2017 NCAAs

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

Moderators: Diesel471, ThePlowman, Nasty Natti

watercows
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:26 pm
Team Affiliation: Williams

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by watercows » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:21 pm

N Dynamite wrote:
swimming2008 wrote:It would be insane if it only went to line 12... there would be some very pissed off people and a call for a drastic change in the selection rules.
What change to the selection rules would you make? If it only went to line 12 of the individuals the relays would only be at line 13 at most. The only change that could move the line would be to add more men to the meet. That's not a selection process change.

I'm curious - from those who went through and did projections - what is making the line so low? Too many relays with relay only swimmers? Too many individuals ranked highly in only one event? Both?
^^^ This; it's the cap--not the criteria.

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

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by N Dynamite » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:18 pm

swimming2008 wrote:DI & DII are not inviting relays anymore. They are only inviting individuals and you would need to form a relay out of the people that have been individually invited to NCAAs.

They have the option to bring additional swimmers to fill out relays, but that would be at the schools expense.
I appreciate what you're saying, but they also give out athletic scholarships, so there's already a different financial environment. How many schools wouldn't send a relay if they had to pay for all of their relay only swimmers? I have no way of quantifying this, but I would think the number would be much higher in Division III than I or II. I also have no idea how many people could be on a relay without an individual invite in the scenario you're suggesting - can you give any examples of what the potential cost would be to some of these schools?

One other thing about this suggestion - I've been to Shenandoah, there's no extra deck space as it is, where would you put all of these athletes who came on their own dime?

It's easy to come up with a solution when you don't have to worry about implementation. I could just as easily say raise the cap by 50 people, but where would the money come from to pay for their per diem (and their coach's)? Where would you put 50 more athletes (and their fans and coaches) at Shenandoah? If you raise the men's cap you'd have to raise the women's proportionately, so you'd actually be adding 100+ (++) people to the meet. Where would you build in the time for the extra heats these races would require? Would you eliminate the extra events and only have athletes compete in the events they were actually invited in? Breaststrokers couldn't do the IM unless they were invited, and if they were the last 100 invited but didn't get invited in the 200 they only get one event? Seems like a lot of money to fly someone to Texas for one race. In your solution, where would DIII schools draw the line at paying for their relay to be there - Kenyon, Denison, Williams, and others on that tier would probably pay regardless, and would probably work the system to get as many individuals into the meet without having to pay for any. Schools who were ranked 14th+ in relays would probably opt out of sending them, especially if they were only good at the 200 free relay and not the medleys or the 800. Would you lower the cap so there was room on the deck for the relays who paid to be there? How would this impact where the line was drawn for the individual events? Would it actually change anything? Would it make it better or worse?

Maybe there's a better way. Maybe the rabbit hole gets too deep to make a massive overhaul to the current process. Maybe this process is pretty good and it just happens to have a weird quirk every so often because of the cap and the distribution of talent.
You have Pedro's protection. Vote for Pedro.

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

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by N Dynamite » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:20 pm

Now I need to go eat some tots and pick up some chapstick. My lips hurt real bad. Gosh
You have Pedro's protection. Vote for Pedro.

schnitz
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:00 pm
Team Affiliation: mens swimming

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by schnitz » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:32 pm

It looks like there are about 15 people who are on lines 13 - 16. 3 at 13, 4 at 14, 3 at 15 and the rest at 16. So we're not talking about 50 people, only 15 or fewer who are affected by this screwy year.

watercows
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:26 pm
Team Affiliation: Williams

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by watercows » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:38 pm

schnitz wrote:It looks like there are about 15 people who are on lines 13 - 16. 3 at 13, 4 at 14, 3 at 15 and the rest at 16. So we're not talking about 50 people, only 15 or fewer who are affected by this screwy year.
What do these 15--and the cap--imply for the relay line (and "Step 5")? (I assume you're talking about the mens meet.)

schnitz
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:00 pm
Team Affiliation: mens swimming

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by schnitz » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:41 pm

Don't know. It pretty much agrees with the "if you go to line 15 on the relays, you get to line 13 or 14", but I didn't research the relay names, so my number may be off by a few.

watercows
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:26 pm
Team Affiliation: Williams

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by watercows » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:46 pm

Do all (some?) coaches get to "sneak-preview" the entries list so that they can "scrub it" one more time before the NCAA releases the entries publicly?

lc503
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:25 pm
Team Affiliation: LC

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by lc503 » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:55 pm

In 2012-2013, there were 16 relays in each but only 12-13 men in each event due to the 100 fly/200 fly A Cut situation. The following year 13-14, it was 20 men per individual event with 16 relays. In 14-15, it was 16-17 per event. Really, the biggest issue is that there is a lot of fluctuation in the number of swimmers that make up the relays.

This year if 16 relays were to be invited in each event, which seems unlikely, you would have 27 different schools represented, but it would be 192 individuals for the 320 total relay spots, meaning that only a little over half of the swimmers are relays on multiple relays. Then take out the people on more than 2 relays and you see how spots are truly going to relay individuals.

schnitz
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:00 pm
Team Affiliation: mens swimming

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by schnitz » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:06 pm

lc503 wrote:In 2012-2013, there were 16 relays in each but only 12-13 men in each event due to the 100 fly/200 fly A Cut situation. The following year 13-14, it was 20 men per individual event with 16 relays. In 14-15, it was 16-17 per event. Really, the biggest issue is that there is a lot of fluctuation in the number of swimmers that make up the relays.

This year if 16 relays were to be invited in each event, which seems unlikely, you would have 27 different schools represented, but it would be 192 individuals for the 320 total relay spots, meaning that only a little over half of the swimmers are relays on multiple relays. Then take out the people on more than 2 relays and you see how spots are truly going to relay individuals.
It really does benefit larger, deeper teams at the expense of smaller teams with a small number of fast swimmers.

polarbear
Moderator
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:42 pm
Team Affiliation: Bowdoin

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by polarbear » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:20 pm

N Dynamite wrote:
swimming2008 wrote:DI & DII are not inviting relays anymore. They are only inviting individuals and you would need to form a relay out of the people that have been individually invited to NCAAs.

They have the option to bring additional swimmers to fill out relays, but that would be at the schools expense.
I appreciate what you're saying, but they also give out athletic scholarships, so there's already a different financial environment. How many schools wouldn't send a relay if they had to pay for all of their relay only swimmers? I have no way of quantifying this, but I would think the number would be much higher in Division III than I or II. I also have no idea how many people could be on a relay without an individual invite in the scenario you're suggesting - can you give any examples of what the potential cost would be to some of these schools?

One other thing about this suggestion - I've been to Shenandoah, there's no extra deck space as it is, where would you put all of these athletes who came on their own dime?

It's easy to come up with a solution when you don't have to worry about implementation. I could just as easily say raise the cap by 50 people, but where would the money come from to pay for their per diem (and their coach's)? Where would you put 50 more athletes (and their fans and coaches) at Shenandoah? If you raise the men's cap you'd have to raise the women's proportionately, so you'd actually be adding 100+ (++) people to the meet. Where would you build in the time for the extra heats these races would require? Would you eliminate the extra events and only have athletes compete in the events they were actually invited in? Breaststrokers couldn't do the IM unless they were invited, and if they were the last 100 invited but didn't get invited in the 200 they only get one event? Seems like a lot of money to fly someone to Texas for one race. In your solution, where would DIII schools draw the line at paying for their relay to be there - Kenyon, Denison, Williams, and others on that tier would probably pay regardless, and would probably work the system to get as many individuals into the meet without having to pay for any. Schools who were ranked 14th+ in relays would probably opt out of sending them, especially if they were only good at the 200 free relay and not the medleys or the 800. Would you lower the cap so there was room on the deck for the relays who paid to be there? How would this impact where the line was drawn for the individual events? Would it actually change anything? Would it make it better or worse?

Maybe there's a better way. Maybe the rabbit hole gets too deep to make a massive overhaul to the current process. Maybe this process is pretty good and it just happens to have a weird quirk every so often because of the cap and the distribution of talent.
Not sure I go quite as far as you do --
[*]If you went to 24 per event you are talking about adding another (maximum) 8 invited swimmers per event. Even if that adds an additional 150 people you're still talking about less than 600 on deck
[*]As for letting them swim extra events, are we really talking about that much time? At the extreme, 20 heats per event. In the 500 (longest regular session event) that would be 20 minutes. The day 1 session of 500, 200IM,and 50 would be 20+9+2 = 31 minutes longer. I would take that in order to have a "full" meet and the fastest swimmers making All-American
[*]The NCAA picks locations based on lowest costs because it is picking up airfare. I would be surprised if too many school qualified relays and didn't send them. The top teams out this year are NESCAC schools -- they would definitely go.

watercows
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 2:26 pm
Team Affiliation: Williams

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by watercows » Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:26 pm

When should we expect the entries posted -- 5 PM?

polarbear
Moderator
Posts: 1077
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:42 pm
Team Affiliation: Bowdoin

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by polarbear » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:05 pm

watercows wrote:When should we expect the entries posted -- 5 PM?
Website says its been moved back to 8pm

wiswimdad
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:18 pm
Team Affiliation: Everyone

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by wiswimdad » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:14 pm


SwimDog
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:25 pm
Team Affiliation: UCLA

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by SwimDog » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:58 pm

wiswimdad wrote:15 relays, individual lines to 15

http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files ... 170222.pdf
Nice work wiswimdad! It looks like 4 events only go 14 deep - 400 IM, 100/200 Br, and 1650.

I think it's silly that the NCAA DIII can't send enough swimmers to give the top 24 an invite. This is supposed to be the DIII national championships, and they are going to recognize a top 16 without even inviting the top 16. I'd argue that not having athletic scholarships makes this even more important than doing it in DI and DII. These kids get so little recognition/reward for what they do while putting in just as much work, so at least get the best ones to the championships -- Especially when considering that most of the DIII schools are private, with high tuition. I don't really buy the story that somehow the NCAA and/or DIII schools can't afford to send a few more swimmers to properly fill out their national championships...

Congratulations and Good Luck to all qualifiers -- Especially the NESCAC ones!

SwimDog
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:25 pm
Team Affiliation: UCLA

Re: 2017 NCAAs

Post by SwimDog » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:58 pm

Pondering the entries some more, it occurs to me that for the next several years if there is a men's event that will have one less invited entry, it's always going to be either the 100 or 200 breast -- Call it the Andrew Wilson effect. :D

Post Reply