Enforcement of NQT's for National Championships

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? Greetings, This was the thread that started it all. I think by reading some of today post we have good intentions and good ideas. Now it is up to the Championship Committee to discuss this topic. Happy Lanes everybody!:D Thanks, CJ Rushman Southwest Ohio Masters OHIO LMSC Secretary

The times are slow compared to age group swimmers,sure. Ms Laura Val times are similar to the top 9-10 year old girls in the United States now. But as we age we go backward not forward . 45-49 year old women is similar to 11 and 12 year old girls not 15-18 year old young ladies. I compared 100 yard breastroke for women in my age group ( 45 to 49), 42 made the top times cut off out of 85 in the United States. So half make and half don't,which is different from the statement that almost all make the NT's. I agree that maybe there should be a separate meet but that cost money and time. I think that adding more smaller meets for the more average swimmer may influence people that are not near the NT's to not go to nationals. But some people whether they make the standards are not want to go. And in the younger age groups its more competitive because more people swam as children or started as young adults compared to the older age groups.

USMS covers a lot of agendas, fitness swimmers, triathletes, injured runners, cross-trainers........and competitors. That is what USMS is all about, all inclusive. Whatever your program is, USMS includes you. However, the National Championships are a competitive event and should belong under the jurisdiction of the Competitive Committee. Fitness events under the Fitness Committee, etc. The competive committee should decide all matters related to competiton, including how and where to run the National Championships. I agree with Paul that NQT's should be set for all events and there should be no freebies. That is what competition is all about.

I think more smaller meets would be great and would give practice for bigger meets such as nationals. This nationals being the first one i've ever been too was extremely overwhelming to a beginner like me but i really enjoyed myself and got all personal best times. My only gripe is that the idea of more smaller meets wouldn't work for my neck of the woods. When you live in the middle of nowhere (New Mexico) you may see one meet every 2 to 3 months or you have to travel to ariozna or california to do anything plus it gets extremely expensive. i really don't know what to suggest. there have been many suggestions so far. i think it should stay the way it is so that those who wish experience nationals can. Amber.

There is short-term memory in this post: Originally posted by cjr ... I agree with Tall Paul, 110%. And Gail Roper too. ... It means that CJ agrees with this: Originally posted by Paul Smith ... I truly believe that we value things that we attain through hard work and dedication far more than those that we are "given". ... How much of the NQTs are 'given' in USMS to CJR (and in another age group than CJR's, to each of the USMS people that I highlighted previously as making the top rankings in men ages 40 to 44), whose background is made almost 100% outside of the USMS, appears here: Originally posted by cjr Greetings- Ion- My background is as follows. I have swum since age 6. I swam for a few USS clubs, summer league, and High School. I have made Jr. National & YMCA Nationals cuts. Then I swam in college for 4 years, which I did swim in the Conference Champs & NCAA's. Ion, your right my background is such that I have made the NQT's based off what I did before my adult phase of life. As discusses in the other forum 'Average Weekly Training?' from the 'General Discussion' “My workouts depend on the season. In short course yards season (winter) I try to get in 12K per week in 4 workouts”. This is because I don’t need to workout that much because I know myself and what I am capable of... ... Notice the "...This is because I don’t need to workout that much..." in it. Here are NQTs 'given' in USMS, based on a non-USMS background. Phil Marsom explains this background built outside of the USMS, but used for NQTs in USMS: Originally posted by Phil M. ... As a returnee after a 23 year layoff I had no problem meeting qualifying times. This had nothing to do with lots of yardage and good coaching. It was because I had a strong swimming background. (age 12 - 22) ... Like I posted my position before, I side with Phil's entire post, and with Dominick's post here: Originally posted by Dominick Aielloeaver ... More so should not hard work be reward?We all can not be as good as others . But we can be as good as we can be.:) :cool: :) My take, is: leave the USMS Nationals like they are now, inclusive of different backgrounds, competitive and non competitive prior to USMS. The one area where I might compromize, is the sixth event: .) all non-NQT seed times could be divided into 'consideration' times, and 'non-consideration' times; if the USMS Nationals get too full and the timeline doesn't look good, then scratch a few (not many) 'non-consideration' times rather than scratch the sixth event made on NQT; .) or like Phil (i.e.: Phil Marsom) wrote, if the USMS Nationals get too full and the timeline doesn't look good, then add a day to the Nationals.

As for New Mexico, I think that have 2 or 3 meets a year. Either two state meets and the state games of New Mexico. Its probably not more expensive than going to Tempe. But you probably wanted to go to Tempe since its was a big meet and it was the nationals. Masters is different than USA swimming which only allows the top swimmers to go to either Senior Nationals or Jr Nationals, as a kid I didn't make it to either and went to a lot of local meets in Southern California. Granted, masters meets even in the largest states are not as numerious as age group or high school meets but there are some local meets and for swimmers that are not in the same level as ex-national level or pre-national level swimmers it gives them a chance to do better. In my age group, I'm certain that the top three breastrokers swam at Senior National or Jr National level as teenagers and as adults their times are even further away from mine than when we were 15 years old.

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.

Having just gotten back into some competition this year, I've noticed that all the distance events are given an entry deadline and size limitation. As maybe they should, because this is where the meet timeline could really get thrown off. Perhaps the consideration should be made on number of participants in the time guzzling events as some have some suggested. Whether or not someones' 100 free time is ten seconds off the fastest heat is probably a non-issue. The likelyhood of adding another hour to the days events is a small sacrifice, especially for those who've made the effort to take time off from work and family. The current setup seems to be very fair in providing an all-inclusive meet despite the range in abilities. And being that the number of events for "non-qualifyers" has a limit on them seems to be enough of a precaution in preventing a week long swimming extravanganza. And yes, Ion..a swimming background grants an advantage as Phil had pointed out. I swam in high school and college, and qualified for eight events in the 40 plus age group with just a little over a year in the water now. Now whether or not I can go to them is a completley different story. :)

Hey, I didn't call for this straw poll, but I'll toss my preference in the ring. I'd vote for keeping things just the way they are: 3 events without making NQT, up to 3 more if you can make the NQT. My reasons have been talked right into the ground, so I'll not belabor them. For CJ: leaving aside the issue of whether we require NQT's for some or all events, what method or formula would you use to calculate them? Are you thinking they should be slower, faster, or do you think some age groups are too easy while others are too difficult? Do you feel that we should use more swimmers than the one person who placed 10th on the top 10 list? I'm genuinely curious as to how you'd like to set these. BTW, the way we calculated NQT's changed within the last couple of years (to using the average of the last 3 year's 10th place time, instead of only the last year's, and a couple of other tweaks). If your idea can be calculated reliably without an unreasonable amount of labor, and it statisfies widely accepted criteria of what NQT's ought to be, it could very well be adopted. Matt

Although I have little interest in pool races, please allow me to throw in my (relatively uninformed) two cents. I think that what this issue really is about is capacity planning and NQT's are only a tool to reach that end. To wit, if a meet's size exceeds the ability of organizers to conduct it, it implodes under its own "weight". Therefore, the real issue is "How big can a meet get without either making it either unmanageable, making it beyond the reach of most associations to conduct, or making the stress/expense of hosting it so great that no one wants to do it?" So, based on the above, we first must decide if the nationals are: a) currently unmanageable b) just the right level of manageablity c) could be managed without severe pain if larger If a) is true, then you can either shrink the size of the meet to fit the alloted/desired time or expand the timeframe to accept the number of participants. The most consistent/fair method of decreasing the number of participants is probably making NQT's tighter. Expanding the timeframe, short of using Einstein's relativity principles, become a matter of deciding whether expanding the duration is possible based on stress/expense/logistics. If b) is true, then why mess with what you have? The NQT's are doing their job and doing them well. If c) is true, then again, use the NQT's to get more people in the meet by loosening them a bit. As an aside, it seems that another alternative, at least in theory since I'm not sure of the realities involved, is to expand the space used. In other words, are there many/any locations where there are two pools of good quality and of the right size that are in close proximity so that the meet could be split into two locations. This skirts both the capacity and time issue to some degree although it does NOT skirt the logistics/stress issue and has some added stress that goes with it. Just a thought... The unfortunate truth here is that there is a capacity beyond which the Nationals will not work, despite our desire for egalitarianism. If that point is reached, it must be dealt with for the good of the meet and, hopefully, done in the most fair manner. And that sure looks like NQT's from where I'm swimming. -LBJ (Who will only make the 1650/1500 NQT in his dreams)