B Cuts Too Fast

What do you predict for nationals? Who is going to shine, who is not?

Moderators: Diesel471, ThePlowman, Nasty Natti

DonCheadle
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 3856
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Hollywood, CA

B Cuts Too Fast

Post by DonCheadle » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:56 pm

Take a look at the 50 free:

It is quite possible that a guy who is a 20.6 in the 50 fully tapered in March could only manage a 21.1 in December. If this swimmer is a little off then they would have to retaper in February and then swim at Nats on a second taper. Take a look at Collin Ohning in 2009. He went a 21.04 in the 50 before Nats but managed to score in the event. Because he was a "relay only" swimmer he would not have been allowed to swim the event under the new cuts.

There are guys who can score at Nats in individual events who will not make B cuts in December because those cuts are too fast. B cuts should be slow. It doesn't hurt anyone to have as many people as possible swimming each event at Nats. In fact what it really does is assure that the fastest 16 swimmers are swimming at night.

On a side note: the A cut in the 100M Fly and 100M back are slow for what they are. So slow that I would like to see a time trial session in the 50M course where possible.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

screeeeeeeeech
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:17 pm

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by screeeeeeeeech » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:25 pm

I really don't understand your point Cheadle. If you're worried that kids like Collin won't make a b cut in the 50 on a short drop and a shave in December, remember that those kids have options. 1) They could rest for longer in December and hope for the best. 2) They could make a Q in a different event. 3) They can taper again in February.

I know I already wrote this, but B cuts should be fast. Why do we want 50 kids to make a b cut? So that kids like Ohning that are relay only get to swim another event? My response to that is to either 1) look at the above paragraph or 2) train over the summer and get faster.

I get that we're in D3 swimming, but it's still the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS we're talking about. I think keeping the b cuts fast lends more legitimacy to our meet and could ultimately help in recruiting when kids that are borderline between d1 and d3 realize that the talent pool in d3 is a lot faster than they think it is (if that makes sense).
Adjusting expectations: so close to 500 posts!

DonCheadle
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 3856
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Hollywood, CA

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by DonCheadle » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:49 pm

screeeeeeeeech wrote:I really don't understand your point Cheadle. .
You don't understand or you don't agree?
screeeeeeeeech wrote:I think keeping the b cuts fast lends more legitimacy to our meet and could ultimately help in recruiting when kids that are borderline between d1 and d3 realize that the talent pool in d3 is a lot faster than they think it is
How does having a slower heat in finals will attract top end talent? Two of your "solutions" are to come down all the way in December or taper in February both of which lead to slower swims in March. Beisdes, are you honestly saying that a border line D1/D3 guy looks at the prelims results of D3 nats, sees guys entered in the 50 at 21.19 and says, FORGET IT D3 sucks.

I do understand your point. You think that relay only swimmers should have to make it in to the individual events just like everyone else. I think that making B cuts and getting picked up on strong relays so that you can run your season properly is a legit strategy. Appearantly the people who set the standards agree with you.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

gcc62
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:15 am
Location: Grove City, PA

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by gcc62 » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:13 pm

I'm going to weigh in simply because my swimmers last year would have been hurt significantly by the new B-Cuts. Last year we had 6 women qualify for NCAAs as relay only swimmers. Five had at least one B-Cut. Two scored as individuals and the team finished 11th overall. If the B Cuts were similar last year, those two individuals would not have gotten to swim their events and would not have scored. We didn't taper in December and frankly didn't swim all that well when we tapered in February. We were lucky to be invited to NCAAs (we went in ranked 10th and 12th in the two relays we were invited in) but hit our taper at NCAAs (finishing 5th, 5th, 7th, 16th, and 17th in relays and 2 relay only swimmers scored as individuals). In that way, I hate to see the B cuts so fast.

On the other hand, we're going to have 16 relays invited this year - if you rank 16th when the qualifying meets end you're in. You don't have to wait for invites to find out. This means more relay only swimmers which means more individuals swimming if the B Cuts don't get faster. This means the meet would be longer. Longer sessions, less rest between sessions, later nights.

My feeling is, I'm going to have to make sure my athletes are on when they need to be this year. I'm willing to have faster B cuts to make sure that my 3:46 Men's 400 Medley Relay doesn't score at NCAAs (again...see 2006). I'm guessing the B cuts will stagnate for a while until the meet length balances out. Until then, this is the consequence of 16 relays getting in.

The other major downside I see with the cuts being this much faster is that less people will be Academic All American which I feel is contrary to what we're trying to promote at the Division III level - that academics are important and excellence should be rewarded.
Dave Fritz
Grove City College Swimming and Diving

Swmr46
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:18 pm

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by Swmr46 » Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:48 pm

I think this is a good topic and I would like to add my 2 cents. When I first saw the NCAA cuts, I was in disbelief how fast the B cuts were. But the more I thought about it, the B cuts aren't outside the realm of expectation.

Division 3 has "evolved", the talent pool has tremendously increased in depth and talent over the years.

According to the top times last year in the 50 freestyle, 41 male swimmers went under 21:00

The B-cut in the 50 free is 20:99, is this reasonable and within the realm of expectation? I think so...I would add that it should be a couple of hundredth faster.

Coach Fritz, I agree you with that Academic are important and excellence should be rewarded. I disagree with you that less people will be Academic All American due to the cuts.

Every year the A or B cuts get faster. I don't think there has been one year when A or B cuts haven't been changed and stay the same from the previous year.

In 2004, 7 male swimmers went under 21:00.....I know because I was at the meet.
We saw Nationals records being broken last March in Minneapolis after the tech suit fiasco in 2009.

My point is the cuts reflect the depth and talent of the Division 3. I wouldn’t be surprised if 50 male swimmers go under 21:00 this year! Which is crazy to think about it because I think 20 point in the 50 freestyle flat start is smoking fast!

I am so happy they are taking 16 relays this year. I know that has been a major issue in the past.

screeeeeeeeech
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:17 pm

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by screeeeeeeeech » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:32 pm

I just don't understand why we need to cater to the big teams, which is essentially what you're doing by making B cuts slower. You said it yourself Don, slower B cuts means that the kids that "should" make the meet do make the meet.

IMO, no one "should" make the meet. Either you do or you don't. Why do we want to make it easier for bigger teams to get guys into the meet? From a parity perspective, I'd think that making the b cuts faster could really even things out.
Adjusting expectations: so close to 500 posts!

DonCheadle
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 3856
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Hollywood, CA

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by DonCheadle » Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:46 pm

screeeeeeeeech wrote:I just don't understand why we need to cater to the big teams, which is essentially what you're doing by making B cuts slower. You said it yourself Don, slower B cuts means that the kids that "should" make the meet do make the meet.
Two points of issue:

You say "cater to big teams," I would say reward better teams. The effect is the same, but the meaning is different. I do think that anything that imporves the team aspect of the meet is a good thing. What is the most exciting part of the meet? The relays. I think that is because that is the closest thing to team competition. I am certain that Denison folks get jazzed anytime they are swimming next to a Lord ( I doubt the kenyon guy cares, though).

Second, I said nothing about slower kids making the meet. I think you understand that the cap is firm and that by changing B cuts the only thing you are doing is increasing the number of swims at the meet, not the number of swimmers. Maybe you don't understand that? Hmmm you wouldn't be the first person to be confused about the selection process.

I think the best thing you can do to convince me your point of view is tell me why it would have been better for the meet to have Ohning to double taper in February/March.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

Chapel Partner
Posts: 1285
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 4:42 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by Chapel Partner » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:48 am

Eliminate B cuts all together and let everyone swim at Nationals. Also, get rid of times so that swimmers are only judged on their personalities, not if they are fast enough to make it to Nationals.

If you don't make the cuts, you should be in the stands watching... or on the D3 bar crawl.

Rudy Shingle
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 10:13 am

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by Rudy Shingle » Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:20 am

Chapel Partner wrote:Eliminate B cuts all together and let everyone swim at Nationals. Also, get rid of times so that swimmers are only judged on their personalities, not if they are fast enough to make it to Nationals.

If you don't make the cuts, you should be in the stands watching... or on the D3 bar crawl.
This sounds like education right now.

NCACDork
Moderator
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:25 am
Location: The Computer

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by NCACDork » Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:46 am

Chapel Partner wrote:Eliminate B cuts all together and let everyone swim at Nationals. Also, get rid of times so that swimmers are only judged on their personalities, not if they are fast enough to make it to Nationals.

If you don't make the cuts, you should be in the stands watching... or on the D3 bar crawl.
Good point about the bar crawl! Look for it again this year!

User avatar
N Dynamite
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by N Dynamite » Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:37 pm

I can understand the faster individual B cuts - taking top 16 relays = more relay only swimmers = more individual swimmers = more individual heats if individual B cuts didn't get faster. But WHY ARE RELAY B CUTS FASTER?!? :evil:

This year's B cuts (number of schools last year who would have made the B cut prior to NCAAs - 16th place time):
Women:
200 FR - 1:36.94 (22 - 1:36.55) - :? - 0.39 cushion
400 FR - 3:33.95 (29 - 3:31.81)
800 FR - 7:46.20 (21 - 7:44.02) - :? - barely a 2 second cushion for an 800?
200 MR - 1:48.00 (21 - 1:47.01)
400 MR - 3:56.60 (21 - 3:55.43) - barely 1 second cushion for 400 - wow

Men:
200 FR - 1:23.51 (17 - 1:23.44) - :? - not much leeway here - hope no one underperforms
400 FR - 3:05.40 (19 - 3:04.53) - :? - only 19? less than a second cushion for the 400?
800 FR - 6:53.75 (21 - 6:51.21) - 2.5 second cushion here - must have been feeling generous
200 MR - 1:33.53 (21 - 1:33.15) - :? - a whole 0.38 cushion?
400 MR - 3:26.83 (26 - 3:25.79) - another barely 1 second cushion for 400 - must have been the rule they followed

Is it me or does anyone else think some of these cut times are ridiculous? Why does the men's 200 free relay B cut need to be so fast? Hopkins (13th), Connecticut (14th), and Emory (T-15th) all graduated at least two seniors from their 200 FR. Carthage (T-15th) and Redlands (17th) graduated one. While Hopkins and Emory are typically elite programs, two seniors could be ptotentially difficult to replace. It seems entirely possible that less than 16 teams make the B cut. Does the committee (or person) who sets these cuts even look at these things or do they just blindly follow some formula? Did someone say "we have to make the B cuts faster so we don't have too many heats of the mile/500/400 IM/whatever" and they accidentally made the relay cuts faster as well? If you use the argument that people/teams/schools will "rise to the occassion, why not use the same cuts for all three divisions? Surely everyone will just "rise to the occassion"
You have Pedro's protection. Vote for Pedro.

sagehen1
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:37 pm
Team Affiliation: Pomona

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by sagehen1 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 7:50 pm

N Dynamite wrote:I can understand the faster individual B cuts - taking top 16 relays = more relay only swimmers = more individual swimmers = more individual heats if individual B cuts didn't get faster. But WHY ARE RELAY B CUTS FASTER?!? :evil:

This year's B cuts (number of schools last year who would have made the B cut prior to NCAAs - 16th place time):
Women:
200 FR - 1:36.94 (22 - 1:36.55) - :? - 0.39 cushion
400 FR - 3:33.95 (29 - 3:31.81)
800 FR - 7:46.20 (21 - 7:44.02) - :? - barely a 2 second cushion for an 800?
200 MR - 1:48.00 (21 - 1:47.01)
400 MR - 3:56.60 (21 - 3:55.43) - barely 1 second cushion for 400 - wow

Men:
200 FR - 1:23.51 (17 - 1:23.44) - :? - not much leeway here - hope no one underperforms
400 FR - 3:05.40 (19 - 3:04.53) - :? - only 19? less than a second cushion for the 400?
800 FR - 6:53.75 (21 - 6:51.21) - 2.5 second cushion here - must have been feeling generous
200 MR - 1:33.53 (21 - 1:33.15) - :? - a whole 0.38 cushion?
400 MR - 3:26.83 (26 - 3:25.79) - another barely 1 second cushion for 400 - must have been the rule they followed

Is it me or does anyone else think some of these cut times are ridiculous? Why does the men's 200 free relay B cut need to be so fast? Hopkins (13th), Connecticut (14th), and Emory (T-15th) all graduated at least two seniors from their 200 FR. Carthage (T-15th) and Redlands (17th) graduated one. While Hopkins and Emory are typically elite programs, two seniors could be ptotentially difficult to replace. It seems entirely possible that less than 16 teams make the B cut. Does the committee (or person) who sets these cuts even look at these things or do they just blindly follow some formula? Did someone say "we have to make the B cuts faster so we don't have too many heats of the mile/500/400 IM/whatever" and they accidentally made the relay cuts faster as well? If you use the argument that people/teams/schools will "rise to the occassion, why not use the same cuts for all three divisions? Surely everyone will just "rise to the occassion"
I agree with you that they should have been faster; that being said, I think there's only a very small chance that there are less than 16 relays in the 200 free relays and maybe the 200 medley for guys, and virtually no chance that any other relay event gets less than 16 under the line. D3 gets faster and deeper every year.

User avatar
N Dynamite
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 8:44 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by N Dynamite » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:56 pm

I have another question - why are there any cuts for relays? I just checked the selection criteria in the 2011 championship handbook:
1. All individual and relays that have achieved an A cut will be entered into the meet
2. Top 16 relays and 22 divers will be selected
3. Individuals will be entered into the meet keeping each event equal (paraphrasing)
4. Once events are equal events will be filled according to the time closest to the NCAA record until 140 men/146 women or the meet cap are reached.
5. Relay only swimmers are entered into events they have B cuts for
6. If the cap isn't reached, keep adding athletes in the following order until it is:
1 diver (not to exceed 25 divers)
2 individual swimmers (closest to the record first)
If there's a tie for the last spot (two swimmers with the same time in the same event) both individuals get in

Relays are never addressed after step 2. Theoretically there could be 17 A cuts, but the committee will always work to make sure that won't happen (again). So, if they intend on having 16 teams no matter what, why are there relay cuts at all? Why make it possible (even if unlikely) that there could be less? In fact, the way it's worded, does the B cut even matter?

And it may not happen this year in the men's 200 FR, 200 MR, or women's 200 FR, invited times have gotten slower in the past. Typically not for more than a year or two, but if times consistently got faster every year then every NCAA record would get broken every year. If the B cut is meaningful what purpose does making it so fast serve?
You have Pedro's protection. Vote for Pedro.

DonCheadle
Gold Sponsor
Posts: 3856
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Hollywood, CA

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by DonCheadle » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:34 am

I agree Napolean. It is unlikely that there won't be 16 B cuts in any relay, but why chance it?
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!

silentp
Executive Team
Posts: 3812
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:30 am
Team Affiliation: Kalamazoo College
Location: Aurora, IL
Contact:

Re: B Cuts Too Fast

Post by silentp » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:23 pm

In addition to B cuts being too fast, the rent is too damn high.

But seriously, if you can't get the relay cuts, you shouldn't be at nationals. If they don't make 16, they take more individuals, which isn't a bad thing.
Frank: Look, I didn't go to Vietnam just to have pansies like you take my freedom away from me.
Dee: You went to Vietnam in 1993 to open up a sweatshop!
Frank: ...and a lot of good men died in that sweatshop!

Post Reply