2020 Boston Marathon Cut Off Predictions

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Not sure how they can fix it? Are a lot of people repeat racers? Would it be unfair to block people who aren't hitting a tougher standard ~5 or 10 mins under the QS from taking up spots many consecutive years? Could they lower the fund-raising requirements for those who qualify but don't get in to give a more realistic second route into the field? Favor first-time entrants under the standards (unfair, but realistically Boston is a bucket list thing for most runners)?

Probably none of these are good solutions. Just thinking out loud. I know I'm going to be annoyed if I run 2:57 something, and don't get in as mid-40s guy/gal squeaks in with a 3:16/3:44 to run his/her 15th straight Boston or something. Maybe it's totally fair, but I'd feel like the opportunity would mean more to me.

Wouldn't he/she be in automatically if it was his/her 15th straight Boston?

("Forget it. He's rolling.")

Yeah I was unaware of that streaking rule...

Knowing that it's completely self-serving: I'd like if you hit the standard and are a first-timer you get a clearer path in...

As opposed to people maybe edging you out by a pretty insignificant amount potentially from totally different (and somewhat arbitrary) standards to run their 2nd-9th Boston. I'm sure it means a lot to them and all that, but look are we trying to allow as many qualified people as possible to experience the Boston Marathon or just have it be the most "fair" with age-grading and all that that makes no regard to how many Bostons you've run etc.

I'm sure if they did it that way some would be outraged, and I understand if I were in the shoes of someone who was trying to get their fourth Boston and I missed out due to some less "qualified" first-timers I'd be upset. I also realize that in many things in life the first time you land something is just sweeter and missing out on a second one just doesn't carry the same sting. I am a Boston sports fan, I know this and am honest about it ha.

NotExactlyBro wrote:

BAA increased the field size 1,500. Looking at the numbers ~1,000 more qualifiers were accepted. I wonder what the cut-off would be without the increase? Guessing somewhere between 2:00-2:30.

3161 qualifiers rejected with a 1:39 cutoff = 31.93 qualifiers per second.

Last year accepted 23,074 qualifiers. With this year's 27,288 applicants that would mean 4214 rejected. Divided by 31.93 qualifiers per second gives us a 2:12 cutoff.

I would have squeaked in by just 10 seconds in that case!

What if the Boston Athletic Association were to decide they would not recognize qualifying times submitted from courses with net downhill drops greater than 500'?

Would that significantly reduce the qualifying field size to where all qualifying times submitted (from eligible courses) got in the race?

For that matter, could an extreme downhill marathon like a Revel event, St George etc continue to be popular and operate if it were relegated to non-qualifying race status?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Probably none of these are good solutions. Just thinking out loud. I know I'm going to be annoyed if I run 2:57 something, and don't get in as mid-40s guy/gal squeaks in with a 3:16/3:44 to run his/her 15th straight Boston or something. Maybe it's totally fair, but I'd feel like the opportunity would mean more to me.

Try again!!! You are slow... I'm that one-year-shy-of-50 guy who can still run 2:55 marathon;) And yes, I'll be registering for the 2021 edition, again... You gotta get faster and stop complaining... Just saying...

Lol I'm impressed, but under my system, you'd make it easily because you're way under the QS.

KawauchiFTW wrote:

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Probably none of these are good solutions. Just thinking out loud. I know I'm going to be annoyed if I run 2:57 something, and don't get in as mid-40s guy/gal squeaks in with a 3:16/3:44 to run his/her 15th straight Boston or something. Maybe it's totally fair, but I'd feel like the opportunity would mean more to me.

Try again!!! You are slow... I'm that one-year-shy-of-50 guy who can still run 2:55 marathon;) And yes, I'll be registering for the 2021 edition, again... You gotta get faster and stop complaining... Just saying...

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

Lol I'm impressed, but under my system, you'd make it easily because you're way under the QS.

Thanks, appreciate;) No worries, you'll get in eventually!!!

I just got in for first time but I think this would be a good idea. I guess never having gone before I'm ignorant but I don't understand the go every year you qualify. I have to think with the cost and so many other cool places to go this is my one time for the foreseeable future that I'd go. Why keep going? I like the idea that if you want to go all the time you have a harder standard than a first timer. It would allow for more first time qualifiers and those that go all the time could turn their noses up at noobs cause they had a harder time to qualify. Win-win! It will never happen but you're a thinker!

Thanks, I mean if it's a great event (which by all accounts it is) and you're local or have good friends who are local... I get the appeal of going many times. But at some point, who are we trying to serve? Boston has great prestige because you have to earn your way in, and if you create a constantly moving target made harder and harder by repeat runners it's just counter-productive to giving as many worthy runners as possible the chance to experience the event. Yes, you can get in by running faster, but now you're pressuring people to seek out the most pancake flat courses, the most souped-up shoes etc etc. and is that really the spirit of the whole thing?

1st time wrote:

I just got in for first time but I think this would be a good idea. I guess never having gone before I'm ignorant but I don't understand the go every year you qualify. I have to think with the cost and so many other cool places to go this is my one time for the foreseeable future that I'd go. Why keep going? I like the idea that if you want to go all the time you have a harder standard than a first timer. It would allow for more first time qualifiers and those that go all the time could turn their noses up at noobs cause they had a harder time to qualify. Win-win! It will never happen but you're a thinker!

calculatingcalculator wrote:

UR Bad at Math wrote:

Try again.

you want to show me how 27,288 is more than 30,458? is that Trump math?

applications this year were 89.592% of last year's... i think 10% 'down' is close enough

https://www.baa.org/2020-boston-marathon-qualifier-acceptances-announcedhttps://www.baa.org/2019-boston-marathon-qualifier-acceptances

You're reading it wrong, chief.

One option that I would like to see (but I know won't happen).

Since the entry deadline is so early, a lot of people enter to keep Boston as a spring marathon option. And then they decide in January or February to do something else.

I'd like a second entry round in February - basically let anyone who has entered elect to withdraw from the marathon, with their entry fee donated to charity. Then those slots are open for a second round of entry.

I know this wouldn't happen because the race depends on a certain amount of no-shows, and so having this policy would result in tighter entry standards, and more people being shut out in the first round. But...it sure would be cool if they could make something similar happen. I'm entered, but if I decide in the next few months not to run it, I'd have no issue with my entry fee going to charity and my spot to someone else.

Time to guiltily sign up for a downhill race and then avoid telling people the name of the marathon

Atoning for underestimating demand!

Here's what I last predicted vs what happened:

A 20 mins + better 4,330 (overestimated by 279 applicants)

B 10-20 mins 6,192 (underestimated by 580 applicants)

C 5-10 mins 5,748 (underestimated by 1200 applicants)

D 0-5 mins 8,549 (underestimated by 497)

E 10 BM streakers 442 (underestimated by 29 applicants)

My predicted cut-off: 1:17 (underestimated by 22 seconds)

It's interesting that this year's ABC group (the "week 1 applicants") is roughly the same size of the 2017 applicant population - and this is in spite of the tougher BQ thresholds. We even had more 0-5 minute applicants this year than for the 2017 race.

I clearly underestimated growth in applications by using 10-12%.

Wow. Just wow.

And I received my acceptance email this afternoon. Congrats to the rest of you who qualified, whether or not you will be lining up at Hopkinton next year.

Ha, I run my race attempting to make 2021 in a few weeks. Hopefully I run a time that feels "safe," but with the current system who knows.

I predicted this on page 2 of this thread. Only missed by 19 seconds

AlmostBQ wrote:

What if the Boston Athletic Association were to decide they would not recognize qualifying times submitted from courses with net downhill drops greater than 500'?

Would that significantly reduce the qualifying field size to where all qualifying times submitted (from eligible courses) got in the race?

For that matter, could an extreme downhill marathon like a Revel event, St George etc continue to be popular and operate if it were relegated to non-qualifying race status?

How about not accepting ANY net downhill races. Yes, that means Boston too.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a29230214/boston-marathon-cutoff-time/?utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=socialflowTWRW&utm_source=twitter

Makes me worry for next year. Going for a BQ in a few weeks...looks like I will have to target 2:58 or faster.

Me too! Hoping for good weather - And good pacers!

Good luck!!! It'd be great to get a nice cushion this early!

I would love to see the analysis of how the cutoff would be different if courses with >500' or >1000' of drop were not accepted. Sounds hard to do though. My dream is that this analysis would report that I would have gotten in with my -51 seconds if those downhill races weren't accepted, and then I could feel righteously angry or something :D and then proceed to run 7 minutes faster on a downhill course and never complain about downhill courses again