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 . . .
Jeff,
It drives me nuts, in the distance events! However, I have been told that seeding the distance events takes hours off the day. I've never seen it, but that's what I'm told.
Even Pat (hubby) doesn't like the 400 IM seeded by time, if it is awarded by age group. He wouldn't mind swimming against other ages, as long as it was awarded that way-straight Top 10.
It would just make sense to pick A FORMAT and stick with it, either by age or by time, just choose! Here at Pacific we're used to the time seeding as you know :smooch:
We swim all year being seeded by time only, even at Regionals. I think it's a nice change to be seeded by age groups for once and actually be in the pool racing the people you are competing against for medals.
Additionally, the age group seeding works for the vast majority of swimmers. While I respect the fact that Jeff would have liked to have swum next to Gary in the 100 IM, there is a pool full of other swimmers competing for 2nd-8th who all want to swim next to each other. Gary's race is the perfect example - although Gary won by over 2 seconds, less than 2 seconds seperated 2nd-10th place in that event. Plus, It's just not the same when you swim a race and think "I need to beat lane 1 and lane 5." (Yes, of course we are all trying to beat every lane.)
Also, If you breakout the top 24 seeds to swim together, given the example above using the 200 free, you would leave the 4th seeded man in the 30-34 age group swimming against 5th-11th seeds. That doesn't seem right to me. I'd be pissed if I were him - in fact, I'd probably make my entry time faster to ensure inclusion in the "fast" heats. I think this would become a problem and then you'd really see people not making their seed times...slippery slope!!
There's always prelims/finals but it appears that involves a lot of legistive tape, in addition to (1) making the meet longer, and (2) forcing people to swim an event twice. I swim all the 200's, and let me tell you, I was tired by my 6th event at Nationals (and it showed). I couldn't imagine swimming 10 or 12 events - I don't have the stamina of Michael Phelps! And, I'm guessing people in the more "experienced" age groups would hate swimming that many events even more than I would.
Bottom line: I'm fine with the way it is.
This is true for the seeding of longer races Jeff. The difference is that there is a MUCH wider range of times the longer an event is and race strategy comes into play. When I'm swimming a mile it is nice to know that SOMEONE (regardless of age) will be next to me so I'm not swimming it alone.
In a 50 or 100 that's not really the case (except for a few swimmers who blow away their competition even in the short races). And, there's not much race strategy in 50's - or maybe there is and that's why I'm so terrible at them! :)
Seeding the distance events by time does shorten the meet, although less so at Nationals where there are qualifying times. Essentially, in the 1650, by grouping all the slowest swimmers together, we will only have 1 heat that takes 30 minutes. The next heat would take 25, the next heat 23, and so on. If these events were seeded by age group, then there could potentially be someone in each of the first several heats who would take 30 minutes. So, it's best to put them all in the same heat.
I don't mind if the distance events are seeded by time regardless of age. It gives me a chance to try to race my neighbors. I train with a guy, and we're both trying to get under 5:00 in the 500. Head to head races in season are very interesting. We didn't catch that Federal Way seeded by time, and ended up in different heats, but would have loved to get in adjacent lanes to race each other.
I'll watch most of the 500 races where my competition is if they're not in my heat. I'll occasionally do it for the 100/200 too, but in all honesty, the guys after me swim so fast, its more of a watch for tips on race strategery thing.
The most beneficial seeding is by time regardless of age. Assuming that there are small variances in seed times within a heat AND that seed times reflect a swimmer's FASTEST swim in the last year. (the accuracy of seed times is ANOTHER discussion and can not be fixed by running it as single seeded event or by age group). Unless you are the number 1 seed in a heat, you will be swimming next to someone who is _supposedly_ faster than you which should motivate you to your best effort possible. And if you and your rival are pretty closely matched you should be in the same heat but as in all things there are no guarantees.
As much as we would like to swim against folks that we know well, why not also look forward to swimming next to someone that you have never met before? Especially at a Nationals event given what should be a much larger field?
Paul
I am for seeding by time for all events at all meets, including nationals. Continue medals by age group. I do want to know how I faired against swimmers in my age group.
I don't want trials and finals. Talk about a long day although you'll only have 3 total competitors in the 200 Fly for the entire meet much less age group. So maybe it will balance out. :joker:
With seeding only by time:
1) The meet will run faster and be more exciting. It will cut down the total heats and it will group multiple slower swimmers in the first heats which will reduce meet length.
2) More swimmers will compete with swimmers of similar speed. When I'm in the water, I could care less how old you are, I want to swim my fastest time and beat you.
At a meet, how many people think well since swimmer "A" on my left is 5 years younger than me and swimmers "B" on my right is my age, I'm only going to race swimmer "B". Most swimmers will race the person they think they can beat that is FASTER not the same age.
Besides, it's also a good way to meet swimmers that you might not get to know otherwise.
3) The only solution to getting all swimmers to enter accurate seed times would require USMS having one single end to end online, integrated meet management system that every meet uses and all national entry times are verified against it. That's not going to happen in the near future. This is Masters not the Olympics.
Getting seed times from prior meets won't work.Many swimmers only taper for Nats so all prior times that year will be slow. Also there are some swimmers(you know who you are) who train really hard in there age up year,so times from the prior year will be slow(or non-existent.)
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!
