By Jim Richardson
When the NCAA instituted a cap on the championships the desired goal of the NCAA was for the NCAA championships to be an elite meet where only those who could legitimately contend for All American honors should attend. Their goal was for the conference championships to be the primary culminating experience for the vast majority of the swimmers. For that reason the ratio of one NCAA qualifier for every 16 swimmers and divers was applied to swimming and diving (as was the case with other individual sports such as track and field). As men’s swimming and diving lost programs the need to find ways to increase those programs’ visibility on their respective campuses became a major issue for the swimming and diving community.
In an effort to improve local visibility, by hopefully increasing the opportunities to qualify athletes for the NCAA championships, the NCAA Swimming and Diving Committee voted to alter the qualification process. The change, in essence, culminated in eliminating all relay qualifiers and thereby increasing the number of invited individuals for individual events only. So how did the new procedure fare with respect to its goal of increasing the number of institutions represented? On the women’s side there was a 14.3% increase in the number of institutions represented versus 2012. On the men’s side, which was a primary concern for the committee, there was a 24% increase in institutions represented. As Dr. Joe Fisher, chair of the NCAA Division 1 Swimming and Diving Committee, stated: “I think most people felt the new selection process….was a success. The new selection process achieved the desired goal of increasing the number of teams represented at the championships.”
Collegeswimming.com solicited a sampling of opinions from coaches around the country on the selection process. All of the coaches who responded felt that the new process achieved the goal, particularly on the men’s side. A coach who preferred to remain anonymous stated, “I felt on the men’s side at least, the best possible field was assembled, whereas with the past selection process, there were often many men left home (usually from mid-major teams or teams whose relays did not make the meet) that could have made an impact on the championship meet.”
As we all know, there are often unintended consequences when new procedures are implemented. How did this new procedure affect team scoring in the meet? 40 men’s teams scored in 2013, 39 in 2012, and 37 in 2011. 43 women’s teams scored in 2013, 50 in 2012, and 42 in 2011. Excepting the 2012 blip for the women, the number of scoring teams did not increase significantly (less than .1% for both genders).
The new process did have some anecdotal effects on individual scoring. Pat Mead of Towson, stated: “With the old selection process our swimmer would not have made it into the meet. However, she finished 13th in the mile at NCAA’s.” The opposite happened Eddie Reese’s swimmers as related by Price Fishback – “…Texas…had a lot more swimmers at the meet, but some who had scored after getting to the meet by qualifying on relays in the past did not get to swim individual events at the meet.” This poses the question as to whether the relay only swimmers should be allowed to swim individual events. Some coaches expressed that they would like to see this happen. I’m sure this will be at least one topic of discussion at the upcoming CSCAA Convention. Be sure to attend and make your opinion(s) heard!
