2012 Div 1 NCAAs

Mr. That Guy: The point I was trying to make and maybe poorly is that not all events will have the same % of entrants that make the B cut invited into the meet. The 400 IM has 28 swimmers in the event out of 103 that made the cut for a 27.2% invitation rate. The 50 Free has 83 swimmers in the event out of 139 that made the cut for a 59.7%. Why is that? I really don't know. I don't think they are discriminating against distance swimmers and favoring sprinters and it might be a time line issue with the meet. The relays are a fixed amount so that % is consistent throughout. It's not a timeline issue at all, just an artifact of how swimmers' ability across multiple events is concentrated or spread. The 400 IM has fewer entrants because relatively few people will have been invited to the meet as part of a relay and/or a non-400IM individual event and also happen to have swum a B-cut in the 400 IM. Whereas for the 50 free, many more swimmers will have been invited to the meet as part of, say, the 200 free relay or any of the 100s and also have swum a B-cut 50 free at some point during the year. Think about the 200 Free relay alone. If 12 relays are guaranteed an invite, and you believe that most (if not all) swimmers on a top-12 relay are faster than the b-cut in the individual 50, you already have up to 48 swimmers on the psych scheet in that event: those above the invite line, and the others with the B-cut who are at the meet via their relay. Put another way, the 33-rd fastest 50 freestyler is likely to be on his team's invited 200 free relay and/or be fast enough to be invited in a 100 fr/bk/fl/br. The 33rd fastest 400 IM'er is not nearly as likely to be on a top-12 relay or top 17-20 in another solo event. This is why college recruiting favors sprinters. Broadly, once you establish the selection constraints (A cuts, B cuts, finite max/mins of swimmers and relays) there aren't really any subjective "judgement calls" -- there aren't "snubs" like in basketball. It's quantitative and replicable; the psych sheet would be the same if different people administered it again.

Mr. That Guy: The point I was trying to make and maybe poorly is that not all events will have the same % of entrants that make the B cut invited into the meet. The 400 IM has 28 swimmers in the event out of 103 that made the cut for a 27.2% invitation rate. The 50 Free has 83 swimmers in the event out of 139 that made the cut for a 59.7%. Why is that? I really don't know. I don't think they are discriminating against distance swimmers and favoring sprinters and it might be a time line issue with the meet. The relays are a fixed amount so that % is consistent throughout. It's not a timeline issue at all, just an artifact of how swimmers' ability across multiple events is concentrated or spread. The 400 IM has fewer entrants because relatively few people will have been invited to the meet as part of a relay and/or a non-400IM individual event and also happen to have swum a B-cut in the 400 IM. Whereas for the 50 free, many more swimmers will have been invited to the meet as part of, say, the 200 free relay or any of the 100s and also have swum a B-cut 50 free at some point during the year. Think about the 200 Free relay alone. If 12 relays are guaranteed an invite, and you believe that most (if not all) swimmers on a top-12 relay are faster than the b-cut in the individual 50, you already have up to 48 swimmers on the psych scheet in that event: those above the invite line, and the others with the B-cut who are at the meet via their relay. Put another way, the 33-rd fastest 50 freestyler is likely to be on his team's invited 200 free relay and/or be fast enough to be invited in a 100 fr/bk/fl/br. The 33rd fastest 400 IM'er is not nearly as likely to be on a top-12 relay or top 17-20 in another solo event. This is why college recruiting favors sprinters. Broadly, once you establish the selection constraints (A cuts, B cuts, finite max/mins of swimmers and relays) there aren't really any subjective "judgement calls" -- there aren't "snubs" like in basketball. It's quantitative and replicable; the psych sheet would be the same if different people administered it again.