B.A.A will consider re-configuring the qualification times for Boston

They do not need to change anything

-You snooze you lose

Ironman triathlons are like this as well. Some fill very quickly as the demand is massive. I think they should run two Bostons...one Sunday and one Monday. Have all the sub 3-hour hopefuls on Sunday, then the hobbyjoggers on Monday.

?????????????????????? wrote:

They do not need to change anything

-You snooze you lose

Which is why entry should be based on race times.

?????????????????????? wrote:

They do not need to change anything

-You snooze you lose

You need SNOOZE for recovery if you're a serious runner...

plus im pretty sure you can still get into Boston if you know the right people, and especially if you're a 2:40 or faster?

jfsdijoa wrote:

Ironman triathlons are like this as well. Some fill very quickly as the demand is massive. I think they should run two Bostons...one Sunday and one Monday. Have all the sub 3-hour hopefuls on Sunday, then the hobbyjoggers on Monday.

Why aren't we sub-3 hopefuls also hobbyjoggers? Finishing an hour and a thousand spots out of the money is the definition of hobbyjogging.

Luckily for you no one has gone sub 2 yet, so sub 3 is within an hour and you're not a hobby jogger. Cheers!

jfsdijoa wrote:

Ironman triathlons are like this as well. Some fill very quickly as the demand is massive. I think they should run two Bostons...one Sunday and one Monday. Have all the sub 3-hour hopefuls on Sunday, then the hobbyjoggers on Monday.

Nice idea, except for the fact that the Boston Marathon effectively cuts a third of the state in half with road closures. People don't mind the closures on Monday because it is a state holiday (Patriots Day). But two days in a row would be crazy.

Boston will probably end up with a lame lottery system. Any movement in standards would be playing with fire in terms of a drop in numbers. My vote would be for a guaranteed entry for times that are 10-15 min under the current standard and a lottery for everyone else who has a BQ.

Tough for the 1/3 of the state. I want to run my Boston!

That is probably the best and most fair system I've seen proposed.

Guarantee entry to anyone under a certain time that registers by a certain date. Say, 3 hours for men, register by Nov 1.

Then, anyone else who meets the current soft standards can enter a lottery for the remaining spots. Run the fast guys in the first wave.

I don't see how that wouldn't be fair enough. I think most people would agree that whether or not you can successfully get into a website on time is not a very good criteria for letting people in.

Qualification only. Period.

Charity runners, "VIP" entrants, and the like....there are a hundred other large, highly public events in which to run.

Leave Boston to those hardened souls who trained enough to be there, the way it was meant to be.

why didn't I think of that wrote:

Qualification only. Period.

Charity runners, "VIP" entrants, and the like....there are a hundred other large, highly public events in which to run.

Leave Boston to those hardened souls who trained enough to be there, the way it was meant to be.

this would probably only add about 3 hours to the registration window

They are not getting rid of the charity runners, so anyone who keeps saying that can either pony up the millions that are being raised for charity or push for the charity 3rd wave. That seems the most fair as they won't be confused for having qualified.

If they do change the times, they should do it by this weekend. Many folks are now aiming for 2012 and would like to know if they need to hit a faster time than they previously thought.

What should they do? Cut womens times 10 minutes and guys 5 at bare minimum.

What will they do? Probably announce new standards in January

why didn't I think of that wrote:

Qualification only. Period.

Charity runners, "VIP" entrants, and the like....there are a hundred other large, highly public events in which to run.

Leave Boston to those hardened souls who trained enough to be there, the way it was meant to be.

You would jeopardize your relationship with your sponsors by doing that. You can't tell John Hancock "sorry, we can't offer any free entries to your slow employees even though you're our title sponsor."

De HardeWork wrote:

?????????????????????? wrote:

They do not need to change anything

-You snooze you lose

You need SNOOZE for recovery if you're a serious runner...

If you're a serious runner then you want no part of the Hobbyjogger Olympic Marathon that Boston has become. Either that or you're good enough to get in without needing to go through the online registration process.

Ok

So the times need to be adjusted, what's the "sweet spot" if they lower them by 5 men, 10 women, does the race fill up in 2 weeks? What about a 10/15 lowering? etc..

Whatever the new standards will be (if they do make the standards tougher), they should announce the new stanards as soon as possible so people running a marathon in the coming weeks know what they will need to run to qualify.

The standards have become so ingrained in people's minds that I think they should leave them alone (get rid of the 59 grace seconds though). It would take a massive lowering (ie 15-20 minutes) to eliminate the masses that can get in now, and BAA isn't going to take any chance on losing their mass appeal.

Open registration from Oct. 15 until Nov 30. At that point take the top 10% from each category and give them an entry. Whatever spots remain get drawn by lottery from the groups. Qualifying stays an important, even re-emphasized, part of the process, the BAA still gets to appeal to everyone and the arbitrariness of who can be at the computer and type fastest gets removed.

that idea is okay but courses are not nearly equal. I'd have a set A standard so people know what time they have to run to get an automatic entry. Then the remaining spots can be filled with a lottery system for those who have met the qualifying standard.