Using the formula 5th time * 1.15 for qualifying times seems to bias participation in the shorter distances over the longer distances (100 vs 200). Is this intentional?
Using the qualifying times for the 100 vs the 200 *** -
Event Rankings 2012 (Long Course meters - Men)
Age 50-54 39 made the cut in the 100, 23 in the 200.
Age 55-59 35 in the 100, 26 in the 200.
Age 60-64 31 in the 100, 20 in the 200.
A fairer question would be what percentage of the people in the Event Rankings database make the cuts for the events?
Using the formula 5th time * 1.15 for qualifying times seems to bias participation in the shorter distances over the longer distances (100 vs 200). Is this intentional?
Using the qualifying times for the 100 vs the 200 *** -
Event Rankings 2012 (Long Course meters - Men)
Age 50-54 39 made the cut in the 100, 23 in the 200.
Age 55-59 35 in the 100, 26 in the 200.
Age 60-64 31 in the 100, 20 in the 200.
A fairer question would be what percentage of the people in the Event Rankings database make the cuts for the events?
