The 100 free controversy

Forums Conferences Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association The 100 free controversy

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 49 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12340
      Glass Joe
      Member

      A lot of Hope people (parents, swimmers) are still really pissed off about the 100 free prelims. As you know, Chas and Kurti ended up in the consuls behind Voss and Powers. Supposedly, it was a very close race and stopwatches were used to determine the winners when the timing system went out.

      I am still a little confused on the matter, as I was not there at the time. I am hoping someone can clear up what happened and if the rules were actually followed.

      I also know someone has the race on video, which may prove whether or not Chas won the heat. Again, I have no idea if he actually did or not.

    • #35223
      ajp
      Member

      A video wouldn’t prove it, since there isn’t any timing information at all. And it was too close to call anyways.

      And looking at the splits in the timing machine, wasn’t possible. The splits that showed on the board at the finish were not saved due to the timing system reset.

      The results I saw on the board of the “splits” if I recall showed Chas, Powers, Kurti. In that order. But my eyes may have lied, I don’t remember exactly.

      So if they were accurate, it seems hope did get shafted.

      But they followed protocol, and did EXACTLY what they’re supposed to. And that decision is done. Is done.

    • #35224
      quacker
      Member

      The way I thought it went down was the clock started at some random point, as if it was being used for a 50 free. I think it had CVB finish .01 ahead. but I’m not sure if that’s what happened.

      Either way it totally sucked that we couldn’t know for sure what happened. But I’m sure the white shirts followed code exactly, but it still is unfortunate.

    • #35225
      DonCheadle
      Member

      Wow, that totally blows. I had no idea that this occured. Would it have made a difference in the outcome of the meet? Let’s say Chaz beat Voss by .01 and then swam the exact same time in finals as he did in the B heat.

    • #35226

      I’m really not sure what happened with the timing system, but with my experience with meetware, I’d guess that the computer didn’t recognize the initial device start. Either way, following the race, the officials took the average of the two watch times for each lane… Unfortunately, some of the timers were not very accurate. The two timers in my lane alone were separated by .5 in that heat. If this were the case with the other times, that heat doesn’t give much value to the times posted.

    • #35227

      Supposedly, the coaches met and agreed to place one Hope swimmer in finals and one Olivet swimmer in finals and the other two in Consoles. Apparently, after Coach Patnott left, Coach Stubbs saw that it was to his advantage to follow the rules and decided that they must go by the rules with out telling Coach Patnott first. Patnott heard the decision with the rest of the swimmers and coaches over the PA system when the finals were announced.
      SUPPOSEDLY.

    • #35228
      Derek
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      Wow, that totally blows. I had no idea that this occured. Would it have made a difference in the outcome of the meet? Let’s say Chaz beat Voss by .01 and then swam the exact same time in finals as he did in the B heat.

      Somebody from Hope should answer this question. I would hate for people to get really upset about this if it is irrelevant. Nobody who deserved a second swim didn’t get a second swim. In the end (if the meet final finish order was unaffected) we can only lament that the times were not accurate and maybe some people should have been swimming in different places than they did. I have no idea if Stubbs did or said anything like that, but the rules exist for a reason and I would take issue with any “deals” that Stubbs and Patnott discussed, anyway.

    • #35229
      quacker
      Member

      There is no doubt in my mind that the scoreboard showed that CVB had the lowest number up there, but I’m not sure what the numbers actually mean. Allow me to explain both senarios of what might have happened:

      1. The unlikely assumption is that the clock started once the swimmers each did their turns at the 50 and then stopped when they finished the 100, mirroring their back half splits but ignoring the front half. Of course the last 50 has little to do with who actually wins the race, so we’d have to forget that there were any times on the board at all.

      2. However, what I actually think happened with the clock is that someone in the tech room got the clock running at some random time after the start of the race. Because it started at some random time, but started at the same time for everyone, it seems as if the clock would serve as a perfect measuring stick for order of finish – so the higher place would have gone to Chas, not Powers.

      But the whole pool had no idea what was going on and it’s all a moot point. But still, damn.

    • #35230
      Sea Dog
      Member

      at this point it does not matter. Hope had an opportunity to win the meet and didn’t But the clock was started late and the order of finish was CVB, Kurti,
      Vos and Powers. Vos and Powers should not have been in the final heat. I saw the times on the board. We can all do the math but all we can do is lament.

    • #35231
      maverick1
      Member

      that heat was ridiculous

      i remember it taking forever for us to get any 100free results on the live timing (which we were checking from the stands) and from the paper results posted on the wall. right now all we can do is speculate from what happened in finals and in the relay later one. cvb makes the tough argument because he was 46.48 leading off the hope 400 free relay, but something like 47.15 winning consols. it suprises me that the timing system had such a problem during the actual meet when there were no issues during the alumni “meet”.

    • #35232
      Milhouse
      Member

      Ooooooh boy, this is just like the 2000 Florida recount! But even if they went along with the one-guy-from-each-team-in-finals solution, Olivet would have still won the meet by 1.5 points (assuming places 4-8 in finals would have been Voss, Vzang, Chaz, Powers, Kurti). And if for some reason they decided to make the 100 free finals an open-seed event, the results would have been the same as they are now.

      It just goes to show that you can never take being a stopwatch timer for granted, because technology sometimes sucks.

    • #35233
      ajp
      Member

      As discussed by those with the video, the order of “finish” was voss, chas, powers, kurti, in that order. Maybe facenorth can post a screen shot of the board from the video, as I don’t have a copy.

      As to an “agreement” between coaches of one each, and then stubbs finding that one might be advantageous, I *highly* doubt that there would ever be some such agreement. That’s a ridiculous claim. It’s not for the coaches to agree on what happens. It’s for the meet referee to follow the protocol in the event of a mechanical malfunction. And it was.

      The timing computer, did not register the initial start, because the starter did not wait for the timing system (IST everything, PUKE!) to be in the armed position. He started the race (with the horn) but the timing computer was not armed yet, and did not register the start. As to when it started timing, I can’t say for sure, but it seems unlikely, in my IST experience, that it would start timing when they hit the pad in their individual lanes. Regardless, it started at some point during the race. The timing system does not have anything to do with each lane timing their own, rather there is one clock, that the computer checks after each button/pad/starter signal. So my guess is that the finish order that was on the board (of whatever splits/times those were) was accurate to that of the finish, and accurate to the phantom starting of the timing. So all lanes started at the same time. If the splits had been saved, it could have been brought up to determine the order. Unless the referee determined that it was not a trusted system, then they would have gone to hand times.

      Even so, though it harmed hope in this case, being accurate enough in the finish order of voss, cvb, powers, kurti… was off by .01, the difference on the board between cvb and powers. Even if the timers were “off” as they’re prone to be, the order was very close to accurate.

      And as was mentioned, the finish order 1-6, 7-12 was in fact 1-12 order. Nobody jumped around. If chas had been able to duplicate his lead off, then we’d have an argument, but it’s pure speculation.

    • #35234

      @ajp wrote:

      The timing computer, did not register the initial start, because the starter did not wait for the timing system (IST everything, PUKE!) to be in the armed position. He started the race (with the horn) but the timing computer was not armed yet, and did not register the start. As to when it started timing, I can’t say for sure, but it seems unlikely, in my IST experience, that it would start timing when they hit the pad in their individual lanes. Regardless, it started at some point during the race.

      This is something that bothered me… I ran the timing system for my high school during the girls season for 3 years and have become very familiar with IST programs. The strangest thing about the race is, that if the race is started before the system is in “armed mode”, once the “arm” button is hit, there is a pop-up that says something to the effect of “The system has detected a starters device. Would you like to use it?”… If this command is accepted, the timing system will return to the actual time that the referee’s starter was depressed, displaying accurate times on the board.

      Not that it’s particularly important now, just a little curious, I think.

    • #35235
      ajp
      Member

      Right. Exactly my thoughts, but I wasn’t in the booth when the race was started, and I don’t know exactly how things were handled. Jenny, Julie and the other timer lady merely told me what happened.

      Somehow the timer got started, and then, in theory you could have ended the race, saving those times, for whatever they were worth.

      It should, under normal circumstances, pop up and say ” oh hey we detected a start already, would you like to use it”.

      Whatever happened, it’s not likely they could reproduce the error anyways. For what it’s worth, the timing ladies were still frustrated, upset, and rattled about how they might have cost a team the meet, after the morning session. And especially after the finals.

      For what it’s worth, Jenison did a much better job this time around than last year. They’re certainly getting better as they do more big meets. As said before, hats off to all those involved in planning, and running the meet.

    • #35236

      @Milhouse wrote:

      And if for some reason they decided to make the 100 free finals an open-seed event, the results would have been the same as they are now.

      I understand your reasoning. However, I know from talking to people that this was a huge loss of momentum, psychologically, to the entire team not just those directly effected. Although the decision was supposed to be fair, I can’t possibly see how the weight of the call negatively effected Olivet in any way. When basketball teams and football teams get a call their way, bs or not, it helps their momentum and almost always hurts that of the other team.

      I am sure their (Chas and Steve) mentality going into the consols was something along the lines of “well, we got screwed out of finals, and we aren’t going to win the meet because of crappy timing systems, so why even try.”

      I think this was obviously the case with Chas. But he showed his true colors and composure leading off the 4 free. Props to him. I may have been a bigger baby about the whole ordeal.

    • #35237
      ajp
      Member

      Even if there was a loss in momentum in prelims, the meet was with grasp in finals. A loss of momentum as such may have taken their team back a bit, but the meet was not lost by any means before saturday evening.

      Olivet moved up in some of the events that they needed to, and in some cases, Hope was moved down by other swimmers. Calvin swimmers alone knocked Hope down 10 points(1650, 200 BK, 100FR) on Saturday evening, so you could blame other swimmers for stepping up as much as you could blame a timing system malfunction, that even if it seemed to steal momentum, followed the rules to the letter.

      There were plenty of other opportunities for 10 points to be made up throughout the meet. It’s like pinning the hopes of a dual meet on your breastrokers when everybody else hasn’t taken care of business during the rest of the meet.

    • #35238

      I know this argument, as many tried to tell me this exactly on Saturday night.

      But I will continue to be obstinate. The fact that Hope may have lost the meet because of a non-systematic timing mistake is irreconcilable. It doesn’t even matter to me at this point whether or not it would have made a difference. Just the possibility drives me crazy.

      Maybe I should’t have watched The Departed tonight. Probably got me all riled up and looking for a fight or something.

    • #35239
      SwexasTim
      Member

      ok, let me put in my two cents right quick….

      1) ajp’s order is correct, voss, chas, powers, kurti. Which seems wierd to all who were watching b/c ask anyone (and the forum proves this) it really looked like kurti, chas/powers, then voss. However I do believe that the times posted were the correct ordering.

      2) The officials followed the rules

      3) There was no olivet/stubbs scamming, so don’t even say that there was. however, the coaches do have the power to meet and make those decisions being that they are all part of the miaa meet commitee, ultimately its their decison though in any situation I guarentee they will default to the rulebook everytime.

      4) Don’t say it doesn’t matter, maybe it did, maybe it didn’t, do i think chas would have gone faster in the big heat, yes, does it matter now no.

      5) Yes, the meet was in hope’s grasp at finals, but trust me it was a devastating blow to morale, feeling helpless and knowing the order of finish. Is that an excuse, no, Olivet outfought hope on sat. nite and that is why they won, not b/c of the timing system.

    • #35240
      silentp
      Member

      i love the irony of this entire thread…

    • #35241
      quacker
      Member

      Like Alanis Morissette irony or another irony? You’re going to have to spell it out for me.

    • #35242
      RadAGator
      Member

      that would really suck to lose on account of a timing failure…but then again, the swim meet isn’t even close, whereas swimming and diving is another story. 97-0. Why is it that basically only Olivet has divers in their program?

    • #35243
      DonCheadle
      Member

      Here is the actual point difference giving every swimmer involved the same time in prelims as finals. The number in parenthesis is the point differential:

      Voss: moves from 5th to 4th (+1)
      Powers: moves from 3.5 to 7th (-4.5 )
      CVB: moves from 7th to 6th (+2)
      Vgoelzang: moves from 6th to 5th (+1)
      JBG: moves from 3.5 to 3 (+.5)

      Net point change is of course 0

      Per team:
      Olivet -3.5
      Hope +3
      Calvin +.5

      Overall scores:

      Olivet: 536.5 to 533.0
      Hope: 527.5 to 530.5

      SO we can say that the controversy in an of itself did not change the outcome of the meet. People would have to swim faster (or slower) than they actually did to change the outcome (which I agree could have happened but is not provable).

    • #35244
      Derek
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      Overall scores:

      Olivet: 536.5 to 533.0
      Hope: 527.5 to 530.5

      Does anybody else remember when I said that a Hope guy should figure this out to put the issue into perspective? Good work, Cheadle.

    • #35245

      @Derek wrote:

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      Overall scores:

      Olivet: 536.5 to 533.0
      Hope: 527.5 to 530.5

      Does anybody else remember when I said that a Hope guy should figure this out to put the issue into perspective? Good work, Cheadle.

      …And it was pointed out that the circumstances would negate the validity of this analysis.

      But thanks anyway.

    • #35246
      Derek
      Member

      @Captain Insano wrote:

      …And it was repeatedly pointed out that the circumstances would negate the validity of this analysis.

      But thanks anyway.

      No, the circumstances do NOT negate the validity of the analysis. The analysis proves that Hope sprinters would have had to perform better than they did in order to win the meet. (You are putting a lot of pressure on those guys, btw.) There is NOTHING saying that this COULD NOT have happened, but the facts bear out the it DID NOT happen. Had those guys gone out and swam fast enough to move up places and change the outcome of the meet, then I would be right there with you and pissed off because a messed up timing system simply isn’t fair. But the analysis proves that wasn’t the case.

      Kalamazoo was 3rd (which was great, improvement is awesome), so I don’t really care which team wins the meet. I do kinda like seeing Olivet over Hope just because that maintains the distance between 25 and 9, but if this keeps up then it will be K’s 25 and Olivet’s 9 that bothers me and it really doesn’t matter who beats who except K had better win the damn meet. Get it?

    • #35247
      El Duderino
      Member

      for the love of god, derek! punctuate your sentences!

    • #35248

      I don’t even care anymore.

    • #35249
      Milhouse
      Member

      There’s one out in the top of the 8th inning here at the friendly confines of Wrigley Field. The Cubs lead the Marlins 3-0, and the Cubs are only five outs away from advancing to their first World Series in 59 years. The young phenom Mark Prior has been untouchable the entire game, and he sets and delivers…it’s a pop fly down the third base line, tailing foul…Alou gives chase, he leaps at the wall and….Alou is furiously jumping around, it looks like a fan interfered with the ball! Well, no matter, the Cubs will just get this guy out and…whoops! A grounder finds the hole for a base hit…runner on first, one out…there’s a grounder to the shortstop Gonzalez, easy double play ball…HE BOBBLES THE BALL! EVERYBODY IS SAFE…

      Anyway, you probably know that the Marlins went on to score eight runs in the inning, won the game, won the pennant, and then went on to win the World Series. But if only Steve Bartman didn’t interfere with that ball, none of that would have happened! Alou would have caught that pop foul, and there would have been two outs, and, and, and Gonzalez would have easily fielded that grounder because he wouldn’t have been trying to turn a double play, and, and…

      Woulda, coulda, shoulda…but didn’t. The Cubs had plenty of opportunity to win that game, but they just didn’t get the job done. Now I don’t dare to make a direct comparison between Hope and the Cubs, because Olivet still did what they had to do to move up in their events and gain points in finals and win the meet (and Hope is certainly better-coached than the Cubs were). I’m just trying to point out how silly it is to blame the outcome of the whole meet (game) on a freak occurance like a timing malfunction (fan interference) in a heat in prelims (foul pop fly).

    • #35250
      quacker
      Member

      @Milhouse wrote:

      I’m just trying to point out how silly it is to blame the outcome of the whole meet (game) on a freak occurance like a timing malfunction (fan interference) in a heat in prelims (foul pop fly).

      I don’t think anyone really is trying to do that. It’s just the hindsight “aw shucks” sort of feeling. I think Derek was just trying to push people in that direction to figure it out mathematically.

      But great analogy though.

    • #35251
      N Dynamite
      Member

      @quacker wrote:

      @Milhouse wrote:

      I’m just trying to point out how silly it is to blame the outcome of the whole meet (game) on a freak occurance like a timing malfunction (fan interference) in a heat in prelims (foul pop fly).

      I don’t think anyone really is trying to do that.

      @Captain Insano wrote:

      I understand your reasoning. However, I know from talking to people that this was a huge loss of momentum, psychologically, to the entire team not just those directly effected. Although the decision was supposed to be fair, I can’t possibly see how the weight of the call negatively effected Olivet in any way. When basketball teams and football teams get a call their way, bs or not, it helps their momentum and almost always hurts that of the other team.

      I am sure their (Chas and Steve) mentality going into the consols was something along the lines of “well, we got screwed out of finals, and we aren’t going to win the meet because of crappy timing systems, so why even try.”

      I think this was obviously the case with Chas. But he showed his true colors and composure leading off the 4 free. Props to him. I may have been a bigger baby about the whole ordeal.

      Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what he’s trying to do…

    • #35252

      Yep. That’s exactly right. I’m the irrational asshole. Right here.

    • #35253
      silentg
      Member

      Participating in the event as one of the 2 Hope swimmers who were placed into consoles, I can come here and tell you just how it affected the outcome of the meet. And just to confirm that I am in agreement that the call was dealt with properly according to the rule book. So I’m not here to argue that the call was a wrong one. But I am here to make the point that it was one which cost us the meet whether the points show it or not.

      First off (to reiterate and strengthen captain Insano’s argument) just to say that I was a witness to see that this call was one which affected the entire morale of not only the swimmers in the race but of the entire team. It affected the entire momentum of the meet. to say that the other Hope swimmers wouldn’t have had that added boost to step up even further than they already did to score a measly 3 points if the call went the other way would be completely wrong. As a matter of fact if you reverse the situation and place both of us Hope guys into the finals in place of olivet, I believe that we would have had enough points to win.

      But just take a look at CVB. After talking with him I saw he had a completely different mindset heading into that final relay than he did in consoles of the 100 free. To go from a 47.45 (in finals) to a 46.48 (at the leadoff spot) is not just a lucky and fortunate swim for him. It was a sign of his will and determination to overcome what had happened to step up and make a point to everyone. And I believe he made that point clear. if hypothetically he had taken either voss’s or powers spot in the 100, I’m convinced that with that added momentum of getting in, he had a great opportunity to showcase another 46 mid and prove everyone wrong who thinks he’s just a typical 47 mid guy who would have finished in 6th place of finals.

    • #35254

      @silentg wrote:

      But just take a look at CVB. After talking with him I saw he had a completely different mindset heading into that final relay than he did in consoles of the 100 free. . . . It was a sign of his will and determination to overcome what had happened to step up and make a point to everyone. And I believe he made that point clear. if hypothetically he had taken either voss’s or powers spot in the 100, I’m convinced that with that added momentum of getting in, he had a great opportunity to showcase another 46 mid and prove everyone wrong who thinks he’s just a typical 47 mid guy who would have finished in 6th place of finals.

      I’m not sure who really thinks of him as a “typical 47 mid guy,” but maybe I’m just ignorant about that.

      I’m a little lost on the logic here. CVB getting up for the relay is a sign of his will and determination to overcome the morning timing malfunction. Okay, got that. But where was his “we shall overcome” attitude (cue the gospel choir) in what you suggest was an atypically slow 47-mid in the 100 consols? Which is it, is he (or you or Ryan Vogelzang or anyone else on the Hope team) an overcomer to be praised or a victim to be pitied? Your answer seems to be “both,” and I’m not sure you can really do that.

      Speaking to your larger argument, several people have now reported that the Hope swimmers felt a loss of momentum after the outcome of prelims in the 100. Fair enough. But plenty of people across swimming have been known to bounce back from disappointing morning results to take consols by storm with times that would have beaten people in the big heat (e.g. Tom Benoit under vaguely similar circumstances at the PAC meet this year). CVB, though he won consols, clearly did nothing of the sort. If his less-than-inspired performance was representative of the entire team Saturday night, as you suggest it was, then what you’re really saying is not so much “the 100 cost us the meet,” but more so much “we were feeling pretty crummy after what happened in the 100; that made our finals swims slower, which in turn cost us the meet.” It might be closer to the truth (or it might not), but do you really want to make that argument?

      In terms of what-ifs and counterfactuals, I’ll pretty much let milhouse’s comments above and Kari Byron’s comment in the MIAC (“maybe Christianson skips like a rock…”) speak for me. I’ll just add that I doubt there’s much to be gained from guessing exactly how many points would have changed hands if [x] had (not) happened.

    • #35255
      Mickey Mouse
      Member

      There were +500 points scored by both teams. You can’t possibly tell me that the outcome of the meet rested on that one decision.

      If you do, you’re saying that Richardson and Ray slowing down in the 500 at night didn’t matter. Neither did Kurti in the 50 where his prelim time would have won consols. Engers getting blown by in the last 50 of the 400 IM had NO impact on the outcome of the meet.

      I could go on but if you’re going to nitpick, look at the entire meet, not at one instance.

      Please.

      Championship teams “overcome”, as you say, well before the last relay. This obviously isn’t directed at the Hope guys that have the attitude of “we had our chances and didn’t take advantage” but rather at those who are taking the victimized approach. The former group swam their balls off and I repsect that.

    • #35256

      @Mickey Mouse wrote:

      There were +500 points scored by both teams. You can’t possibly tell me that the outcome of the meet rested on that one decision.

      If you do, you’re saying that Richardson and Ray slowing down in the 500 at night didn’t matter. Neither did Kurti in the 50 where his prelim time would have won consols. Engers getting blown by in the last 50 of the 400 IM had NO impact on the outcome of the meet.

      I could go on but if you’re going to nitpick, look at the entire meet, not at one instance.

      Please.

      Championship teams “overcome”, as you say, well before the last relay. This obviously isn’t directed at the Hope guys that have the attitude of “we had our chances and didn’t take advantage” but rather at those who are taking the victimized approach. The former group swam their balls off and I repsect that.

      I am seriously getting sick of this crap.

      Just for the record, before I continue: congratulations to Olivet swimming and diving. They outswam/dove Hope College and deserve the title. Good job to everyone else that thinks they are being snubbed by me getting upset over a timing mistake. Additionally, good job to Hope College. For every lack of success that has been mentioned in this thread, such as Richardson and Ray slowing down in the 500, there was at least one great swim that no one anticipated.

      I am NOT, repeat, NOT saying that Hope should be MIAA champions based on one instance. My point is simply that there is absolutely no way to predict a hypothetical situation so the “analysis” is completely futile. ESPECIALLY, within a 100 heat that was so close. Cheadle’s post does nothing to show that, based on prelim results, it was unlikely that Hope would overcome the point differential. The only thing I had left to say was, thank you, but based on previous discussion this comparison is pointless.

      th point is to show that the uncertainty of the mistake covers the spread of the difference in points. For example, had Chas won the championship heat, the meet would most likely have gone to Hope.

    • #35257
      DonCheadle
      Member

      @Captain Insano wrote:

      Cheadle’s post does nothing to show that, based on prelim results, it was unlikely that Hope would overcome the point differential. The only thing I had left to say was, thank you, but based on previous discussion this comparison is pointless.

      The only thing I was pointing out was that Hope would have had to swim faster than they actually did to win the meet. That is factual. Pointless? Maybe to you, but appearantly not to others.

      I have no opinion on the psychological effect of the mistake other than CVB is a great swimmer and I wish he had the chance to swim in finals like he rightfully should have.

    • #35258
      silentg
      Member

      Ok mikey mouse, you’re right. Why am I looking at one instance of the meet? Oh wait because I’m posting in the thread “the 100 free controversy.” Not titled “the other things prior to the 100 free that hope could have done to win the meet” So I’m here to express my argument on how the EFFECTS of the “100 free controversy” impacted the meet. If you’re going to talk about how my slow 50 finals time on the first day impacted the meet or any of those other previous swims that you speak of, then go ahead. Just do it somewhere else on a relevant thread

    • #35259
      maverick1
      Member

      anybody else out there think cvb should have gone that 46 mid in prelims and just plain and simply got the job done then?

      championship meets are won by setting yourself up in prelims to score points in finals.

      i think it’s too bad that cvb didn’t get his best swim in during the open 100, but then again it’s the 100 free and like the 50 can be quite a crapshoot (in comparison to something like the mile)

      unfortunately though, there are many “depth” guys who just plain and simply didn’t get the job done….but complaining about the 100 right now is basically the same as complaining about dan gardner not swimming all season……

    • #35260
      Milhouse
      Member

      Heyo!

      I can’t believe it took 37 posts in this thread for someone to bring that up. I would have, but I didn’t want to be the jerk who mentioned it.

    • #35261
      quacker
      Member

      but Milhouse and Mav, Chas did step up (by .01) in the 100 but the malfunction, rulebook, and handtimers negated it.

    • #35262
      Low Tide
      Member

      dan gardner not swimming all season……

      I called Hope losing leagues as soon as I heard he quit. If you want one thing to point your finger at, this is it. A senior captain quitting is pretty deplorable.

      If Dan Gardner swam, Hope would have won league meet.

    • #35263
      Rudy Shingle
      Member

      I think this type of thing can define a team. Hope could have come back at night and shown that they wanted it, but they didnt and that’s the point.

    • #35264
      iamdonovan
      Member

      Junior captain. He was a freshman in 04/05. Yeah, that’s nitpicking, but that’s what this thread is about, right? His class notwithstanding, having a captain quit mid-season is a huge deal that’s not easy for a team to overcome.

      On a related note, the Wings are playing right now, and they’ve recovered from losing their captain really well. I’m thinking that next year will be a really tight, exciting meet. Hopefully with no timing malfunctions.

    • #35265
      Monkey Boy
      Member

      Junior captain. He was a freshman in 04/05.

      Yes. Blohm was the senior captain who quit.

    • #35266

      @Monkey Boy wrote:

      Junior captain. He was a freshman in 04/05.

      Yes. Blohm was the senior captain who quit.

      It makes me feel a little better if you add “super-senior who quit.”

    • #35267
      stewie
      Member

      If Dan Gardner swam, Hope would have won league meet.

      Really?

    • #35268
      DonCheadle
      Member

      Simple math indicates Gardner makes the difference. Who knows though, maybe the reason he quit was because he knew he was continuing to slide from his freshmen year. A 4:49, 16:50 guy might not have been enough to get Hope the win.

    • #35269
      Deputy Dawg
      Member

      Maybe someone from Olivet paid him not to swim? But who???

    • #35270
      Barack
      Member

      @Deputy Dawg wrote:

      Maybe someone from Olivet paid him not to swim? But who???

      Stubbs.

    • #35271
      JackBauer
      Member

      How about the Hope guys stop crying about it.

      I suggest some other schools besides Olivet recruit divers.

Viewing 49 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.