The anti-sandbag law:
"if a swimmer enters an event with a time significantly slower or faster than that swimmer's recorded time in the past two years, the meet director may, after a discussion with the swimmer, change the seeded time to a realistic time" (104.5.5.A(10)).
Concerning my Auburn nationals entry, I confess, when faced with a 7 hour 2 stop flight and 3:45 nonstop at an earlier time, I did what any warm-blooded middle-aged American swimmer with low self-esteem would do--sandbag my entry so I could catch the earlier flight, thus diminishing the possible time spent sitting next to a 400 pound Alabama slammer with sleep apnea wearing nothing but overalls and body odor. Of course, I was caught in my bold fabrication and my time was "fixed."
USMS seems to have an identity problem. Are we hard core with rigid qualifying times? It would seem not as 2 of my not-so-speedy family members were allowed to swim four events last year in Puerto Rico. If we are not hard core, why does anybody care that I sandbag? More to the point, why can one person enter a crappy time and another cannot? Just wondering.:)
One thing I should also point out. Yes, sandbagging is a pet peeve of mine. However, I understand that this is not always a scientific process. I know we have new swimmers. I know some people are tapering for the first time. I get it. We're adults.
My only real expectation is that you think about your seed time, and make an honest effort at coming up with a seed time that accurately reflects how you expect to swim. Honest effort, people. That's all I want.
This is a great post.
So I couldn't let That Guy's efforts stand without an effort to try taking him down. Like him, I chose a taper meet (NE LMSC SCM champs last December) and a non-taper meet (the VMST David Gregg meet last February). I had those entry times and results readily available in my blog.
For the taper meet, I averaged a 1.23% difference. Good for an A+ on Rick's scale but not good enough to take down that guy, darn him! (I was undone by a particularly stinky 50 fly, 0.7 sec off my seed time that was good for 2.79%, bloating my average.)
For the non-taper meet, I averaged 1.33% difference, finally taking down that guy. That deserves the banana celebration: :banana:. I had the advantage, though, that I did the same exact events I had done a year ago; I simply entered the times from 2010 in the 2011 meet.
What is interesting about this is that, at the time, I considered the 2010 meet a great in-season meet while at the 2011 meet I felt just awful. I was, for example, 4 secs slower (+3.4%) than my entry time in the 200 back and 8 sec slower (+3.0%) in the 400 IM.
I wanted to try to calculate Mr. Patrick "entry times are completely inaccurate guesses" Brundage's latest meet but I couldn't tell his entry times from his blog. Based on my experience in calculating the David Gregg meet, I strongly suspect that -- despite his statements about how inaccurate his entry times are -- he would get at least an A- on Rick's scale.
I have had quite a few students like this, complaining how little they know just before they bust the grading curve on a test. They are usually pre-med; maybe he missed his calling? :bolt:
One thing I should also point out. Yes, sandbagging is a pet peeve of mine. However, I understand that this is not always a scientific process. I know we have new swimmers. I know some people are tapering for the first time. I get it. We're adults.
My only real expectation is that you think about your seed time, and make an honest effort at coming up with a seed time that accurately reflects how you expect to swim. Honest effort, people. That's all I want.
This is a great post.
So I couldn't let That Guy's efforts stand without an effort to try taking him down. Like him, I chose a taper meet (NE LMSC SCM champs last December) and a non-taper meet (the VMST David Gregg meet last February). I had those entry times and results readily available in my blog.
For the taper meet, I averaged a 1.23% difference. Good for an A+ on Rick's scale but not good enough to take down that guy, darn him! (I was undone by a particularly stinky 50 fly, 0.7 sec off my seed time that was good for 2.79%, bloating my average.)
For the non-taper meet, I averaged 1.33% difference, finally taking down that guy. That deserves the banana celebration: :banana:. I had the advantage, though, that I did the same exact events I had done a year ago; I simply entered the times from 2010 in the 2011 meet.
What is interesting about this is that, at the time, I considered the 2010 meet a great in-season meet while at the 2011 meet I felt just awful. I was, for example, 4 secs slower (+3.4%) than my entry time in the 200 back and 8 sec slower (+3.0%) in the 400 IM.
I wanted to try to calculate Mr. Patrick "entry times are completely inaccurate guesses" Brundage's latest meet but I couldn't tell his entry times from his blog. Based on my experience in calculating the David Gregg meet, I strongly suspect that -- despite his statements about how inaccurate his entry times are -- he would get at least an A- on Rick's scale.
I have had quite a few students like this, complaining how little they know just before they bust the grading curve on a test. They are usually pre-med; maybe he missed his calling? :bolt:
