Enforcement of NQT's for National Championships

Allright we should go back to topic. But Ion, Sally is a woman in the 55-59 age group, so she probably shouldn't swim as fast as you given her sex and age. That's all that I will say on the subject.

I don't think that our "poster's" take too much personally. That said, I think that Ion's point is that because of the wide variety of backgrounds

Oops. I don't think that our "poster's" take too much personally. That said, I think that Ion's point is that because of the wide variety of backgrounds we come from we should open up the Nationals to all who would like to compete. The extra 3 events are just as important to current non-qualifiers as they are to those who happen to be swimming faster. 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) I would think that our Nationals should be truly open. If you are brave enough to put on a Speedo you should be able to swim. More power to you. If the Nationals get too crowded then add a day. If the sport is going to grow then we need to encourage participation not make it exclusionary.

Greetings, I will be brief. I agree with Tall Paul, 110%. And Gail Roper too. LBJ nicely conveys all of the messages from the posts. To answer Matt S; I think that NQT's are slow. Look at the NQT's for men's 50 free, regardless of the age group. 90% that swam the event beat the NQT. 50 free maybe a bad example, but it does illustrate my point. The NQT's need to be revised. Also, as I started in another forum, I think relays should count as events. Would make it interesting. Meg, Your right the Championship Committee needs to address this issue. Obviously I am not the first person to bring this topic to the fore front. Since I can't make it to the convention this year, I hope that this is discussed. I'll see you soon. Thanks everyone. CJ Rushman Southwest Ohio Masters OHIO LMSC Secretary :D

Originally posted by cjr To answer Matt S; I think that NQT's are slow. Look at the NQT's for men's 50 free, regardless of the age group. 90% that swam the event beat the NQT. 50 free maybe a bad example, but it does illustrate my point. CJ I saw your statistic and it scared me. We did an analysis of the NQT for a five year period and it showed that in the 50 and 100 free about 60% of the swimmers achieved an NQT at Nationals. (90% would be about 50% off). I went back to this year's SCY at Tempe for my age group (50-54). The NQT is 26.25. 53 swimmers swam the 50 Free, 35 swimmers made the NQT (66% - a little high). In the psych sheets 58 swimmers entered the 50 free and it show that 40 people had entered an NQT or faster time (69%). (I think it is the 200 Fly that has the highest percentage of people making NQTs). I like LJB's analysis and his final line "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." This has summed up my feelings. Championship will do what it can in meet management, but at some point, the meet will get too big. I will try to write more, but am at lunch right now. The Championship Committee is always looking at NQTs and it was brought up at the committee meeting at Tempe. A sub-committee was formed to look at the NQTs (especially for LCM) and what can be done. There will be report for the Championship Committee before convention. michael

Hi Michael, Yes, I did embellish my stats a bit!;) Hi Michael, Yes, I did embellish my stats a bit!;) But the majority of swimmers, at least on the men's side surpass the NQT. Now, some of them might surpass it at the meet because of thier tapering. Others make it regardless. And I agree that it does depend on the event swam too. Can you share any insight to where the Championship Committee is going with this topic? I'd write more too, but I am heading home. Thanks, CJ Rushman Southwest Ohio Masters OHIO LMSC Secretary

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 )

"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." Assume for a minute that nationals have reached critical mass and the meet becomes too large to handle. It seems to me if you start to enforce NQTs the meet will shrink, perhaps to an undesirablely small level. To my way of thinking, it follows then that once the maximum size the event can be is determined, then NQT's should be be set low enough that the maximum size is obtained for every meet. I still believe that a two tier competition might work. Create a national invitational with truely competitive QTs for elite swimmers and a national open. Swimmers who compete in the invitational would not be eligible to swim in the open, giving the rest of us a chance slightly better than a snowball's to place. :D

How about another option; Set "A" & "B" NQT standards similar to what is done at NCAAs? If an event has far to many people entered (say 100+ in the 50 free) then enforce a cutoff.

Yikes! This is a little scary, but I agree with Ion!!!! I like the way we do it now. I think having three "free" events and three NQT events is a good compromise. I do not think only people who make the NQTs should be allowed to go to Nationals. That's not my concept of what USMS is all about. By the way, the way the NQTs are figured is more complicated than just 10% slower than the 10th place time on the Top Ten list. It involves averaging over a specified period of years. Championship changed the formula a few years ago so there wouldn't be such drastic changes in qualifying times from year to year. The actual formula is not in the rule book because it was getting to be so complicated that you had to read the rule multiple times to figure out what it was saying. At my suggestion, the wording was changed to "The procedure for determining the qualification times shall be established by the Championship Committee with the approval of the House of Delegates" (article 104.5.3C). Basically, we're trusting Championship to do their job competently. Meg