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.
But Leonard did not summarize all of the posts, because length of the meet and NQT's as a size-management tool is not the only issue here. Paul and Gail have made it clear that the *purpose* of the national meet is important, and they would prefer that only 'fast enough' (whatever that is) attend the meet, though they would or may agree that there is some room for compromise.
I suspect that the spirit of compromise peters out when and if the 'sixth event' rule is enforced. While that has not happened recently, I would be surprised if it does not happen at Rutgers this summer, with an east coast, BosWash meet and one competition pool.
I sympathize somewhat about that - I don't want to give up my sixth event in a year when I might actually place in the top ten. That would especially be true if I thought that was because of some mediocre swimmer driving over for the day (only there so Garden State Masters could get another relay together, but felt like a 200 free would be fun.) But there are other opportunities to do well in the top ten list (my real goal) and my reasons for inclusivity are pretty selfish - swimmers just want to have fun!
If I took swimming as seriously as an Olympic swimmer might, maybe I would feel differently. But then I would be an (current) Olympic swimmer (hint! :D )
But Leonard did not summarize all of the posts, because length of the meet and NQT's as a size-management tool is not the only issue here. Paul and Gail have made it clear that the *purpose* of the national meet is important, and they would prefer that only 'fast enough' (whatever that is) attend the meet, though they would or may agree that there is some room for compromise.
I suspect that the spirit of compromise peters out when and if the 'sixth event' rule is enforced. While that has not happened recently, I would be surprised if it does not happen at Rutgers this summer, with an east coast, BosWash meet and one competition pool.
I sympathize somewhat about that - I don't want to give up my sixth event in a year when I might actually place in the top ten. That would especially be true if I thought that was because of some mediocre swimmer driving over for the day (only there so Garden State Masters could get another relay together, but felt like a 200 free would be fun.) But there are other opportunities to do well in the top ten list (my real goal) and my reasons for inclusivity are pretty selfish - swimmers just want to have fun!
If I took swimming as seriously as an Olympic swimmer might, maybe I would feel differently. But then I would be an (current) Olympic swimmer (hint! :D )
