Any guesses as to what the 2018 Boston Marathon cutoff time will be?

brickyard wrote:

Gregmacd wrote:

There's a real limit on how fast people can run. Otherwise everybody would have qualified for New York and the Olympic trials. Making it faster for everyone could make the number of entrants too small.

The two-tier system guarantees the fastest runners will get in, and the second fastest still have a chance.

Which is exactly what there is now.

Except, the opposite. Because no one knows how fast we need to run to BQ, which is the cause of much anxiety and the whole point of this forum.

Why are so many still unconfirmed?

https://twitter.com/bostonmarathon/status/910287718168526854

They are making the BQers with -26:00 as nervous as -2:00.

Baamar2018 wrote:

Doesn't matter brah, i am in the elite corral with my 2:22:02.

No need to worry about those damn ridiculous slow runners trying to break 3 hours.

Just run damn faster, and dont worry about time. You people act like boston gives you all 1 million dollars if u qualfy get over it.

Thank you. I miss the 2000s, when this type of poster was the norm, not the exception. It seems it went downhill about the time the Rossi thread took off.

I'm in as well wrote:

Baamar2018 wrote:

Doesn't matter brah, i am in the elite corral with my 2:22:02.

No need to worry about those damn ridiculous slow runners trying to break 3 hours.

Just run damn faster, and dont worry about time. You people act like boston gives you all 1 million dollars if u qualfy get over it.

Thank you. I miss the 2000s, when this type of poster was the norm, not the exception. It seems it went downhill about the time the Rossi thread took off.

That dude's a real runner, but he's not in. No confirmation. His referenceID holds his entry.

2:22:02? That's rat sh$t. Won't even get you into a lousy loop course in west side LA during a heat wave.

I sent my above suggestion to tk(at)baa.org and received the following response:

"Thanks Greg, for writing. A good idea and we understand the disappointment for those who qualify, but perhaps not by enough time.

We won’t be able to raise the field size in the coming years, but you bring up a good concept. In three recent years, the cut off time has exceeded two minutes, (2:13 in 2012, 2:28 in 2016, and 2:09 last year).

We appreciate the thought, and thanks again for writing to us.

Best,

T.K. Skenderian

Director of Communications

Boston Athletic Association"

In response to the above, I sent the following email to BAA:

"What about a guaranteed entry for those that exceeded the BQ time by 3, 4, or 5 minutes? That would relieve a lot of anxiety for those faster runners."

I'll update this once I hear back

I don't like it, it's guaranteed if you run BQ-5 minutes now.

And furthermore, I hope they don't waste time on this when they still need to verify week 1 runners!!! Maybe they can discuss changes next month.

Some BQ-3s aren't getting in this year. There are still a ton of first week apps that haven't been accepted .

tired of waiting wrote:

I don't like it, it's guaranteed if you run BQ-5 minutes now.

And furthermore, I hope they don't waste time on this when they still need to verify week 1 runners!!! Maybe they can discuss changes next month.

It's assumed that you'll get in, if you run BQ-5 minutes now, but it's not guaranteed. If it was guaranteed the BAA would state the following on their website: "RUNNING MORE THAN 5 MINUTES FASTER THAN ONE'S QUALIFYING STANDARD SHALL GUARANTEE ENTRY." Which they don't.

The BAA does not want to do the work of having to increase their field size if too many people enter that exceed the BQ by 5 minutes. Instead, they pass all of the anxiety on to us, by using us as pawns to fill their field. I'd like to see some of this stress passed back to the BAA by having them take a stance. Right now we have to put up with their antics, so they don't have to be responsible for anything. I don't like being their tool.

gregmacd wrote:

Right now we have to put up with their antics, so they don't have to be responsible for anything. I don't like being their tool.

You obviously don't like the way the Boston Marathon is run. Why don't you choose a different race that will make you less whiny.

gregmacd wrote:

[quote]tired of waiting wrote:

The BAA does not want to do the work of having to increase their field size if too many people enter that exceed the BQ by 5 minutes.

Last year 2,957 runners were denied bibs. I think most, if not, all would have been accepted had the BAA simply revised this entry provision:

"The qualifying times below are based upon each athlete's age on the date of the 2017 Boston Marathon"

to this:

"The qualifying times below are based upon each athlete's age on the date of their qualifying race."

Is is guaranteed if I run BQ-10?

BQ Math wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

Right now we have to put up with their antics, so they don't have to be responsible for anything. I don't like being their tool.

You obviously don't like the way the Boston Marathon is run. Why don't you choose a different race that will make you less whiny.

Good point. I ran Boston twice before when you only had to run a qualifying time to get in. Their new system makes the race less desireable.

long time listeneer wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

It's assumed that you'll get in, if you run BQ-5 minutes now, but it's not guaranteed. If it was guaranteed the BAA would state the following on their website: "RUNNING MORE THAN 5 MINUTES FASTER THAN ONE'S QUALIFYING STANDARD SHALL GUARANTEE ENTRY." Which they don't.

The BAA does not want to do the work of having to increase their field size if too many people enter that exceed the BQ by 5 minutes. Instead, they pass all of the anxiety on to us, by using us as pawns to fill their field. I'd like to see some of this stress passed back to the BAA by having them take a stance. Right now we have to put up with their antics, so they don't have to be responsible for anything. I don't like being their tool.

Is is guaranteed if I run BQ-10?

No. Nothing is guaranteed. I think it would be very little risk for the BAA to guarantee a BQ-10, but they don't.

Change @ Park wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

[quote]tired of waiting wrote:

The BAA does not want to do the work of having to increase their field size if too many people enter that exceed the BQ by 5 minutes.

Last year 2,957 runners were denied bibs. I think most, if not, all would have been accepted had the BAA simply revised this entry provision:

"The qualifying times below are based upon each athlete's age on the date of the 2017 Boston Marathon"

to this:

"The qualifying times below are based upon each athlete's age on the date of their qualifying race."

That may work, since it would be similar to making all of the qualifying times faster. However, I doubt the BAA would want to run the risk that every last bib isn't sold.

I like the 2 tier system better. It guarantees entries for the fastest. New York does this already by stating "All applicants who meet the time standards at the following NYRR races in 2017 will be eligible for guaranteed entry in 2018" see

gregmacd wrote:

long time listeneer wrote:

Is is guaranteed if I run BQ-10?

No. Nothing is guaranteed. I think it would be very little risk for the BAA to guarantee a BQ-10, but they don't.

Want to wager?

It guaranteed in.

happened and was guaranteed to happen are not the same thing

Pffft wrote:

gregmacd wrote:

No. Nothing is guaranteed. I think it would be very little risk for the BAA to guarantee a BQ-10, but they don't.

It guaranteed in.

Nope, nothing is guaranteed. Per BAA: "All qualifying times are subject to review and verification."

How long does it usually take for notification of the cutoff time? First year applying so kind of a newb to this.