There being no objections, herewith the final versions:
8589
8590
8591
The notes below are now appended to each set of tables.
Bonus!
I also made these tables, which track the 10th place times for all events for the last seven years. This will give you some idea how the 10th place time varies from year to year in your favorite events.
8592
8593
8594
-------------------------------------
Motivational times (MTs) are calculated from the base time given in Column X. The algorithm for calculating the base time is similar, but not identical to, the method USMS uses to calculate national qualifying times (NQTs) for the annual SCY national championships.
Most of the time, Column X is
(A) the average of the previous three year’s 10th place times.
However, if there are fewer than three 10th place times over the previous three years, we use, in order,
(B) average of two 10th place times over the previous three years. If there are fewer than two 10th place times,
(C) average of three 5th place times + 4.45%. If there are fewer than three,
(D) average of two 5th place times + 4.45%. If there are fewer than two,
(E) No Time (NT).
If one of the alternatives B-E is used, it’s indicated by a superscript.
The rest of the columns are proportional to Column X as follows,
AAAA = X + 5% A = X + 20%
AAA = X + 10% BB = X + 30%
AA = X + 15% B = X + 40%
For MTs, the same algorithm is used for all three courses, SCY, LCM, and SCM.
Relationship to NQTs. For SCY, as long as Column X is calculated using method A, B, or E, Columns AA and AAA should be,but are not guaranteed to be, exactly the NQTs for sprints and 200+ events respectively. However, there will be some small differences for methods C and D. For LCM, the MTs should be different from the NQTs in all cases. USMS does not publish NQTs for SCM or for age groups 85+.
Column X. I like to think of Column X as “the moral equivalent of a Top Ten time”. Of course, in any given year, the 10th place time will be faster or slower by some amount than the average of the three previous years, so of course, Column X is not an actual Top Ten time. Too bad, huh? You can also think of it as “the time I need to hit to have about a 50/50 chance.”
I don't think that's necessary. I kinda like Column X the way it is, "an estimate of the time you need to hit to have about a 50/50 chance of making the Top 10". There's a certain virtue there.
IMO, unless USMS changes the way they determine NQTs, your current system is about optimum. NQTs are AA or AAA in most cases, which is nice because it makes these standards more meaningful - there is a very real benefit to achieving them. I also agree about column X. It's a very nice addition, again a standard with concrete benefit.
Now I still think that setting NQTs by the all-time 10th best swim (or swimmer) would make the NQTs more stable and therefore less capricious, but unless and until such a change is made, I think your current formula for motivational times is best. Thank you for your work on them - may there be many AAAAs and Xs in your future.
I don't think that's necessary. I kinda like Column X the way it is, "an estimate of the time you need to hit to have about a 50/50 chance of making the Top 10". There's a certain virtue there.
IMO, unless USMS changes the way they determine NQTs, your current system is about optimum. NQTs are AA or AAA in most cases, which is nice because it makes these standards more meaningful - there is a very real benefit to achieving them. I also agree about column X. It's a very nice addition, again a standard with concrete benefit.
Now I still think that setting NQTs by the all-time 10th best swim (or swimmer) would make the NQTs more stable and therefore less capricious, but unless and until such a change is made, I think your current formula for motivational times is best. Thank you for your work on them - may there be many AAAAs and Xs in your future.
