I am not usually one to complain about swim meets, since I appreciate all the hard work that goes in to putting one on.... And I fully understand that this is the largest LCM Nationals in the history of Masters Swimming....
But really...
Not being able to swim against your competition in the 200's???
This is not a local meet. This is the Nationals. The ONLY time I get to swim against my own age group.
There needs to be a better solution.
This seeding by time for the 200s is making me want to not swim them anymore at nationals. I want to know how I'm stacking up with my age group during and immediately after the race and not have to scramble for my iPhone to figure out if I placed well or won later...
It's difficult to swim against your competition when your competition sandbags their times! There was so much of that going on at this Summer Nationals - sandbagging also messes up the length of the meet.
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.
We felt we should seed the 200s all the same way (all by age group or all by time). For instance, we didn't want to seed the 200 *** by age group while the 200 back was seeded by time (or vice versa). Likewise we didn't want to preseed one 200 event while doing positive check-in for another 200 event. One could argue we are already not doing the same thing across the board (50s, 100s, 200s, 400s, 800s, 1500s) so why not seed each event uniquely on each day as needed. Right or wrong, we decided to be consistent with the seeding at least for the race distance. Anyway, it is true the time savings may not have been great for some of the 200s but with the order of events we needed to do it for other 200s, so the hammer came down on all of them. Finally, we had the largest Summer Nationals in USMS history plus we had an 8 lane pool, so if there was ever a time to do this (seed 200s by time) to save time this was the meet.
Aside: a bad situation is no shows for a positive check-in event (USA-S penalizes swimmers by not letting them swim their next event if this happens). I think there were 12 No Shows in the 1500 last week. That would have saved close to 30 minutes off the ~10pm finish time had those swimmers not checked-in. There were a ton of empty lanes for a deck seeded 500 free on Sunday at a particular Nationals, so we got to wondering if this was an issue with swimmers being out of gas by Sunday morning (while it seemed like a good idea to them on Tuesday or Wednesday when they checked-in). Turns out the No-Show rate for the 500 free is high for men regardless of day; and low for women regardless of day. One can draw their own conclusions there!
If that's is all the time it saves this certainly won't be a solution to shortening the meets if the national meets continue to grow. It's too late for Mission Viejo but a subject the championship committee should revisit with the comments in this thread taken into consideration.
Well said, and I agree. I also think the "sixth event" rule is unfair and a better solution exists. We don't know until 35 days before the meet starts how many swimmers are entered (even less days if the popular request to extend the entry deadline was granted). The Order of Events (4 day vs 5 day formats) needs to be published before the entry form is available, so it's not an option to change that platform. Then all you have left are seeding configurations to manipulate to produce manageable days.
How many pools have 10 lanes for long course? Georgia Tech(which most people complained about for scy nationals) and the hall of fame pool have 10 long course lanes.
Requiring 10 lanes for lcm nationals isn't a realistic option every year, unless usms wants to hold it at a limited number of venues.
FWIW there were 2 bidders for 2013 Summer Nationals and both had 8 lane pools. We were fortunate in Puerto Rico (2010) and Omaha (2012) to have 10 lane pools, but those were indeed rarities for LCM Nationals. But you are right that a 10 lane pool for LCM Nationals is extremely helpful (e.g. we didn't have to cut the sixth event in Omaha, even with ~1250 swimmers). Note that SPIRE (2015 LC) has a 10 lane pool.
And today the announcer usually only mentioned the heat winners, which left older swimmers who did well in their heats unrecognized.
I was not at the meet but this is not really a seeding issue, it's an announcer issue. I'm quite sure an announcer like Mark Gill would be able to call out standout swims regardless of placing in a given heat. But again, I was not at the meet so I am just speculating.
Jeff
Allen...I am that "some 30 year old guy".
Quite frankly, swimming masters for anyone under 30 is an odd (and sometimes awkward) experience. We are too old to do USA swimming...and too young to feel fully included in masters.
Next to the 80 year old plus group, under 30 (and even more so under 25) are small groups with wide arrays of swimming skills.
It's nice to come to a meet, get smoked by a guy as old as my Dad, and be able to shake hands and say good race.
It's difficult to swim against your competition when your competition sandbags their times! There was so much of that going on at this Summer Nationals - sandbagging also messes up the length of the meet.
Isn't that the truth? It's out of control...
This never happens outside nationals. And I'm not sure it happens at nationals either. I'd have to check the heat sheets.
Not just as likely. Sure, there are stud swimmers in the older age groups. But on the whole, the talented older swimmers will not beat talented younger swimmers and, if seeded by time, they will end up in the outside lanes.
Where is Jeff Commings? Isn't he going to come along to defend the seeding by time camp? :)
Sorry I didn't contribute to this earlier! I was in Barcelona when this was all going on, and not thinking too much about what was going on in the USA, as my thoughts on August 7 were limited to feeling the sand on my toes on the beach. I'm always interested to read people's comments on this issue.
I'm always for seeding by time. Possibly this is elitist to say it, but I would have had very little competition in my age group in Mission Viejo, and would have been very bummed to swim a couple of heats after Steve West (40-44) in the 100 ***, then watch Clark Burckle two heats later in the 25-29 age group. I would have wanted to race them both.
Until my last days as a Masters swimmer, I will argue for seeding by time in every event. That's why I prefer swimming in local meets.
Sort of like Chris Stevenson's (sorry if I credit the wrong person!) tiered time grid (similar to motivational USA times).
Those were Steve Stuart's standards. Here is the thread:
forums.usms.org/showthread.php
Everyone has a different definition of "competition". I have very different definitions even for myself when I swim USMS and when I swim USA. Ironically, I started swimming USA because I liked having truly open competition, by time only and who cares about your age, professional status, number of kids, etc.
For USMS I find age groups a complete turn-off. I find I have more in common with a young professional, or a professional working mom of any age. That is why I don't go to nationals anymore. I much prefer going to zone meets, AZ state meets, where everyone is seeded by time.
It would be fun to have self-selected LEVELS in masters, like 1 (beginner) to 5 (elite). You race against your own level standards, not by age group. You have to meet minimum time standards to earn your level. No top ten rankings, that's something else. Level for elite is competitive enough i'd make an effort to get my elite patch. Sort of like Chris Stevenson's (sorry if I credit the wrong person!) tiered time grid (similar to motivational USA times).
