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

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.

Why would they need to guarantee a BQ-10?

Seriously mate? wrote:

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

Plan on next Wednesday morning. Anything earlier would be a pleasant but unexpected surprise.

Percy C 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.

Why would they need to guarantee a BQ-10?

So, the most qualified gain entry into the race. Boston accepted 818 less last year than the year before, so they could accept more charity runners. This resulted in a $3.6M increase in the amount earned for charities.

I'm all for raising money for charities, but if the number of charity runners continue to increase, and the race stays capped at 30,000 runners, there will be less room for qualified runners.

In the history of the race, Boston has only taken more time qualified runners 3 times than it did last year. 117 times it took fewer than last year.

I heard 2:03

I heard 2:03

BQ Math wrote:

In the history of the race, Boston has only taken more time qualified runners 3 times than it did last year. 117 times it took fewer than last year.

Agreed. I'm guessing the 3 times were:

(1) 100th anniversary,

(2) 2014 to accomodate those who were prevented from finishing in 2013, and

(3) 2016 when they had the greatest number of qualified enterants of 28,594.

(1) and (2) show that the course can accomodate more than 30K runners, so there is no need to cap the race at 30K.

(3) In general, the number of qualified entrants has been increasing over the last decade along with the number of qualified entrants accepted into the race. This trend stopped for the 2017 race, where they accepted 818 less applicants than the 2016 race to allow in more charity runners.

Maybe they should cap the number of charity runners or increase the amount of funds that need to be raised or both, rather than cap the number of qualified runners. If they keep allowing 818 more charity runners into the race each year for the next 6 years, the qualified runners would all have to beat the BQ standard by 5 minutes or more.

This could put the race out of the reach of many runners, causing it to no longer be a goal for them. Ironically, if the race becomes more of a charity fest, than a race between the most qualified runners, the race will also lose appeal to the charity runners, since it'll just be another walk-a-thon.

Thus, I think the BAA needs to guarantee that qualified runners get into the race, so the race doesn't lose its appeal for everyone.

They didn't take 818 more charity runners. There were 667 less people total accepted into the race last year. There were 30,074 last year and they've made clear they want the race capped at 30,000. That means there were 151 more runners that were a combination of charity, sponsorship bibs, special invites, and local running club bibs passed out last year when compared to the year before. A large chuck of that 151 may be attributable to 261 Fearless which was a onetime event.

In, subject to review. Masters runner and was well under the Q time for an open runner. However, if there were some sort of decency clause and anyone from LRC or associated with this shxt hole I'd be banned for life!

BQ Math wrote:

A large chuck of that 151 may be attributable to 261 Fearless which was a onetime event.

Bingo. Kathy Switzer glommed 125 race bibs this past April. She really knows how to throw her weight around.

Used to be Rono wrote:

BQ Math wrote:

A large chuck of that 151 may be attributable to 261 Fearless which was a onetime event.

Bingo. Kathy Switzer glommed 125 race bibs this past April. She really knows how to throw her weight around.

I was in her corral last year and immediately recognized her. When the race started I ran up beside her and stuck my hand out, playing like I was going after her bib. She shot me a really dirty look and her running mates immediately swarmed around me, like bees protecting the queen. I just shrugged my shoulders. People are strange.

How much trouble would I have been in if I tore Kathy Switzer's bib off during last year's race?

All the right answers wrote:

Used to be Rono wrote:

Bingo. Kathy Switzer glommed 125 race bibs this past April. She really knows how to throw her weight around.

I was in her corral last year and immediately recognized her. When the race started I ran up beside her and stuck my hand out, playing like I was going after her bib. She shot me a really dirty look and her running mates immediately swarmed around me, like bees protecting the queen. I just shrugged my shoulders. People are strange.

How much trouble would I have been in if I tore Kathy Switzer's bib off during last year's race?

If you really did this you are pretty stupid.

All the right answers wrote:

Used to be Rono wrote:

Bingo. Kathy Switzer glommed 125 race bibs this past April. She really knows how to throw her weight around.

I was in her corral last year and immediately recognized her. When the race started I ran up beside her and stuck my hand out, playing like I was going after her bib. She shot me a really dirty look and her running mates immediately swarmed around me, like bees protecting the queen. I just shrugged my shoulders. People are strange.

All the right answers wrote:

Used to be Rono wrote:

Bingo. Kathy Switzer glommed 125 race bibs this past April. She really knows how to throw her weight around.

I was in her corral last year and immediately recognized her. When the race started I ran up beside her and stuck my hand out, playing like I was going after her bib. She shot me a really dirty look and her running mates immediately swarmed around me, like bees protecting the queen. I just shrugged my shoulders. People are strange.

How much trouble would I have been in if I tore Kathy Switzer's bib off during last year's race?

Not cool sonny boy, if it wasn't for her, women wouldn't be allowed to run the marathon.

Hounddogharrier wrote:

All the right answers wrote:

I was in her corral last year and immediately recognized her. When the race started I ran up beside her and stuck my hand out, playing like I was going after her bib. She shot me a really dirty look and her running mates immediately swarmed around me, like bees protecting the queen. I just shrugged my shoulders. People are strange.

How much trouble would I have been in if I tore Kathy Switzer's bib off during last year's race?

Not cool sonny boy, if it wasn't for her, women wouldn't be allowed to run the marathon.

BQ Math wrote:

They didn't take 818 more charity runners. There were 667 less people total accepted into the race last year. There were 30,074 last year and they've made clear they want the race capped at 30,000. That means there were 151 more runners that were a combination of charity, sponsorship bibs, special invites, and local running club bibs passed out last year when compared to the year before. A large chuck of that 151 may be attributable to 261 Fearless which was a onetime event.

Not trying to argue here, just trying to follow your math.

The BAA press release states there were 24,032 qualified runners accepted for the 2016 race, but there were only 23,214 accepted for the 2017 race. So, there were 818 (24,032 - 23,214) less accepted.

If there were 30,074 last year (do you mean the 2016 race?), I understand why they would accept 74 less (30,074 - 30,000) if they wanted a true cap of 30,000. So, 74 of the 818 runners were excluded to reduce the cap to 30,000. This leaves 744 runners (818 - 74) who were excluded for other reasons.

If 151 runners were given bibs for 261 Fearless, charity, sponsorship bibs, special invites, and local running club bibs, this would leave 593 qualified runners (744 - 151), who were excluded for other reasons. What happened with these 593 bibs?

Another way of looking at this is if they wanted to reduce the cap by 74 and give out 151 bibs to the above, why did they reduce the number of qualifiers by 818 rather than by 225 (74 + 151)?

Harry Trask was in the right place at the right time thus making Switzer a fortune. But if you were to pick who made women's marathoning take off, the better choice might be Fred Lebow, Patrick Burns and Nina Kuscsik.

https://rw.runnersworld.com/selects/sole-sisters.html

2016 race 30741 entries

2017 race 30074 entries

Oh yeah. '72 was quite a year for Nina Kuscsik. That April she became the first woman to officially run & complete the Boston Marathon.

http://www.dawnsbrain.com/petie/words/images/crown.jpg