In praise of small local races

[Ryan]

I'm not trying to start a fight, but why do you care?  If you pay $15 for a race entry, and $7 of that amount goes to race expenses, $4 goes to the race charity/cause, and $4 goes into the race director's pocket, is that a big deal?  If the race was worth $15 to you, why shouldn't the race director make a few bucks off the deal?  He or she probably put a lot of work into the race.

The only big deal to me is when they charge a ridiculously high entry fee with the excuse that proceeds are going to charity. If you're charging $25 for your entry fee while $4 is going to charity and a race of the same distance and quality is being run in the next town over for $15, people are better off going to the $15 race and giving $10 to charity but some get the guilt trip to spend more money with less going to charity.

[ferris]

so, Ryan...what do you think is a fair price for a...

5k?
8k? (Al's Run)
10k?
1/2 Mary?
Mary?

...in this area?

I'll say that I like when they have a no T-shirt option and knock a few bucks off.

.....and if you think road races are expensive, dont ever get into triathlons. My wife and I are racing a few this summer and we may have to knock off a bank to cover the entry fees for a summer of racing.

[Ryan]

Around here, it doesn't seem like it's necessary to pay over $20 for any race under the marathon in distance. Those that charge $20 already seem to be on the high end. I don't know what I'd consider unreasonable, it would probably depend on certain aspects of the race, but $20 or more for a small local 5k where organizational costs should be relatively low, especially for example those 5k races in Frame Park where you need a few volunteers and no traffic control, seems pretty steep. Of course, those Frame Park 5k races have other issues, such as course inaccuracy.

[ferris]

ya, I hear ya on the Frame Park stuff. All of it.

I think we talked about this a few years ago, but I'll say it again.

If I am going to pay over 20 bucks for a race, anywhere from 5k to ha;f mary....I think a few things should be a given.

1. the course is safe. (traffic is controlled, that kinda stuff)
2. the course is accurate.
3. miles are marked. I dont even need times, I can look at my watch, just put up signs at the bare minimum
4. they have enough bathrooms
5. they have enough food

I have been to many races that fail at many, if not ALL of those. The worse , in my exprience, Mad City half marathon.....by FAR!!! My buddy was on his bike and got to the intersections and stopped traffic because there were no cops in sight. The last 5 miles were unmarked.....and that was part of the Mary course, could you imagine running a mary and not having markers the last 5 miles! ouch.
the course was actually a 20k, but adverised as a Half. I almost flipped when I saw the clock at the finish.

on the flip side......South shore half marathon. I think it is like 8 bucks. Plenty of food, miles are marked and it is "safe" The only one they are sketchy on is the bathrooms, but it isnt that bad. Props to the Striders for that race. They prove it can be done well and affordable.

[Ryan]

South shore half marathon. I think it is like 8 bucks. Plenty of food, miles are marked and it is "safe" The only one they are sketchy on is the bathrooms, but it isnt that bad. Props to the Striders for that race. They prove it can be done well and affordable.

This is the race I hold up as a model of what a race should be. Moderate size, well organized and run, no unnecessary extras. If a half marathon can make it at $8 per entry (last time I ran it at least) why should a 5k that never touches a road and hence doesn't need traffic control, doesn't need aid stations and has about 5 volunteers working the whole course since it's just 2 laps through a park need to charge $20 or more?

[GTF]

Unfortunately, a lot of those small local races don't have results of previous editions available. If they do, it's usually last year's winner, which can be very deceptive. Sure, last year's winner was fast. If nobody was within 5 minutes of him, a fact that is impossible to know since only the winner is given, he probably won't return.

You cannot surmise the next 3-5 based on the age-group results?  In my current locality, as well as my previous one, typically the top 1-3 open runners for each gender are listed and then the top 3+ for each age group are also given.  Typically, any runner in the top 3-5 overall in any given race also won or placed high in his or her age group.

Then, I'll show up and win by 3 minutes and next year someone will see my time and show up based on that, while I'm off searching for another race with better competition.

That's the problem with small local races. The competition may be there one year and the next year, you may end up with a 10k being won in 40+ minutes. The bigger races have much more consistency in their winning times.

Then go with the one with the best prize purse?  At least that way you should either find decent competition drawn to that race or come away with something valuable for having no competition in the race.

BTW: I wouldn't even pay $25 for a 10k.

I figured as much.

[Ryan]

You cannot surmise the next 3-5 based on the age-group results?

Not when the only result you can find, if you can find this much, is last year's winner.

The go with the one with the best prize purse?  At least that way you should either find decent competition drawn to that race or come away with something valuable for having no competition in the race.

Instead, I choose to search out the races with competition, even if it means a 2+ hour round trip to get to the race, as all of my races except one this year have required. I don't care about prizes. I race for competition, not prizes. The point I'm making is that the overabundance of smaller races is squeezing some of the traditionally larger and always competitive races out of the picture so it's getting harder to search them out.

Again, I'm not stating that small races are bad. I'm stating that a healthy balance of all sizes and levels of competition is the way to help a diverse running community thrive. Without that balance, some segment of the running community gets left out in the cold.

[Bart]

When I was living in Louisiana, the New Orleans Track Club put on good races.  They were well-organized, safe, provided a number of overall and age group awards and had great post-race food (red beans and rice, mmmmm).  In addition, for 5Ks you could register on the day of the race with a no t-shirt option for $10.  The longer races would cost a bit more.  One key seemed to be that they had a dedicated race director and a strong corps of volunteers.  

I hope they bounce back strong after Hurricane Katrina.

Bart

[GTF]

Not when the only result you can find, if you can find this much, is last year's winner.

Incredible, I had no idea that the Milwaukee metro area had such mediocre race results reporting.  I thought the area in which I lived previously had a rather poor local competitive running scene, but even though the times may be slow I can still go online and find recent results that would give me a firm idea of how the top 5-10 overall performed (and even whether the course was significantly short) and etc.

Then go with the one with the best prize purse?  At least that way you should either find decent competition drawn to that race or come away with something valuable for having no competition in the race.

Instead, I choose to search out the races with competition, even if it means a 2+ hour round trip to get to the race, as all of my races except one this year have required. I don't care about prizes. I race for competition, not prizes. The point I'm making is that the overabundance of smaller races is squeezing some of the traditionally larger and always competitive races out of the picture so it's getting harder to search them out.

What I meant to imply, and clearly did not do so strongly enough, was that races offering prizes of cash, generous gift certificates, or airfare (for example) to the top placer(s) will consistently draw a more competitive field than those that do not, all other things being essentially equal.  Also, I was meaning to indicate that if your choice was solely from among a handful of small local races that have in the past given the appearance of being uncompetitive, then the best choice would be to go with the one which yielded the greatest return, even if it were merely the result of cherry picking.  One other alternative would be to just go into the race with a week or two of heavy training on your legs, no taper at all, which would theoretically bring you back to the pack.  I am not advocating either way, really, and though I do realize that you are playing devil's advocate here (and while I also find merit wanting among the original listed criteria) it just seemed that you were quick to write off the notion without considering the more creative approaches and angles.

[r-at-work]

while I'm not in the same league as you guys and I can understand most of the points of view, I think what is coming out here is that there are LOTS of reasons why we runs races...

one other reason that came out this year in my choice of races was distances offered and course difficulty... lots of the "bigger" races in the DC area are now "events"  like the Cherry Blossom 10 and the Army 10 (11.3 this year) and several of the 5K and 10K are just HUGE and as they are in DC they are FLAT... so as I've said I like the club races and two half marathons were picked specifically knowing that they had HILLS...

usually, for me, the competition is with myself, but as there are so many people gearing up for marathons the races longer than 10K attract fewer casual runners, dare I say a better "class" of runners... still fewer in my age group at longer races, but I don't notice that when I'm running (my eyes aren't that good  and I run without my glasses)...

so I guess what I'm trying to say is this year I ran a few, not to beat someone, or improving my time or winning prizes (or getting a shirt)... but to improve my mental toughness as hills are what I used to consider my weak point... and smaller races (around here) don't seem to be afraid to throw in  the hills...
-R