2009 psych sheet at (click on results)
collegeswimming.com/.../
2010 psych sheet at
championships.coloradotime.com/.../m10_off_ps.pdf
After a quick run down there seems to be some pretty significant differences throughout. For example, here is a comparison of the 1650...
2009:
1 seed = 14:35
23 seed = 14.58
2010:
1 seed = 14:46
23 seed = 15:08
Former Member
I should add that I'm speculating the gap will be closed somewhat when comparing the final results.
Whereas most swimmers were probably wearing tech suits at conferences last year and then again at NCAAs, this year many were probably unshaved at conferences but will be shaved at NCAAs. So, we can expect some time drops for sure.
My belief -- true or not -- has always been that the suits affect in-season times even more than end-of-season times. If true, the psych sheet might show a greater disparity than the final results. But we'll see soon enough.
Wasn't NCAAs last year mostly the LZR and B70 suits? With the notable exception of Auburn, who according to some sore losers only won b/c they used faster Jakeds.
but then if you look at the 200 IM, remove the nr 1 seed in 2009 and there is no change in the top 23.
too bad the sheets don't their yrs. it would be interesting to see how many that qualified last yr didn't this year
My belief -- true or not -- has always been that the suits affect in-season times even more than end-of-season times. If true, the psych sheet might show a greater disparity than the final results. But we'll see soon enough.
Wasn't NCAAs last year mostly the LZR and B70 suits? With the notable exception of Auburn, who according to some sore losers only won b/c they used faster Jakeds.
Ya, agreed. I don't think the difference is going to be as noticeable, or hopefully not noticeable at all, at NCAAs.
but then if you look at the 200 IM, remove the nr 1 seed in 2009 and there is no change in the top 23.
too bad the sheets don't their yrs. it would be interesting to see how many that qualified last yr didn't this year
Ya...I did notice that some events appear to be more affected than others. A couple didn't have much difference at all. The freestyle events in particular, from sprint to distance, seem to have produced the greatest disparity.
All in all, though, I would say that the 09 psych sheet is noticeably faster. But I didn't really study it closely. I'll be interested to see how NCAAs come out. I think its going to be fast.
The number of A cuts is interesting, but I think a better measure is looking at the Meet Qualifying time for each event year-over-year. (The Meet Qualifying time is the time performed by the last person listed above the INVITED line in the psych sheet.) So I put on my nerd hat (oh wait, I was already wearing it) and fired up the ol' abacus. Note: I only went through this exercise for Division I championships.
From 2008 to 2009, 100% of the men's and women's Meet Qualifying times got faster.
From 2009 to 2010, 100% of the men's Meet Qualifying times got slower.
From 2009 to 2010, 14 of 18 women's Meet Qualifying times were slower, 1 was exactly the same (100 *** @ 1:01.20), and the other three were actually faster (400 IM, 1650, and 200 ***).
Most of the percentage differences are well below the claim of 2% improvement due to tech suits, though the data does support the assertion that techsuits help men more than women.
The average women's Meet Qualifying time improved from 2008-2009 by 0.99%. The biggest improvements were in the 200 IM and 200 back, each @ 1.58%. Next biggest was the 200 free relay @ 1.52%.
The average men's Meet Qualifying time improved from 2008-2009 by 1.22%. The biggest improvement was in the 100 free @ 2.32%. Next biggest were 200 *** and 200 fly, each @ 1.50%.
The average women's Meet Qualifying time slowed from 2009-2010 by 0.44%. The biggest slowdown occurred in the 200 IM @ 2.98%. That event is a freakish outlier, as the next biggest slowdown was the 100 back @ 1.04%, and everything else is 0.70% or less. And don't forget that the other IM event got faster.
The average men's Meet Qualifying time slowed from 2009-2010 by 0.68%. The biggest slowdown occurred in the 50 free @ 1.49%. Next biggest was the 200 free relay @ 1.34%. (Yes, those are both sprints...)
I tried looking at percentages based on the different strokes, sprint vs distance events, and so on. That exercise didn't yield anything meaningful aside from repeating much of what you've already read above.
This message lacks smilies. RECTIFY! :banana::bouncing::bow::cheerleader::bump:
Most of the percentage differences are well below the claim of 2% improvement due to tech suits, though the data does support the assertion that techsuits help men more than women.
Interesting. It seems the 2010 times are slower, ending a period of steady improvements in times. At what level, based on all your data, are 2010 times comparable to? In other words, are we back to 2008 speeds? Or 2007 speeds?
Interesting. It seems the 2010 times are slower, ending a period of steady improvements in times. At what level, based on all your data, are 2010 times comparable to? In other words, are we back to 2008 speeds? Or 2007 speeds?
17 of the 18 women's events have 2010 Meet Qualifying times that are faster than they were in 2008. The exception is the 200 IM oddity.
16 of the 18 men's events have 2010 Meet Qualifying times that are faster than they were in 2008. The exceptions are the 50 free and the 200 free relay, and the differences are tiny: 0.04 seconds in the 50 free, and 0.03 seconds in the 200 free relay.
So overall I would say that the times are faster in 2010 than they were in 2008. An interesting question is, how long until all or most of the Meet Qualifying times are back to 2009 levels? For the women, it might only be a couple years.
