In a development that surprised everyone and will disappoint many, the BAA shut down online registration for the 2011 Boston Marathon race after receiving 22,000 online applications in a little over eight hours yesterday. Last year, it took two months to fill all the slots; this year it took one business day.
The news was significant enough to merit a front-page story in the Boston Globe,
Unlike most marathons, Boston requires that non-charity entrants achieve qualifying times at other marathons. This makes the entry process more severe, but also increases the cachet. Qualifying for Boston is a big, big deal -- a lifetime goal for many recreational runners. That also leads to an unspoken expectation that running the qualifying standard more or less ensures entry into the race.
Not this year.
As race director Dave McGillivray said, "There are more people running these days, more people qualifying and a greater inventory of people who want to run Boston. As a result of all that, there was a sense of urgency that hasn’t existed before."
Leaving aside his unfortunate use of the word "inventory" to describe the many runners who are willing to pay a couple of hundred bucks for the privilege of running from Hopkinton to Newton in mid-April, he's right that there was a sense of urgency. Facebook was abuzz yesterday with people sharing their stories of registering or trying to register, or alerting other runners to get in their applications quickly.
We've yet to see the fallout, but I don't think the story will end here. For one thing there's bound to be discussion about the thousands of charity numbers given out every year to people who have NOT qualified. There will be much discussion of whether the race can accommodate more runners, perhaps adding a third wave, or a charity wave to what is currently a two-wave start for the masses. There will be another discussion about whether qualifying standard should be made tighter. (There was a time when an open male needed to run 2:50 or better to qualify for Boston; now it's 3:10 or better.)
And whenever there is enough demand, there is sure to be a black market for race numbers.
In any case, it will be interesting to see how the BAA handles the issue, and how their experience affects other major marathons.
Did YOU register for Boston? Did you want to register but missed the window? I'd like to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I signed up at 9.01 yesterday because i heard all the talk about how quick it might sell out this year. I wanted to be safe but figured i was being a bit paranoid. I never would have guessed it would sell out this fast.
I also wonder how many people registered just to keep their options open for a spring marathon but have no real plan to run. Something needs to be done, I'm sure there are plenty of people who weren't even able to get to a computer in time to register.
I was on the leading edge of getting locked out of Boston when I tried to register in late January two years ago. I registered early yesterday, because I thought it would close within a day, after how quickly it closed last year, locking out many people.
Given the long lead time, and frequency of injury among marathon runners, and the fact that they have dropped the injury deferment, I think it is crazy that the BAA doesn't somehow facilitate number transfers. I think the BAA should allow runners to give up there spots to others on a waiting list. They could refund most of the money and charge a processing fee (or restocking fee if we are inventory), and make a few more bucks.
On the other hand, I'm ok with lowering the open time to 3:00 and the old fart time (my group) to 3:10.
I got a number for Boston yesterday, after trying on my computer 15 times to register for it. It worked out well that I was stuck home with a bad cold in front of my computer with nothing else to do!
I'm curious what the BAA is going to do about that next year. I agree with Pat, they could make a waiting list and make a few bucks out of it, -I don't think they are a non-profit?- Statistically, it's the same as a slightly bigger field of qualifying runners.
I'm OK too with lowering the qualifying time, lucky me... if the whole point is to turn that marathon into an "elite" race for different categories of runners, it certainly isn't tough enough to get in!
It cost me $130, for those who want to know, and the ones who don't , well now you know!
Geraldine
Geraldine,
You're right. Statistically having a waiting list for a 25,000 runner field is the same as accepting 27,000 runners when you know that 2,000 generally DNS. But the waiting list would sure make the 2,000 injured runners feel better.
Then again, the BAA would get the full price from the 2,000 injured runners rather than just the waiting list processing fee. So from the BAA's point of view, there is no reason to change.
Pat
What always set the Boston Marathon apart from all others was that it was wholly competitive. The issue is that BAA has leveraged this prestige and allure in order to increase the field size, at the cost of turning its back on the very class of runner that made the race unique. The quality of recent races has suffered for this, and the BAA's use of this is finite; eventually it will come back to bite the BAA, even if today it has not affected its ability to sell numbers or advertising. BAA has the resources to maintain reasonable race day logistics (e.g. Hopkinton and Copley) for these runners without affecting overall capacity. It would also be simple for it to set tighter qualifying standards which are open for registration until March 1. Otherwise, the transition from "race" to "event" is well underway.
I think the recent influx in applicants and the closeout in 9 hours isn't due to Boston's elite marathon, but a general upsurge in people running marathons.
Marathon registration is up across the boards- Philadelphia Marathon sold out early, and the marathon in Newport RI had 2,000 last year, and tripled to 6,000 this year!
While it is the prerogative of the BAA to do what it will, I feel especially protective of the streakers out there. Our teammate Al for instance, has 16 Boston's in a row under his belt. Tough enough to do without worrying about getting in and I am not sure he made it.
I agree that raising the bar makes sense, and giving preference for legacy streakers also...
While I don't have a problem with it, there are many children amongst the spectators, and it is in the middle of the day on public roads, so I don't think we should be encouraging streakers.
Post a Comment