2014 Masters Motivational Times

I'm curious if this holds true for the USA-S motivational standards too. Are they equally hard (or not) across courses? USA-S motivational standards are based on the all-time 16th fastest time. Explanation here (h/t pmccoy). Presumably, at some point in the entire history of USA-S, 16 super-fast swimmers competed in each event in each age group in each course. So the standards should be about the same degree of difficulty in all courses. Karl_S suggested that we should base the masters MTs on a similar, all-time 10th place time. I didn't want to do that this year since it's a more difficult calculation. The advantages would be that the times would be more stable, year over year, and they should be of similar difficulty from course to course. The disadvantage would be that a tiny number of super-fast swimmers who have been around for a long time (e.g. a Karlyn Pipes or a Chris Stevenson) would dominate all of the all-time top ten lists, and thus the MTs would be less representative of the current population in each age group. Pick your poison. Basing the MTs on the average 10th place time over the past three years means they will be less stable, but more responsive to changes in the sport as she is swum. It would be fun to make an all-time top ten list, don't you think? Edit: Just noticed this: USA-S SCM standards are based on the all-time SCY 16th place time, with an adjustment.

USA-S motivational standards are based on the all-time 16th fastest time. Explanation here (h/t pmmcoy). Presumably, at some point in the entire history of USA-S, 16 super-fast swimmers competed in each event in each age group in each course. So the standards should be about the same degree of difficulty in all courses. Karl_S suggested that we should base the masters MTs on a similar, all-time 10th place time. I didn't want to do that this year since it's a more difficult calculation. The advantages would be that the times would be more stable, year over year, and they should be of similar difficulty from course to course. The disadvantage would be that a tiny number of super-fast swimmers who have been around for a long time (e.g. a Karlyn Pipes or a Chris Stevenson) would dominate all of the all-time top ten lists, and thus the MTs would be less representative of the current population in each age group. Pick your poison. Basing the MTs on the average 10th place time over the past three years means they will be less stable, but more responsive to changes in the sport as she is swum. It would be fun to make an all-time top ten list, don't you think? Edit: Just noticed this: USA-S SCM standards are based on the all-time SCY 16th place time, with an adjustment. I don't think that USMS can ever make an accurate list of the all-time 10 fastest times but they could make a list of the all-time ten fastest swimmers. (The reason is that, in any given year someone like Laura Val may do multiple swims that might make the all-time list. However all but the fastest of them gets thrown out in compiling the top 10 lists for the year.) In fact when I was chair of Records & Tabulations I believe that was one of the IT requests we made. But IT is swamped and this particular item would (and should) have a lot lower priority than other projects. Basing motivational time standards on an all-time list is not really conceptually different than basing a rating system (like the VA calculator) on records and would confer a similar level of stability. But like you said it is more work. At one point a few years ago I did have a list of all the top 10 swims in one (pretty large) spreadsheet but I have not been updating it. It might not take very long (a couple hours) to do so. If I do, I could quickly determine the time of the 10th best swimmer in each age-group/event/course/gender combination and then send you the results, if you are interested.

... Edit: Just noticed this: USA-S SCM standards are based on the all-time SCY 16th place time, with an adjustment. Yes. If I recall correctly, Stuart selected 10th place because USMS is not as deep as USAS, and USMS tracks TT like USAS tracks top 16 (or used to). Edit: Here is the post I was thinking of: forums.usms.org/showthread.php

I find these motivational times quite motivating, particularly LC:)

Thank you very much. Something interesting... In SCY I had an "A" time and in SCM I had an "AAA" time. Granted in the SCY I missed an "AA" time by less than a quarter second, but surprised by the different outcomes. Mens 45-49 50 *** SCY :33.52 50 *** SCM :37.27 The above times are actual and not converted, however as a check I went to www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/.../conversions.asp and converted the actual times from SCY to SCM and vise versa... and the results came back within a tenth of a second. Upon further investigation there was a difference of 4.5 seconds between 1st and 10th in SCM but less than 2 seconds in SCY for this past year. Hmm... note to self - if going for a top 10, swim more SCM meets (as well as dropping more than a few seconds on that 50 *** :p ) Thanks again, your work on this is greatly appreciated.

At one point a few years ago I did have a list of all the top 10 swims in one (pretty large) spreadsheet but I have not been updating it. It might not take very long (a couple hours) to do so. If I do, I could quickly determine the time of the 10th best swimmer in each age-group/event/course/gender combination and then send you the results, if you are interested. 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. The quality of the estimate could be improved by having a model for "what the 10th place time ought to be", like the model you use for WRs in the VA calculator. That might be worth thinking about for next year.

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.

:bump:

Just came across this - thank you VERY MUCH!!! Very awesome!

This is strange: At LC Nationals, I swam a personal best time of 3:54.47 in 200 breaststroke. According to the 2014 LC Motivational Times Chart, that puts me right at AA. :D According to the rankings in my age group for this year, it puts me at #32 of 45 (about 71%). :bouncing: It looks like the breaststroke competition was tough this year! :dunno: