Swimming against your competion

What is the difference in the total time a 200 event takes if it is seeded by time within gender (like Omaha & Mission nationals were/are) and seeding it by time within age within gender (like most other national meets in the past few years have been seeded, with a few heats of mixed age groups to minimize total number of heats)? Assume you require positive check-in and deck seed either way. Clearly the time within gender seeding will take less time, but I'm curious as to how much of a difference there is.

There might be a number of band aids like this solution. The larger issue it would appear is the size of meets. FINA has solved their championship overload by running 24/7 if they need to. If I am correct, this Nationals selected a 5 day format, unprecedented except for the really day at Indianapolis, before knowing how big it would be. If it had been a traditional 4 day format the problems would be much exacerbated. USMS needs to be considering how to manage many more people. Given the number of swimmers that make the Nationals a one time special event, Santa Clara could be very large. Coming up with on the spot solutions isn't going to continue to work. There is something to be said for tougher qualifying standards if that is what it takes. AMswimmer is just recognizing this problem from a different perspective and s/he is correct. Not swimming with your competition is not in the spirit of a true National Championship.

One observation I had about the Omaha Nationals was that a swimmer (in the 200s) could break a world record, or national record, or break into the world top ten and get 3rd or worse in his/her heat. This diminishes the accomplishment of this swimmer as it is not apparent to the audience how he/she is dominate in their age group. Suggestion - for the 200s - have 1 elite heat of the top 8 seeds in each age group/gender followed by the remaining swimmers seeded by time. I know this would lengthen the meet but I don't think it would be considerable. That's a great idea! :applaud:

This is what happens when we have a Championship Committee chair who thinks any race with a change of direction is a long distance event. Zing.

I know that some really fast swimmers prefer to swim seeded by times so that they have people near their times,but I really feel that at least for one heat per age group you should be swimming against your age group.That way,win your heat,win the championship (I know that a swimmer from an earlier heat could have a better time,but that almost never happens.Also since that faster swimmer swims earlier,the final heat swimmers could know of that time.)Probably my best race ever was at Auburn in the 200 *** against Robert Wright.We both went faster than we would have if we had been seeded in lanes 2 and 7 say, as we might have been with times only seeding.

Probably my best race ever was at Auburn in the 200 *** against Robert Wright.We both went faster than we would have if we had been seeded in lanes 2 and 7 say, as we might have been with times only seeding. Probably? I would hope your world record race was your best race ever! :applaud::bow:

The question hasn't been answered, how much time does it really save when you are swimming by time and not by age group. Is it 30 minutes an event or 3 hours? Was a timeline done both ways?

The question hasn't been answered, how much time does it really save when you are swimming by time and not by age group. Is it 30 minutes an event or 3 hours? Was a timeline done both ways? Thursday: 200 IM 19 minutes, 200 Free 27 minutes, total time saved for day = 46 minutes Friday: 200 Back 22 minutes Saturday: 200 *** 15 minutes Sunday 200 Fly: 27 minutes

The spirit of a National Championship may be diminished, in your opinion, when the focus is on participation, however, the spirit of USMS is inclusiveness. USMS is all about not being an elitist organization or they would not invite fitness swimmers to participate. If I had sensed USMS was not inclusive, I would not have joined. And, my guess is there are many swimmers out there who feel the same way. Being an inclusive organization doesn't mean USMS has to include everyone in its national championship. It is not remotely elitist to have time standards for national championships or to be forced to eliminate NQT events because of attendance. It's nationals, not a run of the mill meet. I find myself in agreement with amswimmer. I decidedly prefer to swim against my competition at nationals and, as she notes, it is the only meet of the year at which this happens. And everyone knows I agree with Matysekj's comments! I don't want to be stuck in an outside lane catching the waves of the 20 somethings in a sprint event. Unless substantial (hours+) time is saved, I think the 200s should be seeded by age group. As for Jeff's point about the 400/800/1500 swimmers, I would be curious how they feel. The age group time spreads in those events is likely much greater than in the sprints, pacing is much more important, and waves from surrounding swimmers less of an issue (in fact, there may be drafting). So perhaps in those circumstances it is more desirable to swim against those with comparable times? I can see either side. But those events take so disproportionately much longer than the sprints, I'm sure there's no choice but to mix age groups.

20 minutes an event! That's it? For that we can't swim against our own age group? I'm so happy that on Saturday we get to go home at 4:50 instead of 5:05.