I have been thinking about an issue Jeff Commings brought up after the SCY Nationals. Jeff pointed out that he might have gone faster if he had been seeded by time rather than by age. I though the same thing as I watched others, including Dennis Baker, Gary Marshall, Rich Abraham, and others decimate their age group competition. How cool would it have been to see heats of the best of the best go head to head? And the competition would likely lead to faster times, at least for those swimmers who like to be pushed as opposed to swimming in clear water.
But for most of us mid-pack folks, it's a whole lot more exciting racing against our competition than a random assortment of folks who happened to have the same seed time. And often those seed times are wildly inaccurate anyway.
I have a couple of thoughts, neither of which are probably workable, but which might be food for thought. One method might involve culling out the top 24 (or some other number) men and top 24 women seeds from each event and swimming them in separate heats. To prevent gaming the seeds, the race staff would compare seeds to actual times within the past year. The remaining swimmers would swim seeded by age. This would be extra work for the race committee, but probably would not increase the length of the meet a whole bunch, if at all, because these folks would be swimming anyway.
Another suggestion might be a prelim/final format, with the top 24 times from each event swimming it again later. There are rest issues and length of meet issues with this one, but how fun would that be? The rock stars would have to figure out just how hard to go in their age group heat to advance, and the finals would be an all-out blast.
Just thinking out loud . . .
Most masters meets are seeded by time regardless of age. Having the short events seeded by age and time at Nationals I think is a cool benefit. For anyone looking not only to beat a time but to medal and/or try to make Top Ten, seeding by age gives you a chance to put those medals and Top Ten stakes up for grabs in the same heat.
My best 500 race was at 2005's nationals in Fort Lauderdale, where they seeded by age. There were three young ringers who broke 5:00 by a longshot. Myself and one other guy, Jose, were next in the seedings. I didn't know him personally, but we'd been battling each other in the Top Ten for the last two years. I knew his times (turns out he knew mine too). This was our chance to race each other in the same pool. Based on our previous times, if the 500s were seeded by time, he'd've been 2-3 heats ahead of me.
It was a great race, and we were finally able to meet in person after that race and exchange congratulations'. We continue to battle it out in the Top Ten, and I look forward to the next chance I get to race him!
Most masters meets are seeded by time regardless of age. Having the short events seeded by age and time at Nationals I think is a cool benefit. For anyone looking not only to beat a time but to medal and/or try to make Top Ten, seeding by age gives you a chance to put those medals and Top Ten stakes up for grabs in the same heat.
My best 500 race was at 2005's nationals in Fort Lauderdale, where they seeded by age. There were three young ringers who broke 5:00 by a longshot. Myself and one other guy, Jose, were next in the seedings. I didn't know him personally, but we'd been battling each other in the Top Ten for the last two years. I knew his times (turns out he knew mine too). This was our chance to race each other in the same pool. Based on our previous times, if the 500s were seeded by time, he'd've been 2-3 heats ahead of me.
It was a great race, and we were finally able to meet in person after that race and exchange congratulations'. We continue to battle it out in the Top Ten, and I look forward to the next chance I get to race him!
