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.
Originally posted by cjr
Hi Ion,
...
However, most people gave thier personal feelings (which is fine), but all I was wanted was simple yes or no answers.
...
The post was initiated to ask, do we all agree that it needs to be revamped? I think the resounding answer is yes. Obviously this system does “work”, but I use the term rather loosely. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.
...
It is in these "...thier personal feelings..." (which should read instead "...their personal feelings..."), that people here gave "...simple yes or no answers.".
From reading the thread, I would replace the "I think the resounding answer is yes." with an "I think the resounding answer is no.".
I will give again my answers, in your format, below:
Originally posted by cjr
...
So really here are the questions that need answers.
1. Are NQT's important? Why are they important?
...
The NQTs are important in order to give more than three swims to someone.
Originally posted by cjr
...
2. Are NQT's valid? How do we make them valid?
...
The NQTs are valid by making the reporting of the USMS meets mandatory and in a standard form for the computer, so there is a trace of who makes NQTs.
Originally posted by cjr
...
3. What purpose do they serve in the current form?
...
It ensures that who makes NQTs, swims more at the Nationals.
Originally posted by cjr
...
4. Should NQT's be re-elevated? If they need to be then how is this accomplished?
...
I think that NQTs shouldn't be re-evaluated:
10% slower than the tenth place averaged over the last three years, that's fine.
By the way, Christopher Rushman:
when searching on the USMS board, there is no trace of you having been to Nationals in 2000 (Long Course, but went to Short Course, for a 5:34 in 500 free -which for a former age-grouper is so-so to me, the late starter in swimming-; 5:34 it still ranked #6 in the 25 to 29 group in the 2000 Short Course Nationals, an easier group than what the NQTs of men 40 to 44 require), 2001, 2002 and 2003.
So, to judge that the NQTs are easy based on a pre-USMS background, not coming much to the USMS Nationals but -instead of coming- wanting to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore, that's not being a model to me.
Originally posted by cjr
Hi Ion,
...
However, most people gave thier personal feelings (which is fine), but all I was wanted was simple yes or no answers.
...
The post was initiated to ask, do we all agree that it needs to be revamped? I think the resounding answer is yes. Obviously this system does “work”, but I use the term rather loosely. The system is not broken, but it needs some tweaking.
...
It is in these "...thier personal feelings..." (which should read instead "...their personal feelings..."), that people here gave "...simple yes or no answers.".
From reading the thread, I would replace the "I think the resounding answer is yes." with an "I think the resounding answer is no.".
I will give again my answers, in your format, below:
Originally posted by cjr
...
So really here are the questions that need answers.
1. Are NQT's important? Why are they important?
...
The NQTs are important in order to give more than three swims to someone.
Originally posted by cjr
...
2. Are NQT's valid? How do we make them valid?
...
The NQTs are valid by making the reporting of the USMS meets mandatory and in a standard form for the computer, so there is a trace of who makes NQTs.
Originally posted by cjr
...
3. What purpose do they serve in the current form?
...
It ensures that who makes NQTs, swims more at the Nationals.
Originally posted by cjr
...
4. Should NQT's be re-elevated? If they need to be then how is this accomplished?
...
I think that NQTs shouldn't be re-evaluated:
10% slower than the tenth place averaged over the last three years, that's fine.
By the way, Christopher Rushman:
when searching on the USMS board, there is no trace of you having been to Nationals in 2000 (Long Course, but went to Short Course, for a 5:34 in 500 free -which for a former age-grouper is so-so to me, the late starter in swimming-; 5:34 it still ranked #6 in the 25 to 29 group in the 2000 Short Course Nationals, an easier group than what the NQTs of men 40 to 44 require), 2001, 2002 and 2003.
So, to judge that the NQTs are easy based on a pre-USMS background, not coming much to the USMS Nationals but -instead of coming- wanting to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore, that's not being a model to me.
