and went and I had a great day and a new PR of 3:35:09.  The 2009 Boston marathon came and went, with some great showings by US athletes.  When the fall arrived and the blazing heat of Texas subsided, I got my butt in gear and increased my mileage.  I started thinking about registering.  Rumors had it that registration would fill earlier than usual.  Previously it had closed out in about February, so I decided to register in November.  Around the middle of November in 2009, I went onto the BAA website, ready to shell out the over $100 and commit to this race...but registration was full!  I had missed out.  In just over two months, the entire field of qualified runners was saturated and my qualifying time wouldn't carry me over for another year.  I was out of luck.

Kenmore square, Boston marathon 2006

Initially, I was pretty disappointed.  I felt somewhat cheated by the whole thing.  But then I reminded myself that I had run that race twice before.  I also reminded myself that flying to Boston was somewhat expensive and grad students are raking in the dough.  Finally I pointed out that if what I love is running long distances (which I do), that there are plenty of marathons in Texas and surrounding areas and there are other types of races I can do.  I signed up for the 3M Half marathon in Austin and got over it.

I told this lengthy, three paragraph personal anecdote to illustrate my own experience of being shut out of Boston registration and to explain why this personally is okay for me.  I started running marathons because I think 26.2 miles is an extraordinary challenge and I feel really great knowing that I can complete the training for that distance and execute on race day.  There are plenty of 26.2 mile courses out there, and I want to try all of them.  Nonetheless, in a larger sense, I am concerned that Boston registration is filling up so fast.  If I had not already had the experience of running this historic and awesome race, I know I would have been devastated to not get in.  Additionally, many qualified runners were completely blind sided by this sudden increase in popularity.  I think the BAA has a serious problem on there hands and I hope they fix it.

People have suggested a variety of things.  The most common suggestions are the following; 1) Increase field size, 2) Do away with charity runners, 3) Tighten qualification standards, 4) Use a lottery system, 5) Delay registration until closer to April.  I want to talk about each of these suggestions and my opinion regarding their ability to solve this problem.

A logical suggestion is to allow more runners in the Boston Marathon.  The field size is typically 20,000-25,000 official runners.  Races like NYC, London, Berlin and Chicago are accommodating ten to twenty thousand more runners.  While I advocate increasing the size of the Boston field, this particular course is simply unable to support as many runners as NYC or even Chicago.  The majority of the Boston race is run through small New England towns on narrow, winding two lane roads.  Furthermore, the cities that are part of the course are consistently reluctant to an increase in participants because of the burden it places on medical and safety staff, volunteers and road closures.  I would like to see Boston bump their registration numbers up a little bit, but I think it is unrealistic to assume this will fix the problem completely.

Many have suggested Boston do away with charity runners, who can make up as much as 20% of the total field.  I think this is a good idea, because I would prefer to see Boston remain prestigious and sought after, but I don't think it is very realistic.  Boston has a long tradition of supporting organizations through charity runners, and these runners bring in thousands of dollars each year to worthy causes.  I think it would be some really bad PR to pull the plug on this program, and I can't see the BAA or John Hancock running that risk.  One option would be to decrease the total number of charity runners from 20 to 10%, but double their expected monetary contribution.  This would free up some more spots for qualified runners without disturbing the charities.

Another thought is that the BAA should tighten the qualifying standards.  To me, this is really the best option.  Historically, Boston qualifying standards have fluctuated a lot and used to be much more stringent than they are now.  Second, stricter qualifying standards would keep with the spirit of a prestigious, world class event worth striving for.  Additionally, a small change in qualifying standards could easily create a lot more availability in the race.  

Many popular races (NYC, London, Houston) are using a lottery system for registration.  I would be really disappointed if Boston adopted this approach. First, I don't want Boston to be like those other marathons, it should continue to set a standard, not follow in the footsteps of other races.  Second, a lot of lottery events are becoming very difficult to get into and appear to be biased based on where you live.  While many may disagree, I think Boston is best as a marathon experienced by those who have achieved a certain time goal rather than achieved a time goal AND got lucky.

The final common suggestion is that the BAA delay their registration process until closer to the event in April.  In previous years, registration has opened in September.  This year it was moved back to mid October to accommodate more fall races and give those runners a fair shot at entering the race.  I think this was a responsible move on the part of the BAA, although it clearly wasn't enough.  Furthermore, there are plenty of fall races run in late October, November and even December.  In the southern part of the country (like Texas), major marathons are in the winter months.  Moving the registration date around might help to include more qualifying races, but there will always be some that are left out, so this is more of a short term, band-aid solution.

Regardless of which approach you think is best (and I would love to hear your thoughts!), clearly the BAA needs to hit this problem head on and come up with a new solution.  It is ridiculous for a qualifying marathon like Boston to sell out in 8 hours and it is unfair to hundreds of runners who met those standards but were unable to register in time or even knew this would be an issue.  If registration for the race takes place in the span of 8 hours, runners are subject to all kinds of ridiculous biases like internet speed, time zones, the site crashing, and slow credit card verification.  Obviously you wouldn't be able to mail in an entry blank, which would impact those runners without an internet connection at home or access at work.  My hope is that the BAA reviews its qualifying standards and revamps them across the board, testing the impact of a modest (<5min) decrease in the requirement.  Additionally, I think they should push the registration back to December and consolidate the charity running spots.  In the meantime, I'll be content with my 2006 and 2007 experiences and work on getting faster by running in other races.