Is there a better way to admit Boston Marathon entrants?

London used to have a system where if you failed in the ballot three years in a row, you'd be guaranteed a place the next time. The event has become so popular now that they got rid of that system.

I'm of the opinion that it's good to have races that reward amateur excellence. The Boston qualifying times, and the London Good For Age times, are achievable, but not easy. Most people who attain them will have to put in consistent work over several years. Or they are people for whom running is a major part of their lifestyle. I'm currently around 25 minutes under the BQ and London GFA times, but I made some sacrifices to be in shape to get to that point. It's nice that you can get rewarded to some degree for taking running seriously as an amateur.

So, rather than trying to change the system, try to get faster. Put in more miles, work it out with your family if you can, do a longer training block, etc. If that doesn't get you in, then it's tough luck, sometimes you just have to accept that this thing that you want wasn't meant for you.

Sure, if you want a race full of older runners who's main qualification is they have lots of disposable income to throw away. That would surely kill the allure of Boston and bring the number of entries down after a couple years too .

Running in college, BQ was so easy I didn't respect it. After, no team to train with, I got slow and never did it. I wish I had, even though it's a bit of an illusion.

I still could, I just need to declare non-binary. Then I can run the women's standard in a skirt.

Six downvotes against the late 30s male being the hardest or not being that hard with the right training?

I didn’t mean to say it’s easy, because it is definitely not. It’s just not unreachable or OTQ hard is what I meant to say. And it’s probably hardest for the 34 year old male. I’ve slowed a decent amount, but not by 20 minutes in the last 12 years (I’m 46). Maybe it will be closer to even when I’m 49, but I’m guessing still easier than 2:54 at age 34.

This.
How can someone make the argument that the slower runners should be prioritized over faster ones?

You can make the case that the extreme downhill courses shouldn’t be considered. Maybe if the course has more elevation drop than Boston it doesn’t count.

“it’s not fair because it’s my turn” just sounds childish.

I think there are probably a few alternatives that are regularly used in the ultra world where most US races have restrictions on entrants. I dont think any of these would be perfect, but they exist on a smaller scale so have been tested.

Basic lottery system for qualifiers. Everyone gets a ticket that has the qualifying standard, and there is a drawing. Each year you do not get in, you get to keep your previous year's ticket plus 1 more (or perhaps exponentially more depending on the ratio of people to get in vs not getting in). This is basically how Western States operates.

There could be separate categories for finishers vs non-finishers. Each category would have some allotment of spots. The spots would then fill based on a lottery drawing of those with the standard. The drawings for the finishers and non-finishers would be separate of course. Again, more tickets added each year you do not get in. Hard Rock does this but with categories for 5 time finishers, never drawn, and people in-between.

It has already been stated that increasing the entry fee would eliminate a large amount of applicants just using economic principles.

Or it could just stay the same. Which is what will happen.

Generally whenever I see these “race organiser should do this to make it better”, it’s only more fair for the person suggesting it. Seems to be absolutely the case here too.

It’s the BAA’s rules, why should they change them? If anything, they could lower the standards across the board and probably still fill the race.

I ran 1:15 off 30 mpw and I'm more talented at the short distances. Someone with a modicum of talent who runs 60-70 mpw should be able to run 2:40.

I like this idea a lot and feel it should be extended.

Someone like Fauble should have been given the black cactus’s spot in Tokyo.

Why let Abdi run yet another Olympics when Faubs hasn’t ever qualified?

What makes Boston so special to hobby joggers is that you have to qualify to get in(other than charity). The reason chicago and NYC aren't as prestigious or well known in the hobby jogger world is that anyone can get in. You have to earn your way into Boston. By lowering the standard to anything but merit, they would diminish what makes the race what it is.

Boston should have two marathons. One in the fall for those that didn’t get into the race. Great economic boom, plus you could also let people buy their way into this race. Just need to rename original to The Boston Marathon.

Most people are not runners and have no idea what the cutoffs are or even that there are cutoffs, and even if told wouldn’t know what that cutoff means in terms of hardness. There isn’t a compelling reason for the race organizers to significantly relax the cutoff or even just allow anyone who wants to run to be able to pay the fee and run. The only cost would be to keep the course reserved for the marathon for longer until the last finisher finishes. They would likely make much more in fees.

I don’t care to run it or even run marathons at all, so I’m not personally vested one way or the other.

I hadn't seen that suggestion until this year, but seems it's the new cool thing to complain about with Boston's qualifying standards. The top comment on their Instagram post also suggests first-time qualifiers get guaranteed entry, and that comment has over 1400 likes.

I can't understand the self-entitlement that comes with thinking Boston "owes" runners the "opportunity to experience it." They don't owe any runner anything. And it's not repeat runners' fault that they are faster than you.

Of course, these are the same people who would wear their medal everywhere for the following week, and their jacket for the following month. Get over yourself.

I was just getting ready to post something similar. The Marathon brings in $200 million to the local economy. More participants mean more money, but the time cut offs are to keep the participation to a manageable level for the city. Currently, 29,000 participants ran the most recent marathon.

I think a better approach would be to have two marathons on consecutive weekends... the current marathon on Monday and the 2nd marathon the following Saturday or Sunday (or vice versa on the dates).

There are multiple ways to do this. 1) A fast field and an all comers race the next weekend 2) A men's/non-binary race and a women's race 3) A first come first served approach that cuts off entry into either race at 30,000 (or whatever number is chosen).

I was prepared to read the initial quote the other way around... someone who has made Boston the centerpiece of their running life should be allowed to run it each year (assuming they qualify)

Whereas, the runners who just are bucket list, one-and-done type people have less weight in my eyes. They just want to "say they've done it."

I am leaning towards the opposite of what the OP wanted because for some people Boston is "who they are." Let them have that...

For the person who doesn't get in, he/she can still tell his co-workers that he/she hit the BQ. Maybe they could sell BQ t-shirts for anyone who hits the time cut-off?

p.s. I don't run Boston and don't want to run Boston (I hate crowds and hate "waiting to start"). So I don't have a dog in this fight, personally.

This option already exists. It's called, you join a charity team and write them a personal check for $10,000. The race just wouldn't be the same though if it was all middle-age investment bankers jogging 5 hours.

The thing is, when you are young and it is easy to run sub-3, you don't care about Boston.

But then, when you are a Masters runners with ten half-healed injuries and can't touch your toes, all your co-workers are asking you each year, "Are you doing Boston?" and you think, I'd like to give it a shot.

So you take your injured dad-bod out for a 10 miler at 6:45 pace and realize it feels like an all-out workout. Oof.

Exactly. Instead of rewarding performance (i.e., the whole point of the standards and the event itself), you are rewarding people with more money.

Ironman events charge a ton. They have limits and almost always sell out. Ironman FL is priced at $849.

This is wrong: "we never __ever__ question whether that is the right result"? Every year that Boston announces some qualifiers won't be admitted, people complain and question the system.

That aside, the post asks a reasonable question. If Boston has to turn away some number of qualified registrants every year, should they give some consideration to who's run it before ... as opposed to just prioritizing faster runners? I have 2 thoughts beyond the obvious "it's BAA's race and they can do what they want."

1. No. The post assumes that if you have a BQ time, you're either entitled to run the race, or you're maybe equally entitled as all the other BQ'ers. You're not. Boston is unique as a major marathon that admits most of the field based on how fast they run. Boston has a simple rule and I kind of like it. If you get turned away as a qualifier, it always means that you didn't run fast enough. That's it. Train more. Run faster. And if that's not feasible, then either go the charity route or accept that one reason running Boston as a qualifier is impressive is that it's difficult. If there are more qualified registrants than spaces available, one way of looking at it is that the BQ standard is too easy.

2. If you wanted to give some consideration to BQers who've never run Boston, how would you do it? Would you make an extra route to entry for people who: (a) qualify, (b) have never run Boston before, and maybe (c) have been turned away 2 or 3 times before for qualifying, but not by enough? I'd support that, I think. Multiple years registering with BQs shows something that distinguishes you from the field of marginal qualifiers.