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.
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.
Nice, you impugn then integrity of the work then back off from it.
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.
When making the comparison, there were a few (I think the number would be under 5) where the number between the two NQTs was 0.01. Which might be said to be a tie, as the real variance might be 0.001 but then might be as high as 0.015. However, numbers went both way, at least one was higher and two faster by 0.01 sec. Now, where do you want to decide there is a meaningful difference? 0.20 is practically a tie on the 1500 meter, but I the 50 free is a great difference. Even if we could agree on what a significant difference is, we would still see that the trend is for faster times.
It very easy to dismiss the "statistical interpretation" when the facts dont support your argument. But the fact is that the times are getting faster.
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.
The unfairness argument - gee if the facts dont support me then it has to be unfair. There is NOTHING unfair about the process. We have stated the basic process that we use. With the lagging effect of the two prior years top ten entering into the equation, the times do not change much (but they do trend faster).
The NQTs are primarily a management tool for the Championship Committee to have quality competition and conditions at the championship meets. They are not designed as motivational tools for swimmers although they can be. If you believe that there should be some motivational tools for swimmers such that if they swim the time they hit the bronze and an a faster time they have hit the silver, perhaps you can bring that up to the Fitness Committee or the Coaches Committee.
While the times are published in Swim Magazine in the Jan-Feb issue, they are available about the end of the previous September - I know you got them by the middle of October. If they are that important, I am sure you can get them published on the web. Also, if those times are that important to a swimmer, the swimmer can do the calculation of what the new NQT will be. (Or can hire a math major to do it for him- math major for rent).
If the NQTs change annually by only 10ths or 100ths of a second, it's not just frustrating and unfair. It's unnecessary. And if the change is greater? If you are going to do the calculation, I think it is best to do it for all the times. I have yet to see how the NQTs are unfair - maybe you can explain it.
I have not seen the Championships Committee mid year report, but I doubt that it has much in it about NQTs. The Committee has in the past reviewed the NQTs after the meets.
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.
Nice, you impugn then integrity of the work then back off from it.
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.
When making the comparison, there were a few (I think the number would be under 5) where the number between the two NQTs was 0.01. Which might be said to be a tie, as the real variance might be 0.001 but then might be as high as 0.015. However, numbers went both way, at least one was higher and two faster by 0.01 sec. Now, where do you want to decide there is a meaningful difference? 0.20 is practically a tie on the 1500 meter, but I the 50 free is a great difference. Even if we could agree on what a significant difference is, we would still see that the trend is for faster times.
It very easy to dismiss the "statistical interpretation" when the facts dont support your argument. But the fact is that the times are getting faster.
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.
The unfairness argument - gee if the facts dont support me then it has to be unfair. There is NOTHING unfair about the process. We have stated the basic process that we use. With the lagging effect of the two prior years top ten entering into the equation, the times do not change much (but they do trend faster).
The NQTs are primarily a management tool for the Championship Committee to have quality competition and conditions at the championship meets. They are not designed as motivational tools for swimmers although they can be. If you believe that there should be some motivational tools for swimmers such that if they swim the time they hit the bronze and an a faster time they have hit the silver, perhaps you can bring that up to the Fitness Committee or the Coaches Committee.
While the times are published in Swim Magazine in the Jan-Feb issue, they are available about the end of the previous September - I know you got them by the middle of October. If they are that important, I am sure you can get them published on the web. Also, if those times are that important to a swimmer, the swimmer can do the calculation of what the new NQT will be. (Or can hire a math major to do it for him- math major for rent).
If the NQTs change annually by only 10ths or 100ths of a second, it's not just frustrating and unfair. It's unnecessary. And if the change is greater? If you are going to do the calculation, I think it is best to do it for all the times. I have yet to see how the NQTs are unfair - maybe you can explain it.
I have not seen the Championships Committee mid year report, but I doubt that it has much in it about NQTs. The Committee has in the past reviewed the NQTs after the meets.
michael
