relays

Forums General National Championships relays

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 9 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #11977
      N Dynamite
      Member

      @silentp wrote:

      Will Olaf get the 2FR in? They should in my mind.

      I don’t have any idea what Olaf is bringing to the table this year, but this question got me thinking – basically, for Olaf to get in, wouldn’t they have to beat out a team that was in last year? They may improve their time but who would get knocked out? Obviously many felt that Hope’s 200 FR QT from last year’s time trial was a little shady (I’m not making a judgment, just reminding everyone that there was a question). If they hadn’t gone that time they wouldn’t have had a relay at nationals. Would they be the one not to make it this year?

      This also goes for the endless circular banter about K’s and Hope’s relays. If K’s medleys are going to be that good, who gets left at home?

      So the question is, who lost too much and won’t have a relay in Houston? And just to be specific (and as an example), maybe Carthage gets their 400 MR in but their 200 MR gets bumped by K. Maybe Kenyon doesn’t bother qualifying their 200 FR (like they did in 2005). Any thoughts?

    • #30705

      As much as I like to talk up Wash U and say that the 800 will q, losing a 20. and a 19. anchor split is quite a blow. The third leg was a senior as well. Leckey is the only returner on that relay. I would doubt that they can q the 2Fr this year. That’s at least one right there.

    • #30706
      facenorth
      Member

      Last time I checked, Hope sent a 4 Free last year too. Not to mention their QT of 1:22.4 safely qualified the relay. It wasn’t as though the start in question was the reason the relay was invited. I wonder if this wasn’t an MIAA heavy message board if we would ever stop pointing fingers at one school’s relay and hear that human error and people’s judgment vary across the country. We know Hope had a relay qualify that was from a TT and haven’t stopped hearing about it since February because so many people that post are from the MIAA. Also remember that Blohm wasn’t on that relay in the actual event itself, Hope wasn’t TTing the relay because they didn’t swim well in the event and needed to push every start to even have a shot, they simply didn’t need Blohm on the relay to win it. Subtract a 21.5 and insert a 20.6 flat start and Hope has more than enough to qualify with overly safe starts. Nevertheless, Hope had its 4 Free in Minneapolis as well.

    • #30707
      silentp
      Member

      I don’t believe Hope qualifying the 400 FR has anything to do with ND’s point, he was merely wondering who might not make it in in the 200 FR this year, that did last year, for a team like Olaf (or whoever else) to get in. I am not judging the 200 FR TT anymore, but I do know that if a team doesn’t want questions swirling about, 1) don’t do a TT to get in 3 years in a row, 2) do it in the race or 3) reproduce the swim at NCAAs. The MIAA bias is a very good point though, because i am sure there are others, i can say from experience that the MIAC is not one though, as the only relay to TT got dq’d and didn’t make it anyway. They also require TTs before the meet begins.

      Now back to the post
      I don’t know what Olaf got for recruits that will significantly improve their relay and I don’t know whether it’s an advantage to swim beside GAC, a disadvantage or neutral. But, here is last year:
      Koch 21.05
      Westby 21.28
      Evenson 21.30
      JC 20.76

      JC graduated meaning Olaf will have a very tough time getting it in. I am unsure who St John’s got or lost, but they were only .2 behind Olaf and could challenge if the guys aren’t gone because Sam Christianson led off in 21.8 but went half a second faster in the individual race.

    • #30708
      facenorth
      Member

      SilentP wrote:

      I don’t believe Hope qualifying the 400 FR has anything to do with ND’s point

      ND wrote:

      Quote:
      Obviously many felt that Hope’s 200 FR QT from last year’s time trial was a little shady (I’m not making a judgment, just reminding everyone that there was a question). If they hadn’t gone that time they wouldn’t have had a relay at nationals. Would they be the one not to make it this year?

      Quote:
      I read ND’s point to be that the only reason Hope had a relay at Nats was because of the TT, that is just not the case.
    • #30709
      silentp
      Member

      @facenorth wrote:

      SilentP wrote:

      I don’t believe Hope qualifying the 400 FR has anything to do with ND’s point

      ND wrote:

      Obviously many felt that Hope’s 200 FR QT from last year’s time trial was a little shady (I’m not making a judgment, just reminding everyone that there was a question). If they hadn’t gone that time they wouldn’t have had a relay at nationals. Would they be the one not to make it this year?

      I read ND’s point to be that the only reason Hope had a relay at Nats was because of the TT, that is just not the case.

      Ah, i stand corrected and do apologize. Yes, their 400 FR was very impressive and easily qualified.
      Also, I don’t think their 200 FR will be one of the ones left out, but do think Wash U’s drop will open the door for someone.

    • #30710
      swim5599
      Member

      Yeah I have to believe that Wash U’s 200 FR may not qualify, and I hate to say it but Wheaton may struggle to get their 200 FR qualified. They grad 21.1 lead off and 19.8 anchor. They do have Higgins, Hartman and Linn back, but they have to find another guy that can split 20.6 or 20.7. ANd as soon as I say this I realize that Jeremy Lederhouse has been 21.6 flat start.
      JL 21.6
      Hartman 20.4
      Linn 20.6
      Higgins 20.7 That is a best guess based on his 21.5 flat start
      that is 1:23.3.

      I guess I should eat my words.

    • #30711
      N Dynamite
      Member

      Sorry, I probably should not have put that in about Hope’s 200 FR – I didn’t intend to bring up hard feelings, simply to point out that that might be a team that missed the cut this time around. I honestly missed that their 400 FR made the QT. (On a side note, if it was the same four guys, what was the big deal back then anyway?)

      Getting back to my point – in any relay, not just the 200 FR, who may miss out so that some other team makes the cut? Wash U has been very strong for a while, so while I can easily see where they’re in trouble in both the 200 and 400 FR (the same guys graduate off of both), one would think they should still have a decent shot. They have two huge spots to fill in the 800, so could that one be an issue also?

      On the same theme, if silentp has said it once, he’s said a hundred times that K’s 200 MR should be a top finisher. So, if they’re getting in this year, who is not getting in from last year?

      With a recent history of success, one would think CMU could rebound after a down year – do they knock someone out of a relay spot? Is there an MIT from 2005 or Grove City from 2006 lurking in the shadows (two teams to seemingly come out of nowhere to score well at NCAAs)? Can the USCGA bump into the 800? Who would they knock out? How do these things impact how Kenyon, Denison, JHU, and Emory approach qualifying relays?

    • #30712

      @N Dynamite wrote:

      Wash U has been very strong for a while, so while I can easily see where they’re in trouble in both the 200 and 400 FR (the same guys graduate off of both), one would think they should still have a decent shot. They have two huge spots to fill in the 800, so could that one be an issue also?

      Already been stated in another thread. Yes, in trouble in the 2 & 4, but have a freshman 142 and Senior 143 to put them right back under 6:50 again. The problem for the other relays is that these guys are 200, 500 guys and not 50,100, 200 guys.

    • #30713
      silentp
      Member

      Relays I could see falling below the line that made it last year (not they necessarily will, but could)…

      200 FR:
      Wash U
      Hope
      Wheaton
      Tufts
      Hopkins
      Williams

      400 MR:
      UWSP
      Wheaton
      TCNJ
      Williams
      Carthage (only lost 1, but that could be enough)

      200 MR:
      Wash U
      Williams
      UWSP
      Carthage

      800 FR:
      Tufts
      Wheaton (were they above the line?)
      Kenyon (doubt it, but maybe?)

      400 FR:
      Williams
      Wash U
      NYU
      Wheaton
      Hope
      UWSP

      Ok, my version I found didn’t have the 800 FR, but that’s what I have. Many of these teams will likely be able to reload but as it looks on paper, they at least have a chance of being left out. This leaves lots of room for other teams to come in and take their place.

Viewing 9 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.