2012 Olympics: Swimming

First, our trials is just perfect on timing.Every other country in the world disagrees with you. The timing causes a weird mix of full tapers for people on the bubble of making the team and partial tapers for dominant swimmers. I don't think it maximize performance or excitement at Trials. It also doesn't necessarily result in the best possible team. The timing that we currently have is an artifact of the NCAA's season timing. We should move trials to the Spring to encourage a full taper and truly competitive meet and force the NCAA to accomodate. That's what I mean by "making the NCAA deal with it". Why in the world would we let the NCAA manage trials?See above. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The NCAA should continue to have nothing to do with Trials. Being limited to only two swimmers just ramps up the excitement. It is the most competitive swim meet in the world, bar none, including the Olympics.The "only two go" rule is a legacy of the US men's team's dominance in 1976. The world is much flatter now. We wind up with some of the best swimmers in the world (including Tyler Clary and various Japanese breastrokers) not at the Olympics simply because of a rule technicality and where they were born. I agree with John Lohn on the solution to this: top 2 plus people in the top ten. It will make the Olympics a faster meet and allow the truly talented to shine. Second, your comment about pro swimmers is just flat wrong. Our club, who I assume you are probably referring to, is sending 5 to London, all pros. But, we sent +/-40 total to trials, all influenced by our group of elites. These people don't practice in some fancy financial bubble. They are at the pool with the kids often, assist frequently with AG practices, and are extremely important in our club's development. They are inspirational to the younger swimmers and aren't viewed as some sort of vigilante squad. You get Cullen Jones around a group of kids and you see the type of influence these guys have. It is about time the US committed to post grad swimmers, like everyone other significant swimming country in the world.I completely see what you're talking about. This is not a simple issue and I can see both sides of it, that’s why I didn’t put it in the “The Bad” section. My point is that the current system has pros who live/eat/breathe swimming competing against college kids who also have classes, jobs etc to worry about. As the men's results shows, it's not a fair fight. You wind up with a few dominant swimmers qualifying in multiple events at the expense of a broader team. Because of the way our current system works, these dominant swimmers have had to consciously make the decision to go pro and lead the monastic life that that dictates. It’s probable that some of the best talent doesn't want to make that decision and end up abandoning swimming. Again, it's not clear that's a bad thing, but it could potentially discourage talent over time. And, to say it limits the depth of talent is crazy. That's like saying because we have the NFL, NBA, MLB etc that age groups in these sports will weaken, when, in fact, it has the exact opposite impact. Ask Chase Kalisz what it has been like to train with Phelps at NBAC. You might sing a different tune.The comparison to the NBA and other pro sports leagues isn’t valid, IMO. The top level athletes make millions in other pro leagues. If you're a world-class basketball player, it’s not a difficult decision to make. The decision to go pro is much, much more complicated in swimming. Even the best world-class pro swimmers share apartments, drive beat-up old Civics etc (Lochte/Phelps/Aussies excepted). They miss out on career development and have to scrounge from friends and family to survive. It’s a tough decision to make. Again, people may decide it’s not worth it and abandon the sport (as most do). As I said, it’s not clear that this is a bad thing in terms of developing the best talent, just the implications aren’t yet clear.

First, our trials is just perfect on timing.Every other country in the world disagrees with you. The timing causes a weird mix of full tapers for people on the bubble of making the team and partial tapers for dominant swimmers. I don't think it maximize performance or excitement at Trials. It also doesn't necessarily result in the best possible team. The timing that we currently have is an artifact of the NCAA's season timing. We should move trials to the Spring to encourage a full taper and truly competitive meet and force the NCAA to accomodate. That's what I mean by "making the NCAA deal with it". Why in the world would we let the NCAA manage trials?See above. Sorry, I should have been more clear. The NCAA should continue to have nothing to do with Trials. Being limited to only two swimmers just ramps up the excitement. It is the most competitive swim meet in the world, bar none, including the Olympics.The "only two go" rule is a legacy of the US men's team's dominance in 1976. The world is much flatter now. We wind up with some of the best swimmers in the world (including Tyler Clary and various Japanese breastrokers) not at the Olympics simply because of a rule technicality and where they were born. I agree with John Lohn on the solution to this: top 2 plus people in the top ten. It will make the Olympics a faster meet and allow the truly talented to shine. Second, your comment about pro swimmers is just flat wrong. Our club, who I assume you are probably referring to, is sending 5 to London, all pros. But, we sent +/-40 total to trials, all influenced by our group of elites. These people don't practice in some fancy financial bubble. They are at the pool with the kids often, assist frequently with AG practices, and are extremely important in our club's development. They are inspirational to the younger swimmers and aren't viewed as some sort of vigilante squad. You get Cullen Jones around a group of kids and you see the type of influence these guys have. It is about time the US committed to post grad swimmers, like everyone other significant swimming country in the world.I completely see what you're talking about. This is not a simple issue and I can see both sides of it, that’s why I didn’t put it in the “The Bad” section. My point is that the current system has pros who live/eat/breathe swimming competing against college kids who also have classes, jobs etc to worry about. As the men's results shows, it's not a fair fight. You wind up with a few dominant swimmers qualifying in multiple events at the expense of a broader team. Because of the way our current system works, these dominant swimmers have had to consciously make the decision to go pro and lead the monastic life that that dictates. It’s probable that some of the best talent doesn't want to make that decision and end up abandoning swimming. Again, it's not clear that's a bad thing, but it could potentially discourage talent over time. And, to say it limits the depth of talent is crazy. That's like saying because we have the NFL, NBA, MLB etc that age groups in these sports will weaken, when, in fact, it has the exact opposite impact. Ask Chase Kalisz what it has been like to train with Phelps at NBAC. You might sing a different tune.The comparison to the NBA and other pro sports leagues isn’t valid, IMO. The top level athletes make millions in other pro leagues. If you're a world-class basketball player, it’s not a difficult decision to make. The decision to go pro is much, much more complicated in swimming. Even the best world-class pro swimmers share apartments, drive beat-up old Civics etc (Lochte/Phelps/Aussies excepted). They miss out on career development and have to scrounge from friends and family to survive. It’s a tough decision to make. Again, people may decide it’s not worth it and abandon the sport (as most do). As I said, it’s not clear that this is a bad thing in terms of developing the best talent, just the implications aren’t yet clear.