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.
My feelings are that capacity is only one part of this "debate", however as I've stated many times in the "competitive" branch of our sport, setting goals (such as making an NQT, Top 10, winning a championship, etc.) is an extremally important element. I truly believe that we value things that we attain through hard work and dedication far more than those that we are "given".
USMS provides "stepping stones" to advance and progress from loacl meets to regionals all the way to the pinnacle which is our nationals and world championship meets.
I am however "flexible" enough in my position to allow for what some describe as the "spirit" of masters and attempts to be inclusive. My point is where is the line drawn?
I've used examples such as overcrowding; 100+ entrants in an event, meets that go till 9pm, etc. none of which has been a major problem at nationals the last few years. The problem may arise however if a swimmer uses a freebie to enter an event that is far slower than the NQT, it doesn't happen often but it can and will.
This is why I suggested that we possibly use "B" or "Consideration" time standards that would kick in when an event doesn't have a full field (or does). Rather than have a "freebie" let people know that if the size of the meet allows for additonal swimmers than there in.
My feelings are that capacity is only one part of this "debate", however as I've stated many times in the "competitive" branch of our sport, setting goals (such as making an NQT, Top 10, winning a championship, etc.) is an extremally important element. I truly believe that we value things that we attain through hard work and dedication far more than those that we are "given".
USMS provides "stepping stones" to advance and progress from loacl meets to regionals all the way to the pinnacle which is our nationals and world championship meets.
I am however "flexible" enough in my position to allow for what some describe as the "spirit" of masters and attempts to be inclusive. My point is where is the line drawn?
I've used examples such as overcrowding; 100+ entrants in an event, meets that go till 9pm, etc. none of which has been a major problem at nationals the last few years. The problem may arise however if a swimmer uses a freebie to enter an event that is far slower than the NQT, it doesn't happen often but it can and will.
This is why I suggested that we possibly use "B" or "Consideration" time standards that would kick in when an event doesn't have a full field (or does). Rather than have a "freebie" let people know that if the size of the meet allows for additonal swimmers than there in.
