2020 Boston Marathon Cut Off Predictions

Maker Mark wrote:

BQ Cutoff Watch wrote:

Looking through the FindMyMarathon numbers offered up by Alex1610, and using their figures of US Marathons, the cutoff would be about 3:20. There are a few factors that could swing that each direction.

Make it tougher:

1. The demand for the WMM 6-star medal will continue to make the race draw more entries, especially international runners that otherwise wouldn't be here.

Make it easier:

1. Last year there were 2 Berlin Marathons that fell into the Boston window. This year there is just one which lowers the total BQ numbers from a fast course.

3. Mentioned here by 5KPace, the US Olympic Trials could gift back some time.

I guessed 3:18 on the FindMyMarathon contest. 3:20 might get you second place though. ;-)

https://findmymarathon.com/boston-marathon-cut-off-prediction-contest.php

3:xx???? WTF? It was barely that last year.

It’ll be less than minute, boys. Trust me on this?

Ottawa Runner wrote:

why is Boston so F'ed up wrote:

Why do New York and Chicago not have these issues? They have automatic qualifying times and they all get in? Am I correct?

Chicago has almost the same qualifying times as Boston whereas NYC's qualifying times are just a smidge tougher (with a small number of gender/age exceptions). But what seems to be the difference is that both Chicago and NYC have way bigger fields than Boston so it appears that everybody who qualifies gets into those two and the balance go to a lottery system for those who haven't necessarily qualified at all. Boston lacks this last feature. I have been told that this is because downtown Boston can only handle so many finishers, spectators, officials, etc. where the Boston marathon finishes whereas both NYC and Chicago finish in large parks.

I have heard that is is the start in Hopkinton (a small town) is the limiting factor. Having been there I think this is correct.

Charlesvdw wrote:

Ottawa Runner wrote:

Chicago has almost the same qualifying times as Boston whereas NYC's qualifying times are just a smidge tougher (with a small number of gender/age exceptions). But what seems to be the difference is that both Chicago and NYC have way bigger fields than Boston so it appears that everybody who qualifies gets into those two and the balance go to a lottery system for those who haven't necessarily qualified at all. Boston lacks this last feature. I have been told that this is because downtown Boston can only handle so many finishers, spectators, officials, etc. where the Boston marathon finishes whereas both NYC and Chicago finish in large parks.

I have heard that is is the start in Hopkinton (a small town) is the limiting factor. Having been there I think this is correct.

Plus the two lane roads a large portion of the course in on.

To get 40-50K they would need more waves which would mean some waves wouldn't start until after noon (2 more waves). Towns wouldn't want this and BAA probably couldn't afford to pay what they would want.

Charlesvdw wrote:

I have heard that is is the start in Hopkinton (a small town) is the limiting factor. Having been there I think this is correct.

1996 has I believe 39,000+ starters and 38,000+ finishers. Why don't they up the limit to 39,000 and take ALL the qualifiers?

Charlesvdw wrote:

Ottawa Runner wrote:

Chicago has almost the same qualifying times as Boston whereas NYC's qualifying times are just a smidge tougher (with a small number of gender/age exceptions). But what seems to be the difference is that both Chicago and NYC have way bigger fields than Boston so it appears that everybody who qualifies gets into those two and the balance go to a lottery system for those who haven't necessarily qualified at all. Boston lacks this last feature. I have been told that this is because downtown Boston can only handle so many finishers, spectators, officials, etc. where the Boston marathon finishes whereas both NYC and Chicago finish in large parks.

I have heard that is is the start in Hopkinton (a small town) is the limiting factor. Having been there I think this is correct.

It appears that you may be right. Here's a NYT piece about the race that quotes a spokesperson from the BAA: The reason for the qualifying times, Mr. Chalufour said, is the peculiar logistics of that race. The Boston Marathon is the only big-city marathon that starts on a narrow road in a small town, Hopkinton, Mass. There is just not room for a huge field.

Of course, they now have a staggered start - which has helped them grow the field somewhat.

As of September 4, BAA hasn't announced the field size.

Is it a positive feeling that field size hasn’t been determined yet?

I live not too far from you and so I run in plenty cold weather. But I can assure you that at 6am on a winter's day there's next to nobody on the trail compared to the middle of summer. And obviously those who run Boston had to train in the winter or summer depending on where you are - but so many complain about the race itself - my time wasn't good because - it was a hot year, it was a cold year etc. as if they have to explain to me why they ran a 4 hr marathon instead of a 3:30 etc. They don't just accept that was the conditions and that's all they could do.

Sub 2:45 is a common impressionable number. My PR has nothing to do with it. A sub 2:45 is a women's OTQ, it gets you in to races like Berlin (as a time qualifier), it used to be NYCM's time qualifier. Make it the Fukuoka time of sub 2:35 then.

For the 2018 race, they announced the field size on September 6. Perhaps they do have some wiggle room to work with this year. That would sure be beneficial to some (many?) of those that will be left out otherwise.

Interesting take wrote:

For the 2018 race, they announced the field size on September 6. Perhaps they do have some wiggle room to work with this year. That would sure be beneficial to some (many?) of those that will be left out otherwise.

Looks like they announced the field size on Sept 4th in 2018 (for the 2019 race). This was 6 days before the Registration opened up. We're now 4 days before registration and no announcement today. I shot a message to the BAA 3 days ago about the field size and they responded with "We will announce the field size in the coming days"....

Personally, it feels like they're analyzing the racing data over the last year and trying to adjust as much as possible to avoid shutting out another 5-7k runners like they did last year. I'm sure they have to do this in partnership with Hopkinton and other cities along the route. Wish they would move up the start time by 30 minutes and add another small Wave to accommodate another 5,000 runners. Fact of the matter is that the 5 minute reductions flat across each age/gender wasn't the right decision. Needed to be more calculated than that.

Either way, i wouldn't be totally shocked if they lowered the standards AGAIN for 2021 in an effort to get back down to 30k runners.

IMO, the issue with the Boston marathon is deciding on who they want to cater to. For a competitive marathoner which I will define as sub 3:10 for women and sub 2:50 for men, the Boston marathon is difficult to deal with in terms of entering, seeding and the start logistics. A lot of competitive marathoners don't want to decide on a marathon a year in advance, which is required for entry in Boston. And then when these athletes run easy to qualify, they are placed in the wrong corral and it is a nightmare to get placed in the proper corral. To give you an example, I knew of a runner who ran a 3:03 to qualify (On the last day to qualify in Sept.) as a master's male and literally walked/jogged the last 6 miles of the marathon to qualify to be able to contribute to his XC club team and not be trashed. He then ran a 73 min half marathon in early March (While training for the race) and then was placed in corral 6. He was capable of running in the mid 2:30's for the marathon based on workouts and the half marathon and it was VERY DIFFICULT to get him reseeded. And then there is the start logistics which I won't go into along with having 2 different starts for the men's race 2 min apart.

Contrast this experience with the way Chicago does things and you can see why competitive runners are choosing this race. They set a competitive standard for the American Development Program (ADP), which is their sub-elite field. The standards are Sub 71 min half (Sub 2:31 for marathon) for open men, Sub 73 min half (Sub 2:41 for marathon) for masters men, Sub 81 min half (Sub 3:01 for marathon) for open Women, and Sub 85 min half (Sub 3:13 for marathon) for master's women. This allows you to register anytime you want up until Sept or when the limit of 300 runners is reached (It filled in May of this year versus August in 2018). On raceday, you get access to a tent to store your warmups along with sharing the warmup track with the elite field. And the use of numerous portable toilets before lining up approx. 10 min before the start. They also have one mass start and politely ask the sub elite men to be cooperative with staying out of the way of the elite women's race.

Being a part of one of the largest competitive running clubs in the country, I can report that Boston has taken a hit to it's reputation for how it treats competitive marathoners versus Chicago. The club I am talking about has placed 22 runners (Out of 300 total) in the American Development Program for this year's Chicago Marathon with 7 of those having a shot at the Trials standard. Take a guess how many are interested in going to Boston next year? I don't know if Boston cares, but I bet the number of sub 2:45 marathoners is going to decline as they show they don't care about them.

Competitive Running Club wrote:

I don't know if Boston cares, but I bet the number of sub 2:45 marathoners is going to decline as they show they don't care about them.

Let's look at 2018 Chicago and 2019 Boston to test your theory

Chicago had a bigger field and better weather

Chicago sub 2:45 (male and female combined) 359 finishers

Boston sub 2:45 (male and female combined) 648 finishers

It appears the sub 2:45's would much rather go to Boston.

Facts Matter wrote:

Competitive Running Club wrote:

I don't know if Boston cares, but I bet the number of sub 2:45 marathoners is going to decline as they show they don't care about them.

Let's look at 2018 Chicago and 2019 Boston to test your theory

Chicago had a bigger field and better weather

Chicago sub 2:45 (male and female combined) 359 finishers

Boston sub 2:45 (male and female combined) 648 finishers

It appears the sub 2:45's would much rather go to Boston.

Lol that guy is full of it. Nice post.

What was BAA's rationale for putting him in Corral 6? I'm assuming that's a really far back corral.

I'm a Clevelander, born and bred and proud of my hometown.

But I looked at that marathon course and am glad I'm in Central Ohio. Cbus seems much flatter and faster and not boring. CLE seems to be an out and back basically.

The trend is the key and the point. One data point doesn't show a trend and gain/loss of competitive runners. The trend this year is clear by Chicago filling the ADP program in May.

They put him in corral 6 because they simply use marathon times to seed the field while it takes a near act of God to appeal and get someone reseeded based on additional info like a 73 min half. Hence why Chicago has it right with the ADP program and everyone running the standard gets to start upfront.

That your handle is “Competitive Running Club” says all that I need to know about you, even before reading your bad take.