Who’s in/Who’s not

Forums General National Championships Who’s in/Who’s not

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12384
      N Dynamite
      Member

      Based on the top times list from last week and the results from this weekend, here’s where I see the lines being drawn (having put it into excel and run through it once). This should be a reasonable estimate and, if anything, is a little conservative because of roster limits and potential scratches. Here is who I see as being “last in” in each event:

      200 FR – Hope
      500 – Kirwan
      200 IM – Kewin
      50 – Lardierre
      400 MR – MIT
      200 MR – USMMA
      400 IM – Kleinguetl
      100 fly – Scott
      200 – McClosky
      100 breast – Bobo
      100 back – Smith
      1650 – Dolphay
      800 FR – Olaf
      200 back – Smith
      100 free – Lardierre
      200 breast – Baker
      200 fly – Forsman
      400 FR – Middlebury

      Also, unless there was a general consensus on what a person would swim if they qualified for 4, I went with the “3 days” mentality first (1 swim per day) and then highest rank second.

      Feel free to rake me over the “coles” 🙂

      By the way – I know it seems like a lot of relays (11 in each) but once I went through the top times list I started to notice that most of the teams used their top guys to qualify. Most of the time there were 3 people already in the meet and one relay only swimmer or the same four guys were used on both medleys/sprint frees. I ended up with only 63 relay only swimmers, which is the sub-cap for the relays, after all relays got in at line 11

    • #35815
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      Maybe I am a little confused but it looks like you went with a cap of 18 on all the events? I think/hope/believe that normally it goes to the 19th spot correct?

    • #35816
      N Dynamite
      Member

      I followed the NCAA guidelines – 140 individuals / 63 relay only swimmers. I’m not messing with the 22 divers – I’ll leave that up to everyone else. I was able to fill line 19, so I’m not sure why you’re saying 18.

    • #35817
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      my bad – I only looked at two events and miscounted both….. sorry.

    • #35818
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      By the way how many total athletes did you get with this formula?

    • #35819
      N Dynamite
      Member

      The NCAA handbook says 225 total athletes – 140 individuals, 63 relay only, 22 divers. My lines reflect those numbers and the selection criteria that they outline in their handbook (it’s available on http://www.ncaa.org)

    • #35820
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      – I have a copy of the handbook, and I know what is stated, but I in looking back (memory only – no physical evidence) it seems that they take more individual swimmers rather than relays – so just based on this (and your numbers look great) – what do you think the likelyhood of the committee moving to 20 in the individuals and 10 relays?

    • #35821
      N Dynamite
      Member

      I don’t think they’ll stray from the handbook. I think in previous years you have to look at what goals some of the bigger teams had. Silentp said it well in another forum – because the times are getting faster across the nation the typically stronger schools (Kenyon, JHU, Williams, Denison, Olaf, etc) couldn’t afford to put as many relay only swimmers on a relay for fear none of them would get in. The 200 MR and 800 FR are perfect examples – you mess around a little and you’re left out. That left the door open for more relays because it took longer to go through the relay only guys. As for individuals – well, I hate to speculate, I was just going by the list, not really paying much attention to why it worked out the way it did. I’m guessing there were more guys like McGlaston (A cut in 50, below the line in his other events) than usual. For instance – the 50 was blazing fast (thanks, Yoshi, wherever you are, I can’t stop using that term), but many of those guys don’t appear on the 100 or 200 lists (above the line). That means more people are used to fill the events to the same line.

      However, I didn’t bother to take the tie to check how many Kenyon guys were on my list – they may have more than 18. Someone might scratch. Those things can drastically change what I have (but only for the better for those on the bubble)

    • #35822
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      unless I miscounted Kenyon has 15 in the top 20 of the lists so I don’t think they will be scratching…… but who knows….. I know we will have a better idea once the preliminary psyche comes out on Wednsday. Thanks for answering all my questions.

    • #35823
      facenorth
      Member

      I haven’t had time to look into it yet but was wondering if any of you (NDynamite) have…how many teams will have at least 4 people at Nats?

    • #35824
      N Dynamite
      Member

      According to my breakdown, 22 different schools will have at least one relay invited. I didn’t bother counting individuals at the meet, but I doubt that anyone is bringing four and didn’t QT a relay. That doesn’t mean that there will be 22 entries in every relay – some schools (Westminster, Wisconsin-LaCrosse, MIT off the top of my head) either have only one relay qualified or used the same four guys for more than one relay. Still, it will be nice to have to actually beat someone to get into consols instead of just showing up and scoring points.

    • #35825
      N Dynamite
      Member

      Finally broke down and did the count – without divers:
      Kenyon – 19
      Emory – 18
      Williams – 11
      JHU – 10
      GAC – 10
      Denison – 9
      Hope – 7
      NYU – 7
      Middlebury – 7
      W&L – 7
      GCC – 7
      USCGA – 6
      Olaf – 6
      UCSC – 5
      UWSP – 5
      Kzoo – 5
      TCNJ – 5
      Wash U – 4
      MIT – 4
      USMMA – 4
      Westminster – 4
      UWL – 4
      Carthage – 3

      A whole bunhc with 1 or 2. Since Kenyon has to drop someone and Emory will probably have a diver (right?) then you can expect a couple more people in.

      I started to look at who would be next. Assuming that Kenyon and Emory both elect to drop a relay only guy, the next relay would be CMU. They need three spots. That would put those two into the individual pool. I never understand how that works from there – somehow they keep entering people until they get the magic 225 number. So there should be at least two more people getting taken, I just don’t know who those two are.

    • #35826
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      judging the past couple of years there does not seem to be an exact formula, but I think that they may take into account whether a swimmer has multiple B cuts when they up the event cut line in any one particular event.

    • #35827

      emorys diver looks like he never qualified (or even dove that often)

    • #35828

      judging the past couple of years there does not seem to be an exact formula

      It’s not a formula, its a process and its pretty straightforward. The only time a relay-only spot would go to an individual swimmer is if the final line of each relay had more relay-only swimmers than spots remaining. This happened back in St. Louis when Tufts scratched one of their relay only guys from the meet.

      what do you think the likelyhood of the committee moving to 20 in the individuals and 10 relays?

      This will not happen. If anything, there is growing support towards reducing the number of individual qualifiers and increasing the number of relays. The rationale is this – we know we have the 16-best swimmers in the meet, but not relays. If you finish 12th in every single relay at NCAA’s, you’ll likely finish around 11-14th in the meet. YET, if you’re ranked 12th in every single relay heading into the meet – you won’t even send anyone to the meet. Division I has accomodated this somewhat by instituting a floating cap.

    • #35829
      N Dynamite
      Member

      @CollegeSwimming.com wrote:

      judging the past couple of years there does not seem to be an exact formula

      It’s not a formula, its a process and its pretty straightforward. The only time a relay-only spot would go to an individual swimmer is if the final line of each relay had more relay-only swimmers than spots remaining. This happened back in St. Louis when Tufts scratched one of their relay only guys from the meet.

      what do you think the likelyhood of the committee moving to 20 in the individuals and 10 relays?

      This will not happen. If anything, there is growing support towards reducing the number of individual qualifiers and increasing the number of relays. The rationale is this – we know we have the 16-best swimmers in the meet, but not relays. If you finish 12th in every single relay at NCAA’s, you’ll likely finish around 11-14th in the meet. YET, if you’re ranked 12th in every single relay heading into the meet – you won’t even send anyone to the meet. Division I has accomodated this somewhat by instituting a floating cap.

      Thank you – I’ve been trying to say this many times.

      When I said I don’t know who the next one or two people to be taken when Kenyon goes to 18 (I guess we don’t have to worry about Emory dropping one due to a diver – didn’t they have divers last year?), what I meant was – I understand the procedure – they will convert the extra relay only spots to individuals, since the extra individuals will not be enough to fill the entire next line it goes to those closest to the meet record on that line. What I can’t seem to understand is, if the next people to get in are already in as relay only guys, do those change to individuals? Then you’re back to relay only spots being open, which won’t be enough for the next relay to get in so it converts to an individual. It seems like an endless loop until you get to someone who is not already in at all. This is where it gets confusing because it’s this step that is so hard to follow.

      The other thing I was getting at earlier – while trying to analyze why the numbers ended up where I have them – was that there seemed to be a lot of people above the line in only one event. The more times that people are above the line in mulitple events the more the line gets pushed down simply because it takes longer to get through the 140 subcap. It’s a phenomenon of the process. This year people were very fast in 1 or 2 events, but not 3. So the line should be at around 19 (the dropped Kenyon swimmer having its effect will alter that slightly), and you’ll often see the 20th person already in in another event so they get to swim. The NCAA doesn’t look to see why it happens or how many B Cuts a person has, they just follow the process outlined in the championship manual.

    • #35830
      openwater
      Member

      @N Dynamite wrote:

      When I said I don’t know who the next one or two people to be taken when Kenyon goes to 18 (I guess we don’t have to worry about Emory dropping one due to a diver – didn’t they have divers last year?), what I meant was – I understand the procedure – they will convert the extra relay only spots to individuals, since the extra individuals will not be enough to fill the entire next line it goes to those closest to the meet record on that line. What I can’t seem to understand is, if the next people to get in are already in as relay only guys, do those change to individuals? Then you’re back to relay only spots being open, which won’t be enough for the next relay to get in so it converts to an individual. It seems like an endless loop until you get to someone who is not already in at all. This is where it gets confusing because it’s this step that is so hard to follow.

      I don’t think I am confused here.
      Step [1]: Fill to the subcap – say 140. If this means taking half the line 20 swimmers based on % difference from the NCAA record in their event, fine.
      Step [2]: Take relays until you get 63 relay only swimmers – say all of line 9 and 3 relays in line 10 (again chosen by closest % to event record). But this 3rd relay in line 10 has 2 relay only swimmers on it and you were already at 62 after adding the 2nd line 10 relay. So you can’t add the 3rd relay and you have 2 more individuals that can be added to the mandated 140 individual subcap.
      Step [3]: You return to the row 20 individual entries and take the next 2 (based on %) that are not yet in the meet by the mechanism of Step [1] or Step [2]. If these new additions are truly new then things are clean – they are just individual swimmers and they get 3 swims. But suppose one of the “next 2 row 20 swimmers” has gotten in on a relay in Step [2]. I think you ignore this for your current problem (getting 203 swimmers to Houston) and let in the “next 2” who have yet to get in. As individual swimmers they get 3 swims. So now you have one “relay only” swimmer that on paper is surrounded by individual qualifiers. Logic (a scarce commodity these days) suggests that you should give this one swimmer her/his 3 swims – she would have gotten in as an individual in Step [3]. And yes you may have added another row 20 individual during the Step [2] relay only process (that happened this year). So give her 3 swims as well – we are realistically talking about 2-4 prelim swims a year which will seldom add a heat in the morning.
      Step [4]: You are done – 142 individual swimmers with 3 events each and 61 relay only swimmers with B-cut individual swims. The possible “undeserved, non-B cut swims” by the one or more “relay only/individual(s)” in row 20 are going to be first heat, lane 6 morning swims that are unlikely to change the outcome of the meet.

      The philosophical discussion of “more relays/less individuals” is a different matter and one that I believe should come down on the side of the individuals. Yes five 12th place finishes will get a team 11-14th at NCAAs. But this rewards big successful teams at the expense of very good swimmers on small teams. I know a then senior, three B-cut swimmer who was the number one alternate for the meet and had improved every year of his life up to and through the last Conference meet and didn’t get invited. There will always be “the first one not invited”, no solution to this. But the current ~70/30 split is reasonable and I would not want to see this essentially individual sport become more team oriented at the NCAA level – continue to reward individual accomplishment – that experience at the end of 14-15 years of hard work is more defensible in my opinion than rewarding good recruiting and name recognition that leads to non-B-cut swimmers getting in on a 12th place relay.

    • #35831
      N Dynamite
      Member

      @openwater wrote:

      But suppose one of the “next 2 row 20 swimmers” has gotten in on a relay in Step [2]. I think you ignore this for your current problem (getting 203 swimmers to Houston) and let in the “next 2” who have yet to get in. As individual swimmers they get 3 swims.

      I understand all that – that’s how I did my spreadsheet. I think I’ve covered all that before. The problem I have is exactly your quote above – how can I ignore the person already at the meet as a relay only swimmer and take someone slower and give them three swims? Plus, since you’re repeating your steps it is my understanding that the additional people could eventually lead to an extra relay only position popping up so the extra relay could get in. This part of the process is very confusing. If don’t think so you should try and figre out who gets in and see how close you are. I can guarantee what you have won’t match what comes out. That’s why I’m saying to take what I gave as a guideline – it should be close, but due to the extra Kenyon guy I’ll be off a little.

    • #35832

      A few years ago, I think it was 2005, 12-14(?) women’s 200 MR’s had “A” cuts, so all those relays had to get in. Due to the entry procedures, the number of individual swimmers was really low, something that caused me some worry at the time. One of my swimmers was on what I thought was the men’s bubble, and seeing the women’s cut line at 17 and 18 was crazy, since usually the men’s line is one line less.

      Entry procedures have changed a bit, thankfully. Gone is the day when a swimmer was entered in 4 events with one scratch. Also, NT’s are not allowed anymore. One swimmer in particular made the meet in one or two other events, and was entered in NT in a third. Granted, that athlete eventually got 9th in that event, but it looked REALLY bad to have an NT in a national meet, especially since there were many swimmers who had “B” cuts faster than the NT and were left at home in that event. You figure that someone swimming at NCAA’s should have swum that event once, at least. Not wanting to enter a swimmer in an NT, I once entered only two events (couldn’t swim anything else, and 24.5 in the 50 free is embarrassing at NCAA’s) and a year later the 200 IM (a semi-respectable time of 1:58. ).

      Hey, just be glad this is the internet age. In 1993 when I was waiting to see if I got in, I had to wait around going crazy in anticipation while training and re-tapering. I was even invited to a sorority formal during what would have been the Friday and Saturday of the meet. I was killing myself when I had to decline, on the off-chance I got into the meet. We didn’t have constant instant message boards with the latest top times. We had to suffer through the later conference meets, whose meet directors might or might not fax the meet results to other coaches. We never knew where we were. As it turns out, I got into the meet in 1993, but I found out from the Rochester coach a week before the men’s meet on the deck at women’s NCAA’s, where I was cheering on my teammates. I didn’t even find out from my coaches. Fast forward to 2004-6, and my swimmers were in the water training while I had my laptop on the pool deck hitting “refresh” every few minutes on “selection day.” The sets were short sets, so they could get out and check with me (“Dammit! Don’t drip on the computer!”).

    • #35833
      sbjackson
      Member

      N Dynamite — I do not have any special knowledge, but the only way I think this can work is to assume that once the slots have been released from the relay only category, they are never returned. Lets take an example. If the next relay in would take 3 relay only swimmers and there is only 1 relay swimmer slot left (i.e., there are already 62 relay swimmers in), the number of relay only swimmers is reduced to 62 (the actual number of relay swimmers already in) and the number of individual swimmers is increased to 141. If the next individual to get in is already a relay only swimmer, he becomes an individual entrant. This would reduce the total relay only number down to 61, but the next relay in still would require 3 relay only swimmers and there is only 1 slot available (because the number of relay only slota was already reduced to 62). Thus, that slot will be eliminated, the number of relay only swimmers is reduced to 61 and the number of individual swimmers is increased to 142. If the next individual swimmer in is already a relay only swimmer, the process continues until the next individual added is not a relay only swimmer.

    • #35834
      N Dynamite
      Member

      That’s the way I always used to think but someone once corrected me and told me it is possible to “gain” relay only spots when relay only swimmers become individual event swimmers. I agree with your thinking so what I was told didn’t make sense. And yet, that year, more relays were taken than I thought possible.

    • #35835
      sbjackson
      Member

      OK, I guess you and I will bask in our ignorance until someone can shine some light on the mechanism that will allow that to happen.

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.