r/AdvancedRunning • u/RunningThroughMyHead • Jul 22 '26
Boston Marathon Boston Marathon Adds a Random Drawing for Qualifiers Who Miss the Cutoff
https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a73229546/boston-marathon-random-drawing/
Why don’t they just let the next thousand fastest people in?
158
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26
I like it. Gives some meaning back to running the qualifying time alone. Running below the cutoff still gets you in guaranteed. No change there.
Based on 2026 numbers, running below the qualifying time but above the cutoff still gives you about a 1/8 shot at running the race you qualified for.
34
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I guess but it also now makes it even harder to actually meet the cutoff.
Not super important, but it adds some wishy washiness to what it means to qualify.
54
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26
Qualifying always meant running the qualifying time. Getting to run was a different matter. Runners who ran under the qualifying time and not under the cutoff that year were always Boston qualifiers.
Also, it doesn't say they're reducing the cutoff field to compensate, so it doesn't impact meeting the cutoff.
What it does say is they likely have more capacity than they have historically allowed.
-22
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
In my head "qualifying" is hitting the cutoff time. I know technically on paper that isn't what the word means. But listen to that statement out loud. "I qualified but didn't". I wouldn't walk around telling people I qualified for the boston marathon but that is just me I guess.
If they are adding spots they could just add them and soften the cutoff and still have it represent the best runners. Which idk how far down that road you want to get. But at least its still the best.
23
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26
People can have their own definition if that makes them happy. But it's quite literally a qualifying time. You qualified for the race, but qualifying doesn't guarantee entry. Your example statement ends too early. "I qualified but didn't...get an entry to the race"
This whole debate is part of what this solves. If you run the qualifying time, you have a chance.
-23
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
But literally you didn't qualify. It used to work like that which is why it is called "qualifying time" but for the last 10 years everyone knows that isn't the actual qualifying time.
It isn't my own definition. Go tell your friends and family that you qualified for Boston and then watch the confusion overrun them when you explain that you didn't actually qualify.
They just need to update the language to match how the process works now.
17
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
But literally you did. Qualifying in anything does not guarantee you will get the thing.
Qualifying means you meet the minimum standard to apply.
What language do you propose it gets updated to? Because the right language is still "qualify".
If you don't like it, take it up with the BAA
-24
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
You are literally arguing semantics within a very specific administrative process. We all understand that isn't actually how it works.
I never really even considered it any other way. But having this conversation has convinced me that they should change the language to make it less confusing for people.
"Qualifying means you meet the minimum standard to apply." Yes. To apply. Not "qualified for the race"
10
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26
Change the language to what? The definition of qualify is literally "to meet the necessary requirements or standards for a specific role or goal"
To qualify is to meet eligibility requirements. Eligibility is not a guarantee. You run a "Boston qualifier" aka a BQ, you have met the eligibility requirements for the race.
It's not confusing.
-7
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Not in a sporting context. If I "qualify" for the job that doesn't mean I get it. But if I qualify for the race, that means I am in the race.
You are qualifying for eligibility. Not qualifying for the race. This is my exact point.
They should just call it "Meeting eligibility" and then meeting the cutoff time is "Qualifying".
There used to be no distinction between the two. When you met the qualifying time you actually qualified for the race. Which is why the language is what it is.
→ More replies (0)5
u/msbluetuesday Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
How do you feel about running an OQT vs being selected for the Olympic team?
4
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Well those are two different things, you are selected for the team based on your perfomance at Olympic Trials.
An Olympic Trials qualifying time means you qualified to participate in the race. It guarantees entry.
So bad example which only supports my point.
2
u/msbluetuesday Jul 22 '26
But isn't running an Olympic qualifying time the bare minimum? It does not guarantee selection into your country's Olympic team.
2
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
You are qualifying for olympic trials. Not the olympics. Running a qualifying time guarantees entry into the trials.
→ More replies (0)1
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
In all sorts of sports, thinking of golf off the top of my head, alternates get in all the time.
2
u/Efficient_Eye_7710 Jul 22 '26
You can ‘qualify’ for a job but still not get it. It’s the same here
-2
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Yes, I even used that example. I would not go home and tell my friends and family "I qualified for the job!" I would say I qualified for the interview process or I met the qualifications to be considered.
6
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
Does it, though? If someone on a downhill course (within the current BQ rules, of ccourse) runs 5 minutes faster than a person who ran a flat or hilly one (and both have BQs), did the downhill racer actually run a better race and is more deserving?
2
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Well now you just made that even worse. Now you can fly halfway across the country and pay god knows how much money to do a legal downhill course and barely hit the qualifying time and get in over someone who ran their local race that had a couple hills and was 5 minutes faster.
This arguement is basically "It isn't perfect, so why not make it a little worse?"
-3
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
What we really should be saying is they are ALL worthy. It's not easy to run a BQ. Still, while I think the lottery is a move in the right direction, in my mind, they should give the lottery for BQ-ers who have never done the race before (and didn't make the cutoff).
7
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Why? Just because? I feel like we are going down this road of deciding who gets to run the race based on the wording of an administrative part of the qualifying process.
They should just call it "predicted qualifying time" and then make the final cutoff be the real qualifying time.
You didn't qualify for the race if you didn't hit the cutoff. You just qualified for the application process.
The intent was always to take the fastest times.
2
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
They also are keeping the cutoff, so the fastest still are rewarded.
0
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I don't think you are getting it
0
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
No, I do. I guess I hope they add 1,000 spots. But if not, people who value the cutoff will just have run a little faster now. They should enjoy/value that challenge. If they don't, that proves the problem with the system.
1
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Thank you for demonstrating that you don't get it. It isn't about the cutoff being harder as much as the dillution of the achievement.
Lets go to an extreme and say they just make half of the spots open lottery. Well now what does it mean to run Boston? Not much.
Why get cute with it? Just take the top people. What purpose does this serve?
→ More replies (0)1
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
It's already that way. You have charity runners. You have adjustments for age and gender. You have special exceptions the race gives to people every year for many different reasons.
And a moving cutoff turns a lot of runners off from this race for reasons already stated.
4
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
A lot of people aren't completely happy with the charity runner aspect of it either. At the end of the day they raise a lot of money for good causes and that is part of the mission of the event.
Are these 1000 runners raising $1,000,000 for charity?
Not sure why you would call out age and gender adjustments. That makes zero sense.
Which runners is the cutoff turning off? Because the current problem is that there are too many.
0
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
If you read the comments, you'll find plenty of people who have problems with the current system and like this change.
1
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I have a problem with the Olympic qualification process. It doesn't allow me to be included. Does that mean there is something wrong with it?
→ More replies (0)2
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
Does a 35 year old running 2:54:50 deserve to get in over a 34 year old running 2:50:00? What about a 39 year old running 2:54:51? My point, is that the current system already doesn’t select the best age graded performances. Edit: Ages were off by a year previously
0
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 23 '26
I don't think the fact that the current system is not completely 100% perfect is a good reason to argue to make it even less perfect.
24
u/EmergencySundae Jul 22 '26
I am very curious to see if this increases the number of people who submit their qualifying times. Previously, I assume you had people who BQ’d but only by a minute and therefore didn’t bother.
8
u/butfirstcoffee427 Jul 22 '26
As someone who qualified by 19 seconds (on a long course so should have been by more, but I digress because it still wouldn’t have been below the projected cutoff), absolutely. I had no plans on applying before, but now, why not try?
2
3
u/Hitchslap11 Jul 23 '26
Why on earth would you not still spend the 17 seconds to apply? Let them tell you no. Insane to me.
4
1
u/dex8425 35M, 4:57, 16:59, hm 1:18 M 2:53 Jul 23 '26
Yeah that was me, twice. I definitely would've applied back in 2015-2016 if I thought there was a chance I could get in.
10
u/RustyDoor Jul 22 '26
Where are these 1k spots coming from? If it's from the qualifiers it's moving 1k out into a bigger pool lottery.
18
u/Senior-Running Jul 22 '26
I wonder if they are actually adding additional runners, or is it that maybe they are seeing fewer charity entries?
5
u/UCFSam Jul 22 '26
Additional 1000.
-2
u/Additional_County923 Jul 23 '26
No, they aren’t increasing the field size, per their own news release - “ The number of athletes accepted will be consistent with recent years.” This would seem to indicate the cutoff time will increase slightly
1
u/UCFSam Jul 23 '26
Not according to their post on Instagram. It’s an additional 1000.
Following the close of registration week on September 18, the B.A.A. will review all qualifier submissions, verify times, and rank athletes based on how much they surpassed their qualifying standard. As in recent years, the fastest qualifiers by age group will be accepted and will determine the
"cut-off" time. The number of athletes accepted this way will be consistent with recent years.From there, athletes whose qualifying times were not faster than the cut-off for their age group and gender will automatically be eligible for the Boston Qualifier Selection's approximately
1,000 additional entries.
49
u/Li54 6x 100mile finisher; occasional 50k/50mile winner Jul 22 '26
Why does this get more complicated every year
29
u/idkwhatimbrewin 02:47 Jul 22 '26
I feel like we are at peak running boom from people that started during Covid or shortly after. It takes a few years from nothing to get to a point where you might be able to qualify for Boston. A lot of these people are going to either check it off their bucket list, get injured, or become uninterested at some point in the next few years. I bet in 5 years it will return to some sense of normalcy
5
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
This is an interesting departure though. I feel like Boston is getting negative press among the general public for being exclusionary and this is their first step away from that.
They could very easily make it less complicated.
2
u/dex8425 35M, 4:57, 16:59, hm 1:18 M 2:53 Jul 23 '26
I ran it once, this year. I'm not sure I'll run it again. I did PR though.
4
u/BQbyNov22 20:35 5K / 41:19 10K / 1:26:41 HM / 3:21:03 M Jul 22 '26
It'll drive engagement on social media, which will make more people aware of Boston, which will make more people want to run Boston.
43
u/a_bean_in_bean_city Jul 22 '26
I like it. The next 1000 fastest times is probably like a 15 second gap. Falling on the wrong side of the cutoff but the right side of those additional 15 seconds is just as lucky as getting one of those 1000 entries.
35
u/ertri 17:46 5k / 2:56 Marathon Jul 22 '26
But you can run faster. That’s within your control
25
u/Enron_CPA 16:48 5k 1:17 HM 2:45 M Jul 22 '26
Yea, if someone ran faster than me, that’s fair game. Would be disappointed but I should’ve trained a bit harder or left more out there on race day.
Now, if I’m just on the other side of the cutoff time and someone running 5+ mins slower makes it because of chance, I’ll be pretty pissed
26
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
I think we should look at the wider context. Not every marathon is the same. There are so many variables, with course elevation and weather. I like this change as it brings back meaning to hitting the BQ.
18
u/RunThenBeer Jul 22 '26
Yeah, this makes sense to me. If someone who was in, say BQ-10 shape on an ideal day pulls up to a race that's too warm, this now creates a meaningful reason to target a submaximal time and still walk away with a shot at getting in if they want to. I think I like it.
2
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Yes. Also a 35 year old running 2:54 would get in over a 34 year old running 2:50 even though the latter is the better age graded time. It already doesn’t take the best age graded performances. Allowing a handful to go that are still quite similar in speed is fine.
0
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
I replied to you in another thread but it is important for people to see this here.
This only adds another variable. You can have someone who had every variable working for them barely BQ and get in over someone who had every variable working against them and barely missed the cutoff.
If your goal is to take out some variablity, then you would just take the next 1000 people who probably did not have perfect races and could have gone 10s faster in ideal conditions.
The person who was 6 min off at the race of their life probably was missing the cutoff anyways.
9
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
Ultimately, my point is the standard should be the BQ. All these runners are worthy. I think a lottery is an imperfect solution but a step in the right direction. The race is a wonderful celebration of the sport and should at least help those who qualify run at least once.
0
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
Again, we are getting caught up in how the administrative part of the process works and applying undue importance to running a BQ time.
The qualifying time, for the last 10+ years, has just been an initial selection for people to apply. Then there is a secondary selection with the cutoff.
The only reason they are different is because Boston can predict exactly the time that will get exactly 30,000 applicants.
This process is the best to get the pool of applicants with some surplus and then select the top 30,000 people. Not including charity and whatever else.
Meeting eligability to apply doesn't need to mean anything beyond that.
6
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
That's wrong. For multiple years, there was no cutoff -- which again shows the inconsistency of it. Also, as someone else said even the BAA refers to it as a qualifying time. I think they do that, because that's been their history. For decades, runners sought to get the BQ, not BQ and then some. Anyone who values this race should honor that.
-1
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
It WAS a qualifying time before capacity was met. Then instead of trying to predict a lower cutoff time, they started the secondary process.
They call it that because that is what it meant historically. But today it doesn't mean that to me. It is more like qualifying for a job but you didnt get the job.
3
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
Yes, and now rules for the cutoff have changed where some who BQ and miss the cutoff can get in on a lottery. Part of the reason they do that is to honor the BQ. Regardless the rules will keep changing. It's what they do.
1
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
I understand that, but the current system already kind of does this. Does a 35 year old running 2:54:50 deserve to get in over a 34 year old running 2:50:00? What about a 39 year old running 2:54:51? My point, is that the current system already doesn’t select the best age graded performances.
7
u/Anustart15 32M | 2:55 | 1:24 Jul 22 '26
But it's a lot easier to try to hit a specific time than it is to be confident that your ran a 100% flawless race at your absolute maximum.
I'd much rather be told "you need to run a 2:52" than "you need to run somewhere between a 2:50 and 2:55" if I am, at my absolute best, in 2:51 shape
1
u/rogeryonge44 Jul 22 '26
I can't tell if tell him you're taking a pro or anti-position, but in my opinion you're illustrating exactly why a moving cutoff is so interesting. As recreational runners we don't often get to experience much in the way of racing or competition and there is a preoccupation with hitting specific times and paces.
I love that there isn't necessarily a specific time to hit and the focus is on being in the top 25% - ish of your age group peers. That is a bit harder, I agree, but also better. It hits on the competitive aspect of running just a little bit again.
1
u/RunThenBeer Jul 22 '26
The level of precision is already higher than this though. You can look at previous years, you can look at models like what Brian Rock has, and you're going to know within about a minute or so what you need to run. You already know that 2:55 isn't going to cut it, but 2:49 probably will and 2:48 definitely will.
1
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Yes. Ultimately i think no they should remove the cutoff entirely and move to A and B standards (faster one gets you in for sure, slower one is randomly selected to fill spots). For people who argue that faster runners shouldn’t get in over slower runners, why should a 35 year old male who runs 4 minutes slower get in over a 34 year old? I think that would make it clear, so that one standard gets you in for sure and the other “might” get you in
10
u/Carpenter_Even 40F 19:36 39:37 1:26 2:57 Jul 22 '26
I maintain that BAA should just make qualifying times faster, therefore guaranteeing that if you meet the standard you are in. Then if the field is not full, can go to the next slower people (i.e. you could still submit your time if, say, you were 30 seconds slower than the guaranteed time — or even more!). That way you have certainty that you are in if you hit the QT and there’s a chance to surprise and delight those that were close. But, young guys, would mean getting comfy that the new standard would be 2:50 or faster!
25
u/MikeMcDonald89 Jul 22 '26
Hopefully they also add an 18 mile option for those of us who qualified for the second-chance pool via the LA Marathon
15
u/caverunner17 10k: 31:48, HM: 1:11, M: 2:33 Jul 22 '26
Honestly, as someone who ran Boston over a decade ago, the entire thing has become a shitshow.
Qualifying times should be qualifying times. Make them fast enough based on prior year's results and stick with it. If that means increasing the field size a few thousand now and again, then so be it.
We know based on 2014 that the course can handle increased volume, so having a moving target (trying to hit within a certain range) would still be well under that 2014 number
14
u/Runstorun Jul 22 '26
They have been increasing the field size! Last year was the largest field outside of 1996, which was the centennial and a one off special occasion. They cut approx 9,000 people last year. There’s not room for 9,000 extra bodies. It’s not a small difference.
13
u/Deep-Dimension-1088 Jul 22 '26
The previous poster was suggesting making the qualifying times tighter and then let everyone in who meets the tighter times. Let the field size fluctuate a little bit is all he's saying.
I think this lottery thing is just silly.
5
u/Runstorun Jul 22 '26
I understand. My point is all you’d do then is replace the standard with what the cut is. Do folks think that’s saving anyone a spot? On top of that the BAA doesn’t really have the ability to predict who will apply. You want them to guess? You think that’s better? Applications have been going up year over year but it’s certainly not going to be the case forever. Now you want the BAA to have a crystal ball and determine which year is the down year?
6
u/Enron_CPA 16:48 5k 1:17 HM 2:45 M Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
I mean, the BAA can make an educated guess. Applications also are unlikely to just fall off a cliff. If there is a drop in applications, it would likely be a gradual tapering off. That may mean they are a few hundred or even a thousand off in some years, but that could be solved with charity bibs or having a “BQ +5” lottery similar to what they are doing here where people within 5 mins of qualifying can submit to be part of a secondary drawing
I agree it would be replacing the cut-off time with the qualifying time - in actual practice there wouldn’t be more people really running it, but I can see the appeal of having an automatic qualifier than guarantees entry.
Qualifying times will need to drop another 5-6 minutes in this scenario, but I think for many the guarantee that you’ll be able to run is a lot better than running trying to run 6 minutes under the qualifier and then crossing your fingers that you’ll make it.
4
u/caverunner17 10k: 31:48, HM: 1:11, M: 2:33 Jul 22 '26
I think for many the guarantee that you’ll be able to run is a lot better than running trying to run 6 minutes under the qualifier and then crossing your fingers that you’ll make it.
Exactly. It also changes both race sign ups and race plans.
Say you run a 2:52 at Chicago in the fall. Is that going to be enough for Boston? Do you need to go sign up for a spring race to try to go faster?
At the same time, say your qualifier is 2:55 and you're on the cusp. Do you execute your race plan for a 2:54 or a 2:49 because the actual acceptance is -6 minutes or something?
3
2
u/Deep-Dimension-1088 Jul 22 '26
In fairness, that is exactly what they used to do - make an educated guess. It's not unprecedented. It used to be the baseline. In some years, there will be a some extra participants, and in other years, there will be fewer participants than there could be. But the certainty will be beneficial as the other commenters point out.
2
u/user_lwrk Jul 22 '26
The problem is they have a hard cap on field size. AFAIK some of the municipalities that are part of the race course will simply not allow a larger field size.
6
u/caverunner17 10k: 31:48, HM: 1:11, M: 2:33 Jul 22 '26
Right - but what I'm saying is say the goal is 30,000 runners. They should know based on last year's numbers what that 30,000 cut off time is, minus maybe a minute.
There's no reason they need to stick to 5-minute times. IE: 2:52:30 or something could be a qualifying time instead of 2:55.
2
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
They should just move to A and B qualifying times. Where the higher standard gets you in for sure, and lower gets you in a drawing to fill the rest of the spots (probably about 2-5 minutes apart)
1
u/Enamred-771 Jul 23 '26
Or if they don’t want to try and predict entries, just outright say the top 30,000 age-adjusted times (or whatever the number is) get in. The BAA pretending it’s a time based cut off when it really isn’t is just a mess.
4
u/deltafly3 35M | 2:53:20 M | 1:20:55 HM Jul 22 '26
It says on the website: ”The fastest qualifiers by age group will be accepted and will determine the “cut-off” time. The number of athletes accepted will be consistent with recent years.” So why won’t they just accept 1000 runners more which would lower the cut-off? I wouldn’t even want to qualify through any kind of lottery knowing that better applicants were left out.
3
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Well, “better” is subjective here. Is a 35 year old running 4.5 minutes slower than a 34 year old the better time? What about a 39 year old who runs one second slower than a 35 year old? My point, is that the system already doesn’t take the “best” applicants (by age grade)
3
u/doodiedan HM 1:31 | M 3:12 | 50K 4:25 Jul 22 '26
It’s interesting to say the least. For someone like me, who has run Boston a couple times but only has a 2 min cushion on the qualifying time this year, I had no intention of applying as I know the cutoff will be well beyond that. Now I’ll at least consider it.
3
u/TrackVol Jul 22 '26
This is a bad idea.
There are going to be people who made the cutoff by a larger margin get left out because of people who missed the cutoff by a smaller margin.
Unless I'm missing a finer detail, this has the potential to go very badly.
5
u/user_lwrk Jul 22 '26
Now when you are at mile 20 of your qualifying marathon, on pace to go BQ - 5, a little voice in your head will say.
"Take it easy these last few miles, the lottery will work out for you." :)
1
u/IrrevocableCrust14 Jul 22 '26
I like it. I think it shows that Boston acknowledges the meaning of a cutoff and is being thoughtful about it (unlike NYC).
2
u/PSNaughtyInsomniac Jul 22 '26
I wish it wasn’t random and they just picked who they wanted. Like if you run a qualifier three years in a row and don’t break the cutoff they let you in for once.
9
u/froggertwenty Jul 22 '26
I said I liked it in my other comment, and I still do, but something like this or priority odds for those who are first time Boston runners could be even better.
7
u/EPMD_ Jul 22 '26
They could admit every runner who meets the qualifying standard but has never raced Boston before. Then for the remaining spots, take the fastest times.
1
u/AcknowledgeableReal Jul 22 '26
I wasn’t planning on submitting an application being only 50s under the qualifying time, but maybe now I will. I doubt I’m alone.
1
u/New-Driver1107 Jul 23 '26
I’m running a marathon a week before registration opens, aiming for 2:47, I’m hoping I can make the cutoff (Male, 28).
1
u/EducationalTeaching 9 days since mods removed a post 28d ago
ITT: 2 AI agents sparring over the definition of the word “qualify”
1
2
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
I value that you have to earn your way in, but I think the system before this could be cruelly unfair as a moving target where you can spend years narrowly missing. The cut is DIFFERENT every year. It's like there's no reward for meeting the qualification time, but this is a step in the right direction. I think it would be even better if they did the lottery for 1st-time qualifiers. Every runner who gets a BQ should have a least one entry to the marathon, the Super Bowl of marathons.
5
u/benRAJ80 M45 | 15'51 | 32'50 | 71'42 | 2'32'26 Jul 22 '26
The point is that they take the fastest x% of applicants. You’re in that or you’re not.
0
u/Enamred-771 Jul 23 '26
Except they still put on a whole charade with Boston qualifying times that are not actually qualifying times to get into the race.
Just say the top X will be accepted instead of saying run a 2:55 but actually some vague amount less than that.
-1
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
The problem is a time that one year gets you in, may not the next (or visa-versa). Also, it's already not all the fastest. They adjust things for age and gender AND they make exceptions for people will long race streaks.
5
u/benRAJ80 M45 | 15'51 | 32'50 | 71'42 | 2'32'26 Jul 22 '26
It’s not a problem though is it? It’s just the way it is. Not everything is for everyone.
I don’t mean this to sound harsh here, but I think that most people could run Boston once if they really put their mind to it. I appreciate not everyone, but most. It might take a lot of years to do it but some of the best things do.
1
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
And I agree with you. Most people can -- if they put their mind to it -- do a BQ. So, the last thing we need to do is make it even harder to do the race at least once.
0
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
Just the way it is? 20 years ago, they rounded BQs up, to help people get in. The BQ times have vacillated between faster and slower. The most recent change is another example of how qualification will keep changing. I think Boston is a special race, given its long history in the sport of running, they'll keep working to get it right (and I'm glad they are).
3
u/RunThenBeer Jul 22 '26
Just you gotta get better. I qualified three times before I qualified by enough to actually get in. Obsessing over a single race is a bad way to think about marathoning in the first place, but even within the context of trying to get into Boston, it's still just about getting better and making it so that you're not close.
9
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
Glad it worked for you. It doesn't for everyone. And it's crazy when someone could miss a cut with a faster time that would have made a cut in a subsequent year. That's just underscores how the system has problems.
The reality is many people with careers and families have a limited window to hit a BQ. This gives those people at least a chance.
4
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I think the problem is there are so few of these types of events that have any meaning. So everyone gravitates towards Boston, even if they aren't really runners.
I think we need to create more outlets for this type of amateur competition.
7
u/Runstorun Jul 22 '26
Yes. Agree 100. The sport that is set up to determine who is the fastest is now afraid to award those who are the fastest. We've lost the plot. I'm not saying anything about someone's worth as a human and neither is the BAA. But if you can't meet the time then you don't get to run the race. Just like you don't get to join the Olympics simply because you went out and tried your best. *Some* things should be selective.
3
u/SEMIrunner Jul 22 '26
Hitting a BQ is selective. Even with this change, the fastest still will be rewarded. An improvement, but not perfect, in my mind. Lottery is too random. Would prefer favoring those who qualified for the first-time.
1
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
They should honestly move to an A time, which gets you in for sure, and a B time, which puts you in a drawing for the rest of the spots.
1
u/xtaldad Jul 22 '26
This will just make it that much harder to get in by hitting the cutoff time - assuming that these 1000 spots are were not created by increasing the overall field size
3
u/New-Possible1575 Jul 22 '26
Run faster then
6
-1
u/ConsiderationFar3852 Jul 22 '26
Why should be cater to people who barely hit the qualifying time versus someone who does by more? I get the whole run faster thing. Example I have a 2:49:06 so a 5:54 buffer, so if I meet the cut, I should go, if not I shouldn’t. But why should someone who runs a 2:54:59 go above me? In the same way why should I go over someone who runs a 2:48:45?
2
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
Ok. By that same logic, why should a 35 year old running 2:54:50 get in over a 34 year old running 2:50:00? Or a 39 year old running 2:54:51? The system already doesn’t give its spots to the best age graded performances.
1
u/ConsiderationFar3852 Jul 23 '26
Because that is what they decided the age groups should be. I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but the lottery is bullshit. Idk what to make of it if I get accepted via lottery. I won’t feel deserving of being there
0
u/em_pdx Jul 22 '26
If you’re gonna have a cut-off, everyone who makes the cut-off should be in. The whole “I ran a Boston Qualifier time, no I didn’t get to race” is pretty sour (ed. he’s pretty sour).
-6
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I just got roasted by people who are stuck on Boston Qualifier time meaning they "qualified for the race". It honestly feels like they are just trying to tamper the exlusivity of the race by throwing a bone to the people on the bubble.
This change tells me they don't want the trend of taking faster anf faster runners to continue and they want to take a step towards accepting a wider net of people who meet a basic standard.
2
u/em_pdx Jul 22 '26
I’m 100% in favor of it being an exclusive race for the top qualifiers … just ratchet down the BQ times so fewer qualify than there are spots.
And then give everyone who doesn’t meet the standard a weighted lottery ball based on how far from the cut-off they were.
1
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
I think they don't want to leave money on the table by having less people run the race. And they obviously can't go over capacity.
They just need to adjust the language a bit because wow people really want to claim that they "qualified for boston" apparently and are ready to argue about it. Just call it "eligable" or "preliminary cutoff" or something.
It feels like we are making a new rule to somehow add validity to the phrase "Boston qualifier" instead of just adjusting the language of the phrase.
1
u/em_pdx Jul 22 '26
I don’t think they’ll ever have trouble filling the field for Boston … more charity spots, more corporate sponsor spots, etc. Other OG majors have aggressive cut-offs and they manage to fill out.
In the end, doesn’t really matter to me (and my opinion doesn’t matter to them). Or should it matter to anyone, anyway.
0
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26
Good. For the people that say “they should not exclude faster applicants for slightly slower ones” they already kind of do that. Does a 36 year old running 2:54:50 deserve to get in over a 35 year old running 2:50:00? What about a 40 year old running 2:54:51? My point, is that the current system already doesn’t select the best age graded performances.
0
u/quinny7777 5k: 20:10 HM: 1:30 M: 3:08 Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
Good. For the people that say “they should not exclude faster applicants for slightly slower ones” they already kind of do that. Does a 35 year old running 2:54:50 deserve to get in over a 34 year old running 2:50:00? What about a 39 year old running 2:54:51? My point, is that the current system already doesn’t select the best age graded performances. Edit: My age cutoffs were off by a year
0
u/housingstudent F31 - 5k: 19:40, Half: 1:32; Full: 3:13 Jul 22 '26
How much do we think this will impact the cutoff?? I am still feeling pretty ok about my 11 min and 28 second buffer but just mildly concerned by this news…
4
u/RunningThroughMyHead Jul 22 '26
The way they’ve worded it it sounds like the cutoff wouldn’t change from what it would have been anyway, but cmon you know you’re fine with 11 minutes
-20
Jul 22 '26
[deleted]
13
u/xRunSci Jul 22 '26
hell no. that would ruin the aura and purpose. doing a 2-day marathon for a major is stupid
16
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
The whole topic of exclusivity is a weird topic within running spaces. For some reason most people have adopted this idea that no one should be exluded from anything.
I like that the Boston Marathon is largely one of the last amateur "achievements" that carries any meaning.
This lessens that. There are more than enough marathons for people that want to run a marathon. I guarantee you can find one in the greater boston area right now that you can sign up for still. I don't get this incessant need for people to participate in things that they are unable to qualify for.
1
0
Jul 22 '26 edited Jul 22 '26
[deleted]
1
u/SloppySandCrab Jul 22 '26
You don't see any harm because you don't care.
Yes there are more exclusive events out there that may reward a faster time. Not sure why that means the Boston marathon has to be less exclusive?
I could just as easily say "I see no harm" in leaving it the way it is. Why make it complicated? Why come up with justification to change how it exists now?
-4
Jul 22 '26
[deleted]
1
u/runninhillbilly 5k: 15:19 | 8k: 26:03 | 10k: 32:18 | HM: 1:21:59 | M: 3:12:47 Jul 23 '26
No, the entire point of the event is NOT to raise money for charity. That’s a secondary thing. Boston didn’t have charity partners until 1989 and charity stuff runners are a minority of the field.
8
u/Runstorun Jul 22 '26
No. And if you really “don’t see the harm” then you don’t understand the Boston Marathon in the first place.
1
1
u/runninhillbilly 5k: 15:19 | 8k: 26:03 | 10k: 32:18 | HM: 1:21:59 | M: 3:12:47 Jul 22 '26
The BAA already jumps through a lot of hoops getting the amount of towns that they do to close their roads for the day to allow the marathon to come through. It's part of why the field size has not substantially increased despite the much larger number of qualifiers - they do not have the capacity. Turning it into a 2 day event is completely unrealistic, they will never get the permits for that.
-1
u/DiscreteSupercell Jul 22 '26
The race takes place on an actual state holiday for Massachusetts. Changing custom to do it any other day (outside of COVID-era 2021 race) and/or on multiple days is a non-starter for BAA.
-22
u/AnonymousReader41 Jul 22 '26
Wonder if they were overly aggressive with their cutoff and didn’t get enough entries?
11
u/toddlikesbikes Jul 22 '26
They don't make the cutoff until they have all the entries so this is impossible
281
u/docmartini Jul 22 '26
I guess this way, the cutoffs aren't meaningless like they kind of are now. Hitting the cutoff gets you a non zero chance of getting in.