Intra-Conference All Star 400 Free relay

Forums General National Championships Intra-Conference All Star 400 Free relay

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 31 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12371
      trout3
      Member

      I propose we have a friendly competition between conferences to determine best conference 400 free relay team. Since this is the final event of the meet it gives all of us a view into how well our selections are performing leading up to the event…..

      GROUND RULES:

      1) Clearly Identify which conference you are representing when you post your relay selections.
      2) Each conference can have multiple entries, however each ID is only allowed one team and that team cannot change.
      3) Here’s will some coaching comes in…. Going into the NCAA Meet you need to identify leadoff swimmer and that cannot change. Only flat start times can be used for that swimmer (individual or relay start). All times will be used from the Meet in Houston for final tally.

      My team and current seed time is 3:02.25:

      UAA
      Leckey (Washington) 46.09
      Thornton (NYU) 45.76
      Lardiere (NYU) 45.23
      Callum (Emory) 45.17

      If someone would be kind enough to list for me all of the conferences that are most likely to participate, I will include a poll…… Or, I’ll just wait to see who responds….

    • #35666
      Elroy Jetson
      Member

      It looks like you are using relay starts for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th guy. Here’s mine

      PAC
      Trunk (Westminster) 45.08
      Courage (GCC) 44.22
      Whitbeck (GCC) 45.49
      Larsen (GCC) 46.98

      Seed – 3:01.77

      I’ll have to wait until I see whether Westminster’s 400 Medley gets in before I decide who my lead off is, but for now it’s Trunk

    • #35667
      trout3
      Member

      That’s correct….. Relay starts for 2,3 and 4…

    • #35668
      silentp
      Member

      NCAC
      Geissinger 45.63
      Byers 44.95
      Mitchell 44.72
      Harris 48.99 (lead off from a dual meet)

      Seed time: 3:04.29

      I could not get a split for Harris swimming it rested, but do believe he will be on it in March and therefore am taking that risk.

    • #35669
      99 Red
      Member

      Well, I gotta say I like the NCAC.

      I’ll go with

      Mitchell 44.72 Kenyon
      Geissinger 44.83 Denison
      Byers 44.95 Denison
      Curtis 46.03 (flat) Denison

      Making a seed time of 3:00.53

      The NCAC might be able to field a faster seed time right now, Christian and Jacobsen have put up some good times, but I think Curtis is going to have a huge nationals, and I couldn’t see myself leaving him off. I’m leaning towards having Geissinger lead off.

      P.S. silentP, Harris went 47.46 in the prelims of the Nike Cup. And just so everybody knows, I was looking for NCAC times before I saw P’s posting.

    • #35670
      Chris Knight
      Member

      Can I use a D2 swimmer? If so…

      BMC

      Alex Sweet W&L 45.30
      McGlaston W&L 46.00
      Ginder W&L 45.20
      Chagas Wingate 44.50

      Seed – 3:01.00

    • #35671
      trout3
      Member

      Sorry Chris….. This is a D3 site…. ๐Ÿ™‚ and D3 challenge….

    • #35672
      Chris Knight
      Member

      Withdrawn, then. Without Chagas it would just be W&L’s A relay.

    • #35673
      trout3
      Member

      Withdrawn, then. Without Chagas it would just be W&L’s A relay.

      Well, let’s keep it as a place holder, call it an exhibition swim and see where it falls…….

    • #35674
      RadAGator
      Member

      too many lone wolves out west… ๐Ÿ™

      But I bet I could rough you up with a 3 man diving roster.

    • #35675
      trout3
      Member

      I’m open to suggestions… would like the west represented….

      radagator…. how about a combination SCIAC and UCSC?

      Chris Knight…. How about you include John’s Hopkins since they are “independent”, yet somewhat logical geographically?

      Any other thoughts from anyone else? Would this be fair?

    • #35676
      SeekUp
      Member

      MIAC

      Stewart 46.03
      Amundson 44.98
      Koch 45.97
      Hagemeyer 44.95

      Seed Time: 3:01.93

    • #35677

      If I can take this back to 2004, in St Peter’s, MO….

      The All-UAA 400 FR (Pearson -CMU, Triebe & Slavik -WU, Saunders-Chicago), all of whom placed in the top 9 at NCAA’s, would have LOST to Kenyon.

      Same thing in the 800 FR: The UAA had 5 swimmers in the top 9, and the top four (Pearson 1st, Slavik and Triebe 4-5th? and Saunders 6th) would have LOST to Kenyon. Kenyon didn’t even have any big heat finalists the 200 free (C-B swam the 100 fly).

      In 2005 at Holland, Pearson (1st) + Triebe (top 4?) + Saunders (5th) + Slavik (top 10?) would not have beaten Kenyon.

      In 1993, Hope College had 4 big heat finalists in the 200 free, and LOST to UCSD, who had one consies swimmer.

    • #35678
      RadAGator
      Member

      Putting UCSC and SCIAC together produces…

      Trevor Harp 45.71
      Troy Marcikic 46.41
      Gerald Bolson 46.04
      John Sloat 45.74
      3:03.90

      But it does little good…only Harp and Marcikic will be in Houston…taking Harp along with the three relay splits from Santa Cruz at nats won’t be very competitive either…

    • #35679
      Chris Knight
      Member

      @trout3 wrote:

      Chris Knight…. How about you include John’s Hopkins since they are “independent”, yet somewhat logical geographically?

      Any other thoughts from anyone else? Would this be fair?

      Well, their women are in the Bluegrass, so that works for me.

      Pseudo-BMC

      Alex Sweet, W&L, 45.30
      Tim McGlaston, W&L, 45.97
      Mike Ginder, W&L, 45.02
      Brad Test, JHU, 44.86

      3:01.15

    • #35680
      The Treat
      Member

      @PioneerSwimming wrote:

      If I can take this back to 2004, in St Peter’s, MO….

      The All-UAA 400 FR (Pearson -CMU, Triebe & Slavik -WU, Saunders-Chicago), all of whom placed in the top 9 at NCAA’s, would have LOST to Kenyon.

      Same thing in the 800 FR: The UAA had 5 swimmers in the top 9, and the top four (Pearson 1st, Slavik and Triebe 4-5th? and Saunders 6th) would have LOST to Kenyon. Kenyon didn’t even have any big heat finalists the 200 free (C-B swam the 100 fly).

      In 2005 at Holland, Pearson (1st) + Triebe (top 4?) + Saunders (5th) + Slavik (top 10?) would not have beaten Kenyon.

      In 1993, Hope College had 4 big heat finalists in the 200 free, and LOST to UCSD, who had one consies swimmer.

      slavik was 3rd in the 200 free at nats in 2005. triebe was 10th i think (like 1:41), but had a 1:39.4 relay split in the 200 fr.

    • #35681
      N Dynamite
      Member

      How about last year’s 200 FR? For the 50 Grove City had the #3 and #4 seeds in Haring and Courage, Treibe and Slavik from Wash U took 1-2 and both finished behind Kenyon who had no one in the top 16 (Berger, their highest finisher, was 28th)

    • #35682

      Treat,
      Thanks for the corrections. Shouldn’t you know Triebe’s times better than that? In any case, the UAA was pretty strong those years.

      I make a subtle correction, however: in 2004, in the 100 free, there were four UAA swimmers in the top 8 of the 100 free, and Saunders was not one of them. However, his time from winning the consol heat beat two of the UAA swimmers, so he would have been on the relay, probably. The top 9 swimmers from the 100 free from the UAA were Triebe, Slavik, Seymour (Emory) and Pai from Brandeis. The UAA 400 FR that year would most likely have been Pearson, Triebe, Slavik, and Saunders, though probably not in that order.

      Chris Pai: a UAA Champion and NCAA All-American.

      How about relays from schools that have the name “Washington” in them? Last year’s FR’s would have been pretty fast with Slavik, Triebe, Ginder, Sweet, Leckey, Croushore, etc etc etc from Washington University and Washington & Lee University. My guess is the “WASHINGTONS” 800 FR would have won the whole thing.

      Also, how about Christian Colleges? GCC + Wheaton (IL) + Calvin + Hope?

    • #35683
      The Treat
      Member

      @PioneerSwimming wrote:

      Treat,
      Thanks for the corrections. Shouldn’t you know Triebe’s times better than that? In any case, the UAA was pretty strong those years.

      I make a subtle correction, however: in 2004, in the 100 free, there were four UAA swimmers in the top 8 of the 100 free, and Saunders was not one of them. However, his time from winning the consol heat beat two of the UAA swimmers, so he would have been on the relay, probably. The top 9 swimmers from the 100 free from the UAA were Triebe, Slavik, Seymour (Emory) and Pai from Brandeis. The UAA 400 FR that year would most likely have been Pearson, Triebe, Slavik, and Saunders, though probably not in that order.

      Chris Pai: a UAA Champion and NCAA All-American.

      How about relays from schools that have the name “Washington” in them? Last year’s FR’s would have been pretty fast with Slavik, Triebe, Ginder, Sweet, Leckey, Croushore, etc etc etc from Washington University and Washington & Lee University. My guess is the “WASHINGTONS” 800 FR would have won the whole thing.

      Also, how about Christian Colleges? GCC + Wheaton (IL) + Calvin + Hope?

      2005 was a forgettable meet for me.

      the washingtons relays would have been pretty disgusting last year.

      800 FR

      slavik 1:40.33
      leckey 1:41.16
      ginder 1:38.70
      triebe 1:38.47

      6:38.66

      400 FR

      slavik 45.34
      leckey 46.13
      ginder 45.80
      triebe 44.46

      3:01.73

      200 FR

      slavik 20.40
      leckey 20.70
      ginder 20.09
      triebe 20.07

      1:21.26

      not too shabby. i think that ginder could have had a much faster 100 free split at nats, he just didnt have too much motivation at the end of day 3 to bust out a crazy split in either prelims or finals (3 seconds away from making finals in the morning and 2 seconds on each side of him in finals when he dove in). if we had some of W&L’s times from this year they’d be even faster but then we’re really stretching to create fast relays.

    • #35684
      Chris Knight
      Member

      @The Treat wrote:

      i think that ginder could have had a much faster 100 free split at nats, he just didnt have too much motivation at the end of day 3 to bust out a crazy split in either prelims or finals (3 seconds away from making finals in the morning and 2 seconds on each side of him in finals when he dove in).

      Mike never, EVER gives less than 100% on a relay that’s not already in the can. The reason he “only” split 45.8p/46.0 was that he was exhausted. Our motivation in that console was to break the then school record of 3:06.4 – perhaps not a goal on the level of winning the event, but an important one to us nonetheless.

    • #35685
      silentp
      Member

      I thought i’d throw a couple medlies out there, since I’m already entering a 400 FR, why not.

      400 MR
      MIAA
      Ellis 50.72
      Espinosa 55.74
      Dekker 50.49
      Rose 45.17
      Seed time: 3:22.13

      200 MR
      MIAA
      Ellis 23.64
      Espinosa 24.82
      Dekker 22.77
      Vogelzang 20.57
      Seed time: 1:31.80

    • #35686
      facenorth
      Member

      I don’t think the MIAA is quite ready to contend yet but this looks like a good time. I think I’ll put a 4 Free together too, just for funsies.

      400 MR
      MIAA
      Ellis 50.72
      Espinosa 55.74
      Nelis 50.69
      Rose 45.17
      Seed time: 3:22.33

      200 MR
      MIAA
      Ellis 23.64
      Espinosa 24.82
      Nelis 22.72
      Rose 20.75
      Seed time: 1:31.93

      400 Free
      MIAA
      VanderBroek 46.48
      Vogelzang 46.19
      Ellis 46.65
      Rose 45.19
      3:04.51

      P, Vogelzang was 20.50…twice, if you want to drop your seed time by .07.

    • #35687
      maverick1
      Member

      facenorth-

      you could lead off with resseguie and drop .02 right there…but then if you can use the cvb leadoff and convert to a split (-.5) then the relay really does get a bit better

      ress-46.46
      cvb-45.98
      vogel-46.19
      rose-45.19

      3:03.82—still not that great

    • #35688
      facenorth
      Member

      I thought about that Mav but I don’t think Resseguie will be at the meet. I could potentially use JBG if his 100 fly makes it too but I have a strange feeling that CVB won’t have a relay pickup for a 100 so I think I’ll just stick with what’s out there. I could also drop .02 if I used an all Hope relay and put Holton in for Ellis, oddly enough, but I thought I would venture out a bit.

    • #35689
      maverick1
      Member

      yeah, i didn’t so much read the rules….my bad

    • #35690
      swim5599
      Member

      We could throw out an all time intra conf relay. Of course when we get to the NCAC all time it is just unfair but what the hell
      400 MR CCIW (all time)
      Schmitt 50.2
      Taylor 55.1 split
      P Gyorfi 48.2 split
      S Gyorfi 44.7 split
      3:18.2

    • #35691
      Trousers Ron
      Member

      Hey there everybody, Trousers Ron here! I realize I don’t always make the most sense….but where did this come from???

      We could throw out an all time intra conf relay. Of course when we get to the NCAC all time it is just unfair but what the hell
      400 MR CCIW (all time)
      Schmitt 50.2
      Taylor 55.1 split
      P Gyorfi 48.2 split
      S Gyorfi 44.7 split
      3:18.2

      Sorry, that one just blindsided me. Maybe a whole new thread topic or something.

      mmm…trousers.

    • #35692
      swim5599
      Member

      The topic was intra conf 400 fr, people starting listing medley’s so I threw the all time fastest intra conf 400 MR from the CCIW.

    • #35693
      maverick1
      Member

      yeah, swim5599 except you put together the best 400MR of all time from the CCIW and i think the guys putting the relays together were going to stick to this season….that is a hell of a relay though, too bad dobelbower wasn’t a monster in the 100 back as much as the 200 or that relay could be a bit faster.

    • #35694
      The Treat
      Member

      @Chris Knight wrote:

      Mike never, EVER gives less than 100% on a relay that’s not already in the can. The reason he “only” split 45.8p/46.0 was that he was exhausted. Our motivation in that console was to break the then school record of 3:06.4 – perhaps not a goal on the level of winning the event, but an important one to us nonetheless.

      exhaustion certainly does play a part on day 3. i didnt mean to say that he slacked off but if you’re all alone, no matter how hard you try you might not swim as fast as you would have if you had a relay running you down or you were trying to catch someone. maybe it was just me but when it was a big pressure situation was when i had my best swims. thats not to say that i wouldnt try in other situations but for some reason those swims never seemed as fast.

    • #35695
      swim5599
      Member

      Yeah I think Dobelbower was prepped to go 49.5 in the 100 back on the same day that he went that 1:48.00 in the 200, but it did not happen for some reason.

      It is kind of difficult to get the adrenaline rushing when you are anchoring a relay out there alone, but I always thought we would see a faster swim from Ginder. I am sure with his relay shooting for a spot in the top 8 this year, we should see 45.0 or 44 high

    • #35696
      SwexasTim
      Member

      since the miaa is already represented, i thought i would answer the all-time medley with swim5599 so i feel better about the miaa.

      50.72 ellis (kzoo)
      54.69 boss (hope)
      48.96 robbins (kzoo)
      44.80? dehaan (hope)

      3:19.17

      That is with flat times from boss and robbins, I don’t know their relay splits. I know dehaan was a 44 something, i think 7, on a relay, but i wasn’t sure exactly and couldn’t find it so I went with .80

Viewing 31 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.