Thanks. I just read up on his methodology. It sounds pretty thorough, but he also hasn't been able to exactly reproduce the cutoff time. His estimate for Boston 2016 was off by more than the range that he's predicting for 2017. Don't get me wrong, he's definitely close, but he has some pretty strong assumptions in his model. Most of them include consistency across years for interest in Boston. I imagine there's quite a bit of variance there. He's also not taking into account factors such as a growing interest in running across the US and factors such as a stronger economy which make it economically viable for more athletes to travel to Boston (a real factor - I skipped my first year because I didn't have the money to travel despite hitting the BQ time.) I know these factors are small and hard to model, but they do impact the results - possibly by more than five seconds. For transparency, this matters to me because my girlfriend is 54 seconds under her BQ time which is right on the limit of this guy's model. Fingers crossed that she makes it!!

The BAA has the time for 2017 as 2:09 cutoff

Didn't see that coming. More surprising than last year.

Agreed. I thought it'd be much closer to actual qualifying time.

Missed it by 23 seconds.

I'd like to know why they took 800 fewer qualifiers this year than last year.

Charity spots, corporate setasides, etc. I am sure that all of that provides more income than the regular entries.

I got in with BQ-3:22, but it was a nerve wrecker. Next time I'll have to run smarter to get in under 5 to avoid this bullshiat.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

2:09. Looks like his prediction was *substantially* off, and I am not surprised.

Yes, it was. part of it is definitely related to the reduction in the field size by 800, but the models definitely need some improvements.

---

Next races on the schedule: none at the moment

I am not surprised by this in the least. While I appreciate the effort that goes into the BQ modelling that people do (as an actuary, I love stuff like this), there were some obvious shortcomings in what was being used to point to a 'no cutoff, or close to it' prediction this year. I'm interested in seeing the post mortem.

Rule of thumb remains: shoot for BQ-3

Crap - my wife missed it by 14 seconds

Thank god I didn't try to register and didn't plan to go, I looked back at my most recent marathon time and I was 2:08 under BQ. One second! That would have been a tough break.

I was 1:59, so missed by 10 seconds. I thought about maybe registering, but never got around to it so I guess no skin off my back.

Well, my marathon was yesterday and I decided to go conservative for the first one and try to make it enjoyable. I ended up with a 3:15:27 (13.1 splits were 1:38, 1:36). I finished strong averaging 7:15 from miles 20-26.2. I only had one big block of training between Austin 70.3 and the marathon which culminated in a 45 mile week. I can see a BQ time as feasible, I just don't think I want to jeapordize my tri training to pursue it. What say slowtwitch? How hard would it be to shave 10-15 min of a first marathon time?

Absolutely doable. Also might want to check strava and see if they're still giving away free shoes if you negative split a marathon.

I think the cutoff was just a couple days before the race which really sucks since I run in New Balances. I'm still going to send my file in and see if they'll make an exception.