Would Boston Marathon fill up if only BQs could run for charity

Why do you feel that Boston can't be about "quality running" AND charity at the same time? The first wave has plenty of good runners. Latter waves, not so much. Charity runners are at the very back. They tend to be very slow. Who cares?

If you were edged out, why don't YOU run for a charity? Or work harder? Don't try to sh*t on people who are bringing in thousands of dollars each for various causes. Charity fundraising is a total pain. They might not be good runners but they have to work hard in other ways.

not shitting on it at all, I'm asking if Boston could still fill their race and charity spots with qualifiers. NOT asking for a charity reduction. I just raised money for MMRF to run NYC so I have no problem with that approach

Less than 3,000 people were denied entry due to qualifying time but not fast enough.

http://www.baa.org/news-and-press/news-listing/2016/september/2017-boston-marathon-qualifier-acceptances.aspx

If you want to run boston as a qualifier run 2 minutes faster, if you want to just run boston as a charity person there are plenty of spots for that. Here you go, the red cross is accepting applications:

http://american.redcross.org/site/Calendar?id=110093&view=Detail

There's no reason to limit who can raise money for charity. Not sure why your proposed approach would help anyone since qualified runners can still sign up to run for charity. If the qualifying time is actually lower than it was 5 years ago or 1 year ago...what is the basis for your argument that Boston isn't about "quality running" anymore? Sounds more quality than it used to be to me.

The Boston Marathon field is comprised of 80% qualifiers and 20% non-qualifiers. Charity runners are one subset of that 20%.

This is silly. The Boston Marathon could fill to any level by adjusting the qualifying times.

> How can Boston be about quality running again?

A 30 year old guy who qualifies at 3:02 adds nothing of value to the race and provides no increase in quality. That runner has no impact whatsoever on the race outcome, or anything else for that matter.

A 30 year old guy who runs a 3:50 and raises $5000 for cancer research does.

People actually care that the race raises a lot of money for charity. There are people who are inspired by that. Who the heck is going to be inspired by a nondescript guy who finishes in the middle of a similarly nondescript pack?

The only people who look down on charity runners are guys who fear that the boston marathon jacket might be cheapened by the fact the someone slower gets to wear one too. I'm certain that the guys who are truly fast and competitive aren't bothered by a guy running a 3:02.

barelyBQ wrote:

How can Boston be about quality running again?

A: Wave One

As demonstrated on the posers thread, people are VERY defensive about raping off the backs of charity to get their unqualified selves in.

It's completely off limits to question this.

Let me axe you a question wrote:

The Boston Marathon field is comprised of 80% qualifiers and 20% non-qualifiers. Charity runners are one subset of that 20%.

Besides charity runners, what are the other subsets of the 20% non-qualified runners?

So only charity and elites?

I honestly don't know wrote:

Let me axe you a question wrote:

The Boston Marathon field is comprised of 80% qualifiers and 20% non-qualifiers. Charity runners are one subset of that 20%.

Besides charity runners, what are the other subsets of the 20% non-qualified runners?

It's about 10% charity runners. The rest include bought entry numbers purchased from foreign tour operators and complementary allotted to organizers, sponsors, vendors, licensees, consultants, and municipal officials.

Citizen Runner wrote:

I honestly don't know wrote:

Besides charity runners, what are the other subsets of the 20% non-qualified runners?

It's about 10% charity runners. The rest include bought entry numbers purchased from foreign tour operators and complementary allotted to organizers, sponsors, vendors, licensees, consultants, and municipal officials.

http://archive.boston.com/sports/marathon/articles/2011/02/17/marathon_qualifying_is_revised/

and not all of that 10% given to others are not-qualified. twice i ran on a club pass and had qualified. i just didn't qualify before the october fill date, i think both were philly qualifiers. so even a portion of those 20% are still reasonable runners. (see i didn't say fast, just reasonable :-) )

barelyBQ wrote:

If charity spots in Boston were available only for qualified runners would the race reach 30,000 runners? (denied qualifiers would have to raise the money)What if those charity spots were reserved for BQs until a certain date and then open to the public? How can Boston be about quality running again?

So you didn't get in.