Boring

Lefty posted: Should the qualifying times for nationals (masters) be lowered to make the meet smaller and more conducive to fast swimming? My opinion, for purely selfish reasons, is no. Here are my general rambling thoughts as I operate in work avoidance mode: 1. The purpose of USMS, as I understand it, is to promote participation in this fun and healthful endeavor. We want to promote inclusion and participation. The questions is how to find the right balance. As I've reviewed the results of short course nationals over the past few years, it seems that the meets have varied in size based on location. This year's at Tempe was one of the big ones, but my personal experience, and my teammates' was that it was pretty fun and we had a good time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2. Is there really a burning need to limit the number of heats in a particular event? How does a smaller meet promote faster times? Isn't that a function of the quality of the pool and the training of the athletes? 3. On a personal note, I had returned to the pool after a 30 year absence about six weeks before Tempe. Nevertheless, I was encouraged to go by my friends (who reminded me I had no pride to lose) and I'm glad I did. It kept me going back to practice. I am not one of those who can swim daily for the sake of fitness. I have to have a race or event that is part of motivation to keep coming back to practice. It helped make me feel like I was a part of my team (Rose Bowl) and was a total blast even though I scored no points and was limited to 3 swims. 4. For this year, I've got goals to hit Q times in 2 or 3 events so that if I travel all the way to Indy, I can get more swims in. Faster times would make that more difficult, possibly out of reach, and would thus make Indy less attractive to attend if I'm limited to 3 events. 5. If the goal is to encourage participation and growth, let's not make it more difficult for people to join in the fun of the national meets. For what it's worth carl botterud

Lefty posted: Should the qualifying times for nationals (masters) be lowered to make the meet smaller and more conducive to fast swimming? My opinion, for purely selfish reasons, is no. Here are my general rambling thoughts as I operate in work avoidance mode: 1. The purpose of USMS, as I understand it, is to promote participation in this fun and healthful endeavor. We want to promote inclusion and participation. The questions is how to find the right balance. As I've reviewed the results of short course nationals over the past few years, it seems that the meets have varied in size based on location. This year's at Tempe was one of the big ones, but my personal experience, and my teammates' was that it was pretty fun and we had a good time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 2. Is there really a burning need to limit the number of heats in a particular event? How does a smaller meet promote faster times? Isn't that a function of the quality of the pool and the training of the athletes? 3. On a personal note, I had returned to the pool after a 30 year absence about six weeks before Tempe. Nevertheless, I was encouraged to go by my friends (who reminded me I had no pride to lose) and I'm glad I did. It kept me going back to practice. I am not one of those who can swim daily for the sake of fitness. I have to have a race or event that is part of motivation to keep coming back to practice. It helped make me feel like I was a part of my team (Rose Bowl) and was a total blast even though I scored no points and was limited to 3 swims. 4. For this year, I've got goals to hit Q times in 2 or 3 events so that if I travel all the way to Indy, I can get more swims in. Faster times would make that more difficult, possibly out of reach, and would thus make Indy less attractive to attend if I'm limited to 3 events. 5. If the goal is to encourage participation and growth, let's not make it more difficult for people to join in the fun of the national meets. For what it's worth carl botterud