• Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 22 subscribers
  • Views 5795 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

2026 Summer Nationals event cap

09433

I’m curious how others feel about the event caps at Summer Nationals this year.

I understand the need to keep the meet timeline manageable. My concern isn’t that events were capped—it’s that there didn’t seem to be any advance information about which events were likely to fill or how the capacities would be managed.

I was surprised to find that all of the events over 100 meters were already closed while shorter events remained open. Without knowing that ahead of time, it felt like registration became a race to click “submit” rather than an opportunity to register for the events you’ve trained all season to swim.

In my opinion, USMS should have published estimated event capacities or identified events that were likely to fill quickly before registration opened. I think having that information would allow swimmers to make more informed decisions and would make the registration process feel more transparent.

I’m interested to hear what others think and whether anyone else was caught off guard by the event caps.

  • in reply to Erin Sizelove

    The way this was done is absolutely ridiculous for multiple reasons:

    First off, there was no cutoff given in the meet info - when someone is trying to decide whether to go to the meet, they need to be able to watch the number.

    Second, the number in the men's and women's athletes is not equal in the cutoff events, which is insane.

    Third, the number is not even a multiple of 8, so what is going on there?

    Fourth, it is 2 days before the meet and according to email reply, they still haven't decided on some waitlist people.  How are people supposed to make travel plans?  One email said they will be letting people know as they come off the waitlist, and a next email asking when they would know was not replied to.  And there has been nothing about the waitlist in the email updates.  Horrible communication.

    Fifth, this is a national championship meet.  If numbers are an issue, the qualifying times should be a lot faster and should be enforced in all events.  This isn't just some average meet.  This is supposed to be a national championship.  How do you not allow the fastest person in an event to swim when they entered the meet before the entry deadline?

    I question whether the USMS staff has any prior experience running meets.  They should have people who have run USA Swimming Nationals in the past involved and advising, at a minimum.

  • in reply to 03WKA

    I will add a sixth...

    How can USMS be allowing a 6th event for people before allowing a waitlist event which, at least in some cases, is only a second event?

  • in reply to Erin Sizelove

    Erin, the Summer Nationals is a wrap!  I competed and watched from start to finish, and thought it was very well run at a beautiful facility.  Appreciations as always to you and all the dedicated people who sacrifice a lot of time before and during to make these events possible.  There was some controversy and frustration before the meet however, well documented on this thread.  After competing, watching and communicating I have some constructive recommendations for modifications for how 200 and over event caps (if needed) and a related issue, seeding, are handled.  I plan to post them on a new thread I created, "USMS National Pool Championship Endurance Event Caps and Seeding - suggestions for improvement", and email them to the championship committee in the near future.  Before I do, however, I would like to learn what perspectives others might have and what if any changes the championship committee are considering.  There has been no new post on this thread since the meet.  Is event caps at Nationals no longer an issue?  Because of location it might it be Deja Vu all over again for Irvine this Spring.  Also, time is a bit of the essence as the USMS annual meeting is September 18 to 19.  I’ll hone my thoughts a little while longer while I wait to see if any other perspectives come in.  Here is my email if you want to contact me directly, rogershardy@gmail.com, but I think this is a great forum.  Finally, USMS has posted a meet survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/97DXC85. I’ll take my survey after hearing from anyone who wishes to post on this thread or email me.

  • in reply to Rog Hardy

    Irvine will not be deja vu.  It's short course and while I would suspect a big turnout, it will have two pools to run.  Very few places with two long course pools.

  • in reply to Kurt Dickson

    Thx Kurt! Then I guess I can conclude we're only dealing with a LCM summer issue here. Relaxed️

  • It should be capped by times, and not by the order of the registration . Faster times should have priority, or capped by qualifying times. 

  • in reply to Vadim Winebrand

    Never gonna happen.  Everyone enters bogus times anyways.

  • in reply to Kurt Dickson

    One idea could be to require everyone who wants to swim an event at Nationals to have swum that event (or the SCY/SCM/LCM equivalent) at a local event in the past two years and then use that time to "rank" everyone for priority in Nationals registration. It would be a great way to generate more support for local meets.

    I attempted to compare all swimmers' seed times with their personal best (overall) and personal best (in age group - which I think is more fair and realistic) at Summer Nationals, using these psych/heats sheets, so it can be done!

    https://www.tryopenlane.com/psych-sheet/2026-summer-nationals

    https://www.tryopenlane.com/heat-sheet/2026-summer-nationals

    Any feedback here would be great!

  • in reply to Jennifer Tran

    Perhaps I don't understand what you're trying to do. Are you suggesting that because someone is faster, they get priority registration? I think USMS goes for the "fitness, I'm ok, you're ok, we're having fun" thing.  It's a non-starter.  Also, generally USMS does not take advice from the forums riff-raff but keep tilting at windmills Slight smile

  • in reply to Kurt Dickson

    Agree. This sounds wildly discriminatory against the older age groups, and mildly sexist as well. I don't have a solution, but this one simply selects young, fast, men.