Supported by CSCAA
National Collegiate Swimmer-of-the-Week
recruiting class '08
.: Breaking the Mold When it Comes to NCAA Championships
June 3rd, 2007
The World Championships continued to hold our attention (as well as the world’s) so much so that by the time the Duel in the Pool came around I was ready to throw up my hands to say, “enough already!” In truth, March showed the swimming community that “more is better.” More swims + more meets = more excitement.
It also showed that stacking meets doesn’t cause one to overshadow the other. That overindulgence is what makes basketball’s March Madness so fun. Division II’s Fall and Spring Championship Festivals have employed the same strategy with great success as have the World Championships (where swimming was but one of five disciplines contested). There’s strength in numbers.
Together these lessons enhance our exposure and that makes for a healthier sport. College swimming can do even more though, and the solution is through a radical restructuring of our sport. It is time to take the college swimming and split it into two (or three) entirely separate sports. This is not a new idea, but it is an idea whose time has come. Without overstating it – this idea has the potential to reduce cheating, save departments money, add value to conference championships AND allow more teams and individuals to participate in the NCAA Championships.
The Proposal
Lest you think this is a fanatical idea, consider that in 1973 NCAA track coaches established the first indoor season, more than fifty years after the first al fresco edition. While the two sports share the individual nature, swimming, with long course, short course, and open-water seasons, lends itself to separation even more than track and field. There’s no shortage of ideas on how the seasons could be split. Imagine, for instance:
Don’t worry about the “how”. Several coaches reviewed and offered positive comments on an earlier version of this article. The only objective concerned the specific championship proposed, so it’s been removed here. The important part is to think creatively about what’s best for the sport and multiple seasons is. Why?
It eliminates institutions’ ability to cut swimming citing Title XI.
In the past fifteen years nearly 40% of Division I wrestling, and a fourth of Division I men’s swimming teams have been eliminated. In contrast men’s indoor and outdoor track has not only been spared – it’s grown. In fact, men’s track has grown in spite of the fact that - because of its large squad sizes (36-38 men) - would make it the ideal target for a department looking to cut costs and maintain gender equity compliance. With female (58%) swimmers outnumbering their male (42%) counterparts, our sport already helps institutions move closer to Title IX compliance. The addition of a second season, would double this impact and effectively bring schools even closer to proportionality.
There’s a second effect on Title IX and financing. Division I institutions must field a minimum of fourteen teams (eight women and six men or seven of each). By adding a Dual Meet or Open Water season, schools have two more opportunities to achieve the minimum number of sports required for NCAA participation. That makes swimming an appealing sport to add, but more importantly, positions swimming so that other sports take the brunt of cuts. Imagine the famous Far Side cartoon - that's us on the right pointing to wrestling.
It would improve academic success and strengthen the family.
“Right, and I’m sure it will cure male pattern baldness and do the dishes too.” Well, we can’t vouch for those two, but the addition of a second season doesn’t have to be a money-losing proposition.
By separating the season into two distinct halves, we allow students to do what they should be doing in early December – studying for finals. Swimming already claims to be academically superior to most other sports and at least anecdotally we are. Interestingly, team GPAs trend higher in the fall than in the spring despite increased training demands. Why? Perhaps it’s because students are regimented and on a schedule and when that schedule eases up, so too do students’ study habits. By extending our season longer into the academic year, extend these habits and this regimentation, ensuring that swimmers graduate on time.
Separating the two seasons would also allow swimmers to return home and enjoy the holidays with their families and friends. This is, not coincidentally, a when swimmers’ training, because of travel, weather, and scheduling, is typically at its least consistent. In January coaches and athletes could return to work refreshed and reenergized.
It saves money.
If an institution has a swimming team, they’ve made a significant investment. They operate a pool, pay coaches, award scholarships and issue equipment. One of the most superfluous costs is the annual winter training trip. Last winter CollegeSwimming.com polled student athletes what it cost to go on training trip. Nearly a third said they paid $500-1,000 for the privilege with another 10% paying in excess of $1,000 to attend. Nearly another third were fortunate to have the school pay for everything. Regardless of who writes the checks, a training trip costs a team anywhere from $12,000-50,000 each year.
While an additional season would marginally increase a team’s travel cost, the costs of salaries, scholarships, and equipment would remain largely unchanged. Eliminating the expense of a training trip would, in many cases, cover the added travel costs resulting from a second season. In a best-case scenario, the institution saves money. In a worst-case scenario an institution can add two sports at minimal cost.
It would eliminate cheating and ethical gray areas.
Admittedly "eliminating" cheating might be a bit much. As long as there are rules there will be people trying to find ways around them. However, the creation of two seasons would eliminate teams’ violation of the eight-hour off season training rule, and offer create a strong disincentive for teams to rely on mid-season additions.
Again a CollegeSwimming.com poll of college swimmers revealed that nearly three in five were required to practice beyond the eight-hour off-season limit. Big deal. You have to train if you want to be good and you have to be good if you want to compete at the national level. I can appreciate that. Unfortunately, as any coach can tell you all compliance departments are not created alike and student-athlete motivation is far lower than what you find in the fall. A second championship would give swimmers something to look forward to. It would also compliment club swimming efforts by better preparing them for the summer season and decriminalize a rule that many coaches don’t believe in or abide by.
How about mid-season, here-today, gone-tomorrow swimmers? The Missed-Term Exemption enables a school to essentially pay a swimmer for a semester before competiting. Sure these hired guns add excitement, but few would argue that these athlete-students are healthy to our sport’s image. As long as national and conference championships are on the line, however, and as long as the other team is winning with them, coaches have little incentive to not go out and get their own. However, what if “rent-a-swimmers’” scholarships were tied to two seasons? A stud 1:34 200 freestyler or 52.1 breaststroker is worth a full scholarship if you can fly them in for the Big Ten and NCAA Championships. But what if that scholarship extended for the full year and they weren't available for the fall dual-meet championship? Still worth a full? Maybe. But when you figure that all of the other guys who picked up their cuts back in the Dual Meet season and your guy will have to rest just to qualify, maybe not.
More teams and more participants = more excitement and more winners
One of the reasons the NCAA basketball tournament generates so much excitement is that it engages sixty-five teams every year. While Farleigh-Dickinson isn’t going to top UCONN in the first round, they make the tournament and they garner a small sliver of national attention. Exposure comes not from moving our championships one week earlier or later, but from engaging more people, teams, and media sources in the sport. By creating a second championship, we’re empowering more teams to succeed. The University of Maine hasn’t had a NCAA Qualifier in years (if at all), but it could make the NCAA Dual Meet tournament and it wouldn’t come at the expense of another team. In qualifying though, it just scored the University some valuable NACDA points and just increased swimming's value to the school. The NCAA Championship is an elite club. Even with increased field sizes, it will still be an elite club. With an additional championship using different selection criteria, it can be a bigger, more inclusive club that strengthens our sport.
The Solution is Obvious
This idea certainly isn’t new – in fact it was Jim Merner of UW-Green Bay who gave me the idea, but it’s something our sport needs. It’s something that can only come about when people think about what’s best for the sport – not just for us as individuals or as teams. That means not getting caught up in the type of championship how it might affect your own team on any given year; or your impact your own work load. Just focus on what is good for the sport and that is excitement and participation. We can and must generate that excitement. It is not enough to proactively try to support our own teams – we need to give athletic departments and institutions a reason to keep swimming (and even a reason to place their target elsewhere).
It's fun to speculate, however, so we offer three models.
Model 1: A Fall Dual-Meet National Championship Tournament Followed By a Spring Individual Championship
Imagine a two-season model with the first beginning in the fall and culminating in a late December dual-meet championship and a second, individual championship in the spring.
The December “Dual Meet” championship would begin the weekend before Thanksgiving break – a time when nearly half of the nation’s institutions give their swimmers a mid-season rest. Eight regional sites would host eight teams, seeded 1-8. Much like basketball’s March Madness. Each region’s champion would then travel the weekend after Thanksgiving to a national Dual Meet Tournament where the NCAA Dual Meet Champion would be crowned. No polls, no controversy, just one champion.
Teams would then go on a four week hiatus. They could study for finals, return home for Christmas and relax until the start of the Spring Season on January 1.
The spring season would largely mimic the existing season and culminate in an April or May national championship on the basis of swimmers and divers qualifying individually. Unlike track where athletes must qualify in season, we suggest that times achieved during the Dual Meet season be used to qualify for the spring championship.
Model 2: Separate Long and Short Course Seasons
Maybe you’re a purist who doesn’t believe there’s room for dual meets on the championship level. Well, how about going the opposite direction and adding a Long Course option?
Adding a long course championship would support our nation’s international efforts. As good as our World Championship efforts were this past month, how much better could they have been if our best swimmers trained long course exclusively? As with the quadrennial short course meter championships, a long course meet would garner additional recognition as world records and world bests are established. Which would offer the fastest field of sixteen – the NCAA or World Championships?
On the negative, of course, less than 50% of Division I institutions have year-round access to a long course pool. Then again, there are always inequities amongst institutions. Whether a bigger practice field, fancier team room, or closer geographic proximity to recruits some things can’t be overcome. At the same time, we would be wise to not underestimate our coaches’ resiliency and creativity when it comes to overcoming obstacles.
Model 3: A Combined Open Water Championship
Each spring the NCAA hosts the lacrosse championships for all three divisions at an NFL stadium. Nearly 50,000 fans attend the Division I championship with over 120,000 attendees over each of the weekend’s games. A weekend that combines Division I, II, and III meets in the pool could challenge these types of numbers. Of course, aside from a series of portable pools in a larger venue, swimming doesn’t offer a facility that could host such an event. So why host such a meet in the pool? Collect all the schools in one place over one weekend in South Florida for a series of 5- and 10K championships. It fits in with an Olympic model that now offers a 10K event. Combine it with the CSCAA Convention (as the basketball coaches do with the Final Four ®) and the Association would continue to grow. There’s already been precedent for this type of meet. Just a couple of years ago Elliot Rushton, the NCAA Division III mile champ edged Chris Thompson, the NCAA Division I mile champ by just one second for second place in the 10K at the USA Swimming Open Water festival.
Model 4: Make Your Own
What type of championship would you like to see? Make your case here.
-Greg Earhart
