New Rhode Island marathon targets Boston overflow

[Andrew A.]

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=18335

Love the innovation and concepts at work with this race, it could even be preferable to Boston!  Nice to see someone step up and do something to court the interests of competitive runners and something to benefit the sport first and foremost.  This is what can happen when someone who loves the sport puts the interests of the sport first rather than what seems to typically happen when corporate/for-profit/fund-raising interests are in charge.

[Ryan]

I just saw a press release about this elsewhere and was about to post it. What a great concept. While the legend of Boston is still a powerful draw, for those who are just looking for a well organized event that focuses on the runner, this seems like a very compelling alternative.

BTW: Another thought. We always hear about how the slower runners supposedly "subsidize" the faster runners. If this race succeeds at that price point, it will offer some evidence of what I've stated all along: it's exactly the opposite, the faster runners are subsidizing the slower runners.

[Andrew A.]

Except that the higher the entry numbers, the higher the prize purse for this race. 

I can safely say that if I lived in New England then I would be looking to this race rather than Boston.  The cost and need to enter almost half a year ahead of race day works against the best interests of a lot of good runners for whom BAA John Hancock is their local major spring marathon.  Witness how high a 2:40-2:50 runner places these days versus twentysome years ago -- and how often they tend to be runners visiting from far away.  That is what BAA John Hancock has seemingly become, a rich tourist runner event.  Meanwhile, Exeter puts in place a structure to grow competitive depth, between the entry standards, entry fees, and prize purse. 

[Ryan]

Agreed. I'd probably do Boston once or twice for the experience, then go to this event, which sounds like it's billed for the non-elite competitive runner. Honestly, if it lives up to the image it's trying to spread, it could turn into one heck of an event.

[Andrew A.]

It might be that I am simply less and less prone to nostalgia as the years go by, I just have never had much of an interest in the Boston lore/hype and it has followed a fairly steady decay curve.  It might also be that ING NYCM holds a greater spot in my imagination with its status as the premier marathon in the USA and the world.  At any rate, I am interested to see what develops with this race, both for 2010 and years to come.  I believe there might be room enough for a marathon like Exeter in each region of the country (Houston area, Chicago area, NYC area, etc.) at least once a year. 

[Andrew A.]

mzungo.org says: This is great news! We need more marathons that purely attract the serious runner. The mzungo.org staff will travel to Japan next year to experience Fukuoka first hand. To qualify, one needs a 2:45h just to show up. In Japan, marathon running is still mostly a serious sport and not just an event that tolerates athletes. Don't get us wrong, we like every kind of running and enjoy mass participation events. But, despite our less than superstar finish times, we consider ourselves hardcore racers and therefore appreciate any road race that encourages hard and consistent training.
Thumbs up Exeter!

[Ryan]

I was actually thinking that this type of thing should be available in more areas. I think a series of events done around the different regions of the country could do well, as long as they paid attention to keeping costs down and sticking with no frills/low frills events. It is a very interesting concept and it will be interesting to see how it works out.

I also agree with the quote you offer from mzungo.org. This type of event is needed. As stated, it's not about being against the mass participation events. It's about being for events that cater to serious runners, as the mass participation events are trending toward not caring for the serious runners other than, in some cases, those who grab international headlines.

[cameron]

i guess the most appealing thing to me is that you're guaranteed a spot if you meet the standard (BAA - 300 seconds).  i'm really sick of events filling up 4-6 months before and miss the old days where i could show up at the (Chicago, Lakefront, etc.) race expo and register.

(ok - - off my soapbox)

[Ryan]

Cameron, that's a big thing in my opinion. One of the reasons I haven't run a marathon for the past couple of years is that I haven't been willing to commit 4-6 months ahead of time. By the time I would be ready to commit, knowing I have a good chance of showing up on race day ready to run to the standards I set for myself, the races I'd be most interested in are already filled. It would be very appealing to be guaranteed a spot as long as you register by the deadline, which isn't very long at all before the race.

This is something I've argued that races like Chicago should do. Instead of closing registration for everyone 6 months out, knowing that competitive runners don't want to register until they are sure they can run up to their own standards, set a qualifying time for guaranteed entry. They could even close this guaranteed entry a month ahead of time and still do a great service to the running community. This wouldn't even be a matter of not allowing certain people in. It would be a matter of understanding that different people, with different goals, look at registering for a marathon 6 months out differently and ensure that one subset of individuals is not left out in the cold because they want to ensure they are ready before committing.

[Andrew A.]

+1

Of the two large marathons (BAA John Hancock & Chevron Houston) where I would have free accommodation and transportation, entering 3+ months in advance is a necessity.  Even guaranteed entry for ING NYCM, which holds much greater appeal for me than the other two, has to be submitted eight (or more) months before race day.  It is a shame to have to pass on them for that mere fact, but given all the other hassles that go along with marathons of that size, it seems that (given other appealing options) my money would find more value for me elsewhere.  Like the quote above indicates, these races seem to merely tolerate athletes rather than embrace them in any meaningful way -- might as well look at the avenues that happen to present less cumbersome requirements and support them with my $ vote.