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.
Hi Ion,
I have read each post and have taken these answers into consideration. However, most people gave thier personal feelings (which is fine), but all I was wanted was simple yes or no answers. Maybe the better way was to set this up as a poll. The post was not to distinguish between those that make or do not make an NQT. 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 now up to those that have the responsibility to act upon this, the Championship Committee.;)
Thanks,
CJ
Southwest Ohio Masters
Originally posted by cjr
Hi Meg,
I'll agree with 50-50.
...
I don't agree with 50-50:
aside from neutral positions, like Jeff Kaelon's -who asks whether the USMS will go into elitism or into inclusion- and like Cynthia's, gull80's, Mark Mattson's, Sam Perry's, 'Coach Ray''s, Rob Copeland's and Jim Clemmons' -who ponder the question-, by re-reading the thread, I count the clear positions in this thread that address the 'Yes, change the NQTs', and the 'No, don't change the NQTs'.
'Yes': Paul Smith, Gail Roper, C.J. Rushman;
'No': Matt Shirley, Bert Peterson, Dominick Aiello, Ion Beza, Meg Smath, Phil Marsom, Val Florio, laineyebug, 'GoRedFoxes', Phil Arcuni, theberb, Chris Beardsley, Michael Moore, Dan Frost, Ken Classen, Tim Murphy, Ian (seems to), and Susan Stanton.
So, the 'No, don't change the NQTs.' crushes the 'Yes, change the NQTs.' by 18 to 3.
Even if the 'No.' waters down a little bit from people making amedments to what they have already posted, that will be a little bit of watering down only, but 'No.' will still crush the 'Yes.'.
Originally posted by cjr
...
Obviously this has been and always will be a much debated topic. You really can't win in this situation.
...
The position of 'No, don't change the NQTs.', wins.
Originally posted by cjr
...
I never said we need to tighten up NQTs so that many enthusiasts don't come anymore. Again in another post, I suggested to add 3 more relay events. Why, because it creates more opportunity to swim.
...
Swimming relays and individual events as it is now without changing the NQTs, does create "...more opportunity to swim." compared to what you propose.
Strict NQTs are going to reduce the size of the Nationals:
.) many competitors will disappear and their absence won't be compensated by three more events in relays;
.) three more events is too small of an addition and people will say that traveling to the Nationals just for a NQT relay and no individual swims, is not worthy to do.
So, what you propose (strict NQTs and three more relay events), will reduce the participation, and it will diminish the generous atmosphere of the USMS Nationals.
Originally posted by cjr
...
Your right, I don't make Nationals a regular event. If it fits into my schedule around work, family and vacation then I will go.
...
This also includes YMCA Nationals. I gave you my background only to state that for me, I am relying on it heavily to make an NQT. I only train 3-4 days per week now versus in college where 2 a days 6 times a week produced different results.
...
That's where Val's and Dominick's posts about valuing competitors who have taken "...time off from work and family..." to train, to prepare and to come to the Nationals, make sense.
Consider that out of two Nationals in 2000, two in 2001, two in 2002 and one Nationals in 2003, you (the former age-group swimmer) have attended one.
Out of the same, I have trained as a late starter in swimming, then I attended six.
I think that I am more commited in my preparation and delivery than you are, to go to the Nationals.
You tell me not to go on the three mercy events rule, because I don't make the NQTs in men 40 to 44 and you want strict NQT participation, no matter that you don't go much anyway.
Originally posted by cjr
...
Now, I grant you the 5:34 in the 500 is nothing to rave about. And I'm not. But the NQT for 25-29 age group in 2000 was still faster than the 40-44. In 2000 I did swim a couple of events where I did surpass the NQT (50 & 200 ***). Since I have aged up (30-34), the NQT's have gotten a bit faster in all events.
...
CJ
Well, well:
5:34.xx for the 500 free as a 28 years old in the year 2000 is outside of the 5:33.11 NQT by men 40 to 44 in the 2003 Short Course Nationals.
Now, factor into your 5:34.xx at age 28 as a former age-grouper, that this past Wednesday (two days ago), me who joined my first swimming club at age 28 and who is of age 44 now, I did swim in the middle of an ordinary workout, a 400 free (without draft in the lane and without diving), in 4:46;
this computes to a sub six minutes effort for the 500;
with the bad technique of a late starter in turns and in breathing, noticed in this thread.
Now, wouldn't then a 5:34 at age 28 by a former age-grouper, be kinda unimpressive to me?
I guess swimming must be more relaxed in some age groups.
Originally posted by gull80
4:46? You should definitely focus on the distance events.
Yes, I think -and people in my team think also-, that with proper preparation I can become fair in middle distance and in distance freestyle.
When I came to San Diego two and a half years ago, with swimming in mind, I couldn't have done a 4:46 surprise.
Competitive coaching in swimming, diet (I am now 156 pounds for 6"0', as opposed to 168 three years ago), weightlifting and lots of rest, they bring me surprises like this one.
Technique in flip turns and breathing thru asthma, are still chores to me, but they are on the menu.
We shall see.
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 GoRedFoxes
What is CE and BCE? Metric? Does it have to do with changing the $ bill to read, "In Gold We Trust"?
...
It seems to be "In oil for Exxon and Halliburton We Trust", right now.
This:
Originally posted by cinc310
Two other long rulers, Ion, the emperor Augustus from 30BCE to 14 CE...
...
should read:
"...the emperor Octavian Augustus from 31 B.C. to 14 A.D....".
Octavian Augustus is not to be confused with another Augustus, Diocletian Augustus, who ruled from 284 A.D. until 305 A.D..
Originally posted by cinc310
...
...and the emperor Justintian of the Byzantine empire I think, 530 CE to 575 CE.
Justinian I, reigned from 525 A.D. until 565 A.D..
Good memory, Cynthia.
Me, I don't know history by rote like that, so I look it up for fun.
Here it is:
history for thought, when people meet for beer and pizza.
Originally posted by GoRedFoxes
What is CE and BCE? Metric? Does it have to do with changing the $ bill to read, "In Gold We Trust"?
CE means "common era" and BCE means "before the common era." You may not be aware that these terms are commonly used by many people, particularly observant Jews, who, for religious reasons, are uncomfortable with the religious significance of "A.D." and "B.C."
