WHY the rule this year regarding 1000 OR 1650 but not BOTH?
I have been swimming both, back to back, consistently, in championship meets (and BTW placing in the top 10) for several years. Distance is my forte and it's simply not fair to restrict a swimmer from doing both, especially if they can "handle" it. There are all sorts of qualifying rules, a simple restriction / requirement on times could solve any perceived problems by the meet administrators. IMHO this is NOT FAIR....:(
would something like this two-venue thing be allowed???
I would think it would, but would add hugely to the overall expense and logistics of the meet. You would need to rent the pool time in the second facility, get all the extra officials and timers needed, etc.
My guess is this meet will be closer to the 1500 swimmer mark than 2000. My theory is the biggest meets tend to be in areas with lots of masters swimmers who don't typically compete in major meets, but do because the meet happens to be local. Not to say there aren't lots of swimmers like that in the Pacific Northwest, but I think there are probably lots more in places like So. Cal. and Arizona with lots of outdoor pools available year-round.
would something like this two-venue thing be allowed???
I would think it would, but would add hugely to the overall expense and logistics of the meet. You would need to rent the pool time in the second facility, get all the extra officials and timers needed, etc.
My guess is this meet will be closer to the 1500 swimmer mark than 2000. My theory is the biggest meets tend to be in areas with lots of masters swimmers who don't typically compete in major meets, but do because the meet happens to be local. Not to say there aren't lots of swimmers like that in the Pacific Northwest, but I think there are probably lots more in places like So. Cal. and Arizona with lots of outdoor pools available year-round.
