Enforcement of NQT's for National Championships

I agree with you Meg, not all of us that swim as children swim great as adults. Most of those that say they made the NQ times and were out of swimming for over 20 years were men and swam in NCAA's division I, II, or III finals. I didn't hear any women make this claim because with age, we lose upper-body strength and it effects women more than men and some of weight a lot more than we did as teengers. And some of us were modest swimmers as kids not near national level. I wished that I could go under 1:20 in the 100 yard *** like I did as a 20 year but I don't. My time was 1:34.58 in the polar bear meet, so age and being out of the sport for a long time effective me more than the other swimmers. And I think its ok if you want to go to nationals with the three events. Sorry, to hear about your dog, I have a dog too.

It is naive to judge NQTs as being too easy to make, from the fact that most competitors going to the Nationals do make NQTs: .) by the Nationals' design to allow more swimming by people making NQTs, the majority of swims at the Nationals do make NQTs; so, obviously there is no surprise that most swims at the Nationals, they do make NQTs; .) most swimmers in USMS do not make NQTs; a few amongst those who don't make NQTs, have the courage to go to the Nationals, and risk themselves trying to overcome ridicule in a high competition, on the three mercy events rule. Regarding: Originally posted by Sam Perry ... It is the "USMS National Championships" but when the rubber meets the road, the true National Championships are the top 10 lists published at the end of each season. ... the "USMS National Championships" and the 'true National Championships' (aka: "...the top 10 lists published at the end of each season."), are about the same: .) this is according to me seeing that the top 10 ranks for the year (and far beyond the top 10) are on swims made almost exclusively at the National Championships; .) with some exceptions only, like the swims by Barbara Dunbar. So, having the 'true National Championships' generously including people not meeting NQTs, who -as Val writes- have "...made the effort to take time off from work and family." and are humble and inspired to compete in this top environment, works almost 100%. Bert states: "It ain't broke so don't fix it!!". Otherwise, you are going to break something that works well now.

If we have roughly 42,000 members of USMS (it may be more, it may be more like 47,000, but this is close enough) and 1900 of them came to Tempe, then we're only talking about 4.5% of the USMS membership. And if 69% of the competitors at Tempe met or bettered the NQT, then that's only 3.1% of the USMS population. C.J. looks at 1300 out of 1900 competitors making the NQT and concludes that the NQT is too soft. Another way of looking at it is that only 1300 out of 42,000 USMS members made the NQT, so by that standard the NQT is pretty tough, not too easy. In reality, because we call them the Nationals, and because NQTs are in effect (regardless of the mercy events), a huge number of competitors are already scared off. I see no useful purpose in making the NQTs harder than they already are. And let's be clear here about who you're talking about excluding. You're talking about me, and people like me. People who train hard, or as hard as their lives will let them, year round, but are not elite swimmers and never will be. We love to swim too, and we enjoy taking part in Nationals because it brings out the best in us and allows us to feel part of something special. We pay our entry fees too, and we get stuck in the "leftover" heats, swimming with a conglomeration of age groups. We have no hope of placing in any of our events, yet we still swim our hardest, and we're pretty happy with our achievements, because when it comes down to it, we're really only competing against ourselves anyway. But according to some, our presence cheapens your accomplishments because we didn't "earn" the right to be there. And we're inconveniencing you because we take too long to swim our events. I'm so sorry--if only I could have swum my 50 *** in 40.11 instead of 40.94, my 100 in 1:27.07 instead of 1:30.45, and my 200 in 3:12.21 instead of 3:17.74, we could have taken a whopping 9.74 seconds off the meet. If find this attitude ... disappointing.

Originally posted by Paul Smith 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. Just to stir the pot a bit, as well as suggest extra work for the already overburdened, :D what about a more comprehensive collection of times? Goal setting could be aided by a scale used by agegroupers. So, for those folks who might be outside the range of a National Qualifying Time, they could still go for a "B" time or other intermediate goal. Also, as a statement of the obvious ;), if we muck around with the formula of three free events to a policy of NQT only entry, there is no reason why the NQT's couldn't be relaxed to reflect that fact. Just some thoughts, Ray

I'm not so sure I like the concept. I can imagine someone who doesn't make QTs traveling all the way to nationals and not getting to swim. And another thing... why should we keep the meet small enough so that the elite swimmers have time to socialize? Lainey

Meg, I would have to assume that much of your feelings of dissapointment have come from my comments/opinions and for that I apologize as I have never felt that nationals should be an "elite" event. What I have tried to propose is some way of maintianing a balance between the size of the meet and setting "reasonable" NQTs that help people set goals and train to acheive them. I've never stated a desire to create "optimal" conditions so that people such as myself or anyone else can swim faster, rather I would like to leave the meet at a resonable time to go out with friends (refer to my past posts regarding my pizza/beer diet). The problem with NQT times is that they will always exclude someone, the question then becomes "what is fair"? I don't know the answer, hence my suggestion that maybe we set a NQT time and then have a "B" consideration time that allows anyone who wants to swim do so, as long as there is some cutoff. Forums such as this never allow for the true expression of someones personality, sense of humor, etc. especially when it comes to sarcasm! For the record: I very much enjoy masters and beleive that its actually working pretty well. I have no real concerns about NQTs, however I REALLY like a good debate! I also think that debates like this help to make events like nationals better, it provides a great place to discuss possible improvements and a chance to sorta get to know folks. I hope that most people that are brave/bold enough to enter this forum do so with open minds, a lack of hostility and a strong sense of humor!

Paul, I'm sorry, I'm having a pretty bad day. I was up most of the night with my 14-year-old dog, who was throwing up. The diagnosis is pancreatitis, and he probably won't last longer than 24 to 48 hours. Actually, I don't have a problem with any of your comments. I think your idea about consideration times has a lot of merit (and I should have said so before). I'm sorry if you thought my comments were directed at you. I was avoiding using names so as not to be perceived as attacking anyone, and evidently achieved the opposite! What I am disappointed in is the idea that the current NQTs are too easy because most of the people at Nationals can make them. Also the idea that you don't belong at Nationals if you can't make the NQTs. I wanted to try to put a human face on the people who would be affected. I am one of them, and many of the people who have posted to this thread know me. In fact, C.J. and I are friends, and former teammates. C.J.'s stated rationale for toughening up the NQTs has been that the meets run too long. I don't think Nationals are at an unmanageable size yet, and their size has been holding steady for the last several years in spite of the growth in USMS. Therefore, I don't think that controlling the size of Nationals is a legitimate justification for tightening up the NQTs. Meg

I am sorry Meg, that people have made others feel nationals is supposed to be an exclusive event. It is the "USMS National Championships" but when the rubber meets the road, the true National Championships are the top 10 lists published at the end of each season. I can understand and empathize that "Nationals" with the size and scope of the meet is not the most conducive to swimming fast. I also feel with the size of the meet and the vast amount of USMS registered swimmers that participate in it, regardless of level of eliteness, makes it a lot more fun and interactive. I myself would not look forward to Nationals being 500 of the most "elite" level swimmers. It would turn out to be the same 500 people each time, for the most part. With 2,000 to 3,000 swimmers coming to nationals each year, there is always the opportunity to make new friends, meet so many diverse people and still have great competition. One idea that I believe has been discussed before (I am new to this), is to make a SCM meet sanctioned and sponsored by USMS that has a championship format. Prelims/Finals and seeding not by age group, but by seed times. With this type of meet, we could have some great racing, world records and FINA world rankings at stake. This meet could be hosted in December before the holidays and have strict qualifying times. I see something similar to what USS does with the US Open in December. Just a thought....

Yeah Lainey, that's how I operate; ONLY Top 10, or national record holders are invited when I go out for a beer. And because I can't stay up very late it's VERY important that we get out of meets early to make happy hour. All you low life, scumbag, slowpocks need not apply, us "elites" are very afraid of you poor souls with no technique and open turns rubbing off on us! :D

Everyone I know wants to get out of the meet at a reasonable time, say before five pm.....so they can eat an early dinnner and get to bed. Doesn't everyone socialize during the meet? I would like the meet smaller so we don't have to start the meet at 7 am and warm up at 5:30 am......just so we can get the meet over in time. I don't think any swimmer can swim the 400 IM well at 7 am. Keep the meet from 9 am to 5:00 pm, give everyone, swimmers, timers, officials time to eat dinner and refresh for the next day. The kids meets used to stop at a predesignated time, if your event wasn't run by then, tough. Now the kids meets, separate the age-groups, with the 12 and under over by noon and the older age-groups in the afternoon. I notice that the recent Senior Games did the same thing with the 50-65 age groups the first 3 days and the 70 and over the last 3 days or something like that. Perhaps we should consider that? Just a thought....