That is INSANE. Super early, and kills anyone running NYC (or Philly or other big races). Especially with the sign-up snafu, this won't be a pretty aftermath.

Might it be time to revisit the qualifying standards?

---

-------------------------------------------
"The hero is someone in continual opposition to the status quo. The hero is always becoming himself." Jos� Ortega y Gasset.

"The enthusiasm (absorbing or controlling possession of the mind by any interest or pursuit) is needed before breaking the milestone and not after." Sergio Escutia, on Lukas Verzbicas' subdued reaction to breaking 4 minutes in the mile.

Damn! I DNF'd a few weeks ago and thought that I would get a second chance at the BQ by running a marathon this weekend. I guess not.

Dam. Thanks for posting Brian, are you running?

Hope all is well,
GS

I wonder if part of the reason it filled so quickly is that some people registered multiple times due to the registration problems...

Not running it but a friend of mine who went to sign up this afternoon saw the message on the BAA site. My guess is that people who ran qualifying times late last fall or early this winter that normally would have been able to sign up for this years race and got shut out were ready to sign up online (similar to IM) once registration opened, leading to some of the technical issues they had (similar to IM). It amazes me that a race with an entry field 10 times the size of IM races can also fill up in one day, although that 26000 also includes numbers that have already been allocated to charities, corporate sponsors etc.

---

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race." - Richard Butler

It wasn't volume that did it. It was a bogus redirect link that anyone could have fixed. After getting shut out last year, lots of folks were ready to go today. It's criminal that fast typing is more critical to getting into Boston than fast typing. They've turned it into an IM even unfortunately.

Not yet. When the start raising the price to make a profit, then they will be like WTC.

I would like to see a distribution of the # participants registration base on Qualifying time and how many people are running through charity. I go the feeling like 1/2 of the field is by qualifying and the other 1/2 is by charity. I was there last year and saw a lot of slow time. For example I saw many 34 or less finishing over 4 hours so If you qualified with a 3:10 and you decide to run for fun I can say 3:30 to 3:35 would be ok, but more than 4 hours there is something wrong.

It's my understanding that there were 21,7XX slots for qualifying, and 26,XXX total slots.

---

---

Nothing to see here

Yeah, pretty insane. Though, it was 8 hours from open to full, so there was time to register if you wanted. You just had to know to do it early. A lot of people that were expecting months or weeks, not hours, to fill will be caught out.

Last year, 21,000 of the 26,700 runners had qualifying times. Less then 2,000 were for charities. The remainder were "comped" numbers given to sponsors and other associated organizations.

Hopefully they'll feel pressure to lower the qualifing standards back to where they used to be prior to wussification.

well, I did philly last year (09) knowing that if I wanted to run Boston it wasn't till '11. then decided that I *probably* wouldn't run boston in '11 either. then boston decided i *definitely* won't do it - since it's full and all.
one day. geez.
glad i qualified when i could, before it gets to fast for me again!

I think they should do staggered registration dates. I am just going to use the male under 40 times for an example.

Current BQ 3:10
Registration Date Sept 1 - All times under 2:30
Registration Date Oct 1 - All times under 2:45
Registration Date Nov 1 - All times under 3:00
Registration Dave Dec 1 - All times under 3:15

Basically do that for every age group, call it A, B, C, and D standards or something.

Then you ensure that it stay the elite marathon it was intended to be, but also guarantees that it will in fact fill up. Some years maybe only A and B standards get in, some years maybe it goes all the way to D. You could even move the first date to later in the year, Maybe start in November?

Something has to be done.

I registered my wife first thing this morning, luckily she got in. However, she will be the first one to tell you she isn't an elite runner, and was shocked she was able to qualify (Her qualification time was 3:40, she ran a 3:40:00.)

Just an idea, not that the BAA reads ST.

---

---------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: This poster is a sales rep in the bicycle industry

Did they give entries into this year's event to those who could not travel this past spring due to the volcano?

The "wussification" has worked fine for years, but we myppoically look at two years and sau THE DAMN THING IS BROKEN!!!!

And, besides, "back in the day" the standards weren't the standards, you got a 10 min buffer (confirmed by a friend today) because chips were not used.

If they change the standards it'll be for 2013, but I's say they raise the price a lot and decrease the sponsor slots by 50%.

Bob

More about the race filling up in a day from the Boston Globe, with quotes from Dave MacGillvary:

http://www.boston.com/..._sells_out_in_a.html

---

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race." - Richard Butler

It seems clear that the marathon organizers have different priorities than you. They clearly aren't trying to minimize the average time of the participants.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Wow, and I was going to wait until I got home from work to register because the website was busted for the first 20 minutes.

My personal belief after running the race last year is that some have found a way to scam the qualifying standard. I say this because your bib number directly reflects your qualifying time and by looking (and then running past-like-they-are-standing-still) at people there is no way they ever ran the BQ time their bib number suggests. I'm not sure how they do it.

In addition to lowering the qualifying times across the board, the delta between men and women needs to be no more than 20 minutes - not the 30 minutes it is currently set at (sorry ladies but you're fast).

"the delta between men and women needs to be no more than 20 minutes"

To quote ericlambi:

"It seems clear that the marathon organizers have different priorities than you."

IMO, This is a great idea.

I agree that times should go down, but as it stands, the delta between men and women in BQ times reflects the spread seen in average marathon times. You can't blame the women :)

From Marathonguide.com (2009 results):
Men- 59.6% of participants, average time 4:24
Women- 40.4% of participants, average time 4:52
Difference: 28 minutes

From the 2010 Boston Marathon results, 26,735 registered:
15,418 were male (57.6%)
11,317 were female (42.3%)
This includes the charity runners.

It seems like the breakdown of participants at Boston reflects the general marathon population. If it is selling out too quickly, it could either mean that people are getting faster, and/or there is a general increase in popularity of the marathon. The article on marathon guide said that in 2009, there was a 9.9% increase in marathon participation. That is HUGE.
http://www.marathonguide.com/...009RecapOverview.cfm
To quote the article:
"The percentage growth rate - a 9.9% growth in the number of marathon finishers from 2008 to 2009 - was a record and that on top of record numbers from the year before."