What Is Wrong With Swimming??

OK, now that we are all done with our once every four years feast of media attention and glory, I'd like to pick at this bone some more. I think there are many encouraging trends in swimming, and we'd probably profit by mulling them over. Unfortunately, I am not ready to focus on the big picture yet. In the meantime, I'd like to toss out an idea. One of my major beefs with swimming as a spectator sport is that it would make a Coronation March look unscripted by comparison. Don't let the tight races in the last Olympics fool you; predicting the final results from the heat sheets, with a little wiggle room for "surprises," is not that difficult. (And indeed, is the fact the U.S. has won more swimming medals that any other country a surprise to anyone who can correctly tell you what "IM" stands for?) Yes, yes, we all want to see the better team win. But let me ask you, which basketball tournament is more watchable? The NCAA Championships or the NBA Playoffs? Clearly, there is far more drama, interest, and just plain fun in the college game, and the reason for that is precisely BEACAUSE it is not so predictable. The better team frequently loses. We need to shake things up. Let me propose that for dual or tri-meets we ought to consider picking some extra events at random. For example, in college dual meets you usually swim 50 - 1000 freestyle, 200 stroke races, a 200 IM, and 4x100 relays. How about tossing the 50 and 100 stroke races, the 400 IM, and a 200 or 800 relay into a hat, and draw out two at random at the start of the meet? You could really push the idea to its semi-logical conclusion. I've always thought the medley relay was the most interesting event because you had to combine swimmers with disparate skills. How about putting 12-16 slips of paper with different stroke/distances into a hat, and drawing out 4 at random? That then becomes a grab bag relay. Score these random events just the same as the regular ones so that way the curmudgeons can't simply ignore them as a "side-show." All of a sudden the swim coach has got to start thinking a bit like a baseball manager and decide how to juggle his better swimmers because he may have to plug one of them in to one of the random events, or not, and take his chances he'll simply drown the other team regardless of their winning the random events. Or gamble that they will be caught just a flat footed as he is. Or maybe as a college coach think about training some second shelf swimmers to go competent stroke 50s or 100s because he may need them to do that more than at one or two championship meets in a season. Or...you get the picture. Suddenly he has to think like a manager and not a spread sheet. And the chances for second guessing, oh goodness what a fabulous chance to get people amped over a swim meet! Just my crazy idea. Matt

OK, now that we are all done with our once every four years feast of media attention and glory, I'd like to pick at this bone some more. I think there are many encouraging trends in swimming, and we'd probably profit by mulling them over. Unfortunately, I am not ready to focus on the big picture yet. In the meantime, I'd like to toss out an idea. One of my major beefs with swimming as a spectator sport is that it would make a Coronation March look unscripted by comparison. Don't let the tight races in the last Olympics fool you; predicting the final results from the heat sheets, with a little wiggle room for "surprises," is not that difficult. (And indeed, is the fact the U.S. has won more swimming medals that any other country a surprise to anyone who can correctly tell you what "IM" stands for?) Yes, yes, we all want to see the better team win. But let me ask you, which basketball tournament is more watchable? The NCAA Championships or the NBA Playoffs? Clearly, there is far more drama, interest, and just plain fun in the college game, and the reason for that is precisely BEACAUSE it is not so predictable. The better team frequently loses. We need to shake things up. Let me propose that for dual or tri-meets we ought to consider picking some extra events at random. For example, in college dual meets you usually swim 50 - 1000 freestyle, 200 stroke races, a 200 IM, and 4x100 relays. How about tossing the 50 and 100 stroke races, the 400 IM, and a 200 or 800 relay into a hat, and draw out two at random at the start of the meet? You could really push the idea to its semi-logical conclusion. I've always thought the medley relay was the most interesting event because you had to combine swimmers with disparate skills. How about putting 12-16 slips of paper with different stroke/distances into a hat, and drawing out 4 at random? That then becomes a grab bag relay. Score these random events just the same as the regular ones so that way the curmudgeons can't simply ignore them as a "side-show." All of a sudden the swim coach has got to start thinking a bit like a baseball manager and decide how to juggle his better swimmers because he may have to plug one of them in to one of the random events, or not, and take his chances he'll simply drown the other team regardless of their winning the random events. Or gamble that they will be caught just a flat footed as he is. Or maybe as a college coach think about training some second shelf swimmers to go competent stroke 50s or 100s because he may need them to do that more than at one or two championship meets in a season. Or...you get the picture. Suddenly he has to think like a manager and not a spread sheet. And the chances for second guessing, oh goodness what a fabulous chance to get people amped over a swim meet! Just my crazy idea. Matt