Has the Championship Committee, or other entity within USMS ever discussed having a more strict policy of enforcement in regards to the NQT's?
Why do we state that you must have 3 cuts, in order to swim more events? Why not require a swimmer to have 6 cuts in order to swim 6 events?
Just like to understand more from a historical point of view. I have read post that asked, or suggested how to control the size and length of the National meets. Would not having a stricter enforcement of this policy help? Or would it cause swimmers to shy away from these meets?
Just a curious thought.
Thank you.
I'm curious how many people KNOW of (not just suspect) people who are cheating on NQT's. My impression is that it is a VERY small percentage of Nats participants that cheat. Personally, I'm not aware of any. I've been coaching Masters swimmers a long time and I sense an almost universal desire to follow the rules.
Putting a system in place that is man-hour intensive (either in creation or operation) to solve a very small problem would simply be squandering our thinly layered resources.
If we SUSPECT cheating is a big problem we should PROVE it is a big problem before we go to great lengths to solve it.
How about this - I'll bet that the meet software vendor can spit out a report of all swimmers who fail to meet or beat the NQT in any event entered by NQT. Then, these swimmers are asked (perhaps by a note by their performance in the posted results) to show proof that they have, in fact, accomplished the NQT (we could state in the entry info that swimmers who are entering by NQT must bring their proof with them to Nats). If, after a couple of Nats we see that there are LOADS of individuals cheating, THEN (and only then) it might make sense to police the thing in a less casual way.
Heck, we could even post a listing at Nats of those unable to show proof and let peer pressure work its magic.
As to the other foolishness in this thread....I will not get sucked in....I will not get sucked in.....I will not....
I'm curious how many people KNOW of (not just suspect) people who are cheating on NQT's. My impression is that it is a VERY small percentage of Nats participants that cheat. Personally, I'm not aware of any. I've been coaching Masters swimmers a long time and I sense an almost universal desire to follow the rules.
Putting a system in place that is man-hour intensive (either in creation or operation) to solve a very small problem would simply be squandering our thinly layered resources.
If we SUSPECT cheating is a big problem we should PROVE it is a big problem before we go to great lengths to solve it.
How about this - I'll bet that the meet software vendor can spit out a report of all swimmers who fail to meet or beat the NQT in any event entered by NQT. Then, these swimmers are asked (perhaps by a note by their performance in the posted results) to show proof that they have, in fact, accomplished the NQT (we could state in the entry info that swimmers who are entering by NQT must bring their proof with them to Nats). If, after a couple of Nats we see that there are LOADS of individuals cheating, THEN (and only then) it might make sense to police the thing in a less casual way.
Heck, we could even post a listing at Nats of those unable to show proof and let peer pressure work its magic.
As to the other foolishness in this thread....I will not get sucked in....I will not get sucked in.....I will not....
