There’s still time to enter our “Guess the 2019 Boston Marathon Registration Cutoff” Contest! Beat our prediction, win bragging rights. Be one of the top three entries, win actual, real prizes! Entries close Sept. 9.
Predicting the Boston Marathon qualifying cutoff times is a fool’s game. There’s too much uncertainty to predict the cutoff to the necessary precision when a single second can make the difference between qualifying and a nice try. But here at Mathematical Runner, we are nothing if not foolish, so here we go:
To predict the Boston Marathon cutoff time, we want to know:
- How many qualified runners submit an application
- How many qualified runners the BAA will admit
- The distribution of the applicants’ qualifying times
We have historical data of varying quality for these along with past cutoff times, which we’ll use to make our prediction. We’ll work with numbers since 2014, after the BAA last changed the qualifying standards and the events of 2013.
Here’s the data for applicants, acceptances, and cutoff times (via Runner’s World) which we’ll use to develop and validate our model:
The easiest thing to do is a linear projection of previous cutoff times. The result for 2019 using that method is 3:31. But that same method predicted a cutoff of 2:34 for 2018, which was off by almost a minute. We should be able to do better than that.
The Law of Supply and Demand tells us that the cutoff time should go up as demand (the number of applicants) increases and down as supply (the number of runners accepted) increases. So to predict the 2019 cutoff, we’ll start by predicting those numbers.
To figure out the number of applicants for 2019, we start by estimating how many runners have run what I call a mBQ (maybe Boston Qualifier, a race faster than the qualifying times posted by the BAA) in the year prior to registration in September 2018. We break that total down into three main components:
- Runners who qualified in 2017 marathons held after September’s registration for Boston 2018
- Runners who qualified at the 2018 Boston Marathon
- Runners who qualified in 2018 marathons other than Boston
We don’t have 100% accurate counts for any of those, but we do have the lists of the top thirty races with the most qualifiers that MarathonGuide.com publishes for each year. http://www.marathonguide.com/races/BostonMarathonQualifyingRaces.cfm
This doesn’t include every qualifier of course, but our assumption is that it includes enough of them to make any patterns visible. Don’t worry; we’ll be making a LOT more assumptions along the way to our predicted cutoff.
Using our historical data, let’s add the three components together:
When you compare the number of applications to the three components, you can see that they track together year by year. The large number of mBQs at Boston has an excessive impact on the sum. We adjust for that by multiplying the Boston mBQs by a fraction (0.34443, found mostly by trial and error).
One thing stands out in particular. While the sum has trended downward (in line with total marathon finishes over the past few years), applications for Boston are still trending upward. There’s some unknown factor driving up Boston apps, which we calculate by finding the slope of the line created by plotting the difference between the sum and the number of applications, and then using that to adjust our estimate.
When we do that, the trendlines for the number of apps and the estimate match up, and the total error drops under 2%. Not bad.
To predict the number of applications for 2019, we have everything we need except the number of runners who’ve qualified in 2018 marathons other than Boston. Looking back shows that lists from previous years had anywhere between 12 and 17 races from before registration, averaging about 14. So I added up the top 14 from the current list (excluding Boston, of course). One of the “last chance” races might still make the list, but the difference won’t be that much.
Anyhow, plug in all the numbers for 2019, and we end up with an estimate of 31401 applications.
We also need to know the number of qualifiers that the BAA will allow into the race. Mathematical Runner does not have any better connections at the BAA than you do, so we’ll have to guess. We might as well keep it simple. Using the same four years we used to project the number of applicants, Excel’s FORECAST function estimates the number of acceptances as 23032. That seems like it might be low, so we will arbitrarily change the estimate to 23200, more in line with the last two years.
Now, how do we get from the number of applicants and the number of applications accepted to the cutoff time?
We start with the knowledge that marathon results are distributed in something like a bell-shaped curve. There are very few people who can run a 2:10 marathon, many more who can run a 4 hour race, and few who can (or choose to) run 6 hour marathons. The shape of the curve tends to be a little front-loaded (especially for men), with a long, slow tail (image: marastats.com).
Our assumption is that the distribution of mBQ times for runners who actually submit an application is the same as the distribution for all runners. Potential Boston Marathon qualifiers come from the faster end of the curve. Let’s take a closer look at that.
The area to the left of the mBQ line represents the total number of applicants with a mBQ, while the smaller area to the left of the cutoff line represents the number of accepted qualifiers. (Many people finish just under their mBQ time.)
A single runner can have more than one mBQ. We’ll assume we can ignore that. Anyhow, most of the runners with multiple marathon finishes come from the slower side of the curve.
If we knew the formula for the distribution curve, we could calculate the area under the curve by taking the integral of the curve from the fastest runners to the nominal qualifying times. But don’t worry, a few more assumptions will let us skip the calculus.
The first assumption we’ll make is that for the area in question, the shape of the curve can be usefully approximated by a straight line. That makes the area under the curve into a triangle, which makes the math much simpler.
Then geometry (I know, but at least it is easier than integral calculus) tells us that the area of the triangle representing the number of runners who submitted applications is ½*Q*H, while the area of the triangle representing the number of runners accepted is ½*Q1*H1. Q1 is just Q minus the cutoff time, of course. And trigonometry (still easier than calc) tells us that Q/H=Q1/H1.
The second assumption is that Q, the side of triangle along the horizontal axis representing the amount of time between the fastest runners and the qualifying standards, is one hour (60 minutes). We get there by noticing that the fastest runners are just about an hour faster than the open qualifying time, and assuming (there’s that word again) that the same gap applies for all genders and age groups. (That’s reasonably close to being true.) So Q1 is 60 minutes minus the cutoff.
Given all that, we can solve for the cutoff time in terms of the data we know, then do some curve-fitting to match the historical data. I’ll leave the details as an exercise for the student.
Our process does a reasonable job of mapping to the actual cutoffs from previous years.
Plug in the numbers we’ve calculated for 2019, and Mathematical Runner predicts that the cutoff time for the 2019 Boston Marathon will be…. 5:16. If that’s correct, and all our other estimates are also true, then 8204 applicants will miss the cut.
Both of these numbers are much higher than we’ve seen in the past. Two things stand out to us as factors driving the increases:
First, there was a significant increase in the number of mBQs during 2018, driving the cutoff estimate up. The number requalifying at Boston rose, and even though we didn’t include the last chance races in September, the number of mBQs at non-Boston races went up even more. The numbers may not be exact, but we’re pretty confident in that factor.
Second, as we noted earlier, while the raw number of mBQs has trended downward (in line with total marathon finishes over the past few years), applications for Boston were still trending upward, so we had to add in a curve-fitting factor to make the historical numbers work. That also drives the cutoff estimate up.
Obviously, that trend (fewer potential qualifiers, more Boston applications) can’t continue forever. If you project it forward far enough, you end up with more applications than there are qualifiers. That throws the validity of our curve fitting factor into question.
Does the trend end this year? Who knows? But our gut tells us that fitting to only four data points using an obviously invalid method is not the way to go. We’re leaving out the final curve fitting when making our prediction.
So (drumroll, please)…
Mathematical Runner predicts that the cutoff time for the 2019 Boston Marathon will be: 4:03.
That’s still higher than ever before. We hope your mBQ is good enough to get you in!
this is the most depressing thing I’ve read in quite awhile. (says the guy with a 3:50 cushion)
There’s still time to run another mBQ this weekend!
Brent I’m with you. 3:55 under :-/
I also suspect the time needed will be 4 minute plus sadly.
The number requalifying at Boston 2018 rose? In pouring rain and 30mph headwind?
Yes.
Heat and humidity have a significantly higher effect on performance than wet, cold, windy rain. Now don’t get me wrong, cold/wind/rain scores higher on the misery index, but its heat/sun/humidity that slows you down more.
I mad a lengthy Facebook post about this back in April
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10215268137114115&id=1155094285
The wind wasn’t really a factor. Only a few places did you feel it. If you were out there and finished you ran plenty in crappy weather.
6:40 cushion. Now I’m nervous
All the B.A.A needs to do is not accept the downhill marathon times as BQs.
Boston is a downhill marathon.
Not a 5000-foot elevation drop like the Revel Marathon Series. It’s a joke. Runners from California flock to them.
Not a 5000-elevation drop like the Revel Marathon series. It’s a joke. People in California flock to them.
Relatively few runners qualify from those races.
9 of the top 25 BQ marathons (on a % basis) are considered downhill marathons
http://findmymarathon.com/bestbostonmarathonqualifiers-2018.php
1 Last Chance BQ.2 Marathon (Grand Rapids)
Grand Rapids, MI
61.5%
107
2 Spring Chance BQ.2 Marathon
Geneva, IL
54.8%
98
3 Last Chance BQ.2 Marathon
Geneva, IL
52.6%
122
4 Marshfield Road Runners New Years Day Marathon
Marshfield, MA
50%
1
5 Johnny Miles Marathon
New Glasgow, NS
46%
23
6 Erie Marathon at Presque Isle
Erie, PA
45.7%
676
7 Rivanna Greenbelt Marathon
Charlottesville, VA
42.9%
6
8 Light at the End of the Tunnel Marathon
North Bend, WA
40.4%
203
9 Warm up Columbus
Dublin, OH
40%
20
10 Tunnel Vision Marathon
North Bend, WA
39%
196
11 Beantown Marathon
Hingham, MA
39%
89
12 Tunnel Light Marathon
North Bend, WA
38.4%
193
13 REVEL Mt. Hood Marathon
Portland , OR
36.5%
220
14 Boston Marathon
Boston, MA
35.7%
9,178
15 Super Marathon (Cascade Super Series)
North Bend, WA
34.1%
88
16 Mountains 2 Beach Marathon
Ventura, CA
33.4%
631
17 Boston Bound Marathon
Suwanee, GA
33.3%
9
18 Chasing the Unicorn Marathon
Washington Crossing, PA
32.9%
23
19 Baie-des-Chaleurs Marathon
Carleton, QC
31.8%
20
20 Via Marathon
Easton, PA
31.4%
224
21 Cornwall Run to End MS Marathon
Cornwall, ON
30.3%
60
22 Kamloops Marathon
Kamloops, BC
30.3%
23
23 Sugarloaf Marathon
Kingfield, ME
30.1%
168
24 REVEL Mt. Charleston Marathon
Las Vegas, NV
29.6%
387
25 REVEL Rockies Marathon
Morrison, CO
29%
198
Boston ITSELF is one of the fastest types of downhill courses – Lol.
Having run over 50 marathons I can tell you one thing, Downhill courses don’t equate to PR’s for a lot of people, go look up elite runners for instance, almost none of them have a PR in Boston. The fastest types of courses aren’t the ones with thousands of downhill, it is something with a gentle downhill and rollers sprinkled in so you are changing muscle groups to prevent extreme soreness at the end.
clueless…bosto isnt a downhill course like the 2000 foot slow declines the entire course….those are a a joke and shameful to use to qualify…10 min advantage before u start..just run 25 miles and call it a day
k free – totally agree massive downhill shouldn’t be accepted for BQ’s
Fully agree that downhill courses with ridiculous drops shouldn’t be considered. Or at least there should be some way to ‘normalize’ (if that’s the right word) times run on such courses so that they can be compared to times run on courses that aren’t as steep.
Boston itself is downhill. Kind of tough to tell you they won’t count.
Women flat out have it way too easy. Really, women have to run a 3:35…? The womens standards are punishing everyone as its so easy to overqualify as a chick. Come… ON.
Ooh, you sound like a bitter under-achieving runner Teddy! But I bet you’re the first guy in the room to stand up and say women are not as good as or strong as their male counterparts, right?
Teddy, I couldn’t agree more with you. I have paced over 20 marathons. I can’t tell you how many of them I have first time females BQing (and not even knowing that they are BQing until i tell them). I have NEVER ever paced a 3:05 where i was with a guy who didn’t even know that he was running a BQ – because it takes a boatload of training to hit a BQ. Women can qualify off 25 miles a week, men it requires 50-85mpw.
I’ve run Boston 7 times, never averaging more than 40 mpw. We’re all different.
Teddy and Argentinian Marsupial,
The facts do not support your assumptions.
The Male/Female make-up of Boston runners is still skewed more towards MEN than it is women when you compare it to either the overall marathon community, the running community, or the general population as a whole.
I could give you about 13 more areas where the facts prove your assumptions to be wrong. But I’ve also found when I engage in this argument, I’m debating someone who already has a built-in bias, and no matter how many facts they are shown, they refuse to accept that they are wrong. So, having learned my lesson, I’m going to walk away now.
Further to the point of the Admin about mileage:
I’ve averaged 35 miles/week in 2018 (1,275 miles as of Sunday, and 36 whole weeks in 2018 = 35.4/week)
And over the past 18 weeks while training for a marathon, I only averaged 33.3 during my 16 week training cycle and just ran a 3:05:04 on Sunday (BQ is 3:15, so this is almost exactly a 10:00 BQ, off of 33.3 miles/week (532.8 miles in the 16 week cycle)
What is saying I BQ’ed off 33.3 miles/week supposed to prove? Were you an athlete growing up? If you were, then it’s possible that you can BQ averaging 33.3 miles/week. Most lay runners cannot. Many of us took up running later in life. We have to work hard at it.
Also, nobody considers runners’ weights. Heavier runners are at a big disadvantage! I’m 46 and 205lbs and I can tell you that it’s not easy lugging my weight over 26 miles, especially over those last 6-8 miles.
women do have it much easier for boston and the stats actually prove it. but I won’t get into that and honestly im all good with women having a huge advantage getting into boston…men have advantages is so many things unfairly its good for women to as well..go girls!
Mens WR = 2:01:39
Womens WR = 2:15:15
Delta = 14 mins
For elites, a men’s 2:05 is equivalent to a women’s 2:20 (15 min spread). 30 mins is waaaay to much time (and I’m a feminist!). It should be ~ 20 mins but I think going to 25 mins is a good compromise. I would also drop 5 mins for age groups 45 through 59. Then we can all get back to the magic of crossing the finish line of your qualifying marathon and say “I’ve punched my ticket, I’m going to Boston”! I miss those days. Instead of, I sure hope that was fast enough?
Have you factored in those who will be a year old on race day, therefore will have qualified for their new age group? For instance, if you’re 34 in 2018 and don’t run under you’re qualifying time, you will be 35 on race day in 2019, and your age bracket cushion could move you into the a qualifying time.
I’m sure those applicants would skew your predicted numbers as they do not show up on http://www.marathonguide.com even though the disclaimer is mentioned below any given result.
Your points are valid, but nothing we’re doing has enough precision for those things to matter. We have four data points with a lot of noise. I was just having fun chasing numbers.
On the other hand, if the cutoff is anywhere near 4:03, I take full credit.
I predict the cutoff will be ~3:16 for 2019. Two things in my prediction:
1) There is a clear trend that the cutoff time goes up and then down.
2) Last year miserable conditions will scare off a lot of runners.
Math is fun!
Look at the posts from BAA imdoxatimg cut off will be worse this year. Increase in applications in week 1 and small percentage of week 2 will be accepted.
I am praying you are right says the girl (who tried 6x and felt it was a VERY hard standard for HER) with a 4:11 cushion.
Here I sit at a 4:05. Fingers crossed.
4:05 for me too! Good luck, I hope we both make it!
My friend who runs Boston every year was 20 minutes slower than average this year in the wind and rain. He thought most were. I’m rationalizing why my 3:08 cushion will be enough.
3:44 cushion here. any idea when we find out?
When I know, you will.
I am at 4:34 below my BQ of 3:55. Keeping my fingers crossed and wishing I had pushed just a little harder to keep up with the only guy who passed me in the last 16 miles who said ‘I need to be at 3:49’ as he went by…
Thanks for this website and in particular this post! I am a math teacher and have used this post in math class. I am 4:21 under. Most of my students are saying this year is going to be super competitive so the cutoff will be in the high 4 minute range. They are predicting I will not be running in 2019. Their rationale is that interest in this race is at an all time high so demand will drive times to a historic high. The suspense is killing us. Hopefully they’re mistaken. I can’t remember what my entry time I submitted for the contest but if I don’t get in hopefully I’ll at least get one of your t-shirts!
You should do a contest on what day they will release the final applicant list! Does it always take this long?
I’m at 4:37, run at Boston this year, I don’t think the headwinds, rain and especially the miserable experience of waiting in Hopkinton for the race to start helped lol.
My BQ in 2017 in Myrtle Beach was 9 minutes faster in ideal weather.
I’ve got my fingers crossed that your prediction is closer to being right than your model’s prediction.
So Ray, since the cutoff time came in significantly higher than your prediction, just wondering if you will be doing a postmortem analysis. A number of people would be very interested in what you have to say!
Is that number greater than zero? 😉
There’s a superficial look with the contest results: https://mathematicalrunner.com/2018/09/28/guess-the-2019-boston-marathon-cutoff-contest-winners/
Might be more later.
https://mathematicalrunner.com/2018/10/02/predicting-the-boston-marathon-registration-cutoff-a-look-back/
PREDICCION EN EL TIMPO LIMITE ADMIITDO PARA BOSTON 2019
https://mathematicalrunner.com/2018/09/05/mathematical-runners-prediction-for-the-2019-boston-marathon-cutoff/
Thank you Ray for your post mortem analysis! I guess the word is “follow your instructions.”
Why not take an average of a few key marathon’s average finishing times. Also remove the lower 30% of finisher from your average. it is a lot easier to run slower than faster. Given you have 5 years prior data to use you may be able to get a 95% confidence interval which is good enough for most. Those last races can make a big difference. Erie which is a flat marathon has about 2000 runners and in 2017 had over 40% bq times. That is 800 people who made the published time and probably put their entry in. So to say last chance races don’t really make much difference is an inaccurate assumption. I wish I knew more about stats to assist. I hope with the new times my 4:03 faster than the new time gets me in.