Anna Lea answered in a previous post like this:
ANYONE can enter Nationals, and enter up to three individual events, without meeting any qualifying times.
Swimmers who want to enter more than three individual events must meet qualifying times for those additional events.
Yes, I am aware of these points, as I have competed at four Nationals since joining Masters, in 2010. The only point I am unclear on is how long a qualifying time is good for. In other words, how far back from August 2013 can I go when using a qualifying time? I understand it is on the honor system, however, I would like to be 100% :angel: and do it right. And, I would like to make NQT's in all three of my core events, so I can add three more events to my list for Mission Viejo: 400 IM, 200 fly, and either 800 or 1500 free. These are new events for me and I am nowhere near making NQT's in them. But, if I earned my right to compete in them by making NQT's in my core events, then, darn it, I want to swim them! :banana:
Qualifying times for Mission Viejo are attached to this post. They will be available on the meet website once it is established.
Here is a direct link to the NQT FAQs:
www.usms.org/.../NQT-FAQ.pdf
Jeff Roddin
USMS Championship Committee
Anna Lea answered in a previous post like this:
Q: Can I submit the time that I swam 10 years ago as my qualifying time?
A: Only if you think you can still achieve that time! :)
I think people use times from the last 2 years but this posting from AnnaLea says 10 yrs! (.....f you think you can achieve it!) Was she kidding or is that "for real"?
Use the converted time and don't sweat it. Keep in mind these conversions are almost certainly determined by evaluating the times of elite USA Swimming athletes. They are strong and have great turns, therefore they are getting more "credit" for their turns than nearly all masters would. Based on this, you should expect to be closer to your short course time when swimming long course than they would.
Thanks for your feedback on this, Kirk. :agree:
Qualifying times for Mission Viejo are attached to this post.
Arrrrrgh! I missed the 100 free NQT by 0.02. Safely in three other events though. Oh well, pretty sure I'm not going to this meet.
I think people use times from the last 2 years but this posting from AnnaLea says 10 yrs! (.....f you think you can achieve it!) Was she kidding or is that "for real"?At this time USMS does not validate your entered seed times against times achieved at sanctioned/recognized events. So I believe Anna Lea was kidding, somewhat.
However, your entered seed time should be realistic. For example, if you swam the 500 Free in 6:00 10 years ago and you now swim it in 8:00, out of respect for your fellow competitors and the event host please use the 8:00 seed time, even if the national qualifying standard is 7:00.
Yes, most people will use actual times achieved in the past year or 2. Some will adjust this up or down based on training, health and other factors.
My reason for asking is this: According to the Swimming World Conversion Utility, my SCM 100 breaststroke time at last year's St. Nick's meet (November 2011) was EXACTLY the NQT time for that event in my age group. It was my personal best time in that event, however, I have not been able to hit it since.
Use the converted time and don't sweat it. Keep in mind these conversions are almost certainly determined by evaluating the times of elite USA Swimming athletes. They are strong and have great turns, therefore they are getting more "credit" for their turns than nearly all masters would. Based on this, you should expect to be closer to your short course time when swimming long course than they would.
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.
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?
