2012 Olympic Trials USA Swimming

I attended the Trials from Thursday, 06/28 through and including the finals on Monday, 07/02. First, I am in the camp of 'err on the side of more qualifiers, and keep as extended a qualifying period as possible". FROM A SPECTATOR'S POINT OF VIEW with $$$ to burn, I want to see about 3 hours of prelims and about 2 hours of finals - EVERY DAY. Given that the events are spread out over a week, limiting the number of qualifiers would make me seriously reconsider going and spending money at Trials. The stats from this year are, on average, 9,000+ and 12,000+ prelims/finals ticket sales. I joked that, IMO, attendance is like the US naturalization ceremony. Every participant brings at least 4 people or more. So that ratio should not be ignored from a business standpoint. Second, I think it only benefits USA swimming by having "more inclusive" qualifying standards. The old model of "the changing of the guard" every 4 years is out. There are so many pros and people that stay in and/or come back, that the field is just packed. To give the younger swimmers experience at the highest levels, it makes more sense to give them multiple years of competing in national level/olympic trials level meets so they are as experienced as possible. This only serves to make US swimmers more experienced and hopefully more competitive. Third, looking ONLY at the statistic of whether swimmers make the qualifying time at OTs is not in itself very meaningful. This has always been the case at a high level/national meet, that if you hit the qualifying time, you will be right about in the middle of the total results. However, a more meaningful statistiic would be how their PRELIM times compare to their best PRELIM swims. Assuming many qualifiers do so at big regional type meets, especially those outside of say, the circle seeded and top heats, then many probably fit the model of strong prelim/excellent finals time - and it was that excellent finals time that made the time standard. There are exceptions, but I would think many got their deck pass that way. The difference is, you have to do your very best time at 10:30 in the am, maybe in heat 5 of 17, and that is very different than doing it in front of your home crowd at finals in the a big regional meet. The top seeds have the luxury of going less than their best times and still making the finals. Notice in the results and commentary that many of the top 8 and top 16 (at least the heat sheets that we go on site) did NOT have best times going into semis/finals. Some breakout swims, yes, but the vast majority, even top seeds, no. Fourth, the time frame for qualifying: I say keep it as long as possible. Coming from an area with a very short LCM season, and less opportunities for LCM meets. Same theory as with the standards themselves - give swimmers as many oppportunities as possible. And really, even though there were so many heats, they still all swim really FAST, so it's not like one "fluke" person is going to hold up the meet. Fifth, here are some comments on various swims! *Loche & Phelps are crowd pleasers. They really add to the pagentry of the event as a spectator sport. *The 1500 was exciting from start to finish. It was exciting to see LaT take it out. Then the nailbiter next 600 or so as you watched him and the spread between the other swimmers. Will he hold his lead, extend, or fizzle? What a nailbiter. The middle 600-900 was also exciting. That is when the 2 guys in the middle lanes were catching him and the lead was getting more and more narrow. More nail chewing. That was probably the most exciting bit, since it was a 3-man race and we all know how many actually go to London. Then it became a 2 man race but boy was that exciting. Those 2 guys were at it the entire way, and it came down to a sprint around the 150 and then double time sprint around 30 meters to go. I have never seen two D-guys getting sexy with their all-out sprint at the end of a 1500 like that. What excitiement. But it clear that they were both going to make it, and I very much appreciated how they both still went at it at the last 30 meters. A super huge crowd pleaser. *The women's 50 free of course was a big hit, for those still staying that night. Dara got the biggest applause and the finish was thrilling. It surprised me that the audience response was not that great. I think most people were hoping she would make it. She has a terrible start relative to the field. As tall as she is, and as (relatively) short as Hardy is, she was nearly at Hardy's middle/upper back out of the dive. I wouldn't say 1/2 a body length, but way behind and she actually pulled up, but could not make that critical distance of what, a few hundredths for 2nd. *Cullen Jones was just awesome this meet. *Anthony Irvin was a huge crowd pleaser. *I am shocked that Nathan Adrian didn't make it in the 50, but the 50 is completely stacked men/women. Anyone's game. The 100 seems less stressful, since "your favorite" has a really good chance of getting in (6 out of 8). *2 Aggies - how awesome.

I attended the Trials from Thursday, 06/28 through and including the finals on Monday, 07/02. First, I am in the camp of 'err on the side of more qualifiers, and keep as extended a qualifying period as possible". FROM A SPECTATOR'S POINT OF VIEW with $$$ to burn, I want to see about 3 hours of prelims and about 2 hours of finals - EVERY DAY. Given that the events are spread out over a week, limiting the number of qualifiers would make me seriously reconsider going and spending money at Trials. The stats from this year are, on average, 9,000+ and 12,000+ prelims/finals ticket sales. I joked that, IMO, attendance is like the US naturalization ceremony. Every participant brings at least 4 people or more. So that ratio should not be ignored from a business standpoint. Second, I think it only benefits USA swimming by having "more inclusive" qualifying standards. The old model of "the changing of the guard" every 4 years is out. There are so many pros and people that stay in and/or come back, that the field is just packed. To give the younger swimmers experience at the highest levels, it makes more sense to give them multiple years of competing in national level/olympic trials level meets so they are as experienced as possible. This only serves to make US swimmers more experienced and hopefully more competitive. Third, looking ONLY at the statistic of whether swimmers make the qualifying time at OTs is not in itself very meaningful. This has always been the case at a high level/national meet, that if you hit the qualifying time, you will be right about in the middle of the total results. However, a more meaningful statistiic would be how their PRELIM times compare to their best PRELIM swims. Assuming many qualifiers do so at big regional type meets, especially those outside of say, the circle seeded and top heats, then many probably fit the model of strong prelim/excellent finals time - and it was that excellent finals time that made the time standard. There are exceptions, but I would think many got their deck pass that way. The difference is, you have to do your very best time at 10:30 in the am, maybe in heat 5 of 17, and that is very different than doing it in front of your home crowd at finals in the a big regional meet. The top seeds have the luxury of going less than their best times and still making the finals. Notice in the results and commentary that many of the top 8 and top 16 (at least the heat sheets that we go on site) did NOT have best times going into semis/finals. Some breakout swims, yes, but the vast majority, even top seeds, no. Fourth, the time frame for qualifying: I say keep it as long as possible. Coming from an area with a very short LCM season, and less opportunities for LCM meets. Same theory as with the standards themselves - give swimmers as many oppportunities as possible. And really, even though there were so many heats, they still all swim really FAST, so it's not like one "fluke" person is going to hold up the meet. Fifth, here are some comments on various swims! *Loche & Phelps are crowd pleasers. They really add to the pagentry of the event as a spectator sport. *The 1500 was exciting from start to finish. It was exciting to see LaT take it out. Then the nailbiter next 600 or so as you watched him and the spread between the other swimmers. Will he hold his lead, extend, or fizzle? What a nailbiter. The middle 600-900 was also exciting. That is when the 2 guys in the middle lanes were catching him and the lead was getting more and more narrow. More nail chewing. That was probably the most exciting bit, since it was a 3-man race and we all know how many actually go to London. Then it became a 2 man race but boy was that exciting. Those 2 guys were at it the entire way, and it came down to a sprint around the 150 and then double time sprint around 30 meters to go. I have never seen two D-guys getting sexy with their all-out sprint at the end of a 1500 like that. What excitiement. But it clear that they were both going to make it, and I very much appreciated how they both still went at it at the last 30 meters. A super huge crowd pleaser. *The women's 50 free of course was a big hit, for those still staying that night. Dara got the biggest applause and the finish was thrilling. It surprised me that the audience response was not that great. I think most people were hoping she would make it. She has a terrible start relative to the field. As tall as she is, and as (relatively) short as Hardy is, she was nearly at Hardy's middle/upper back out of the dive. I wouldn't say 1/2 a body length, but way behind and she actually pulled up, but could not make that critical distance of what, a few hundredths for 2nd. *Cullen Jones was just awesome this meet. *Anthony Irvin was a huge crowd pleaser. *I am shocked that Nathan Adrian didn't make it in the 50, but the 50 is completely stacked men/women. Anyone's game. The 100 seems less stressful, since "your favorite" has a really good chance of getting in (6 out of 8). *2 Aggies - how awesome.