2015 Boston Marathon Qualifier Acceptances Released - You had to run 1 min 2 seconds faster than qualifier to get in

Sorry to have to ask the obvious question here, but what is the point of having the qualifying time if you have to run a minute faster than it just to have any chance of getting in?

Meeting the qualifying standard does not equate to being accepted. The BAA has been unequivocally clear about that for years.

Baa is full of Sh*t. They are money grubbing cowards. There is NO reason for this provisional BQ BS.

It started because a few whinning idiots couldn't master online registration in 2010. News flash. You are stupid. To accomdate the idiots the BAA came up with a half a$$ed system. That "rewards" faster times not effort.

The BAA should just lower all times by 5 minutes. Then have a real BQ. Then get rid of auto qualifying for "streakers"

Wrong. The registration process in 2010 was gridlocked by everyone trying to login simultaneously. The new system is much more calm and orderly and I think it fairly balances out the runners based on ability.

It took me 14 attempts to get it but I am proud to say my qualifying time was accepted and I will be in Boston on April 20, 2015. One and done. No streak for me. Just realizing a goal I set long ago and had to struggle to get.

Look, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to work to qualify. Obviously, the point of having the qualifying time is to have a system that rewards effort and simultaneously limits the field. I'm just for making it simple and transparent. If you run the time you get in. It shouldn't be this situation where you have to, like, super qualify. If the BAA is having trouble limiting the field, then they need to lower the standards AND limit streaker and charity entries.

How_Fast? wrote:

limit streaker and charity entries.

Charity entries are limited.

Dr feel bad wrote:

Baa is full of Sh*t. They are money grubbing cowards. There is NO reason for this provisional BQ BS.

It started because a few whinning idiots couldn't master online registration in 2010. News flash. You are stupid. To accomdate the idiots the BAA came up with a half a$$ed system. That "rewards" faster times not effort.

The BAA should just lower all times by 5 minutes. Then have a real BQ. Then get rid of auto qualifying for "streakers"

Why not just aim for Fukouka? That sounds more like your bag.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Many people probably don't realize that the qualifying time is just a starting point. You actually have to run faster than the qualifying time to get in.

So it's a sort of BQ qualifying time.

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2014/09/2015-boston-marathon-qualifiers-announced-baa/

Well, this guy is sure going to be happy.

F Bomb Dropper wrote:

How_Fast? wrote:

Look, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to work to qualify. Obviously, the point of having the qualifying time is to have a system that rewards effort and simultaneously limits the field. I'm just for making it simple and transparent. If you run the time you get in. It shouldn't be this situation where you have to, like, super qualify. If the BAA is having trouble limiting the field, then they need to lower the standards AND limit streaker and charity entries.

Your a f***ing whiny moron. How the f*** is the BAA supposed f***ing know f***ing ahead of time exactly how many thousand people will meet the f***ing qualifying standard? Do you have a f***ing crystal ball or something and if so can you give me tomorrow's f***ing lottery numbers?

F***.

Iwhat did they do the first hundred years?

I PROMISE you that if the BAA did away with all the charity entries that they sell to people who DID NOT meet the standards, and also made the standards tougher, they wouldn't have to worry about needing to have a provisional system. Yeah, I know, these people are raising money for charities...Well, they can raise money at every other race on the planet.

F Bomb Dropper wrote:

How_Fast? wrote:

Look, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to work to qualify. Obviously, the point of having the qualifying time is to have a system that rewards effort and simultaneously limits the field. I'm just for making it simple and transparent. If you run the time you get in. It shouldn't be this situation where you have to, like, super qualify. If the BAA is having trouble limiting the field, then they need to lower the standards AND limit streaker and charity entries.

Your a f***ing whiny moron. How the f*** is the BAA supposed f***ing know f***ing ahead of time exactly how many thousand people will meet the f***ing qualifying standard? Do you have a f***ing crystal ball or something and if so can you give me tomorrow's f***ing lottery numbers?

F***.

almostbq wrote:

Wrong. The registration process in 2010 was gridlocked by everyone trying to login simultaneously. The new system is much more calm and orderly and I think it fairly balances out the runners based on ability.

It took me 14 attempts to get it but I am proud to say my qualifying time was accepted and I will be in Boston on April 20, 2015. One and done. No streak for me. Just realizing a goal I set long ago and had to struggle to get.

Congrats to you!

I remember reading some of your posts in the various Boston threads. Enjoy your Boston experience.

Kevin52 wrote:

almostbq wrote:

Wrong. The registration process in 2010 was gridlocked by everyone trying to login simultaneously. The new system is much more calm and orderly and I think it fairly balances out the runners based on ability.

It took me 14 attempts to get it but I am proud to say my qualifying time was accepted and I will be in Boston on April 20, 2015. One and done. No streak for me. Just realizing a goal I set long ago and had to struggle to get.

Congrats to you!

I remember reading some of your posts in the various Boston threads. Enjoy your Boston experience.

Thank you sir. I will. I feel that a huge cloud has been lifted as of today.

How_Fast? wrote:

Look, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have to work to qualify. Obviously, the point of having the qualifying time is to have a system that rewards effort and simultaneously limits the field. I'm just for making it simple and transparent. If you run the time you get in. It shouldn't be this situation where you have to, like, super qualify. If the BAA is having trouble limiting the field, then they need to lower the standards AND limit streaker and charity entries.

Is this real life?

I agree that they should limit streaker and charity entries, I think anyone that QUALIFIES for Boston would agree with that point--however, it is a necessary "evil". Each year the fundraising that occurs through charity runners at Boston increases exponentially. It would be a bad image and be viewed in poor taste for BAA to make significant cut backs on charity runners admitted.

The idea that if you run the standard should get you in though, when they have a cap on participants is ridiculous. I think this is BY FAR the most fair way to do the system. That's no different than being upset that a race allows pre-registration up to 31 days before the race, and 32 days before you attempt to register but the race is capped out. Boston has qualifying and standards, so because of that priority goes to those with faster times--the cap affects the people that barely broke the qualifier.

If anything, I have always wanted to see the Boston qualifier time lower to increase the quality of the field. Under 3:10 for a guy is not THAT hard. It requires training, it requires effort--but that's about it. It doesn't require any technical application to training, or anything of significant difficulty to perform. Drop guys to 2:55-3:00 and womens to 3:15-20. So much of the Boston qualifier field is weighted in the guys between 3-3:10 and women between 3:20-3:30

Dr feel bad wrote:

Baa is full of Sh*t. They are money grubbing cowards. There is NO reason for this provisional BQ BS.

It started because a few whinning idiots couldn't master online registration in 2010. News flash. You are stupid. To accomdate the idiots the BAA came up with a half a$$ed system. That "rewards" faster times not effort.

The BAA should just lower all times by 5 minutes. Then have a real BQ. Then get rid of auto qualifying for "streakers"

They just lowered it by five minutes a couple of years ago. I think some were surprised that they did not narrow the thirty minute male/female gap as part of that process.

Streakers (ten consecutive years or more) also must hit the standard. The only difference is the BAA is rewarding them with auto entry so they won't be shut out.

In the case of this year for example, a streaker could have only qualified by 30 seconds but still would have gotten in if applied. In most cases, streakers still meet the standard with plenty of room to spare. Since there were only 356 of these runners, I would expect that only a handful ran within 1:02 of the standard.

On a separate note, if you look at all marathons run in the US, you would find that a small percentage of men run 3:10 or faster and women run 3:35 or faster (6.7% of men ran 3:10 or faster and 5.4% of women ran 3:35 or faster in the 2013 Chicago Marathon.) So I would argue that yet, running those times is pretty difficult for most runners. Dropping the standards will surely limit the pool of potential participants, but I believe the BAA doesn't want to make it so exclusive that runners lose interest in the race.

At the end of the day, this race belongs to the BAA and the have the right to put it on the way they see fit. Logistically, they can only have so many people on the course, so they must have limits. Up until 2008, the race never filled. So now, while the standards set the bar for folks who want to run, they do not guarantee entry. I understand that folks who hit their time but don't get in are disappointed. However, the BAA does now owe anyone anything. They are incredibly transparent about the process. There is no perfect system though what's in place today is extremely fair.

lolwut wrote:

If anything, I have always wanted to see the Boston qualifier time lower to increase the quality of the field. Under 3:10 for a guy is not THAT hard.

By this rationale, why not drop the standards to 2:20/2:40? I'm sure that the top runners don't think these times are difficult to achieve with just a fair amount of training?

I think we're a bit skewed on how relatively fast people on this message board are. And that's ok since most have grown up running and that's what we know. But even if the person I'm responding to in this post is a 2:30 marathoner or faster, don't you think that there are still folks that think your time sucks, and that with a little hard work, you can get under 2:20? I know my 2:4x is solid, but I have no delusions that I'm anything special.

THAT hard wrote:

lolwut wrote:

If anything, I have always wanted to see the Boston qualifier time lower to increase the quality of the field. Under 3:10 for a guy is not THAT hard.

By this rationale, why not drop the standards to 2:20/2:40? I'm sure that the top runners don't think these times are difficult to achieve with just a fair amount of training?

I think we're a bit skewed on how relatively fast people on this message board are. And that's ok since most have grown up running and that's what we know. But even if the person I'm responding to in this post is a 2:30 marathoner or faster, don't you think that there are still folks that think your time sucks, and that with a little hard work, you can get under 2:20? I know my 2:4x is solid, but I have no delusions that I'm anything special.

I get your point and agree to an extent, however, my main problem is with the people that just barely edge their way into qualifying for Boston, are the same people that stop training once they are going to run Boston just so they can do the "I did it" march for the event. For example, qualifying standard for M18-34 was 3:05. The average finish time for M18-34 was 3:41. 36 minutes slower AVERAGE time than the minimum qualifier for the event. Qualifiers made up 70% of the runners last year, albeit of the remaining 30% charity runners M18-34 made up the smallest demographic.

I wish there was an actual metric out there for the breakdown of times for qualifiers. To stay within the M18-34 category I would not be surprised if 60% or more of the qualifiers are made up of runners between 3:00-3:05 and with the remaining 40% sub 3. It's frustrating to see people work hard to qualify, but then not have the same respect for the actual event they worked so hard to get into.

A joke. for over 20 years, I've taken pride in making the Boston qualifying time by a good margin. I could and did wear my Boston Marathon shirt with pride ( the one only given to runners, not the one from the expo)

Now? Huh, any friggin Tom, Dick , Jane or Harry can run is they raise enough money. It's a joke, joke, joke. I mean, what has become of this race?

Now we have 30 year old women taking over 5 hours, and they get the same medal and bragging rights as the woman who bust her a$$ to meet the qualifying time?

Huh?

Answer me!!!!

almostbq wrote:

Wrong. The registration process in 2010 was gridlocked by everyone trying to login simultaneously. The new system is much more calm and orderly and I think it fairly balances out the runners based on ability.

It took me 14 attempts to get it but I am proud to say my qualifying time was accepted and I will be in Boston on April 20, 2015. One and done. No streak for me. Just realizing a goal I set long ago and had to struggle to get.

Nope simply a myth. The process was not "gridlocked" i had no problem registering that day. NONE. Since you apparently didn't BQ you wouldn't know. It did sell out quickly. That was not a reason to change.

The current system is based in a fallacy. It assumes faster people "deserve it more". It's BS. When I first BQ i didn't work any harder because my time was 5+ min faster than the standard.

The new system renders the standard ambigious and meaningless. You used to know on the day you race if you had met the BQ. Now. You have no idea if you'll be able to run with a particular time.

I rarely agree with Amby Burfoot but he was correct in his assesment of the system.