Propsed dual meet format

it would suck to be a Phil Heyboer/Kyle Waterstone because of their versatility. That makes for a lot of long meets. Especially if you go friday/saturday. Would the option be long or short relays? Does everyone get to swim four events like high school? What are the details coach?

It would make us stop whining about long vs. short relays meets making a difference in who wins.

It would also give everybody equal opportunitity at each meet. Larger teams would have an advantage.

Would it make dual meets more of a training tool?

First, there has always been the option of doing the 16 event format – it’s just that, from what I’ve seen, most d3 schools prefer the 13 event format.

Honestly, I like the 16 as the default option. I’ve never liked that the long (200 strokes) was the default because I felt that it gave an advantage to the team who was stronger at 200’s than 100’s. Basically, if you knew your swimmers were better at the longer distance and the other coach wanted the shorter you just had to say no. There was nothing the other coach could do. This levels the playing field.

@Stevo wrote:

Does everyone get to swim four events like high school?

yes – 2 relays/2 individual, 1 relay/3 individuals, or 4 individuals (or less)

@Stevo wrote:

Would the option be long or short relays?

The default is the 200 Medley and 400 Free Relays

One other thing – supposedly they are trying to make the default the same for both men and women. Technically, if there is a women’s only meet the default format is different than the men. Currently 13 event is the men’s default, but 16 event is already the women’s default. So it’s not so much making a major change as much as bringing both men and women in line. The default for a combined meet is 26 event (13 men/13 women) format.

@Derek wrote:

Larger teams would have an advantage.

I don’t think this is entirely true. In fact, I think it may give the team with a couple of studs more of an advantage.

Basically, in a 6 lane pool, 13 event format, if you fill every possible scoring lane (swimming only) you need 15 athletes (2 relay events x 2 relays x 4 guys on each relay + 9 swimming events x 3 lanes = 43 swims. Divided by 3 = 14.3)

In the same pool with the 16 event format you need 13 swimmers to fill all the scoring lanes (2 relay events x 2 relays x 4 guys on each relay + 12 swimming events x 3 lanes = 52 swims. Divided by 4 = 13)

If you have a couple studs they would go a little further also since they would make up a larger proportion of the minimum number of athletes needed to fill all the lanes. However, if you have a big team where some guys excel at 200’s and others at 100’s it would definitely benefit the big team.

@Stevo wrote:

it would suck to be a Phil Heyboer/Kyle Waterstone because of their versatility. That makes for a lot of long meets. Especially if you go friday/saturday. Would the option be long or short relays? Does everyone get to swim four events like high school? What are the details coach?

I saw Derek swim the 1000, 200 fly and 500 free at a quad meet at Case Western. If he can do that triple, thats harder than what those 2 would have to do. I have seen the results of D1 teams when they do it and guys can get screwed, but it’d be more like Heyboer because of his distance ability, not Waterstone. This is off of the example of Michael Klueh from texas who has to do a 2fly, 4im, 500 and another event, all in one meet.

As a stroker, it would hurt, but it would be good. Not enough emphasis is given to strokers in the 13 event format because they are forced to do an “off” event, if you look at it that way.

We do the 16 event linup the majority of the time I can say it probably only adds around 15-20 max onto a meet. Plus athletes are able to swim up to 4 events (max 3 individual) so it gives a team that may not have great depth, an oppertunity to have two fast relays.

I personally like it because then if you opt to do a 400 IM, you Distance swimmers can have the most fun ever!

1000+500+400IM= A barrel of Monkeys!!!

1000 500 and the 200 fly. I believe this has been nicknamed the idiots delight. No I personally love the 16 event format. Sure it might take longer but it is also pretty exciting

I always preferred the 16 event meet, more chances to swim something other then your best race or two, and work on the third event. I liked pools with seperate diving wells. Meets always went so much faster when they dive while you swim and you don’t have to wait for both boards to be done, men and women.

@N Dynamite wrote:

@Derek wrote:

Larger teams would have an advantage.

I don’t think this is entirely true. In fact, I think it may give the team with a couple of studs more of an advantage.

I disagree. In the short format, a team with just a few studs doesn’t have to win as many events in order to score 121 points (the magic number if you don’t have diving…which we never did). I suppose there’s an advantage in the long format in that you can put your best guys on both relays (assuming that makes the best foursome), but for me, if I only have a few guys that I know for sure can win events, I want as few events as possible. Since winning events is so much more important than depth in college (a win being as good as a 2nd-3rd-4th), I know that a short format will force more of the deep team’s good swimmers to share events, where my few studs can possibly negate multiple opponents by winning.

Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s the way I see it. So to me the 16 event order is a big advantage to deep teams.

Does this proposed change still allow for the other meet formats? Or does it take away the option for the two coaches to agree on whatever format they want?

I think, in the end, dual meets don’t matter if you win or lose them, although they are a lot of fun with rivals and such. But they indicate where swimmers are in their training and are tune ups for Conference and Nationals (or taper meets). So a format that gives the swimmers more chances to race all of their events would be ideal. Personally if I was a college coach I would lose all my dual meets if I could win conference or do well at Nationals. Dual meet records are for the sport department that knows nothing about swimming. Teams and swimmers are defined in practice and at the end of the season.

@Psimon3 wrote:

We do the 16 event linup the majority of the time I can say it probably only adds around 15-20 max onto a meet. Plus athletes are able to swim up to 4 events (max 3 individual) so it gives a team that may not have great depth, an oppertunity to have two fast relays.

Thanks for the correction – I just reread the rule and realized I was wrong about the four individuals. Because of that it may be an advantage for the bigger team, but I still am not sure it is only because it only adds three stroke events but everyone gets to swim an extra event. So your guy that is a good sprinter can do the 50, 100, and 200 and still do a relay. I think if your top distance guy is a decent sprinter he has a huge advantage also (1000, 500, 200 or some other event, and a relay)

@Its all an ACT wrote:

Personally if I was a college coach I would lose all my dual meets if I could win conference or do well at Nationals. Dual meet records are for the sport department that knows nothing about swimming. Teams and swimmers are defined in practice and at the end of the season

I tend to agree with this, but not only does the administration like to see wins (I’ve seen plenty of schools schedule “sure things” to ensure a winning season), but older alumni (those that swam way back in the day before tapers and NCAA Championships) also tend to think the same way. Plus, rivalries are great – how about GAC vs. St. Olaf last year? Didn’t it come down to a 1-2 in the last relay for the win? That had to be thrilling. You’d hate to see a meet like that decided based on which format was chosen.

Hopefully there will still be an option for the other formats if that’s what the coaches want. I would rather do a 13 event sprint meet on a Tuesday night than a 16 event format. Or the 800 FR, 1650, and 400 IM with 100 strokes in a 13 event format.

@N Dynamite wrote:

I tend to agree with this, but not only does the administration like to see wins (I’ve seen plenty of schools schedule “sure things” to ensure a winning season), but older alumni (those that swam way back in the day before tapers and NCAA Championships) also tend to think the same way. Plus, rivalries are great – how about GAC vs. St. Olaf last year? Didn’t it come down to a 1-2 in the last relay for the win? That had to be thrilling. You’d hate to see a meet like that decided based on which format was chosen.

Yup, GAC had to go 1-2 in the 400 FR in order to win the meet, so right before the race Coach Carlson split up the relays… they went 3:13 and 3:14 respectively in an early November dual meet… plus, both relays actually trailed going down to the last swimmer but a 47.1 split by amundson and an amazing 46.06 split by hagemeyer sealed the deal for the 1-2 by GAC… awesome.

@silentp wrote:

…. a 47.1 split by amundson and an amazing 46.06 split by hagemeyer sealed the deal for the 1-2 by GAC… awesome.

Having seen both of them swim for many years and swimming with them both for a few, when you give the two of them that much adrenaline and that kind of rivalry they’ll produce under any situation.

Those 2 and Hanson are by far some of the best closers in the MIAC. I swear, if Hanson was racing Thorpe he’d find a way to hang with him.

@Its all an ACT wrote:

I think, in the end, dual meets don’t matter if you win or lose them, although they are a lot of fun with rivals and such. But they indicate where swimmers are in their training and are tune ups for Conference and Nationals (or taper meets). So a format that gives the swimmers more chances to race all of their events would be ideal. Personally if I was a college coach I would lose all my dual meets if I could win conference or do well at Nationals. Dual meet records are for the sport department that knows nothing about swimming. Teams and swimmers are defined in practice and at the end of the season.

Dual Meets are the essence of College (and High School) swimming. Championship meets are common to all levels (summer, age group, USA-S, International), but the beauty of dual meets is their head-to-head, either team can win, us-against-them quality. I agree that any coach in their right mind would sacrifice all his or her dual meets if they were guaranteed a national championship, but the fact is that that offer isn’t on the table. You should swim as tough a schedule as possible, yes, but once you’re in the meet, it’s war, and nothing else matters. I honestly don’t think that any multi-team meet (yes, even nationals) can compare to the intensity of a clos, hard fought dual meet.