Nats 2014

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

Moderators: Diesel471, ThePlowman, Nasty Natti

mdswimparent
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:10 am
Team Affiliation: Johns Hopkins

Re: Nats 2014

Post by mdswimparent » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:56 pm

a dude

Thanks and I apologize to any I may have inadvertently offended.

While I don't agree that my original post on the topic was pedantic, I do respect your right to think it was. I also note that Kenyon17 has edited the original assertion about transfers to a less all encompassing one that would not have drawn a comment and is more in keeping with your interpretation of its original intent.

I also have a question about divers. Why does a diver count as only 1/3 of a swimmer? If a team can bring three divers to a meet in exchange for eliminating one swimmer, doesn't that overemphasize the divers' value? One swimmer can score a max of 60 points by winning 3 individual events. If the divers are good enough on both boards, the 3 of them can score 106 points ((20 + 17 + 16) x 2). Certainly, the divers don't have to go 1,2,3 in order to add more than 60 points (and it is a rare swimmer who can amass 60 individual event points). Am I missing something in the scoring process?

imJumbo
Moderator
Posts: 539
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:14 am
Team Affiliation: Tufts University

Re: Nats 2014

Post by imJumbo » Wed Mar 26, 2014 7:05 pm

Relays.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

User avatar
VP2008
Moderator
Posts: 328
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 5:27 pm

Re: Nats 2014

Post by VP2008 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:14 am

I'm glad everyone was able to work things out :D . I was getting scared for a minute :oops:

On a somewhat unrelated topic, the NLRB ruled that Northwestern athletes are considered workers and can unionize. I think it will take a while, but this could have some pretty big ramifications. I don't know a ton about the ruling, but it looks like athletes can use their likeness for sponsorships and ads? My immediate thought is about Missy Franklin. She's given up hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money, endorsements, etc. to swim at Cal. If this ruling spreads to all of the NCAA, can she compete in 2016 with sponsorships and accepting prize money, while also competing at Cal? If things move this way, it could be really fun for college swimming. Imagine if Phelps, Katie Hoff, etc swam in college? And also if upcoming stars like Katy Ledecky can compete.
Shoot from the hip, ask questions later.

mdswimparent
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:10 am
Team Affiliation: Johns Hopkins

Re: Nats 2014

Post by mdswimparent » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:37 am

While the NLRB ruling allows athletes to unionize if they chose to do so, it does not require the NCAA to change it rules on professional athletes. Essentially, the ruling says that scholarship athletes spend so much time and effort in order to keep their scholarships, they fit the broad definition of "employee" for unionization rules. Not sure what the NCAA is going to do with that. It is still a violation of NCAA rules for a college athlete to accept payment or other gratuities for athletic endeavors. So unless the NCAA rules change, athletes can unionize but still can't get paid or receive endorsement money.

a dude
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:14 pm
Team Affiliation: DePauw and Kenyon

Re: Nats 2014

Post by a dude » Thu Mar 27, 2014 12:36 pm

VP2008 wrote:I'm glad everyone was able to work things out :D . I was getting scared for a minute :oops:

On a somewhat unrelated topic, the NLRB ruled that Northwestern athletes are considered workers and can unionize. I think it will take a while, but this could have some pretty big ramifications. I don't know a ton about the ruling, but it looks like athletes can use their likeness for sponsorships and ads? My immediate thought is about Missy Franklin. She's given up hundreds of thousands of dollars in prize money, endorsements, etc. to swim at Cal. If this ruling spreads to all of the NCAA, can she compete in 2016 with sponsorships and accepting prize money, while also competing at Cal? If things move this way, it could be really fun for college swimming. Imagine if Phelps, Katie Hoff, etc swam in college? And also if upcoming stars like Katy Ledecky can compete.
It'll take a while for any changes like that to happen, but students being able to unionize clearly opens the door for them to leverage that against the NCAA for some rule changes. It'll be fun to see the first student-athlete strike, complete with scabs getting beat downs for going to practice. Hopefully U Chicago won't get a "special visit" by Northwestern student-athletes if they keep competing for the school while Northwestern is striking.

A major concern in the NCAA swimming community seems to be whether the Olympic Sports will still be supported if the rules change to allow more money into the revenue generating sports. This could obviously be remedied if swimming was able to bring in some revenue. Missy Franklin has California getting packed houses for their dual meets, but who knows if they could do that if they were charging for tickets.

In D3, I'm not too concerned because there aren't scholarships, athletic teams are making money for the institution by bringing in students and keeping them at the school. From what I've heard, this is the first year that a demographic shift in America has colleges competing for a smaller number of eligible students than the year before. If someone knows that isn't true, please let me know. Yes, it would make sense for a D3 institution to go after "cheaper" students who don't need all the swimming stuff. Luckily, there is not an overabundance of cheaper students.

I don't think a collapse of support of Olympic sports at larger institutions would spell the end of D3 swimming, I think it might actually make it even faster. I would be concerned about us continuing to use great facilities like IUPUI for the national championships without some help, but we could probably make it work. I would also be concerned about the overall health of the sport, but we're currently in a good spot there.

The best solution for the swimming community at large is to start initiatives to make the sport more popular. Letting the best swimmers in the world take financial incentives while also swimming in NCAA competition could definitely help college swimming become more popular. Having more kids in the sport also makes college swimming more popular. I'd encourage anyone involved in a D3 program that is reading this to start some kind of community outreach program at your school. It can take the form of stroke clinics, learn to swim programs, going out to visit kids in elementary schools, etc. Just because you're DIII doesn't mean you can't make a difference!

BaldingEagle
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:34 am
Team Affiliation: Emory

Re: Nats 2014

Post by BaldingEagle » Thu Mar 27, 2014 4:26 pm

If D-I basketball collapses, there goes D-III in all sports. D-III Championships are funded by a certain fraction of the D-I hoops tournament. Consider the broadcast rights, the ticket revenue, and the licensing. I think it was in the $1Bn range last year, so $30mn for all D-III sports (which goes to facility rental, flights, travel, stipends, etc).

We might be in for a collegiate swimming league run instead by USA Swimming. We already have Grand Prix events, so it's not a far stretch to see more of the D-I programs going that route, where there is one final "College Grand Prix," with prize money for the competitors (at what used to be D-I and D-II), and a separate "CSCAA/USA Swimming Small-College Championship" for former D-III. That actually might be a boon to the former D-III colleges: they won't have NCAA oversight, can give international academic scholarships to swimmers, while staying in the non-prize money division. Former D-III programs can fund a coach by also having a USA Swimming team on-site, currently a rules violation in the NCAA. All of a sudden, USA swimming will GROW because there will be that many more (usually) well-maintained college pools and coaches ready to take on both types of teams. Rental revenue goes up for D-III schools. As an example, I'm sure SwimAtlanta or Dynamo would LOVE to have the use of two extra 50m pools (on the Emory campus). Similar situation in most smaller college towns. Bishop Swim Club out of Ohio Wesleyan? Scots Swim Club in Wooster, OH? Good-bye 19 week season!

Also, DIVING would see an increase in support, since many of these colleges also have at least a 1m board. The biggest problem with diving is liability insurance, which colleges can pay for, but independent teams and the Y cannot.

D-I swimmers could also get small salaries or stipends, without a limitation on number/proportions.

DyingBreed
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:51 pm
Team Affiliation: UCLA

Re: Nats 2014

Post by DyingBreed » Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:17 pm

mdswimparent wrote: I also have a question about divers. Why does a diver count as only 1/3 of a swimmer? If a team can bring three divers to a meet in exchange for eliminating one swimmer, doesn't that overemphasize the divers' value? One swimmer can score a max of 60 points by winning 3 individual events. If the divers are good enough on both boards, the 3 of them can score 106 points ((20 + 17 + 16) x 2). Certainly, the divers don't have to go 1,2,3 in order to add more than 60 points (and it is a rare swimmer who can amass 60 individual event points). Am I missing something in the scoring process?
There are no relays for divers which is why they are only 1/3 of a swimmer. In D1 there are 3 diving events (platform has been added) and a diver is 1/2 of a swimmer. It amazes me to see the D3 posts which denigrate teams which score points in diving as if the D3 National Championship trophy only has value if it is won in the swimming events. Last night at D1 champs, Texas took the lead with a strong performance on the 1mtr board. Everyone at D1 pays close attention to the diving events. Current D3 swimmers seem to understand this but many on this forum whose glory days have long faded seem not to grasp this reality. I'm sure if look at each and every NCAA D3 trophy in your display case it will say "National Champion NCAA Division III Swimming and Diving"

mdswimparent
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:10 am
Team Affiliation: Johns Hopkins

Re: Nats 2014

Post by mdswimparent » Fri Mar 28, 2014 3:40 pm

DyingBreed:

The reference to relays does not resolve my question. If a team gets less than 4 swimmers invited, then each of the swimmers can score a max of 60 each because of the 3 event limit. The 3 divers in my question could score 106 in their 2 events. It seems there is still some discrepancy in the scoring process.

You said:

"Current D3 swimmers seem to understand this but many on this forum whose glory days have long faded seem not to grasp this reality." Would you explain your support for that statement? The vast majority of current D3 swimmers I know and with whom I interact believe that diving should be scored separately.

I also think it is safe to say that those who follow D3 swimming closely follow the diving results because they have a significant effect on the final championship standings. Doing that doesn't prevent them from believing swimming and diving should have separate championships.

Smack N Cheese
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:07 pm
Team Affiliation: Case Western

Re: Nats 2014

Post by Smack N Cheese » Fri Mar 28, 2014 7:08 pm

How do relays not answer your question? A swimmer can possibly compete in 7 events, a diver can only do 2, so they put a diver as worth 1/3 of a swimmer.

Yeah 3 swimmers can only score 180 compared to 3 divers being able to score 106 for only one spot, but 4 swimmers could score 280 compared to 4 divers only getting 136, in that case 4 swimmers only take up twice as much space as 4 divers, but can score over twice as many points.

Also if a team gets less then 4 invites, it doesn't matter how many spots a diver takes up compared to a swimmer, either way they will be way under the cap, so it only really makes sense to look at when teams would have full or near full rosters, at least in my opinion.

skutbe01
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 8:13 pm
Team Affiliation: Luther College

Re: Nats 2014

Post by skutbe01 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:52 pm

mdswimparent wrote:DyingBreed:
The reference to relays does not resolve my question. If a team gets less than 4 swimmers invited, then each of the swimmers can score a max of 60 each because of the 3 event limit. The 3 divers in my question could score 106 in their 2 events. It seems there is still some discrepancy in the scoring process.
You left out the part about this hypothetical team only having three swimmers on it. Because if the three swimmers are anywhere near scoring the maximum amount of points, a fourth could limp in for a relay.
---------------------
Ben Skutnik
Luther College '08

Towel42
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 9:49 pm
Team Affiliation: Colby

Re: Nats 2014

Post by Towel42 » Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:52 pm

I think the main issue regarding divers being counted as 1/3 of a swimmer is this:

The only point of having a team cap is to make sure a team doesn't have too many scoring opportunities. It's meant to put teams on a (relatively) equal playing field. The team cap is probably the only reason the Emory women don't win by more each year (this was the first year in a while they didn't have to leave anyone home).

The maximum number of divers a team could bring is dependent on what region they are in, but I'll estimate it at 9 (which is a nice even 3 slots). This means that said team could also bring 15 swimmers. For a given team, it is unlikely that more than 9 swimmers will be on relays. At nationals this year, on finals relays Denison used 9 swimmers, Kenyon 8, Emory 8, and JHU 8. This means that there will be at least 6 swimmers who are not swimming in relays on this hypothetical team. They each have 3 scoring opportunities, for 18 scoring opportunities in 6 slots. The nine divers only take up 3 slots, but also have 18 scoring opportunities.

In total, this team will have 63 individual scoring opportunities, with 5 relays (that are not affected by bringing divers). In contrast, a team who brings 18 swimmers will have 54 individual scoring opportunities with 5 relays. This gives the team with divers a huge advantage.

Honestly though, this is hardly ever an issue at the nationals meet. What most seem to be worrying about is Denison bringing 4 divers this year, but they only had 14 swimmers, which meant that they were nowhere near the team cap (they still had room for 2 more swimmers or 8 more divers). Even if divers counted as a full swimmer, they wouldn't have worried about the team cap.

a dude
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:14 pm
Team Affiliation: DePauw and Kenyon

Re: Nats 2014

Post by a dude » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:09 pm

DyingBreed wrote: There are no relays for divers which is why they are only 1/3 of a swimmer. In D1 there are 3 diving events (platform has been added) and a diver is 1/2 of a swimmer. It amazes me to see the D3 posts which denigrate teams which score points in diving as if the D3 National Championship trophy only has value if it is won in the swimming events. Last night at D1 champs, Texas took the lead with a strong performance on the 1mtr board. Everyone at D1 pays close attention to the diving events. Current D3 swimmers seem to understand this but many on this forum whose glory days have long faded seem not to grasp this reality. I'm sure if look at each and every NCAA D3 trophy in your display case it will say "National Champion NCAA Division III Swimming and Diving"
I didn't particularly want to respond here, but this post is so stupid that I had to. I am a moth before a flame. I apologize to anyone who is tired of my responses beforehand.

OK, people pay attention to the diving at D1 NCAAs. People also pay attention to the diving at D3 NCAAs. It is part of the rules, the scores in diving have an effect on the championship. That does not mean that the rules make sense. Just because Texas is using divers and is in the hunt for the D1 NCAA Championship does not answer any concerns about the two different sports being scored together. If they end up winning tonight, I'm sure a couple of people complain about diving.

I don't think we should hold the current format of swimming and diving competition to be some kind of golden standard. It is a format that can be improved upon. I think it is healthy for the sport to examine its format and think, hey does this really make much sense?

It's pretty funny that you'd try and paint people that say swimming and diving should be separated to be old folks sitting around and complaining. You're trying to wave away the argument by painting anyone who disagrees with you as someone who doesn't matter as much. I would think someone who reads about D3 swimming at the national level would be able to avoid such faulty logic, since the top D3 programs are generally very good schools.

If we took a vote that asked whether we would prefer for them to be scored together or separately, I feel pretty safe in saying the vote would come out for separating the scores. It doesn't mean anyone dislikes divers or hates the sport. It just means people would prefer for a team score to be reached without including the diving events, since it is a different sport and has very little crossover with the swimming events. Swimmers enjoy competing in NCAA competition and don't think about the diving too much, because what else are they supposed to do? They don't have the power to change the rules, so they go with the flow. That doesn't mean they fully support the scoring being combined, mainly they don't think about it until their team loses because of diving points. I'm sure at Denison the swimmers are down with the scoring being combined, but that's just one program.

Whether that is a reality that we can make happen is a different question. There is a bunch of institutional momentum for the two being scored together, but we start the change by identifying that this is a weird way of doing things that we might want to examine. Maybe it can never be changed, but maybe it can. There's nothing wrong with talking about the rules. Maybe there is something wrong about poking a little fun at teams that take advantage of the strange rules, but this board is really boring without it.

a dude
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 4:14 pm
Team Affiliation: DePauw and Kenyon

Re: Nats 2014

Post by a dude » Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:22 pm

Towel42 wrote:I think the main issue regarding divers being counted as 1/3 of a swimmer is this:

The only point of having a team cap is to make sure a team doesn't have too many scoring opportunities. It's meant to put teams on a (relatively) equal playing field. The team cap is probably the only reason the Emory women don't win by more each year (this was the first year in a while they didn't have to leave anyone home).

The maximum number of divers a team could bring is dependent on what region they are in, but I'll estimate it at 9 (which is a nice even 3 slots). This means that said team could also bring 15 swimmers. For a given team, it is unlikely that more than 9 swimmers will be on relays. At nationals this year, on finals relays Denison used 9 swimmers, Kenyon 8, Emory 8, and JHU 8. This means that there will be at least 6 swimmers who are not swimming in relays on this hypothetical team. They each have 3 scoring opportunities, for 18 scoring opportunities in 6 slots. The nine divers only take up 3 slots, but also have 18 scoring opportunities.

In total, this team will have 63 individual scoring opportunities, with 5 relays (that are not affected by bringing divers). In contrast, a team who brings 18 swimmers will have 54 individual scoring opportunities with 5 relays. This gives the team with divers a huge advantage.

Honestly though, this is hardly ever an issue at the nationals meet. What most seem to be worrying about is Denison bringing 4 divers this year, but they only had 14 swimmers, which meant that they were nowhere near the team cap (they still had room for 2 more swimmers or 8 more divers). Even if divers counted as a full swimmer, they wouldn't have worried about the team cap.
I think the rules were made to encourage teams to use divers, otherwise why would institutions put resources into attracting divers when you can do just as well with swimmers? While it may not be an issue at the national meet too often, it does come up at the conference meets every year. Teams with divers enjoy a clear advantage over teams without divers, since you aren't looking at the relay swimmers as those bubble swimmers on the 18 person roster (unless your team is very distance heavy with a very weak sprint program, which makes the relays lose value cause they won't be scoring that well). If you have three divers that have a good chance of scoring, they will almost always come out on top of a swimmer in value, even if they are also going to score in three events. It's not a difficult decision.

User avatar
Paiz
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 9:47 pm
Team Affiliation: Kenyon
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Nats 2014

Post by Paiz » Sun Mar 30, 2014 4:24 pm

For anyone who is curious...the fire alarm went off because a heating sensor broke.

Wish it was more sensational than that.

Hell, I wish the popcorn machine had caught on fire! Sadly, it's just an old(er) building and shit breaks.

BYoung001
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:05 am
Team Affiliation: UChicago

Re: Nats 2014

Post by BYoung001 » Sun Mar 30, 2014 10:11 pm

I hated that diving points were included until my team got an excellent set of divers... I also despise breaststrokers who swim the 200IM, but I quite like their contribution to the medley relay. Solution: Help recruit better divers and compete in the sport that has been this way before you ever started.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oLZiVK2Y3Y

Post Reply