Boston Registration HELP!

[Spirit Unleashed]

...I think what Jennifer is saying is that the cost of traveling to Boston is no greater than to any other city where people might want to run.

Boston is a lot more than Ottawa!!

(omg, I had to check my medal to get that spelling right!)

[deerdree]

(omg, I had to check my medal to get that spelling right!)

(that's okay - i've been writing "cincinnati" in the NET today and had to look it up almost every time!)

[Jwolf]

...I think what Jennifer is saying is that the cost of traveling to Boston is no greater than to any other city where people might want to run.

Boston is a lot more than Ottawa!!

(omg, I had to check my medal to get that spelling right!)

But it doesnt have to be.

[La]

- change the qualifying period; i.e.: start it later or end it earlier. Maybe registration opens in December and includes qualifying races run in the 15 months prior to registration date (e.g.: for 2012 this would mean September 2010 to November 2011.

A variation on this would be that you'd have to run a qualifying race in a 12-month period (rather than the current 18 months).

- allow only one Boston per qualifying race; e.g.: you couldn't use a Fall 2010 marathon for both 2011 and 2012.

Agree. Once you've "used" your qualifying race, you shouldn't be able to re-use it for a second year.

- tie qualification to age on the date of the qualifying race, not age on the date of the Boston marathon

Agree.

- eliminate the 0:59 that's actually added to all of the qualifying times

Agree, though I don't know that it would disqualify that many people. And there are stories from the past where people were a few seconds (Doonst) OVER the qualifying time, yet they were still accepted into the race.

[chunkymonkeymelonhed]

Ah- so they might change 2012 times too? I was hoping not, but we shall see.

I'm another hoping not.

[Jwolf]

- eliminate the 0:59 that's actually added to all of the qualifying times

Agree, though I don't know that it would disqualify that many people. And there are stories from the past where people were a few seconds OVER qualifying time {that is, into the next minute beyond the 59 seconds grace], yet they were still accepted into the race.

Interesting that this was only an option if you printed out your registration form and sent it by snail mail. Now that option (not an official option but it was often done) is not available as the race registration filled up on-line.


Personally I hope they don't do any of those things in JB's list. It would simply make the rules more confusing, and none would change the numbers enough anyway, I don't think, so it would just delay the inevitable qual time changes. Changing the qualifying window would be only a temporary fix (and essentially that's already been done by the early fill-up), and only allowing one Boston per BQ marathon wouldn't affect a huge number of people (many people already have multiple qualifiers). And there HAS been talk about allowing people who have done X-number of Boston Marathons to enter without qualifying. As for changing the age of qualifying vs. age of running-- that would perhaps have the biggest effect, but it seems simpler to just tighten the standards.

Reducing the number of fund-raising and community entries is always a possibility, but not likely (and "another whole can of worms" discussion).

[ian]

One thing which interests me about the hypothetical possibility of stricter qualifying times is the tension between:
(1) Removing the large portion of the Boston field (if I had to guess, I'd say almost half) who hit their BQ time by less than 5 (or 10) minutes, and
(2) Encouraging an even larger pool of Boston-eligible runners, many of whom might have done the race previously, to come back under the "new rules".

[jemez]

One of the big reasons I registered at 9AM was that it seems like they're really likely to make the times tougher for 2012, and I figure even 5 mins faster and I wouldn't be able to qualify. 2011 is going to be my 1st (and only) Boston, I didn't want to miss it. The crush next year will be insane if they leave the times as they are.

[ultraslacker]

I think what Jennifer is saying is that the cost of traveling to Boston is no greater than to any other city where people might want to run.

but it IS more expensive if hotels are doubling/tripling their prices...

[Jwolf]

I think what Jennifer is saying is that the cost of traveling to Boston is no greater than to any other city where people might want to run.

but it IS more expensive if hotels are doubling/tripling their prices...

These are just the downtown touristy hotels though- there are many other options.

[ian]

I think what Jennifer is saying is that the cost of traveling to Boston is no greater than to any other city where people might want to run.

but it IS more expensive if hotels are doubling/tripling their prices...

FWIW, my experience has been that as far as prices go for a big destination marathon, NYC > Boston > Chicago.

[daddy_runner]

Well, my plan to "get close to a BQ" next year has pretty much been thwarted before it even got off the ground. Maybe I should take up joggling?

[dgrant]

I'm starting the rumour that they're moving the Boston Marathon to New York City and increasing the number of runners to 50,000.

I think I heard that somewhere.

I also heard they are going to start requiring iPods, and will be forcibly tattooing finishers with the race logo. I, for one, don't agree with that last part... but what are you going to do? It's the BAA's world and we're just jogging in it.

[ultraslacker]

[tj]

what a disaster that was this morning... web link problems, 1 day fill up during work hours, talk of change in rules for next year, -- this all leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I'm not as excited about running this race. to top it off I missed a flight after trying to repeatedly register on the bogus link redirect on the baa site

the only silver lining is that I have memorized my credit card number and security code after typing it over and over again for 1 hour

[SteveF]

the only silver lining is that I have memorized my credit card number and security code after typing it over and over again for 1 hour

Ha , me too!

What's this bogus link you guys are talking about. I just clicked on the big "register" button on the BAA site.

[tj]

the only silver lining is that I have memorized my credit card number and security code after typing it over and over again for 1 hour

Ha , me too!

What's this bogus link you guys are talking about. I just clicked on the big "register" button on the BAA site.

The link that the baa site redirected you to was faulty which resulted in the the form clearing and resetting when you hit submit. I only got registered after using the corrected address that was posted on the RW forums (which Frankis also referred to in earlier in this thread). I think baa got its act together and fixed the faulty link later in the morning.

[kaybee]

Thankfully, I got in and so did my husband.

This is in the Boston Globe today:

"Qualifiers who mailed paper registration forms, charity runners, and invitational entries eventually will bring the field to roughly 26,000."

I find this interesting. Does this mean that everyone who mailed a paper registration form (I can't imagine there would be too many) gets in? Maybe the way to go in the future - HAHA.

Full article is here: http://www.boston.com/sports/marathon/a ... rs/?page=1

Karen

[LadyV]

nd more signs of changes to come
From the same article:
"One answer to the overload problem is to make it more difficult to qualify. But that comes with its own set of concerns: keeping a reasonable balance between male and female entrants, and making sure hard-training recreational runners still have their shot at a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

Other options include narrowing the qualifying window and expanding the field, perhaps replacing the current two-wave start with three waves, and giving charity runners their own wave.

“The challenge for the BAA is to find the right mix of field size and qualifying times to allow as many as possible to run,’’ said Morse. “I’m not convinced tightening up the qualifying times alone is the answer. I would like to find a way to allow more qualifiers to enter. That would speak to the field size question, but we don’t want to increase the field and reduce the quality of the event in the process. In the way we’ve approached it and the way we’ve set it up, this event remains about quality, not quantity.’’

At the earliest, any changes to qualifying times or field size would go into effect for the 2012 Marathon. For now, the BAA and the lucky runners who successfully registered must prepare for the race in April."

[West Grey Runner]

Ian

(1) Removing the large portion of the Boston field (if I had to guess, I'd say almost half) who hit their BQ time by less than 5 (or 10) minutes

At the STWM I aimed for a 3:30 BQ , no faster or slower! Things came together rather nicely and I had no problem keeping pace. In the final 5K of the race I was holding back thinking “Enjoy the moment, everything is working and I feel great why make it hurt I only need a 3:30”. On that day I am sure that I had a 3:25 or maybe even a 3:20 in me but due to the desire to BQ I really held back. I am glad to have the BQ behind me now and am looking forward to running a Marathon with a more aggressive goal (Not Boston)!

I think a good solution to the problem is to tighten the qualifying times, start with 5 minutes less across the board incrementing on a yearly basis until the registration drops off.

[mcshame]

So I guess if one was to race and BQ and then the qualifying times changed, you would have never really Boston Qualified. We all tend to say after a race, congrats on the BQ, but now, it's not necessarily a true statement or it will have to be a BQ*

[Jwolf]

So I guess if one was to race and BQ and then the qualifying times changed, you would have never really Boston Qualified. We all tend to say after a race, congrats on the BQ, but now, it's not necessarily a true statement or it will have to be a BQ*

Well, the BQ times could have theoretically changed every year- they just haven't for a while so we assume that for a future year they stay the same. Anyone trying for a 2011 BQ this year knew the times were fixed. But most people have known for a while that changes could come soon.

[Doonst]

There is lots of speculation and suggestions as to what the BAA might do. Couldn't they for example, say in a couple of weeks that all races up to Dec 31 qualify at the current levels, but as of Jan 01 you must be 5 minutes faster? Sure it would be a bit lopsided, but would accommodate those who will run a qualifier next few weeks instead of yanking it away from them like on a roller coaster or teeter totter.

[LadyV]

There is lots of speculation and suggestions as to what the BAA might do. Couldn't they for example, say in a couple of weeks that all races up to Dec 31 qualify at the current levels, but as of Jan 01 you must be 5 minutes faster? Sure it would be a bit lopsided, but would accommodate those who will run a qualifier next few weeks instead of yanking it away from them like on a roller coaster or teeter totter.

I am sure they will do something like that - i think the BAA does have the runner (not the business) in mind when it is time to make some changes.

They may also announce a bunch of changes , some to be implemented in 2012 and some more in 2013...

Note: I don't know why i keep yaping on and on on this topic - I usually don't post so often

[Annelizabeth]

Dear God,

Please don't let the BAA make too many changes to qualifying before I have a sucessful chance to do so or let me run faster as I age.
Amen