Colonies Zone SCY Championships - Fairfax VA

I suspect we aren't "big" enough emotionally to overlook the pecadilloes of triathletes, including, but not limited to, their strange dietary habits. USMS has embraced triathletes and they are a big part of our membership, despite their pecadilloes. Having done this, it is somewhat difficult to cry foul when they crash our meets. (Though we have managed it here!) However, there still seems to be a long term issue as to how to accommodate both triathletes and distance specialist swimmers in the limited number of spots in the only good pool in the area. Putting aside the first come/first serve defense, it just seems bizarre that virtually all available spots are taken by one team. Saving some spots would seem a reasonable measure. Or, since it's a championship meet, you could accept the fastest X number of times.

But that is why I recommended that someone tactful, like Jeff Roddin or Jeff Strahota, give somebody at Team Z a call and see if any of them might agree to share a lane. I don't know if this is even legal www.usms.org/.../part1.pdf 102.10.4 Two-to-a-Lane Seeding in Distance Freestyle Events A General principles of seeding two-to-a-lane (1) Options to swim two-to-a-lane (a) At the discretion of the meet director, competitors in the freestyle events over 200 meters may be required to swim two-to-a-lane when only one course is available for the event. The meet information shall state the criteria under which such events are to be swum two-to-a-lane. (b) When competitors have an option of swimming two-to-a-lane, the heats with two competitors per lane will be completed before the heats with a single competitor per lane. (c) If there are not enough swimmers to fill all heats with two swimmers in each lane, those swimmers with the fastest submitted times may be seeded one-to-a-lane. (2) Men’s/women’s events (a) If men and women compete under the same event number, they shall be seeded by time without regard to gender. (b) If men and women compete under different event numbers, they shall be seeded separately by time. (c) If men and women compete under different event numbers, men’s and women’s heats should be alternated. (3) Heat designations—Heats shall be numbered consecutively without using alphabetical characters (e.g., no “A” and “B” heats). Heats shall be referred to as “odd” or “even” numbered heats. Odd and even heats shall be paired when seeding two-to-a-lane. (4) Reporting to the clerk of course—Swimmers in both odd and even heats shall be asked to report to the clerk of course (or to the starting area) at the same time. (5) Starting procedure—The starter shall call the odd heat to the starting block first. As soon as the odd heat is under way, swimmers in the even heat shall be called to the starting blocks. The even heat shall be started as soon as practical after the odd heat. (6) Lane etiquette (a) The starter shall instruct the swimmers to swim on one side of the lane during the entire race (i.e., no “circle” swimming). (b) Obstructing another swimmer by swimming across the lane or otherwise interfering with the swimmer shall disqualify the offender, subject to the discretion of the referee, and the disqualified offender shall be removed from the lane as soon as practical. (7) Timing—Separate timing shall be required for each swimmer. B Methods of seeding two-to-a-lane (either method is recommended) (1) Swimmers of similar speed in the same heat (a) Heat and lane assignments—Lanes shall be assigned as in article 102.10.2. (b) Pairing of heats—After lanes are assigned, heats shall be arranged in pairs beginning with either the slowest or fastest heats, at the meet director’s discretion. The fastest heat within each pair shall be designated as the odd heat and the next-fastest heat as the even heat. In the following example, for a six-lane pool, “1” refers to the fastest swimmer, “2” to the next-fastest swimmer, etc. (2) Swimmers of similar speed in the same lane—Groups of swimmers equal in number to twice the number of lanes of the pool (e.g., groups of 12 swimmers for a six-lane pool) shall be created. Each group of swimmers shall be divided into odd and even heats. The fastest swimmer in each group shall be assigned to a middle lane in the odd heat. The second-fastest swimmer shall be assigned to the same middle lane in the even heat. The remaining swimmers shall be assigned to lanes in accordance with article 102.10.2A. In the following example, for a six-lane pool, “1” refers to the fastest swimmer, “2” to the next-fastest swimmer, etc.

With the admission that I've missed most of this thread, why not just do what I've seen done at USAS meets -- The threshold is determined based upon entry time (e.g., fastest X number of swimmers) Naturally, with all the whoo-wah about sandbagging and whatever is the opposite of sandbagging, you'd need to implement a proof-of-time approach** I've seen the Phoenix Swim Club implement this approach at a number of its age group meets (e.g., see www.bestswimclub.org/.../273883_AZ13-32R2 AZSI PSC Winter Invitational.pdf) Yes, it is elitist in that the fastest swimmers swim ... but the approach used at CZ rewards the fastest "enterers." Given the choice between these two options, I think the former is the better choice. As mentioned above, require (don't ask for) two-per-lane swims. Personally, I think this sucks, but they do this at Senior Sectionals in Portland every year and the kids can manage it and swim fast. ** With the caveat that I'm likely not to volunteer to implement this because the whole "he/she entered the wrong time" issue doesn't really bug me, but I wonder why USMS can't just adopt USAS SWIMS database (or similar technology) and REQUIRE all swimmers to enter all sanctioned USMS meets with their best times from SWIMS? Again, it works for USAS ... are we really that unique? I'll leave this :worms: and go back to my aqua-therapy now.

I wonder why USMS can't just adopt USAS SWIMS database (or similar technology) and REQUIRE all swimmers to enter all sanctioned USMS meets with their best times from SWIMS? USMS already has that technology. That's where the "Current Event Rankings" pull from. Or when you list your personal results. And when you enter nationals (and some other events), there are "suggested times" that pull from this results database.

:worms: aqua-therapy Noodles?!?

When these two events fill up in 2 hours a full 2.5 months before the event, something is not right. I love this meet and want to see it continue to be successful. So the meet filling up so quickly is a sign the meet is not successful? If the events did not fill up, would that make the meet more successful in your eyes? Sorry, Betsy - I couldn't resist the softball you left us :) Unfortunately I think what you mean is it didn't work out for you personally. I fail to see anything the host did wrong and think it is unfair that comments are being made to suggest the host failed us in some way. This is a Zone meet and protocol is set by the Colonies Zone committee. As I recall a few years ago, a Zone meet bid came in from a host that wanted to charge a higher splash fee for the distance events to cover his pool rental costs on Friday (something hinted at in this thread as a future suggestion). The Zone committee voted and said that was unfair and would not endorse the bid. The meet went on anyway with the higher splash fee on Friday but didn't have the Zone label. Since there were no other bids for that course we didn't have a Zone meet that year. Jeff

USMS already has that technology. That's where the "Current Event Rankings" pull from. Or when you list your personal results. And when you enter nationals (and some other events), there are "suggested times" that pull from this results database.So why don't we end all this angst over sandbagging/fast-seeding and require people to enter their best times from SWIMS within some reasonable timeframe (e.g, last 3 years)? Otherwise, NT.

So why don't we end all this angst over sandbagging/fast-seeding and require people to enter their best times from SWIMS within some reasonable timeframe (e.g, last 3 years)? Otherwise, NT. I think it's been discussed. I'm sure lots of people would be upset if USMS was so heavy-handed. There are other practical reasons, I think I remember the championship committee discussing it at one point. I would predict that NT would be quite a bit worse than allowing swimmers to guesstimate their times. And I don't think NT is allowed in nationals anyway. (It isn't called SWIMS but the distinctly less-pithy name of ERDB, the "Event Results Database".)

I think triathletes are much more used to quick-filling events than swimmers and they just were faster off the blocks (pun intended). I don't really see how one person can sign up many other people. The only way I can see that a coach might be "complicit" in any way is reminding the swimmers to sign up quickly once the meet opens up for registration. Unless someone has an advantage in knowing when that is, then it seems like a fair process. It is unfortunate that there has to be a cap, though completely understandable. We'll have to have one for summer zones too; hopefully it will be less of an issue since it will be in the middle of triathlon and OW season. In terms of the meet's success, other than unhappy swimmers the other thing I would worry about is people only going for one event and then leaving. That has a financial impact if it prevents others who would be multi-event swimmers from entering the meet. And it maybe has an intangible impact on the meet's community/social atmosphere. This isn't to say that Cheryl did anything wrong, just that it is a difficult problem. At our next zones meeting we should address it, hopefully without accusing meet directors of playing unfairly.

This isn't to say that Cheryl did anything wrong, just that it is a difficult problem. At our next zones meeting we should address it, hopefully without accusing meet directors of playing unfairly. Has anyone suggested that Cheryl did anything wrong? She is an outstanding meet director and did send out a first come first serve email notice to those swimming the distance events the prior year. I think the disappointment is directed at Team Z for snatching all the spots and only participating in the meet one day. They are essentially using a Zones Meet for their own Distance Meet. I share Neill's concern about it causing people not to swim on Sat & Sun. As it is, the women's events go more quickly than the men's events and, for a Zones meet, they run about the same length as an in season local meet. (From my POV, this already short duration makes Zones a poor choice for a taper meet.)