Mission Viejo had very good facilities, great weather, superb organization, and the best hosts. Overall a great meet.
However, as commented in another thread, there were lots of no shows. In four of five events I had an empty lane next to me. This is not the best racing environment, and it makes the meet last longer than necessary. I am not critical of the people that did not show up -- I was one of them on Thursday, as an emergency at work made me arrive a day late.
On deck seeding would be a simple and easy solution.
Evidently some people like to know a day or days in advance who will swim in their heat. However, the way it worked for me, I found out as I walked up to the block who would *not* be swimming. *That's* lots of opportunity to get psyched! (not)
I don't think the way this meet was seeded (check in for distance events, advanced seeding for the other events) was a very good compromise. This was my first non-deck seeded masters meet, and I did not enjoy that aspect of it.
I apologize - calling someone a "hot shot" IS perjorative and I shouldn't have. My personal experience has been that many more males tend to prefer on deck seeding than females. Can anyone find me a 60+ swimmer who prefers it? I can't help but think about the swimmer I met at Y Nationals who has Alzheimer's and had a relative help him get to the correct heat and lane. At least at that meet older swimmers were welcome.
Mr. Moore made a very good point about meets over 1900 swimmers which I had not been aware of. Certainly large events should have consideration for meet officials and volunteers (not to mention swimmers) in expediting the running of the meet.
However, I do feel my dislike of on deck seeding should not characterize me as being "in a tizzy." As practiced in Cleveland at the 2002 L.C. Nationals, having check-in for all events the day before was not nearly as cumbersome as same day check-in. As I recall, even then there was griping about empty lanes. You can't please everyone.
I did not attend the meet in Arizona and can't comment on the seeding there. However, because of the lack of shade and extremely high temperatures I never considered attending that meet. It was only with considerable trepedation that I attended Mission Viejo. With the help of some terrific friends with a car and a computer with realtime results, I was able to stay out of the sun despite the scarcity of shade. I do agree that the meet in Mission Viejo was very well run and I certainly would attend other meets there.
While the scanable card idea seems reasonable, what is the purpose of charging double for "no positive check-in"? You would still have to look up your lane and heat assignments when you got there and you still wouldn't have a heat sheet to use. Also, I wouldn't care for penalizing swimmers for the actions of others (i.e. teammates or coaches who check them in).
I apologize - calling someone a "hot shot" IS perjorative and I shouldn't have. My personal experience has been that many more males tend to prefer on deck seeding than females. Can anyone find me a 60+ swimmer who prefers it? I can't help but think about the swimmer I met at Y Nationals who has Alzheimer's and had a relative help him get to the correct heat and lane. At least at that meet older swimmers were welcome.
Mr. Moore made a very good point about meets over 1900 swimmers which I had not been aware of. Certainly large events should have consideration for meet officials and volunteers (not to mention swimmers) in expediting the running of the meet.
However, I do feel my dislike of on deck seeding should not characterize me as being "in a tizzy." As practiced in Cleveland at the 2002 L.C. Nationals, having check-in for all events the day before was not nearly as cumbersome as same day check-in. As I recall, even then there was griping about empty lanes. You can't please everyone.
I did not attend the meet in Arizona and can't comment on the seeding there. However, because of the lack of shade and extremely high temperatures I never considered attending that meet. It was only with considerable trepedation that I attended Mission Viejo. With the help of some terrific friends with a car and a computer with realtime results, I was able to stay out of the sun despite the scarcity of shade. I do agree that the meet in Mission Viejo was very well run and I certainly would attend other meets there.
While the scanable card idea seems reasonable, what is the purpose of charging double for "no positive check-in"? You would still have to look up your lane and heat assignments when you got there and you still wouldn't have a heat sheet to use. Also, I wouldn't care for penalizing swimmers for the actions of others (i.e. teammates or coaches who check them in).
