Division III time standards underwent a pretty hefty drop from the 12-13 season to this one. Some folks are outraged, and some are still scratching their heads. So let’s put this down nicely- here’s what’s up in DIII.
For any newbies out there, NCAA time standards are the qualifications to make the Big Meet at the end of the year. These standards are in two sets – the automatic A qualification and the provisional B. An A cut guarantees entry to the meet, regardless of how many individuals make the qualification time. In the past, some events at Nationals have filled beyond capacity, gorged on A cuts – examples like the men’s 200 fly last year, or the women’s 100 back a few years ago. These events throw the meet out of whack.
The Discussion:
From the Coaches
The super A cuts are supposed to help prevent that by making an A cut a far more difficult accomplishment to achieve. The biggest alteration from a coaching standpoint is training. The original function of an A cut from a coach’s viewpoint was to assure an athlete’s place on the National squad, thereby allowing a coach to train that particular athlete exclusively for the NCAA meet, skipping any shave/taper meets to have everything saved up for The Big One. However, since the A cuts have altered so drastically, they no longer serve that purpose, and in effect are – from a coaching perspective – useless. Maybe one or two athletes will make the A standards, but those athletes would have qualified anyway, and are going to be trained for Nationals regardless.
From the Viewers
To some minds, the only benefit of the super A cuts is the same benefit as could be had by simply doing away with them, as the relay A cuts were done away with. With super fast A cuts, the probability of the meet being skewed by overfilled events is drastically reduced. That’s part of the reason the A cuts were gotten rid of, too – to remove the excess of relay only swimmers at the meet preventing individuals who otherwise would have qualified from making a berth on the NCAA team. In this effect, is there any use for the A cuts in individual events at all? If you average the difference in time between the national record and the A cut on the men’s side, the difference is less than a second. On the women’s side, two seconds even. At this point, if you make an A cut, you might as well reset the national record in the process!
From the Athletes
As an athlete myself, I know I saw the A cut drops each successive year as a challenge to be met rather than an impossibility, and I knew many other athletes who felt the same. The ability to make an A cut also affords a sense of security for athletes – the knowledge that your ticket to the Big Meet is effectively punched and no matter how many other qualify either before or after, your spot is secure. I always waited until I had an A cut before writing home to tell my parents that NCAAs that year was a go. Under both scenarios – removal of A cuts or their continued existence as an average of the past three national championship times – that assurance is virtually null.
From DIII
So what’s the benefit of these super A times for DIII? Well, for one thing, recruits look at things like A and B cuts to see where they might fall in a division at the national level. With times as fast as the 13-14 NCAA cuts, DIII will gain attention from athletes who may have only been nominally entertaining those thoughts previously. The choice now rests between being a conference contender at some DI school or a competitor on the national scale in DIII. If athletes from mid-majors are looking for an educational focus as well as excellent swimming, DIII is the clear way to go. And as these athletes filter down, DIII an – and probably will – just keep getting faster.
For the original swimswam post containing time standards for 2013-14, click here.
I understood they were considering after the current selection process is run (16 relays, A and B cut individuals to the total cap), if there is a disparity of more than one between the individual and relay complete rows, then one relay row would be removed and the remaining cap spots allotted to individual events. Does anyone know if this was approved?
I can’t respond to your comment OLE 99 for some reason. But anyway, I see what you’re saying. I just think it’s really not THAT much more expensive to do it that way in the grand scheme of things. I think taking relays first isn’t fair because that puts a very talented individual at risk of not making it because of his lack of talented teammates.
I like the way they used to do it then. But just because your 1 relay qualifies shouldn’t allow you to swim your other relays that haven’t. That’s the problem there.
Lowering the A cut times does change the model potentially though. Not many will hit A cuts like you said. So what does… Read more »
Great summary Hannah. I just need to say the for NESCAC, constantly one of the strongest if not THE strongest Men’s and Women’s D3 conference in the country, the placing of where the conference meet is relative to nationals seems not to have had a huge effect on production. We can never say for sure if the swimmers of the NESCAC (who can’t start official training until Nov. 1) would swim better if they were to swim through the conference meet, but we can say that they perform exceptionally well at nationals as is.
Discounting swimmers such as Caroline Wilson and Logan Toddhunter, two swimmers on the women’s side that in season swim A cuts that would have been national… Read more »
There is not a set number of people taken per event individually. Those who achieve “A” cuts individually as well as the top-16 relays in each relay event automatically gain entry into the meet. The field is then filled out with “B” cut qualifiers until the cap is met. Unless there has been a change in legislation, those who achieved a “B” cut and are members of relays competing at the meet are allowed to swim the events in which they achieved that “B” time. When the official psych sheet is posted in March, you will be able to see a version with the “cut” lines; those above the “cut” line qualified for the event, or, in more confusing terms,… Read more »
Well, there’s the problem right there. Relays shouldn’t go into the conversation until the meet is filled with the FASTEST swimmers from each event. So it should go A cuts, fastest B cuts, and then the top 16 relays. And no those people who are on those top 16 relays shouldn’t necessarily get to swim their B cuts unless they’re invited to the meet individually. That gives a dramatic advantage toward the teams with better relays and less of an advantage to the faster dudes with bad relays. That’s garbage. Division 1 finally strayed away from that, and instead made it WAY more fair allowed the top 32 or something swimmers in each event. Really disappointed in D3.
Division 3 has had the relay vs individual debate and chosen relays (no one wanted to see any more relays with a 1:00 backstroke legs make All America). Not to retread too much on the issue, but only a few of the D3 teams would/could pay for relay only swimmers trip to the meet, which is a big component of the D1 model. While certainly not perfect, the new standards are a good compromise that should ensure the top 16 in each event get invited.
Exactly. A large component of the Division I model hinges on colleges paying for relay-only swimmers. I don’t think anyone would argue that extending the field to 32 is a bad thing, but it’s just not practical at this level. And Ole 99 is right; with this model, you’re not seeing substandard performances in relays like you used to. I suppose you have to weigh what’s worse: having a cutline slightly under 16 and, as a result, swimmers who score who weren’t invited to the meet in that event or filling out the field with individual entries first and potentially getting a men’s 400 medley relay that scores with a time close to 3:40. Many people argue for the latter… Read more »
I don’t understand what your point is…how would the relays become slower by allowing the fastest individual swimmers then top 16 relays in? That makes no sense. The new system is no where near perfect or fair just like division 1 wasn’t perfect or fair. Last year was definitely the best div 1 ncaa’s in awhile with a lot of different teams represented. Also, you’re saying 16 people per individual event too? So all 16 become some sort of all American just by qualifying. That make no sense. They really need to do away with the relay swimmers getting to swim their b cuts and taking the top X amount of swimmers in each event and top 16 relays. Period.… Read more »
In an ideal world money is not an issue and you just take the top 30 in each event (individual and relay). This is not an ideal world, so the number of meet entrants is fixed. Taking more individual event entrants means less room for relay entrants. This works for D1 because schools can/will pay the way for relay only swimmers. D3 schools can’t/won’t pay the way for relay only swimmers, so if they employ this model they would have to accept less depth in the relay events.
This actually used to be the model. Years ago, D3 NCAA selection took more individual entrants and fewer relay entrants. This resulted in teams that only qualified one relay entering other… Read more »
How many people are taken per event? Are they ACTUALLY going to take the swimmers with the fastest times this year and not sneak in a few people barely with B cuts from top teams?
Last year, 243 women and 236 men were invited. I believe the qualification order goes the top 16 relays, then the individual events swimmers to the meet caps. Relay swimmers can swim B cuts at the meet. If too many swimmers get A cuts it lowers the number of people taken in other events. Last year, 22 guys attained the 100 fly A cut. As a result, less than 16 were taken in other individual events (12 in the 50 free, 13 in the 200 breast, etc.)
Has the D3 relay selection been criteria been altered, if so, is it posted?
Top 16 are invited.
I understood they were considering after the current selection process is run (16 relays, A and B cut individuals to the total cap), if there is a disparity of more than one between the individual and relay complete rows, then one relay row would be removed and the remaining cap spots allotted to individual events. Does anyone know if this was approved?
I think it is useful to have the A standard. It actually would serve to give an idea of how assured a swimmer is to being entered in the meet, even if the A standard isn’t achieved. The A standard is also aspirational.
The rules changed pretty dramatically after my first year in D-III. in ’90-91, there was 1 standard, and everyone under that standard made the meet. The NCAA decided it was too expensive to have so many swimmers and coaches travel to the meet. The rules were changed to create an A and B standard, effective for the ’91-92 season, with a size limit on the meet. Imagine what it was like to NOT have the internet in… Read more »
I think the committee should throw away “A” & “B”cuts. You can fill the athlete cap/meet with percentage from the national record in each event. That would ensure the strongest field also eliminating some of the gamesmanship that coaches play. In my opinion the best of the best should be at NCAA’s, not someone who rode a studs coat tails.