Any estimates on how big Portland Nationals will be??

Does anyone else think it may be time to reconsider how big we want Nationals to be? I know it's a balance between including everyone who wants to participate and keeping the meet a manageable size... I can honestly say that Austin was the first nationals I've been to that I did not enjoy. Unfortunately, my prevailing memories from that experience are crowded warm ups, crowded deck, impossible warm up/cool down pool, very long days and difficult parking. I kept thinking, is this really how I want to spend vacation time?

Please don't misunderstand me...I love the facility and Austin is a cool place to hold the event. I'm not complaining that the meet was poorly run, only that the sheer number of people competing made many aspects of the meet unenjoyable for me. If I'm in the minority, so be it. The point I wanted to discuss: where is the cut-off point? There is a point where the host facility simply cannot handle the traffic. In my opinion, SC Nationals met or exceeded that point. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't want the meet to last until 7 or 8 at night. I know I wasn't the only one who had to skip his last event on Sunday because the meet went too late to catch a flight out of town. The 6th event rule is one solution. Perhaps we should cap entries at the first 1500 to enter (with the number depending on the facility). Perhaps we should hold a West nationals and an East nationals. Maybe the Zone meets will become a bigger deal. Any other thoughts?

My guess is 893. I'll be there so I've included myself in that number. I count as 11 people because I'm HUGE.

1) Don't let really old people swim the mile (saves hours). 2) Don't let really old people complete the 400 IM after they got disqualified on the first lap of butterfly (that would have saved 20 minutes from Woodland's nationals).:drown: 3) Let nonqualifiers compete and give legitimate times. Then seed the nonqualifiers into heats (still eligible for top 10). This way you wouldn't have one person in every heat sucking the timeline down. Maybe you don't plan on getting really old or you plan on quitting before you are really old, but as one who will be really old sooner than most, I find these comments offensive. Part of what I always take away from Nationals is the amazing feats of the "really old" swimmers who are there while their peers are in nursing homes or no longer among us. It's always inspiring to watch those who can barely walk on land move through the water at whatever pace. Masters swimming is many things to many people with no single component being more important or valuable than another.

1) Don't let really old people swim the mile (saves hours). 2) Don't let really old people complete the 400 IM after they got disqualified on the first lap of butterfly (that would have saved 20 minutes from Woodland's nationals).:drown: 3) Let nonqualifiers compete and give legitimate times. Then seed the nonqualifiers into heats (still eligible for top 10). This way you wouldn't have one person in every heat sucking the timeline down. I've never been and had no idea how it worked for those who did not qualify. Your idea #3 seems to make far more sense.

I'm guessing right around the 1,000 mark based on past years. Let's say 969.

Swimmers are already allowed to swim three events without having national qualifying times. In addition, those swimmers can place in the top ten in those events. I think we are already doing number 3, if I am reading and understanding the post correctly.

I understand registration stood at about 980 as of yesterday. Sounds like the 6th event is at risk.

The days will be fine in length, Oregon puts on a high quality show. Now, Baltimore was long days for LC and you won't see those numbers at this meet.

What is the magic number for dropping the sixth event? When I travel this far I really want to do 6 events.