It was a faster year for qualifying standards in D2, but not so much in D1.
Here's the link to this year's final qualifying times for swimming:
http://www.wiaawi.org/swimmingboys/standards.pdf
Here's a link to an earlier post with last year's standards:
http://wiscswim.blogspot.com/2010/01/2009-boys-qualifying-times.html
Thoughts:
-- Only three qualifying standards in D1 were faster this year -- the 200 free, the 200 IM, and the 200 free relay. The 200 free and 200 IM were notably faster (1:49.10 in the 200 free this year compared to 1:50.72, and 2:02.36 in the IM compared to 2:04.53). The IM in particular has gotten quite fast; between 2006 and 2009, the average qualifying time was 2:05.46, so in essence the time has dropped more than three seconds in two years. Half the 24-swimmer field in the IM qualified under 2 minutes, and some very good swimmers were squeezed out of qualifying for the event this year by the time drop. The 200 free time dropped by more than a second-and-a-half, but it should be noted that last year's qualifying time had been the slowest in four years. It was below 1:50 in both 2006 and 2007.
-- In D2, seven qualifying standards were faster this year. Backstroke was notably faster; after hanging around the low 59-second mark for the past four years, it dropped in 2010 to 57.60, virtually the same as the D1 qualifying mark of 57.56. In addition, it's worth noting the 200 IM qualifying time dropped again, this year by nearly half-a-second. That came on the heels of last year's time drop, which saw a time drop of nearly two-and-a-half seconds. So D2 IMers have to swim nearly three seconds faster than two years ago to qualify. Also, the medley relay qualifying time dropped alot this year. The final time of 1:46.13 was nearly two seconds faster than last year, as well as the previous three-year average of 1:48.17.
-- What explains the recent qualifying time drops in the 200 IM in both divisions? Maybe it's time to credit coaches. I've always thought the IM a tough event to coach (as well as to convince swimmers to swim), because swimmers and coaches can't simply focus on one or two strokes; they have to practice all four. And to compete at the state-meet level, swimmers have to be reasonably competent in all four strokes (there are plenty of swimmers who don't do the IM because they are weak in one of the strokes, often breaststroke). And it's a hard event to swim that takes alot out of swimmers.
-- D2 is clearly getting both faster and deeper. Seven qualifying time standards dropped this year, after all but one of the time standards were faster in 2009 compared to 2008. D2 also has the fastest overall qualifying time this year in both divisions in two events -- the back and fly. While it will never match the depth of times swum at D1, the qualifying times suggest the quality of swimming in D2 is certainly improving.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Wish we could see the D1 & D2 swimmers in the same meet... I know, many practical considerations, but we can wish, no?
Is it fair to compare the D1 against the D2 qualifying times? In order to compare apples to apples, don't you have to look at either the 16th place qualifier in each division or the 24th place qualifing time in both divisions (you'd have to figure out who those are in D2). My guess is if you look at the 16th place in D1 and compare that to the 16th place qualifier in D2, you'd probably see that D1 is faster.
I think the really good thing about D2 is that these qualifiers are coming from all over the state. They may not have great teams, but there certainly are some great individuals in D2.
I think the comparison is a fair one, because D1 had 50 percent more schools (the WIAA takes the top 60 percent of programs by enrollment and places them in D1, with the remaining 40 percent placed in D2), and 50 percent more state qualifying spots (24 vs. 16 for D2). Given the deeper pool of available swimmers, it's to be expected that D1 swimmers will produce faster times overall. But I'd argue the 16th fastest time in D2 is roughly equivalent to the 24th fastest time in D1. Comparing the 16th fastest time in D1 to the 16th fastest in D2, I'd argue, is the apples-to-oranges comparison, because that 16th swimmer in D1 is likely (almost certainly) to come from a much larger program, and thus from a deeper talent pool.
I suppose there is an argument that the size of the school doesn't matter as much in swimming as it does in the ball sports. You have to train and race by yourself. It is interesting that sports like tennis and golf have both team and individual state championships. On the individual side you could argue that there is no reason to have divisions. So to knock over my own strawman - the reason school size still matters is that resources applied to the sport still count. A larger school might be able to attract a better coach, have better facilities, a better training staff for injuries, a dedicated strength coach etc. So in the end, even in so called individual sports, having championship divisions by school size makes a lot of sense.
If we are going to talk about larger programs we should also discuss the fact that certain schools (Arrowhead) are so much larger than its competition ( Waukesha South) as to make it unfair. Arrowhead vs South is like David and Goliath when based on size.
Arrowhead's enrollment is 2,251 (from WIAA website). WSouth is 1,367, and Catholic Memorial is 753, giving the co-op program a combined enrollment of 2,120. So they are pretty comparable in terms of size, in terms of the pool of talent they can draw from.
PRH:
Swimming, by its nature, is self-limiting. It's the hardest and most demanding high school sport, and the number of student athletes willing to do two-a-days, swim thousands of yards a day, and in return compete in front of maybe 100 people at a meet (as opposed to the thousands at football games) isn't huge to begin with. I have to think the pool of high schoolers willing to take on those demands is greater -- on average -- in a school of 2,000 students than one of 1,000 students.
Not that school/co-op size is the chief indicator of program strength (in any sport). As you mention, lots of other factors -- coaching being a big one, facilities, school district support, club tie-ins -- play a role. But it does have an impact.
Another thought; all these improved times without the "aide" of the super suits. It still comes down to guts and hard work.
I believe the team from Waukesha South would like folks to know that not a single swimmer on that team comes from Catholic Memorial. Its ALL Waukesha South!
"I believe the team from Waukesha South would like folks to know that not a single swimmer on that team comes from Catholic Memorial. Its ALL Waukesha South!"
That may be, but the larger point is that the co-op has a combined school enrollment of more than 2,000 (well, half that, assuming a 50-50 male-female ratio) from which to draw its swimmers.
Co-ops exist for a number of reasons, but for the WIAA, they are the sole determinant in deciding where to put swim programs for divisional placement.
I think, however, if you look at the onpen enrollment numbers, Arrowhead is drawing its swimmers from kids who live in the district boudaries. That is not true for most of South's varsity swimmers. That changes the value of looking at school enrollment. Many more studetns choose South just because of the swim program.
What are the open enrollment numbers at these two schools?
Open enrollment figures are available in the aggregate (or should be) from the schools themselves, or DPI.
I would add, based on conversations with lots of folks on this issue (I used to be a school board member), that it's my sense that parents choose to utilize open enrollment for a lot of reasons, and often multiple reasons. I assume parents who choose to enroll their children at private schools do, as well.
Post a Comment