Any predictions on divisions next year - MCSL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

Your point is taken. But at this moment Potomac, Bethesda, Rockville, and Stonebridge are all in A or B. I guess it would prevent the next Potomac from making a rapid climb, but the recruiting issue is mostly isolated to the top 2 divisions and MCSL chooses not to enforce its rules even though it knows very well which teams are the offenders.

True, but they won't because everyone knows each other at that level.

For a lower ranked team to move up, it may be necessary for parents to hire a really good coach (going rate for summer swim seems to be $15k-$20k). If a team had an endowment and wealthy alumni (like a university), this could happen and that coach him or herself would be a major draw for swimmers.

Some teams that are moving up have invested in their pool facilities, offering not only a nice pool, but also amenities to encourage more membership and parental involvement. Case in point, Somerset has a really nice "cafe" area with tables, umbrellas, shade, power outlets for laptops, etc... more like a country club pool than a neighborhood pool. Parents like to hang out there with other parents, can do remote work, get a cup of coffee/cold drink, and the like. By comparison, many other pools look like they haven't been updated since the 1980s, with chipped concrete, old furniture, torn/broken umbrellas, lack of shade, gross locker rooms, and the like.

A while ago our lower division team had a meet with a team in a very affluent neighborhood in Potomac. The facilities were superb like a country club. Guess what? Most of the parents who were at the pool were volunteers busy at work and there were literally no parents cheering for the swimmers (maybe some Nannie’s?).

The parents might have bern playing a golf in a real country club. They didn’t seem to care about the summer swim team that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

Your point is taken. But at this moment Potomac, Bethesda, Rockville, and Stonebridge are all in A or B. I guess it would prevent the next Potomac from making a rapid climb, but the recruiting issue is mostly isolated to the top 2 divisions and MCSL chooses not to enforce its rules even though it knows very well which teams are the offenders.

True, but they won't because everyone knows each other at that level.

For a lower ranked team to move up, it may be necessary for parents to hire a really good coach (going rate for summer swim seems to be $15k-$20k). If a team had an endowment and wealthy alumni (like a university), this could happen and that coach him or herself would be a major draw for swimmers.

Some teams that are moving up have invested in their pool facilities, offering not only a nice pool, but also amenities to encourage more membership and parental involvement. Case in point, Somerset has a really nice "cafe" area with tables, umbrellas, shade, power outlets for laptops, etc... more like a country club pool than a neighborhood pool. Parents like to hang out there with other parents, can do remote work, get a cup of coffee/cold drink, and the like. By comparison, many other pools look like they haven't been updated since the 1980s, with chipped concrete, old furniture, torn/broken umbrellas, lack of shade, gross locker rooms, and the like.

A while ago our lower division team had a meet with a team in a very affluent neighborhood in Potomac. The facilities were superb like a country club. Guess what? Most of the parents who were at the pool were volunteers busy at work and there were literally no parents cheering for the swimmers (maybe some Nannie’s?).

The parents might have been playing a golf in a real country club. They didn’t seem to care about the summer swim team that much.

I didn't say they were cheering on the kids. Rather, the pool is very inviting for non-meet times, which encourages many families to want to join. This brings in kids who might swim year round.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

Your point is taken. But at this moment Potomac, Bethesda, Rockville, and Stonebridge are all in A or B. I guess it would prevent the next Potomac from making a rapid climb, but the recruiting issue is mostly isolated to the top 2 divisions and MCSL chooses not to enforce its rules even though it knows very well which teams are the offenders.

True, but they won't because everyone knows each other at that level.

For a lower ranked team to move up, it may be necessary for parents to hire a really good coach (going rate for summer swim seems to be $15k-$20k). If a team had an endowment and wealthy alumni (like a university), this could happen and that coach him or herself would be a major draw for swimmers.

Some teams that are moving up have invested in their pool facilities, offering not only a nice pool, but also amenities to encourage more membership and parental involvement. Case in point, Somerset has a really nice "cafe" area with tables, umbrellas, shade, power outlets for laptops, etc... more like a country club pool than a neighborhood pool. Parents like to hang out there with other parents, can do remote work, get a cup of coffee/cold drink, and the like. By comparison, many other pools look like they haven't been updated since the 1980s, with chipped concrete, old furniture, torn/broken umbrellas, lack of shade, gross locker rooms, and the like.

Sounds like our pool! We do the best we can with the facility we have, but what makes folks want to hang out there is the people and the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

Your point is taken. But at this moment Potomac, Bethesda, Rockville, and Stonebridge are all in A or B. I guess it would prevent the next Potomac from making a rapid climb, but the recruiting issue is mostly isolated to the top 2 divisions and MCSL chooses not to enforce its rules even though it knows very well which teams are the offenders.

True, but they won't because everyone knows each other at that level.

For a lower ranked team to move up, it may be necessary for parents to hire a really good coach (going rate for summer swim seems to be $15k-$20k). If a team had an endowment and wealthy alumni (like a university), this could happen and that coach him or herself would be a major draw for swimmers.

Some teams that are moving up have invested in their pool facilities, offering not only a nice pool, but also amenities to encourage more membership and parental involvement. Case in point, Somerset has a really nice "cafe" area with tables, umbrellas, shade, power outlets for laptops, etc... more like a country club pool than a neighborhood pool. Parents like to hang out there with other parents, can do remote work, get a cup of coffee/cold drink, and the like. By comparison, many other pools look like they haven't been updated since the 1980s, with chipped concrete, old furniture, torn/broken umbrellas, lack of shade, gross locker rooms, and the like.

LOL Somerset is not a country club vibe. That’s funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

Your point is taken. But at this moment Potomac, Bethesda, Rockville, and Stonebridge are all in A or B. I guess it would prevent the next Potomac from making a rapid climb, but the recruiting issue is mostly isolated to the top 2 divisions and MCSL chooses not to enforce its rules even though it knows very well which teams are the offenders.

True, but they won't because everyone knows each other at that level.

For a lower ranked team to move up, it may be necessary for parents to hire a really good coach (going rate for summer swim seems to be $15k-$20k). If a team had an endowment and wealthy alumni (like a university), this could happen and that coach him or herself would be a major draw for swimmers.

Some teams that are moving up have invested in their pool facilities, offering not only a nice pool, but also amenities to encourage more membership and parental involvement. Case in point, Somerset has a really nice "cafe" area with tables, umbrellas, shade, power outlets for laptops, etc... more like a country club pool than a neighborhood pool. Parents like to hang out there with other parents, can do remote work, get a cup of coffee/cold drink, and the like. By comparison, many other pools look like they haven't been updated since the 1980s, with chipped concrete, old furniture, torn/broken umbrellas, lack of shade, gross locker rooms, and the like.

LOL Somerset is not a country club vibe. That’s funny.

It's a lot nicer than the bolded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

They use a subset of the times swum at A meets to run the virtual meets, so the results *do* count.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody got 2025 division E?

NW Branch
Conn Belair
Manor Woods
Woodley Gardens
Hallowell
OGC

What about division c? And bannockburn specifically ?

[Anonymous]

Yes please someone post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid had a leaked version Saturday, ask around.

Yeah, so...???

What do you want to know? Happy to report a few teams.

The above response is from it. I don’t have a way to attach and am not recreating

Can you tell me the whole division see, and tell me about Bannockburn?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a formula. It doesn’t matter how many wins you had or what division you were in. Eldwick just must have done well on the algorithm and formula while stonebridge didn’t

Dude what r u smoking?

Rs dog 💀

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any chance someone can post a screenshot?

FAXXX
or screenshot and copy text

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just share the actual leaked list here? Curious to know where Hallowell and Regency Estates. Glad to see WM move up. Hopefully they will get humbled enough to have better sportsmanship. Summer swim used to be fun!

There is no leaked list

I’m not the poster with the leaked list, but I know for a fact that certain individuals do receive the list early (late Sunday night after the algorithm is run) so a leaked list is very possible.

Data and algorithm are public. No need to leak

Data are not public until this weekend

Data are the 5 A meet results for each team. They are on the league web site.

No I believe they use the middle time for each meet entry over the 5 weeks to create entry times for every swim in the virtual meet (ie first place 12 and U IM swimmer; 2nd and 3rd places as well). So you have to have the results from all 5 meets to create the entries. They then use those times to run the virtual meets. Then they use the win loss record of the virtual meets to create divisions.

What about divisionals? That should count too, right?

From the Reach for the Wall article -

Teams are placed in divisions each year based on a computer swim-off using times from the previous season. That is, MCSL (i) creates one virtual team for each MCSL team based on the median times from all five of that team’s dual meets the prior year, and then (ii) runs a virtual meet between every virtual team (similar to how Reach for the Wall runs virtual meets). The team with 90 wins (meaning their virtual team beat every other virtual team in the league) is the top seed of Division A. The team with no wins is the lowest seed in Division 0 (excluding new teams to the league).

The RFTW article is now a little obsolete. The league reserves the right to place a new team in the league in a division besides at the very bottom of O, but will only do that if the team comes from another league and has established times. Most recently they did this when Arora Hills came over from the GGSL. It isn't fun for a new team to the league with 150 swimmers to have a totally uncompetitive season winning every meet by 250. Although that doesn't stop the RMSC Rays.

Ah, true. I was really getting at that Divisonals doesn't count.

Seems like a lot of things don't really count. A team can lose most of its A meets, yet still move up a division? Doesn't seem fair.

DP - or, on the flip side, go undefeated and remain in the same division (happening to us)? Also doesn't make sense, nor is it particularly fair.

Agreed. You win, you move up. You lose, you move down. Virtual team meets seem like a "do over" of the season.

I'm the PP you're quoting and yes, exactly, to the bolded! These dual meets are won and lost by whole teams, not median times.

There is no perfect way to do this. Whether it’s age ups, age outs, 2 vs 3 swimmers per age group, it’s a difficult science to find a better way than the current math to assign divisions. Far from perfect but the best system we have.

I think 2 swimmers is necessary because many teams don’t field a 3rd swimmer in each event

Looking at 2 test cases. Rock Creek dominated J and move up to H. If we said you every division winner moves up 1 by default, they would be in I and too good for I. They would likely dominate again and then move up to a division but it would take a very long time to get in the appropriate division.

While Kenmont has gone undefeated in I, they don’t fair well in the virtual meet against the league as a whole. This means 1 of 3 things
1. They are losing in the virtual meet to teams below division I, like Rock Creek, preventing them from moving up
2. They may be a better team scoring 3 swimmers per meet in the duals vs the 2 in the virtual meet
3. They may have won dual meets in I, but have some division I teams that were better in the aggregate/median across 5 weeks.

The bolded language ensures that teams can't recruit top swimmers in order to jump 2-3 divisions.

With all due respect, none of that matters. Your analysis presumes the validity of using virtual meets (i.e. an algorithm). Virtual meets completely undermine all of the hard work that teams put in during the season. You win or lose as a team. Otherwise, what's the point of keeping score and winning an "A" meet?

They use a subset of the times swum at A meets to run the virtual meets, so the results *do* count.

A "subset"? The A meets should be the only thing that counts. Many kids skip camps and other activities during swim season because they're under the impression that every A meet counts very heavily, along with Relay Carnival and Divisionals (which apparently don't matter at all). I've asked several long-time swim parents and team reps if they knew about virtual meets being used to calculate divisions for next summer - and none of them had heard about it. If the kids swimming knew that only a percentage of their summer effort counted towards next year's division ranking, do you think they would put in the same level of effort? Those kids are cheering when they win an A meet by 4 or 6 points - meaning that some kid's last-ditch effort to "reach for the wall" really mattered.

[Anonymous]

They count with winning the division! The ultimate goal is for a trophy for these kids, not rising to another division!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They count with winning the division! The ultimate goal is for a trophy for these kids, not rising to another division!!!!

That's great and all. So the team that wins the division moves up (and gets trophy), but a team that had its a$$ handed to it most of the season also moves up? Part of the victory in winning the division is moving up, while teams that you beat don't move up. Selecting who moves up based on meets that were never swum are wrong.

Anyone know if the virtual meet calculation is a holdover from the covid-19 pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Why is this like legalized gambling based metrics using some bogus ai model where you don’t have the right metrics and it cheats to move certain teams ahead. Use real life metrics and stop gaming the season. Kids get hurt, kids go away. Summer swim should not be based on some AI model. The model is flawed anyway and does not control for outside metrics. Let’s just do real life and stop with this overarching bs model. Mc is so over the top.