The main reason that women's breastroke drop from a cut off of 1:20 in 1993 versus 1:17 in the 100 yard for the top ten times is that a different generation is a little faster than those that swam in the 1960's as kids. So the person who was top ten at 1:17 this year, swam faster than last year. The national qualifying time was 1:27 which was 10 seconds slower and as you stated Matt, this is a three year average and it takes time for this to drop. On the other hand, the 200 yard is a lot slower for qualifying times because us masters have trouble swimming good 200 swims outside of freestyle. As for what the time was in 1993 for 100 yard breastroke for national qualfying I don't know. I just play around the computer and look at the preceding top 10 times going back in time. However, I'm not currently able to find this. I also think that 100 yard fly for 45 to 49 women drop from 1:10 to 1:07 during the same time period.
Hi Michael,
I think we can safely say that statistics can be manipulated and misinterpreted in many misleading ways. Please don't interpret that statement as an accusation, as I personally don't feel that you or anyone else is intentionally trying to manipulate the statistics for any specific purpose.
The statistical trend presented above is easily dismissed because many of the times only differ by as little as 10ths or 100ths of a second. The statistical interpretation probably doesn't merit as much discussion as the idea of fixing the NQTs for longer periods. It's good to know that the Championship Committee is discussing this idea, and I'm very glad this forum has served as an opportunity to share this idea with the USMS membership.
It is often a very long process to achieve a qualifying time. If the NQTs keep changing, it is unfair to swimmers who are trying to achieve these times, and frustrating for coaches who are using them as motivational tools. The NQTs for Short Course Nationals are announced to the general membership of USMS in the January/February issue of SWIM Magazine. Therefore, swimmers and coaches have less than four months to achieve those times before entries are due. The lead time is a bit shorter for Long Course Nationals.
If the NQTs change annually by only 10ths or 100ths of a second, it's not just frustrating and unfair. It's unnecessary.
I look forward to reading the mid-year reports and seeing how the Championship Committee has addressed this idea.
Bill
Hi Michael,
I think we can safely say that statistics can be manipulated and misinterpreted in many misleading ways. Please don't interpret that statement as an accusation, as I personally don't feel that you or anyone else is intentionally trying to manipulate the statistics for any specific purpose.
The statistical trend presented above is easily dismissed because many of the times only differ by as little as 10ths or 100ths of a second. The statistical interpretation probably doesn't merit as much discussion as the idea of fixing the NQTs for longer periods. It's good to know that the Championship Committee is discussing this idea, and I'm very glad this forum has served as an opportunity to share this idea with the USMS membership.
It is often a very long process to achieve a qualifying time. If the NQTs keep changing, it is unfair to swimmers who are trying to achieve these times, and frustrating for coaches who are using them as motivational tools. The NQTs for Short Course Nationals are announced to the general membership of USMS in the January/February issue of SWIM Magazine. Therefore, swimmers and coaches have less than four months to achieve those times before entries are due. The lead time is a bit shorter for Long Course Nationals.
If the NQTs change annually by only 10ths or 100ths of a second, it's not just frustrating and unfair. It's unnecessary.
I look forward to reading the mid-year reports and seeing how the Championship Committee has addressed this idea.
Bill
