State Championship Projected Winner

[XdesIDtrans]

I've put all of the times together and added them up from Districts for both St. Charles and St. Xavier as they are the two frontrunners...

St. Xavier......................243
St. Charles.................... 205

St. Xavier has pulled all 3 relays ahead of St. Charles (STC was ahead for the Season and except for 400FR were ahead for Sectionals too) and X is the #1 Seed now for all relays though both the 200 MR and 200 FR may still be a battle as St. Charles is 2nd both... St. Charles placed 8th for the 400 FR. Moeller is a very very close 2nd to X in the 400 FR as well...

St. Xavier also has an advantage in that they have a diver that qualified (6th Seed) Mason Meier.

In addition to the 2 Relays, look for close races for these events:


50 free with: X at #11 and STC at #12 & #13. (Sherman #12 for STC was faster that X's Ransenberg during the season and in Sectionals)

100 back with: STC at #2 and X at #3. (Barbiere for X was faster than STC's Sherman during the season and in Sectionals)

100 fly with: STC at #2 & #3 and X at #4. (Smit for X was faster than STC's #3 Schaffer during the season)



Although times change at State, I think that any changes sans the Relays may tip in favor of X simply because they have more swimmers in with potential to score points than St. Charles (#1-16 score points):

#17 (CSTX) for 500 free - Will Lawley +1 places behind scoring
#17 (CSTX) for 100 breast - Sam Lipari +1 places behind scoring
#18 (CSTX) for 200 IM - Evan Schwartz +2 places behind scoring

#20 (CSCP) for 100 back - Sandy Whitaker +4 places Behind scoring
#21 (CSCP) for 100 free - Neil O'Kelly
#21 (CSCP) for 200 free - Nick Schuttinger
#22 (CSTX) for 100 free - Steven Springer
#22 (CSCP) for 100 breast - Corey Taylor
#22 (CSCP) for 500 free - Kyle Jennings
#24 (CSTX) for 100 free - Kyle Gallagher

Now, I don't remember how well X matched up against Upper Arlington a few years ago but I know they were the underdog going in and that is not the case this year. However, there are a ton of factors at work here and a lot riding on the timing of the taper... St. Charles is far from out of the fight and if they are as successful at turning the tables at State as St. X was against Upper Arlington a few years ago, they will win state...

[echo13]

I had 244 to 205, probably my error. Tough I bet it's not even close to that in the end. Districts is usually faster than state for most kids, so there'll be some switchups there. Also St. CHarles held back on all their relays. Also they switched up the diving, Meyer is 19. It'll be close.

[XdesIDtrans]

I had 244 to 205, probably my error. Tough I bet it's not even close to that in the end. Districts is usually faster than state for most kids, so there'll be some switchups there. Also St. CHarles held back on all their relays. Also they switched up the diving, Meyer is 19. It'll be close.

I suspect they may not have had to swim as hard to win their relays so their times may be a bit slower than they'll be in state vs X but adjusting to just that won't be enough to beat X (their 400FR shouldn't be as fast whether they held back or not)... Echo13, just out of curiosity, why do think St. Charles might be holding back?

Regardless, if St. Charles wins both 200FR and 200 MR and Moeller beats X for 400FR, St. Charles will still need 3 or 4 place improvements and X would have to have 3 or 4 individual place losses for St. Charles to win... which is plausible.


On an unrelated note IMpartial wants to believe that this years X team is weak, or at least much weaker than usual. He is wrong as of Districts. All 2008 relays are faster than 2007 Districts. X is also faster in fly, back, and breast, and significantly faster in the IM and 50free... They are much slower in the 500fr and somewhat slower in 200fr.

If the district times were used in a dual meet between X07 and X08, X08 would win handily (99 - 60 by one scale) but the verdict is out on how they compare on the State level... A look at the times from this year's districts and last years would tell you that the times overall this year are faster than they were last year...and while X looses Mosko, they gain depth.

[ImPartial]

On an unrelated note IMpartial wants to believe that this years X team is weak, or at least much weaker than usual.

Most of my posts are about results. This was a post regarding an X weak team by someone else you may be thinking about:

1. St. X is very very vulnerable this year, let alone weak. For being able to recruit, they should be better. In comparison to years past, this year's X squad is mediocre.

Back in mid-Jan, here is what I posted about StX vs StC:

I did a projection based on the current state top 20 times posted on swimmeet.com for StX vs StC and came up with StX ahead by about 40 points.

It's a month later and it looks like StX is still projecting about 40 points ahead. I would be curious to hear from a StC perspective where their extra points are going to come from.

[echo13]

I suspect they may not have had to swim as hard to win their relays so their times may be a bit slower than they'll be in state vs X but adjusting to just that won't be enough to beat X (their 400FR shouldn't be as fast whether they held back or not)... Echo13, just out of curiosity, why do think St. Charles might be holding back?

Regardless, if St. Charles wins both 200FR and 200 MR and Moeller beats X for 400FR, St. Charles will still need 3 or 4 place improvements and X would have to have 3 or 4 individual place losses for St. Charles to win... which is plausible.


On an unrelated note IMpartial wants to believe that this years X team is weak, or at least much weaker than usual. He is wrong as of Districts. All 2008 relays are faster than 2007 Districts. X is also faster in fly, back, and breast, and significantly faster in the IM and 50free... They are much slower in the 500fr and somewhat slower in 200fr.

If the district times were used in a dual meet between X07 and X08, X08 would win handily (99 - 60 by one scale) but the verdict is out on how they compare on the State level... A look at the times from this year's districts and last years would tell you that the times overall this year are faster than they were last year...and while X looses Mosko, they gain depth.

They held back because they could. By only commiting Sherman, Martin, and Mai to one relay a piece it lets them decide where they may need to stack the relays. They'll probably put the same four guys in the same spots in prelims then see how X, SJJ, Moeller, and they other teams do to see which relay needs to be "stacked". It's mostly about a luxury of depth. Problem is it will probably only really pay off in the 400 where they can improve 7 places, about 20 points, versus 6 in the other two relays. St.X isn't in nearly the predicament we were 3 years ago, and they have a ton of room to improve. But it should bbe a fun meet to watch.

The 200 free relay should be a really good race. X has some room to improve, and ST.C predicted a national record in the event.

[echo13]

Most of my posts are about results. This was a post regarding an X weak team by someone else you may be thinking about:



Back in mid-Jan, here is what I posted about StX vs StC:



It's a month later and it looks like StX is still projecting about 40 points ahead. I would be curious to hear from a StC perspective where their extra points are going to come from.

Relays. X is number 1 in all of them, no where to go, StC is second in two, a 12 point swing a piece, and 8th in another, close to a 20 point swing.

[echo13]

But the problem with your relay strategy is it is sacrificing a really good (state champ relay) for 3 top 5 relays.

It's not my strategy, it's what I think they're doing. Check their relays from districts. Sherman, Schaffer, Martin, and O'kelly, in my opinion their top 4 swimmers, have all only been committed to one relay a piece. They will each end up swimming two. Which two is yet to be seen, and will probably be based off how prelims at state go. If I had to bet all three of their finals relays will be top 3 at worst.

[XdesIDtrans]

Most of my posts are about results. This was a post regarding an X weak team by someone else you may be thinking about:



Back in mid-Jan, here is what I posted about StX vs StC:



It's a month later and it looks like StX is still projecting about 40 points ahead. I would be curious to hear from a StC perspective where their extra points are going to come from.

Yes, you are right - you were probably quoting somebody (I recalled the screenname by memory so I botched it)... good call by the way!

[XdesIDtrans]

They held back because they could. By only commiting Sherman, Martin, and Mai to one relay a piece it lets them decide where they may need to stack the relays. They'll probably put the same four guys in the same spots in prelims then see how X, SJJ, Moeller, and they other teams do to see which relay needs to be "stacked". It's mostly about a luxury of depth. Problem is it will probably only really pay off in the 400 where they can improve 7 places, about 20 points, versus 6 in the other two relays. St.X isn't in nearly the predicament we were 3 years ago, and they have a ton of room to improve. But it should bbe a fun meet to watch.

The 200 free relay should be a really good race. X has some room to improve, and ST.C predicted a national record in the event.

Good info! Sounds like you've got a better understanding there than I do... I haven't looked at who was placed on the relays... I just calculated the relays into the score with the raw numbers... it never occurred to me that St. Charles could have that kind of depth (but maybe it should have).

So Echo, how high do you think St. Charles can place in the 400FR?

[stxbomber999]

Actually its the 200 free relay that is probably going to be stacked. In an article in the columbus dispatch a couple weeks ago St. Charles said they wanted to go for the state and national records in that event. So Martin, Sherman, O'Kelly, and Shaffer will all most likely be on that relay. Which makes it very interesting on how they are going to approach the other two relays.

[echo13]

Good info! Sounds like you've got a better understanding there than I do... I haven't looked at who was placed on the relays... I just calculated the relays into the score with the raw numbers... it never occurred to me that St. Charles could have that kind of depth (but maybe it should have).

So Echo, how high do you think St. Charles can place in the 400FR?

St. Charles has a good shot at winning every relay, as does St.X. Though, like stxbomber999 pointed out, if they stack the 200 free relay the other two might take a hit. In which case I'd guess 3rd or fourth with X and possibly University and Moeller in fornt of them.

[echo13]

I meant your strategy as in you pointing out St. Charles possible strategy. I can see all four being put together for the Medley.

The thing is 3 seconds is more points than one first and say a third and a fifth. You don't get more points by winning by more (on the national level it may help though). And the other two relays may suffer if they were all on the medley. I guess the saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket" fits here.

[ImPartial]

I read that article about the "year long" goal for StC to break the 200 free record. Would they sacrifice that goal to break up the 200 free and shore up the other two relays? What are the rules for prelim/finals? Could they try for the 200 free record in prelims and then switch up the roster for finals?

[echo13]

I read that article about the "year long" goal for StC to break the 200 free record. Would they sacrifice that goal to break up the 200 free and shore up the other two relays? What are the rules for prelim/finals? Could they try for the 200 free record in prelims and then switch up the roster for finals?

Every entrant gets the chance to swim two individual events and 2 relays or 3 relays and 1 indiviual event, from there it's the coaches decision. Though, once an individual swims that relay he's stuck there. Meaning one can't swim the 200 Free and medley relay at sectionals, and then do the 200 and 400 free relay at districts (assuming they have two individual events). You can switch the relay from prelims to finals, as long as those who are switched in haven't already reached their alotted event total. Hope that helps a bit.

[echo13]

Thing about the 200 free relay, though, is St.X currently has 3 swimmers placed ahead of 2 St. Charles swimmers in the 50 free.

I figured medley since Martin would be back, Mai breast, Shaffer fly, O'Kelly free. That's a very solid relay.

It'll be Sherman at backstroke. I just noticed he swam it at Sectionals.

[stxbomber999]

Every entrant gets the chance to swim two individual events and 2 relays or 3 relays and 1 indiviual event, from there it's the coaches decision. Though, once an individual swims that relay he's stuck there. Meaning one can't swim the 200 Free and medley relay at sectionals, and then do the 200 and 400 free relay at districts (assuming they have two individual events). You can switch the relay from prelims to finals, as long as those who are switched in haven't already reached their alotted event total. Hope that helps a bit.

Are you sure thats true, because if it is then Sherman has to be on the medley and the 400, Shaffer and O'Kelly have to be on the Medley and the 200, and Martin has to be on the 200 and the 400.

I have just never heard of this rule so i'm just curious

[ImPartial]

Though, once an individual swims that relay he's stuck there. Meaning one can't swim the 200 Free and medley relay at sectionals, and then do the 200 and 400 free relay at districts (assuming they have two individual events).

That is exactly the point I was searching for on the ohsaa site. These are the only rules I could find:

(c) An individual shall be permitted to participate in a maximum of four events, no more than two of which shall be individual events. Each tournament is considered a separate competition whether competed on one or two days.
(d) In relay events (200-Yd. Medley Relay, 400-Yd. Freestyle Relay and 200-Yd. Freestyle Relay), any eight individuals who are listed on the eligibility certificate may be listed as entries, any four of which shall be assigned to participate. These eight may be changed at each level of tournament competition provided participation limitations are not exceeded.

Between (c) & (d) it seems like you would be permitted to do exactly what you said is not allowed...each tournament is separate and the entry list can be changed at each tournament. Does the proviso (participation limitations are not exceeded) span across sectional-district-state even though each tournament is separate? Otherwise, it seems the only limitation is that you cannot swim all three relays in one tournament PLUS your two individual events.

[echo13]

Are you sure thats true, because if it is then Sherman has to be on the medley and the 400, Shaffer and O'Kelly have to be on the Medley and the 200, and Martin has to be on the 200 and the 400.

I have just never heard of this rule so i'm just curious

Pretty confident. And yeah, it lets you guess their relays now.

[echo13]

That is exactly the point I was searching for on the ohsaa site. These are the only rules I could find:

(c) An individual shall be permitted to participate in a maximum of four events, no more than two of which shall be individual events. Each tournament is considered a separate competition whether competed on one or two days.
(d) In relay events (200-Yd. Medley Relay, 400-Yd. Freestyle Relay and 200-Yd. Freestyle Relay), any eight individuals who are listed on the eligibility certificate may be listed as entries, any four of which shall be assigned to participate. These eight may be changed at each level of tournament competition provided participation limitations are not exceeded.

Between (c) & (d) it seems like you would be permitted to do exactly what you said is not allowed...each tournament is separate and the entry list can be changed at each tournament. Does the proviso (participation limitations are not exceeded) span across sectional-district-state even though each tournament is separate? Otherwise, it seems the only limitation is that you cannot swim all three relays in one tournament PLUS your two individual events.

It does span the whole "tournament" i.e. sectionals districts and states. Last Year I know two swimmers, one from St.X and one from StC who failed to qualify to states in two individual events, but because of the rule, could only swim in two relays and not 3.
Though I just reread rule C and it would seem to suggest otherwise. I may be wrong then. I guess we'll see.

[ImPartial]

I guess that means one of our relays will be disqualified, because the coach just entered a swimmer into his fifth event...didn't qualify to state in any individual events and is now entered in a third relay.

[Fly4Fun]

It does span the whole "tournament" i.e. sectionals districts and states. Last Year I know two swimmers, one from St.X and one from StC who failed to qualify to states in two individual events, but because of the rule, could only swim in two relays and not 3.
Though I just reread rule C and it would seem to suggest otherwise. I may be wrong then. I guess we'll see.

Unless they changed the rule recently I am pretty sure you are wrong. I know if you fail to make the state tournament in one event you are allowed to swim 3 relays and 1 individual. I knew different swimmers who did this 4-5 years ago.

[echo13]

Unless they changed the rule recently I am pretty sure you are wrong. I know if you fail to make the state tournament in one event you are allowed to swim 3 relays and 1 individual. I knew different swimmers who did this 4-5 years ago.

After rereading the rule I think I am too. I can't think of a swimmer whom this was used for though. That's probably my problem.

[White_Men_Cant_Jump7]

The rule for the relay thing is that if you swim 2 individual events and 2 relays, but only make it in one individual then you are allowed to swim on the other relay if your name is on the relay card. If it isnt on the relay card then you arent allowed to swim on the relay.

[aquabomber08]

St. Charles changed up their relays because they didn't need to stack them to make it to state. Their plan, i think, was to pack the stands as much as possible. With having other people that didn't qualify individually it brings in more tickets which will allow more people from st. Charles to come to the meet and support them in the stands. Smart move i think. Relays can be changed from meet to meet. fyi. Whoever said st. x is weak is false. St. x is infact stronger this year than we were last year. The thing that has changed is the entire state has gotten a lot stronger as well. for example 1.44 high in the 200 would have made if for sure last year. This year no see ya later. 50 free 21.99 was 24 this year 21.8 So as u can see it is not the fact that st. x failed to reload and dropped off this year. It is the fact that the entire state of ohio, kudos to O-H-I-O, its significantly better this year. Thus making the state meet more competitive.

[buckeyeswimmer08]

aquabomber08 i agree with your last comment!! Is it safe to say that Ohio has the toughest state meet to make, thus making it the best swimming state in the nation!?!?!

[White_Men_Cant_Jump7]

we might be the fastest state to make the meet, but we dont have the fastest first place times.

[bomb1]

One interesting thing I have noticed is with the 500 free qualifiers. Kyle Jennings from St. Charles got into the meet as an automatic qualifier. He is#22. There are 6 guys in the SW District alone who had faster times, including St. X's Alex Miller, who did not make it to State. It would be a shame if this lame rule had an impact on the eventual winner. The automatic qualifier rule needs to change. At the very least, they need to let in the people faster than the slowest automatic qualifier. This is what happens between Sectionals and Districts.

[ImPartial]

Maybe swimming should do it like track, 16 total qualifiers to state, 4 per district, zero at-large. Check out the thread in the track forum comparing state tournament format.

How will the rules impact the state outcome? Everyone knows before they jump in the water what you have to do to qualify. 11 at-large means you have to place in the top 14. 15th place is mathematically eliminated. Alex Miller was 15th. The only way to fix that is to swim faster. Was Miller tapered for District? If not, that was a mistake. If he was tapered for District, then he probably wouldn't go faster at state and wouldn't score anyway.

[Waterboy1992]

Maybe swimming should do it like track, 16 total qualifiers to state, 4 per district, zero at-large. Check out the thread in the track forum comparing state tournament format.

How will the rules impact the state outcome? Everyone knows before they jump in the water what you have to do to qualify. 11 at-large means you have to place in the top 14. 15th place is mathematically eliminated. Alex Miller was 15th. The only way to fix that is to swim faster. Was Miller tapered for District? If not, that was a mistake. If he was tapered for District, then he probably wouldn't go faster at state and wouldn't score anyway.


:clap:

[XdesIDtrans]

Maybe swimming should do it like track, 16 total qualifiers to state, 4 per district, zero at-large. Check out the thread in the track forum comparing state tournament format.

How will the rules impact the state outcome? Everyone knows before they jump in the water what you have to do to qualify. 11 at-large means you have to place in the top 14. 15th place is mathematically eliminated. Alex Miller was 15th. The only way to fix that is to swim faster. Was Miller tapered for District? If not, that was a mistake. If he was tapered for District, then he probably wouldn't go faster at state and wouldn't score anyway.

You aren't really making your point that there should be automatic qualifyers... the fact is, tapered or not, Alex Miller was faster... that wasn't a mistake... the state championship meet is about who swims the fastest, not about where somebody lives, their qualifying protocol ought to reflect that.

[XdesIDtrans]

I think this format takes away from the competition. The State meet is supposed to showcase the very best swimmers from across Ohio. If someone gets in automatically, though they are not faster than those excluded, then what did that person do to merit his spot at States? Nothing more than swimming in a slow district. To me, that doesn't seem fair.

:clap: well put.

[echo13]

If someone gets bumped an automatic, it's their fault. Everyone knows that there's a chance for that to happen. Swim faster if you don't want it to happen. My only complaint is that one district gets one more auto than the others.

[HighSchoolSwimmer]

How many autos are there from each district? If certain districts get more autos, then that isn't fair for faster swimmers in the faster districts.

[bomb1]

What I don't understand is why the rule changes in the middle of the game. When moving from Sectionals to Districts, all those faster than the last automatic qualifier get into the meet. When moving from Districts to State, those swimmers are excluded. It would only be fair to include those who are faster than the last auto qualifier. They don't put a Toledo team in the state football championship game because they want NW Ohio to be represented. You have to win to get there. Why is this ok with swimming? Don't make the mistake of thinking that a kid that qualifies in 17th though 24th place won't move up. That happened in 2005 and thus St. X upset UA.

[echo13]

What I don't understand is why the rule changes in the middle of the game. When moving from Sectionals to Districts, all those faster than the last automatic qualifier get into the meet. When moving from Districts to State, those swimmers are excluded. It would only be fair to include those who are faster than the last auto qualifier. They don't put a Toledo team in the state football championship game because they want NW Ohio to be represented. You have to win to get there. Why is this ok with swimming? Don't make the mistake of thinking that a kid that qualifies in 17th though 24th place won't move up. That happened in 2005 and thus St. X upset UA.

I agree that districts and states should have the same rules, but keep in mind, Districts have 32 qualifiers minimum. The goal is to get the 24 fastest kids in the state, and for the most part that does happen, the only events that have this problem are usually the 500 and the 200 free.

As for auto qualifiers, every district gets 3 and one of the northern ones gets 4, don't ask why, I have no idea.

[Fly4Fun]

Auto-quallifiers over at-large is not a new issue, just because it happened to someone you know doesn't make it wrong. During my career in highschool, I had this same situation happen to me. It sucks, I know, but a person can't complain about a rule only after the fact that it affects them. If coaches truly had a problem with this rule they would change it before the season, not post-facto one of their swimmers being affected by it.

Since this rule does exist it means a majority think it is perfect reasonably to have at least 3 swimmers from most districts and 4 from (Northeast I believe?) is far. The reason one has 4 is because they have significantly more teams.

According to OHSAA website
Total teams = 244 number of teams
Central, east, south east 60 teams = 3.1967 = 3 auto
Northeast 82 teams = 4.3680 = 4 auto
Northwest 46 teams = 2.4508 = 3 auto
Southwest 56 teams = 2.9836 = 3 auto

I used to think why should the number of automati qualifiers be determined by teams and not by the number of swimmers. I believe OHSAA's reasoning would have to be because having it based off teams will ensure that there is more diversity and not a meet that is potentially just half one team vs. half another team.

The one question/problem I have is why 2.45 rounded up when 4.36 isnt? As everyone knows from elementary math the cutoff is usually .5, why does OHSAA not follow this guideline? It seems as if they have created some other cut-off somewhere between .45 and .36. I want to know what their justification is.

[HighSchoolSwimmer]

Do you think there is a better way?

[bomb1]

Auto-quallifiers over at-large is not a new issue, just because it happened to someone you know doesn't make it wrong. During my career in highschool, I had this same situation happen to me. It sucks, I know, but a person can't complain about a rule only after the fact that it affects them. If coaches truly had a problem with this rule they would change it before the season, not post-facto one of their swimmers being affected by it.

Since this rule does exist it means a majority think it is perfect reasonably to have at least 3 swimmers from most districts and 4 from (Northeast I believe?) is far. The reason one has 4 is because they have significantly more teams.

According to OHSAA website
Total teams = 244 number of teams
Central, east, south east 60 teams = 3.1967 = 3 auto
Northeast 82 teams = 4.3680 = 4 auto
Northwest 46 teams = 2.4508 = 3 auto
Southwest 56 teams = 2.9836 = 3 auto

I used to think why should the number of automati qualifiers be determined by teams and not by the number of swimmers. I believe OHSAA's reasoning would have to be because having it based off teams will ensure that there is more diversity and not a meet that is potentially just half one team vs. half another team.

The one question/problem I have is why 2.45 rounded up when 4.36 isnt? As everyone knows from elementary math the cutoff is usually .5, why does OHSAA not follow this guideline? It seems as if they have created some other cut-off somewhere between .45 and .36. I want to know what their justification is.

Why are you assuming I think about the rule is "wrong" because "it happened to someone I know"? I am not questioning it because it "affects me". It doesn't affect me in any way except to offend rational thought. The goal of the State meet should be to get the best athletes to the meet. You must be kidding when you state that the meet should be "diverse". Are you referring to diverse as in skill level (allow slower, less accomplished swimmers in) or diverse as in preventing more St. X/UA/Centerville/Gates Mills/Ursuline swimmers in? I guess the Superbowl should have been "diverse" and the Bengals should have played. The rule is illogical. Many other states have "cuts" to get to State and all those who make the cut get in. Sounds alot more fair and rational to me.

[Fly4Fun]

Why are you assuming I think about the rule is "wrong" because "it happened to someone I know"? I am not questioning it because it "affects me". It doesn't affect me in any way except to offend rational thought. The goal of the State meet should be to get the best athletes to the meet. You must be kidding when you state that the meet should be "diverse". Are you referring to diverse as in skill level (allow slower, less accomplished swimmers in) or diverse as in preventing more St. X/UA/Centerville/Gates Mills/Ursuline swimmers in? I guess the Superbowl should have been "diverse" and the Bengals should have played. The rule is illogical. Many other states have "cuts" to get to State and all those who make the cut get in. Sounds alot more fair and rational to me.


Offends rational thought? While it might not be what you want, it's just another way of doing it. Yes, some meets do cut-offs. The rational behind doing automatic and then at-large would be to encourage less popular sport among all areas of the state... give people in every area a chance. Not everyone comes from the same socio-economic background and each area in the state isn't the same as far as socio-economics go. Swimming is a sport that it generally does help to come from a better financial situation because it's expensive to get pool time and proper training. To encourage the grown of a less popular sport I think is a good thing... what about you? Or would you prefer not to encourage it's growth?

And your super bowl analogy is miserable. Football is a tremendously popular sport so it doesn't need encouragement, especially at the professional level. Beyond that it uses the same system that OHSAA does. They do an "automatic" qualifier tournament. The Super Bowl is not always the two best teams, it just puts the nubmer one team from both the AFC and NFC against each other... notice the difference?

[RXlandfill]

Offends rational thought? While it might not be what you want, it's just another way of doing it. Yes, some meets do cut-offs. The rational behind doing automatic and then at-large would be to encourage less popular sport among all areas of the state... give people in every area a chance. Not everyone comes from the same socio-economic background and each area in the state isn't the same as far as socio-economics go. Swimming is a sport that it generally does help to come from a better financial situation because it's expensive to get pool time and proper training. To encourage the grown of a less popular sport I think is a good thing... what about you? Or would you prefer not to encourage it's growth?

And your super bowl analogy is miserable. Football is a tremendously popular sport so it doesn't need encouragement, especially at the professional level. Beyond that it uses the same system that OHSAA does. They do an "automatic" qualifier tournament. The Super Bowl is not always the two best teams, it just puts the nubmer one team from both the AFC and NFC against each other... notice the difference?
Yea that makes sense...NOT
So your telling me its ok to let those slower swimmers from certain districts get to state, even though there are faster swimmers out there who aren't going to make it? I guess they should tell their parents that they aren't going to get scholarships because they was a slower hillbilly swimmer who got in to state because they deserve the chance!

I don't understand what happened to our capitalist society of believing that the best get the best, now we have to give everyone a fair share so we don't hurt anyones feelings.

[Fly4Fun]

Yea that makes sense...NOT
So your telling me its ok to let those slower swimmers from certain districts get to state, even though there are faster swimmers out there who aren't going to make it? I guess they should tell their parents that they aren't going to get scholarships because they was a slower hillbilly swimmer who got in to state because they deserve the chance!

I don't understand what happened to our capitalist society of believing that the best get the best, now we have to give everyone a fair share so we don't hurt anyones feelings.

You don't get swimming scholarships based off of whether you make the state meet or not. Times and potential are what matter.

And it's not like the automatic qualifiers are completely out of their league. They are not. They are still competitive. The theory is to help encourage the growth of swimming in every area of the state. It has nothing to do with not hurting someone's feelings, it has to do with encouraging the sport.

Reading comprehension classes might help...

[bomb1]

Offends rational thought? While it might not be what you want, it's just another way of doing it. Yes, some meets do cut-offs. The rational behind doing automatic and then at-large would be to encourage less popular sport among all areas of the state... give people in every area a chance. Not everyone comes from the same socio-economic background and each area in the state isn't the same as far as socio-economics go. Swimming is a sport that it generally does help to come from a better financial situation because it's expensive to get pool time and proper training. To encourage the grown of a less popular sport I think is a good thing... what about you? Or would you prefer not to encourage it's growth?

And your super bowl analogy is miserable. Football is a tremendously popular sport so it doesn't need encouragement, especially at the professional level. Beyond that it uses the same system that OHSAA does. They do an "automatic" qualifier tournament. The Super Bowl is not always the two best teams, it just puts the nubmer one team from both the AFC and NFC against each other... notice the difference?

Oh, you were using "diversity" in the politically-correct socioeconomic sense. I thought one of the great things about swimming is that times don't discriminate. The stopwatch doesn't care who you are, where you live or how much money your parents make. The stopwatch doesn't even know if you go to a private or public school. My understanding of your comments are that you believe that by putting slower swimmers in the meet it encourages the popularity of the sport. I think a fast, exciting, high quality meet encourages excitement about the sport, too. I also support giving everyone a fair and equal chance to make it to State. That does not exist in the system that is now in place. If there are automatic qualifiers in the meet, it is only fair to have the kids who have swum faster than the autos have a chance to compete also. Then everyone "wins".

Is the primary goal of this state championship meet "to encourage the growth of a less popular sport"?

As far as the football analogy, a team must win to advance. Sometimes they are not the "best" team but they have proven themselves on the field. This has nothing to do with how "popular" a sport is. The best team on any given day advances on. In this case, you can be slower than the top 24 in the pool at Districts and advance anyway. This is an inequity that seems to defeat the purpose of swimming the meet. The AFC/NFC teams actually have to be the best on a given day to get to the big game. And though the conferences are geographically, only those with the best record get into the playoffs. So yes, I see a difference. The Bengals didn't play in the Super Bowl because they did not perform as well as the teams who did. Same can't be said for the State meet. Let the other kids in and fairness rules the day.

You are arguing that state qualifiers should be selected based on their socio-economic status which you can identify by the District where they live and this will make swimming more popular. Thank goodness for the stopwatch.

[Fly4Fun]

You are still completely missing the point. I am not arguing that swimmers should be chosed by socio-economic standards. I'm saying that one of the benefits of having automatic qualifiers is it promotes more schools to start swim teams because more schools means that the district will have more automatic spots so their students would have more of a chance to succeed.

I don't understand how you try to argue against the prospect of advancing the sport and getting more people involved...

No one is really hurt in the long run. As I said earlier, I was a swimmer who would have qualified as an at-large if it wasn't for automatic qualifiers at one point in my career. I understand that it can suck. But I worked harder, knew what I had to overcome and made it the next year.

Once again, this is not about getting slow kids in. The automatics that generally do make it aren't substantially worse, they might be a little slower but they are still competitive. It is about encouraging more schools to pick up swim teams.

[HighSchoolSwimmer]

Again, do you guys have any better ideas without basically having the southwest district meet become the state meet

[bomb1]

Yes, Fly4Fun, you did argue that swimmers at State should be chosen by where they live and by socioeconomic standards. Read your post. I am a huge fan of swimming and would like nothing more than for the sport of swimming to get the respect and popularity we know it deserves. I just don't think that one person's "success" should come at the expense of another person who has worked equally hard. I don't want to discourage your enthusiasm but having someone qualify 24th for State as an automatic qualifer is not going to cause any school to "start a swim team". I am not arguing against developing the sport or getting more people involved. And I am thrilled for you that you worked hard and got into the State meet the next year. What if you were the kid that didn't? I have seen many kids over the years devastated because they got bumped by the automatics. I think those kids would disagree with you that "no one gets hurt".

[Fly4Fun]

The arguement was never to do it by socioeconomic standards. Schools without swim teams are usually from poorer regions. So in order to encourage schools to pick up teams the state rewards districts based upon the number of teams in the district. This is not giving special advantages to students from lower socioeconomic standards. It's using a reward to encourage schools to start teams showing that kids in their area will be given a chance.

Losing is a part of sports whether you like it or not. The rules are laid out before. Everyone know what they have to do to get in for sure. Not everything in life is guaranteed. I am still a person that believes sports are important not for the intrinsic value that succeeding gives but also for the value of lessons learned.

And the State meet wouldn't become the Southwest District meet. I'd say the Central District is doing quite well for itself recently.

[echo13]

I'm with Fly on this one. The autos are usually competetive, everyone knows it's possible to get bumped. Past all that if you can't finish top 15 in your own district, then, in theory you'd barley score at state anyway. The system is fine. The only people who seem to complain about it are those on the outside. I've known about 5 guys to get left out because of this rule, and all of them knew going in there was this possibility. On another note, the Olympics put an even less of a limit in their events, with only two from each country. It's been this way for I don't know how long, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

[bomb1]

I agree with Fly on the intrinsic value of sports and the lessons learned. We can just agree to disagree on the rest.

[XdesIDtrans]

I'm with Bomb1 on this one...

An automatic qualifyer rule this year has put St. Charles (a school that needs absolutely no OHSAA motivation to field their swim team) in position to have a swimmer who automatically qualified score crucial points to put St. Charles ahead of St. X. Without automatic qualifiers, would be an X swimmer in that position.

Explain to me how that is at all fair? Explain to me why it is necessary that this St. Charles swimmer qualify over a faster swimmer. Explain to me how that instance encourages a school to start a swim team. There are other ways to promote swimming as a sport. Though, why may I ask is it the OHSAA's job to promote new sports? If they want to promote diversity in sports, why not sanction sports like hockey or lacrosse?

For a school that doesn't have the following in swimming or isn't in the financial position to have a swim team, this rule is the least of the factors being considered in such a decision... Can anyone name for me a swimming program that has come about because of the encouragement they got from this rule? I mean, is there any evidence that this tactic works? Fly - do you even really know that this is the reason the rule was made or are you speculating?

I don't think this is about promoting the sport at all... I'm not sure what the original premise behind the rule is but here is a thought. Having regional automatic bids, or putting in the best team from each conference (in some cases) makes sense when there is one winner... perhaps that rule seemed like a no brainer to the rulemakers because of the prevalence of similar rules in other sports. For swimming however, this regional qualifying rule is out of place because swimming does not work the way a team based tournament does.

I've emailed the OHSAA to get their official reason for the rule... I'll post the answer when I get it.

[XdesIDtrans]

I'm with Fly on this one. The autos are usually competetive, everyone knows it's possible to get bumped. Past all that if you can't finish top 15 in your own district, then, in theory you'd barley score at state anyway. The system is fine. The only people who seem to complain about it are those on the outside. I've known about 5 guys to get left out because of this rule, and all of them knew going in there was this possibility. On another note, the Olympics put an even less of a limit in their events, with only two from each country. It's been this way for I don't know how long, and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

You're Olympic analogy isn't helping you make your point... it might if the OHSAA declared a winning region in the State final... but they do not.

The Olympics choose the top 2 from each country because each country is a team... Just as each team can only submit 4 qualifyers in Ohio High School, each country can only submit 2 swimmers in the Olympics.

Your assumption that only people who complain about the rule being on the outside is also erroneous... if you were on the inside perhaps you would know this. The athletes are more mature however than to dwell on that faulty rule. It is kind of like a coach restraining himself from blaming a loss on the refs in a postgame interview.

It is easy enough to do this when the rule's impact is usually very small...most people are content that the autoqualifier didn't score points. They often forget that their chances for scoring points and helping out their team were much greater than the autoqualifier. Is this passive uncompetitive attitude of "well I probably wouldn't have made it anyways" something to promote?

I still fail to understand how "The autos are usually competetive," and "everyone knows it's possible to get bumped." makes this rule fair or valid...

[XdesIDtrans]

I am still a person that believes sports are important not for the intrinsic value that succeeding gives but also for the value of lessons learned.


I agree that there are many valuable lessons to be learned other than teaching kids what is feels like to win... (but then, who wouldn't). I just don't see how this rule and its premise intrinsically apply to that vantage point.

[HighSchoolSwimmer]

If you go through this years state meet, how much difference did auto qualifiers make in the end team results. For example could an auto qualifying St. Charles swimmer replace an at-large St. X swimmer and score enough pionts to change the outcome of the meet?

[XdesIDtrans]

If you go through this years state meet, how much difference did auto qualifiers make in the end team results. For example could an auto qualifying St. Charles swimmer replace an at-large St. X swimmer and score enough pionts to change the outcome of the meet?

Yes, Kyle Jennings autoqualified for St. Charles in 500 free...

Alex Miller 4:45.61 vs Kyle Jennings 4:46.91

Jennings ended up 24th, but Alex Miller had a significantly better shot at scoring points and here's why

Will Lawley for X started 17th and is 11th in prelims

Matt Columbus for X started 12th and is 6th in prelims

Alex Miller would have started 22nd and 6 places (going by Lawley's and Columbus's improvement) would mean 16th in prelims. That's a point, and in this contest, that point matters.

Chances are, there are other swimmers who would have at-large qualified in front of Miller, but if nothing else it makes you think...

While the chances of an automatical qualifier changing the outcome of the meet are relatively small, there is no reason to take the chance that it might. Of course, this possibility is not the only, or the biggest, reason why this rule should be repealed.

[XdesIDtrans]

I've emailed the OHSAA to get their official reason for the rule... I'll post the answer when I get it.

ME: Bla bla. What is the purpose of having
automatic qualifiers for the OHSAA State Meet?

The man in charge at OHSAA: It guarantees that each District will be represented in each event even if they have the slowest swimmers and other Districts have swimmers who are faster.


I stand by my original position, but at least I know their logic. I just don't understand why a district being represented is so important in swimming... it makes more sense in a team based sport, but not so much in swimming.

[bomb1]

Sooooo...it doesn't matter how good you are, only matters where you live.
Makes sense to me...not.

[Fly4Fun]

You guys really are making too big of a deal out of this. It does matter how good you are. There are plenty of at-large spots, 11 to be exact. Everyone knows what it takes to get into the meet. You either do it or you don't.

[XdesIDtrans]

You guys really are making too big of a deal out of this. It does matter how good you are. There are plenty of at-large spots, 11 to be exact. Everyone knows what it takes to get into the meet. You either do it or you don't.

That's a dodge.

[echo13]

ME: Bla bla. What is the purpose of having
automatic qualifiers for the OHSAA State Meet?

The man in charge at OHSAA: It guarantees that each District will be represented in each event even if they have the slowest swimmers and other Districts have swimmers who are faster.


I stand by my original position, but at least I know their logic. I just don't understand why a district being represented is so important in swimming... it makes more sense in a team based sport, but not so much in swimming.

How about comparing it to football where often times many people believe Colerain and St.X or Elder were the best two teams in the state, but have to meet in the regional finals. Or basketball where two top teams meet early in the season. It's the same idea, except in swimming you don't lose a top contender, usually a middle of the pack guy.

[Fly4Fun]

It's not a dodge. I've made my arguements. I've put out logical reasons. You guys are twisting my words and trying to put words in my mouth. Why should I continue to pound my head against a brick wall?

[ImPartial]

It's not a dodge. I've made my arguements. I've put out logical reasons. You guys are twisting my words and trying to put words in my mouth. Why should I continue to pound my head against a brick wall?

That is what happens when you try to use logic against emotional arguments. "If I yell louder and longer and stomp my feet and fists until you give up, then I will prove I'm right!" Remember though, it's primarily a high school forum and some struggle to reach up to that level of rational thinking.

[echo13]

Because 1. Football is a primarily team sport 2. It's a lot more traveling for the football teams 3. Swimming is an individual sport with team implications. So we should be giving the best individuals a chance to represent on the state level. It is the individual swimmers who should get a chance to prove their mettle.

So if it's about an individual proving his mettle, what does not being able to finish in the top 10 in your own district prove? To not get bumped by an automatic you have to prove you can compete at your district level, if you can't do that then you don't deserve to go to states. If the system was as flawed as so many seem to think, then I assure you the coaches would have had it changed.

[echo13]

Ok, so by your logic, the Olympics should take the best swimmers from each state-even Alaska (even if their best swimmer is a 70 year old man who can't break 1:00....in a 25 free). I mean, it is taking a representative sample and the 70 year old man proved his way out of almost zero competition!

note: I don't actually know Alaska's times/reputation as a swim state, I'm just using it to prove a point.

You do know that the Olympics already do this right, just on the International level. The first few heats of the Olympics are very slow, often times consisting of swimmers from third world countries, in order for FINA to promote the sport. This all goes on with the, obviously deserving, 3rd best American swimmer in the event, most times sitting at home.

[MeSwimFast]

mupolo,

I understand your position, but there are a few flaws with your logic:

1. Countries are represented at the Olympics, not states. I'm sure you'll respond that you're aware of that fact, but it does shorten your point a bit. Why would you post a nonsensical, fictional scenario to negate another person's point? If you think you have a good response to that question, please relate it to the second issue...

2. Your fictional scenario about our 70 year old Alaskan friend is exactly how the Olympics operate on an international level! Do you know that? You used the most respected sporting event in the world - the Olympics - to debate Fly, ImPartial and echo, only to give a scenario that completely supports their argument. The fact that the Olympics draw from the entire world is one of the most thrilling aspects of the competition. And while we all assume that the Americans, Europeans and Australians will dominate, it's still refreshing to see athletes from less prominent countries represent their nations with pride.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I just want you to be aware that the Ohio state championships operate exactly like the Olympics!!! You should use another format to prove your point (college, time standards, etc.).

By the way, just so you don't get too upset with my post as a personal attack, I want you to know that my opinion is that Ohio should use qualifying times to get to the state championships, like the college format. The end result would be that your homeboy Alex Miller would have been competing in Canton. :)

Let me know what you think.

[echo13]

By the way, echo and meswimfast, I understand that their are flaws in my Olympics argument, since the Olympics are essentially run like the State meet with all districts (countries) being represented. But if we look at the Olympics as being a chance to showcase the best of each country, then the state meet format would then be each state being like a country. If we go to International Competition, we want to represent with the best swimmers we have. If we, as the state of Ohio, want to showcase the best swimmers to America, then the top 24 swimmers should be showcased.

I am not a fan of the system, I'd much rather see the OHSAA go to a college type format, with auto qualifing times, and "B" cuts to fill out 32 or 24. I'm just trying to explain why I think the current system is in place. Besides what's a forum without a little debate.:)

[XdesIDtrans]

The Olympics choose the top 2 from each country because each country is a team... Just as each team can only submit 4 qualifyers in Ohio High School, each country can only submit 2 swimmers in the Olympics.

I think the analogy still applies here...

[XdesIDtrans]

It's not a dodge. I've made my arguements. I've put out logical reasons. You guys are twisting my words and trying to put words in my mouth. Why should I continue to pound my head against a brick wall?

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, just disagreeing with what you did say... You haven't responded to my arguements, so I called it a dodge. That wasn't very nice of me though - you probably could respond, but are probably a little burnt out on the topic... I can understand that - I was just hoping you'd argue your point with me so I tried to raz ya into responding :cool:

[XdesIDtrans]

That is what happens when you try to use logic against emotional arguments. "If I yell louder and longer and stomp my feet and fists until you give up, then I will prove I'm right!" Remember though, it's primarily a high school forum and some struggle to reach up to that level of rational thinking.

It sounds good... really it does, it just doesn't apply (accept maybe the stomping part).

[ImPartial]

One interesting thing I have noticed is with the 500 free qualifiers. Kyle Jennings from St. Charles got into the meet as an automatic qualifier. He is#22. There are 6 guys in the SW District alone who had faster times, including St. X's Alex Miller, who did not make it to State. It would be a shame if this lame rule had an impact on the eventual winner. The automatic qualifier rule needs to change. At the very least, they need to let in the people faster than the slowest automatic qualifier. This is what happens between Sectionals and Districts.

If you guys want to whine and complain that the rules were unfair to StX and that if it weren't for lame rules StX would have won and blah blah blah... you are picking the wrong rule.
[sarcasm on]
4 entries per school, that is where you should focus your anger. It's just not fair that StC was allowed to have three swimmers in finals . They should limit StC, err I mean everyone, to just two entries. Look at how many points StC got from third swimmers in the back, fly and breast...22 points!!! And the StX flyers were the big victims, they would each move up one place for two more StX points. And StX only got 3 extra points in the 50 free. Add it all up and StX would have won by one point. It's just not fair I tell you, NOT FAIR! Maybe we can get the rules changed retroactively and get the true champs crowned.
[sarcasm off]

Have fun!

[FormerWildcat]

Actually, this happens in the state wrestling meet as well. How do we know the truly best individual wrestlers end up in Columbus at the state meet when each district is automatically given then same number of qualifiers?

[XdesIDtrans]

If you guys want to whine and complain that the rules were unfair to StX and that if it weren't for lame rules StX would have won and blah blah blah... you are picking the wrong rule.
[sarcasm on]
4 entries per school, that is where you should focus your anger. It's just not fair that StC was allowed to have three swimmers in finals . They should limit StC, err I mean everyone, to just two entries. Look at how many points StC got from third swimmers in the back, fly and breast...22 points!!! And the StX flyers were the big victims, they would each move up one place for two more StX points. And StX only got 3 extra points in the 50 free. Add it all up and StX would have won by one point. It's just not fair I tell you, NOT FAIR! Maybe we can get the rules changed retroactively and get the true champs crowned.
[sarcasm off]

Have fun!

Way to disprove a point no one made. :rolleyes:

[XdesIDtrans]

Actually, this happens in the state wrestling meet as well. How do we know the truly best individual wrestlers end up in Columbus at the state meet when each district is automatically given then same number of qualifiers?

Fair complaint if you ask me...

[bomb1]

If you guys want to whine and complain that the rules were unfair to StX and that if it weren't for lame rules StX would have won and blah blah blah... you are picking the wrong rule.
[sarcasm on]
4 entries per school, that is where you should focus your anger. It's just not fair that StC was allowed to have three swimmers in finals . They should limit StC, err I mean everyone, to just two entries. Look at how many points StC got from third swimmers in the back, fly and breast...22 points!!! And the StX flyers were the big victims, they would each move up one place for two more StX points. And StX only got 3 extra points in the 50 free. Add it all up and StX would have won by one point. It's just not fair I tell you, NOT FAIR! Maybe we can get the rules changed retroactively and get the true champs crowned.
[sarcasm off]

Have fun!

I think the point was made that 6 swimmers from the SW District were faster than the St. Charles swimmer. The St. X swimmer was only mentioned to illustrate that this selection process COULD HAVE affected the outcome of a very close meet. No where did anyone argue that the rule was "unfair to St.X". (Actually the rule is unfair to a whole state of swimmers.) And to contradict your other point, I have only noticed the St. X fans on this board being very complementary of St. Charles' great State performance and giving props where props are due. I have not read where anyone has said that St. Charles was not the deserving champ. The post was made to debate the selection process. Maybe the name should be changed to "Not So Impartial".

[Mr_Randy_Watson]

There are clear examples from other states as to how a change in our state meet could be made (http://www.mindnet.org/~hsswim/MHSAA%20Swimming%20Qualifying%20Times.htm), but the reality is that the only change that is likely to happen is the move to DI and DII similar to the girls. Those that sit on the board that make the decisions recognize the flaws in the current system, but are too loyal to upholding the tradition of how our state meet has been historically run to change anything. The DI and DII change is being handed down from above (OHSAA), and I would expect that change to occur in the next five years.

[caswim]

If it would have been a Thomas Worthington swimmer to get third in the central district in the 500, would we be having this discussion?

[bbow2009]

no probably not, this discussion wouldn't even been necessary.

[vikinghatbob]

aquabomber08 i agree with your last comment!! Is it safe to say that Ohio has the toughest state meet to make, thus making it the best swimming state in the nation!?!?!

odd since theres not that much water here.:thumb:

[xbomberd08]

Is it safe to say that Ohio has the toughest state meet to make, thus making it the best swimming state in the nation!?!?!

That was true, until Division II boys was created :rolleyes:

[Amazin']

yea. along with the changes with D2,
there should be a ton of coaches that should argue against the new meet format. prelims all on 1 day, and finals all on 1 day, in my opinion isn't the greatest idea.