Western States 100 Has a Problem - Part II: The Non-Problem?

Before we begin, an important note:

A good friend of mine has told me,

"You have a solution to a non-problem."

He wasn't been contrarian, but facetious. And factual.

His point was that the race leadership does not believe it has a problem. 

And he is correct. They do not think they have a problem. And here is why:

They believe that interest in the Western States 100 - and the radical increase in total lottery applicants - is truly organic. 

I disagree, and so do the numbers. Since 2010:

• the number of ultrarunning finishes has grown 240%
• the number of Western States lottery applicants - since the race implemented a weighted system - has grown 390%

This means the growth in Western States entry is closing in on double the overall growth in the sport (which, when broken down, is largely driven by shorter-ultra finishes, not 100-milers).

Is Western States truly increased in popularity and general appeal, versus the sport at large?

Or could there be something else (artificially) driving up those entries?

They believe that premature entry is an anecdotal problem: "several people" applying "just to pile up tickets", but not a pervaise issue.

I disagree. There are potentially hundreds - if not thousands - of Western States lottery entrants - namely the first-year/single-ticket runners - that are getting in line, but don't really want to run this year.'

And why wouldn't they?

• A geometric system rewards premature entry
• A geometric system, filled with premature entrants, "piling tickets", punishes patience: waiting until you're truly interested and ready

Below are the single-ticket odds by (race) year:

2014: 5.6%
2015: 4.7
2016: 4.5
2017: 2.5
2018: 2.3
2019: 1.7
2020: 1.3

Why would anyone chose patience, when the odds of entry continue to drop like a stone? 

• Premature entry is driving down the first year odds.
• Dwindling first (and all)-year odds is driving more premature entry.

We're caught in a vortex.

It's like a bank panic: if you want any chance, you better get in line right now. 

True, posts like these are anecdotal:

But this?

103 Respondents! And 47% percent don't really want to run this year! 

I acknowledge this is not a scientific poll (not perfectly selecting from verified entrants, as my Twitter followers are more likely to rouse rabble than the general applicant pool).

But forty-seven percent, 48 of 103 respondents, don't really want to run this year?

What is the acceptable percentage of lottery entrants that don't really want to run this year? Surely it is under 47%, or even 17%. 

The counter argument: while begrudingly acknowledging that this is a legitimate concern, the Board wishes to point out data like this:

• single-ticket lottery winners finish at a higher rate than the overall finishing rate (76% vs 67%, in 2016, for example).

But this answer is a substitution for another question, which is:

If you're offered an entry in the race (regardless of ability and interest), will you finish it? 

The numbers indicate they will. But that doesn't mean they were fully commited and prepared, compared to the rest of the 90%+ lottery losers. 

It's like being offered a free dessert - a highly coveted, rare treat - and still eating (and finishing it), regardless of hunger. Will you turn down something that you might never get again?

Lastly:

The race leadership does not seem to acknowledge the negative second-order effects on the rest of the sport. 

A corrollary: they do "make a conscious decision to reward persistence". But on whose backs does the weight of that persistence fall? 

Qualifying standards have become tougher; races decreased (since the 50-mile qualifier was abolished). Most qualifying races, themselves, now have lotteries. And many runners chose to enter events for the sole purpose of "getting a qualifier". 

Per my letter to the Board:

The WSER qualifiers face mounting pressure (in both quantity and fervor) from runners regarding, among other things, entry into the qualifier race and finishing in the prescribed standard. Failure to do either places enormous (and increasing) strain on RDs and events, who must service a runner who's sole desire is to "run another race [WSER] other than this one". 

It also has palpable - and pervaise - effects on the yearly planning (and career trajectory) of runners, their coaches, and their friends and families:

Quite simply, people are forced, because of lottery strain, to base his/her entire yearly race schedule on "getting a qualifier". As opposed to running events organically, for their own sake -- because they're unique and desirable in their own right -- great pressure is put on runners, their coaches (and family), and race events to cater to this geometrically increasing need to finish a WSER lottery qualifying race. Indeed, the more "tickets" - and the older the runner - the higher pressure there is to register for and finish a qualifier. 

This is against the spirit of ultrarunning. Runners should enter, run and finish races, in order to run that race - not simply for the opportunity to run another race. "Dance with the one that brung you" -- don't abuse one event, simply to climb a rung closer to another. 

*****

In writing these posts, I've been criticized of (among many things) "sour grapes" - attacking the thing that I can no longer have (or, it seems, run fast enough, or finish frequently enough, to qualify to make any critique). Moreover, I've been accused of lobbing incendiary complaints into the race community without offering a solution.

And that's OK. I accept counter-criticism, and questioning of motives.

But a solution is worthless without accepting there is a problem.

This was the intent of Parts I and II: to help identify that, indeed, there is a problem. And it's only getting worse.

And it really isn't just a "numbers problem". It is an Existential Crisis:

Any sized cohort of entrants who "really don't want to run it, this year" is poisonous for the spirit of the race: like showing up to a bountiful meal, with bellies already full. (While starving folks stand, outside-looking-in)

I could go on - and will - about the issues and implications, but I will now turn the attention toward a solution:

a non-weighted, stratified lottery system.

The weighted system must go.

Thanks for reading and discussing, and please stay tuned.