Divisionals really shows why the unfair birthday rule matters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only thing I would change is moving the date to July 1 instead of June 1 or maybe June 15…. Just to try and capture the age kids are for the bulk of the season.

I think age has next to no effect for the 12 and under kids. It can be brutal for those 13 and over boys! Big difference to be 13 racing a 15 year old!! But it is what it is.

Dumb idea.

Why? The cut off could easily be the Monday before the first A meet of the season instead of a set date.

Cool. So then the 8 year olds that swam 25s at time trials don’t get to swim the first A meet if they turned 9 in between and won’t have times for 50s? Sucks to be them but at least your kid doesn’t have to swim against that 9 year old, so you’re fine with this.

Why on earth would they swim 25s at time trials if they were competing for a spot in 50s at the first A meet?

The debate is about swimming in the correct age group and then swimming up as the swimmer ages (ie an 8 year swims a 25m at time trials, ages up that week, then would need to swim
50m as a 9 yr old).

This scenario is so crazy it’s not even believable. The kid would obviously swim 50 m at time trials to get a seed time and to be ready for the meet. Stop trying to counter crazy with even crazier.

Time Trials is maybe not the best example since you could use an age up date as the first A meet. What about if kid ages up in between the first A meet and the second? Then they would have no times. Makes no sense and makes a ton of work. You have to use a consistent age up date as this is not USA swimming and these meets are run by parent volunteers and sometimes inexperienced coaches. Whoever is suggesting this is obviously one of those parents that likes to complain and not help at all.

I hate that this argument comes up year after year. A cutoff time is needed for such a short season, but these people pretending that June 1 is so much fairer than say August 1 crack me up. It’s 2 sides of the same coin, the only difference is whose kid will be disadvantaged. All meets are automated, there is no issue with age ups, you just set the software appropriately. All of our swimmers are in the system with their age as of the age up date. So we have 11 year olds that still show up in heat sheets as 10 since that was their age on June 1. If you went with age on the day of the meet the program would account for that, same with if you went with age as of August 1.

If June 1 and August 1 are equally fair, why change the rule that's been in place for years?

It's no big deal if a kid has just turned 11 and is racing in the 9-10 bracket because their birthday was after the cutoff date unless you're being ridiculously literal for the sake of being literal. The bracket is exactly two years in width. No one is more than 2 years older than any other swimmer, even if they are already 11 yo, as the youngest 9 yos are swimming in the 8u bracket.

--parent of kids who don't have a June or July birthday

1. No can or has argued that a 24 month birthday span is not the fairest and most practical way to divide age groups for a very short summer rec league.
2. The idea of a 9 year old winning a labeled “8 and under” is apparently triggering on a primal level.
3. The idea of an 8 year old having to compete in a division labeled “9-10 year olds” is apparently equally triggering
4. The system is fair, whether the cutoff is June 1, July 1, Aug 1 or October 23rd. Every kid is within 2 calendar years of every other kid.
5. Parents are math challenged and do not understand that a 9 year old can indeed be born within 24 months of an 11 year old.
6. Parents perceive the cutoff as “unfair” because they cannot stomach the ideas of points 2. and 3. above.
7. Call the groups minis/freshman/sophomore/junior/senior or copper/bronze/silver/gold/platinum. Anything to distract parents from their inability to do calendar math.

[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:The only thing I would change is moving the date to July 1 instead of June 1 or maybe June 15…. Just to try and capture the age kids are for the bulk of the season.

I think age has next to no effect for the 12 and under kids. It can be brutal for those 13 and over boys! Big difference to be 13 racing a 15 year old!! But it is what it is.

Dumb idea.

Why? The cut off could easily be the Monday before the first A meet of the season instead of a set date.

Cool. So then the 8 year olds that swam 25s at time trials don’t get to swim the first A meet if they turned 9 in between and won’t have times for 50s? Sucks to be them but at least your kid doesn’t have to swim against that 9 year old, so you’re fine with this.

Why on earth would they swim 25s at time trials if they were competing for a spot in 50s at the first A meet?

The debate is about swimming in the correct age group and then swimming up as the swimmer ages (ie an 8 year swims a 25m at time trials, ages up that week, then would need to swim
50m as a 9 yr old).

This scenario is so crazy it’s not even believable. The kid would obviously swim 50 m at time trials to get a seed time and to be ready for the meet. Stop trying to counter crazy with even crazier.

Time Trials is maybe not the best example since you could use an age up date as the first A meet. What about if kid ages up in between the first A meet and the second? Then they would have no times. Makes no sense and makes a ton of work. You have to use a consistent age up date as this is not USA swimming and these meets are run by parent volunteers and sometimes inexperienced coaches. Whoever is suggesting this is obviously one of those parents that likes to complain and not help at all.

I hate that this argument comes up year after year. A cutoff time is needed for such a short season, but these people pretending that June 1 is so much fairer than say August 1 crack me up. It’s 2 sides of the same coin, the only difference is whose kid will be disadvantaged. All meets are automated, there is no issue with age ups, you just set the software appropriately. All of our swimmers are in the system with their age as of the age up date. So we have 11 year olds that still show up in heat sheets as 10 since that was their age on June 1. If you went with age on the day of the meet the program would account for that, same with if you went with age as of August 1.

If June 1 and August 1 are equally fair, why change the rule that's been in place for years?

It's no big deal if a kid has just turned 11 and is racing in the 9-10 bracket because their birthday was after the cutoff date unless you're being ridiculously literal for the sake of being literal. The bracket is exactly two years in width. No one is more than 2 years older than any other swimmer, even if they are already 11 yo, as the youngest 9 yos are swimming in the 8u bracket.

--parent of kids who don't have a June or July birthday

+1

What's even more insane is that I have encountered parents who complain about the summer swim age cut off disadvantaging their kid with an April or may birthday but then they will redshirt that kid for school. Which for the record I have no issue with -- redshirt if you want and it makes sense for your kid. But it's nuts to me to go out of your way to make sure your kid starts kindergarten at 6 and change but then freak out because he will sometimes swim against a kid who is 9 years and 1 month in the 8u division of summer swim.

At that point it's really obvious that these people define "fair" as "rules that benefit my kid specifically" and "unfair" as anything that advantages any kid that isn't their kid specifically. It's not even worth engaging because it's such a self-serving argument that ignores all kinds of logistics and practicalities that actually dictate a lot of the rules around age cohorts (not making sure one person's child has an advantage for one short rec season).

Doesn't fairness around ages have to get defined that way? No matter what rule you use, there will be an oldest and a youngest. Parents with younger kids (who are overly involved enough to care) will say unfair, parents with older kids won't care

I mean -- not if you are an adult. I have a kid with an August birthday who is not redshirted and is often the youngest in class as well as anything grade based. This means often we have to manage a maturity gap around school and activities that can be tricky. It's just the straw she drew as a person and we drew as parents. I have never once in my life claimed it was "unfair" that this is how it is because it's not. It's just life. Some kids have learning disorders and some have mental health challenges. Some kids are very short or very tall or struggle with gaining weight or maintaining a healthy weight. That's life. As a parent you roll with it and parent the kid you have which in my case means I have to parent a kid who is often on the younger age of an age cohort and I have to do stuff other parents don't have to do to help her navigate that. Other parents are dealing with other stuff.

Whiny immature parents are the ones who get mad that they have to parent their kid through the sometimes frustrating but also normal experience of having to compete against someone older or bigger than they are. The fact that kids with spring birthdays are at a slight disadvantage in summer swim is probably GOOD for them because they have not often experienced being the youngest in their cohort but at some point in life they will be and now they can figure out how to deal with it. And then they won't be whiny babies when they are the youngest in their intern class or the least experienced member of the project team. They will understand how to navigate that situation.

So no "unfairness" is not inevitable when there are age cutoffs. It's only unfair if you have this sense of entitlement around never having to compete against someone a tiny bit older or bigger than you are. What my kid knows is that once you acclimate to working with people who are a bit older and bigger and more mature than you are you actually become better at whatever it is -- swimming or running or reading or playing games or whatever. It pushes you to work harder and you learn what is possible sooner. It's a gift. It's not "unfair".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing is funny because the majority of A meet/Divisional swimmers are in ages 9-15. You know what happens in this age range? Puberty. Your “man” 13 year old could swim next to a 14 year old who is half his height and weight. Should we revert to wrestling classes now? Height and weight determine what kids swim against each other? Let’s have girls share whether they have had their period? Because many girl swimmers plateau and then start to drop time around when they get their periods.

This whole thing is a joke. My young 9 year beat so many 10 (and 11) year olds in IM yesterday, she made All-Stars. And she’s tiny.

⬆️ This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And to add to my above scenario. what do you do to a relay if a swimmer ages up, in the now 2 weeks, between Relay Carnival and All Star relays? Kick them off the relay because they are now 11 or 13?

For so many reasons setting an age on a certain date for a short 7 week season absolutely makes sense.

One substitution is allowed.

so you are cool with kicking a kid off a relay because they aged up in between meets and never giving hem a change because the league also doesn't allow kids to swim up on a relay carnival relay.

what about my above with all stars? We remove kid from the all star meet if a kid has a fast time and aged up during the week between divisionals and all stars?

Sounds like another good reason to get rid of relay all stars and award medals based on the fastest relays from the 17 relay carnivals.

All so a kid, or rather, a parent with a May birthday kid can longer cry "how unfair". sounds logical.

[Anonymous]

The summer swim birthday rule is not unfair. And I say that as a May birthday kid who swims fast enough to make divisionals even when she's at the bottom of her age group. You need to take a look at the lessons your are teaching your child by crying about it being unfair. Congratulate them for their effort, support them if they want to work harder. But don't blame missing out on all stars on the age cut off. That's poor sportsmanship.

[Anonymous]

Kids also aren't clueless. Two kids with a May 15, 2014 birthday and a June 15, 2012 birthday will likely never swim in the same age group at the same time in a PVS meet but in NVSL they are competing head to head every other year. They notice these weird anomalies.

[Anonymous]

And people wonder why people get upset about trans athletes. Unfair birthday is nothing compared to born biologically with an advantage.

[Anonymous]

There has to be a cutoff date. Whatever it is, there is going to be someone who is the oldest in the group and someone who is the youngest. My kids have May and March birthdays so they are always amongst the youngest swimmers in their age group. It kind of stinks but what can you do? I was happy to learn that my 7 year old with a March birthday would be evaluated at a 7 year old in RMSC tryouts- for once he finally has an advantage! An acquaintance whose son has a September birthday was pissed he was being evaluated as an 8 year old. My view is he is finally the slightly disadvantaged one after always having the advantage of being the oldest - deal with it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has to be a cutoff date. Whatever it is, there is going to be someone who is the oldest in the group and someone who is the youngest. My kids have May and March birthdays so they are always amongst the youngest swimmers in their age group. It kind of stinks but what can you do? I was happy to learn that my 7 year old with a March birthday would be evaluated at a 7 year old in RMSC tryouts- for once he finally has an advantage! An acquaintance whose son has a September birthday was pissed he was being evaluated as an 8 year old. My view is he is finally the slightly disadvantaged one after always having the advantage of being the oldest - deal with it!

This totally makes sense. Your 7 year old will be 7 throughout the short course season. Your friend's kid will be 8 throughout the short course season. How does RMSC handle the kids who age up during the short course season (September - March)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On our team, in the younger ages, most of the divisionals swimmers were swimming in the “wrong” age group. 11 year olds swimming as 9/10. 9 year olds swimming as 8&under. In the older kids, many of those dominating came back from college to swim a final year.

This rule was literally cooked up in a back room by the parents of summer birthday kids. It should be done away with. We follow USA Swimming rules for everything else. We should for aging up as well.

I was curious if this is even true. So lets look at the NVSL results for divisional in the top 3 divisions for boys 9/10

Division 1 Freestyle: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old placed 2nd
Division 2 Freestyle: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds placed 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
Division 3 Freestyle: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Division 1 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 yard old finished 1st!
Division 2 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd and 4th
Division 3 Backstroke: 2/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd

Division 1 Breaststroke: 4/12 are 9 year olds
Division 2 Breaststroke: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, 6th!
Division 3 Breaststroke: 1/12 is 9 years old

Division 1 Fly: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 5th
Division 2 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 5th!
Division 3 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 1st!

Division 1 IM: 6/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 3rd!
Division 2 IM: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, and 5th!
Division 3 IM: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Doesn't seem like "over age" (which is not the right term anyway) are dominating 9/10 boys. 9 year olds won 4/15 events.

Seems like this is a non issue.

Not sure this assessment is completely accurate. Looking at the 9 year olds (a few of whom are actually 10, but are considered 9 because of the summer cutoff), these kids are actually swimming in the RIGHT age group. What would be a better assessment is looking at the 10 year olds in the 9-10 age group, some of which are actually competing when their true age is 11.

An example of this is looking at club swimmers who do long course over the summer (which makes you swim your true age). There are some club swimmers whose times are just okay, but are impressive for summer league because of the age advantage.

You completely missed the point. Those 9 year olds (even if they are now 10) are not "over age" by your wacky definition. But they still did well in divisionals. You originally claimed that divisionals was dominated by over age kids. It clearly is not because 9 year olds won quite a few events in the top 3 divisions and placed in the top 6 in many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has to be a cutoff date. Whatever it is, there is going to be someone who is the oldest in the group and someone who is the youngest. My kids have May and March birthdays so they are always amongst the youngest swimmers in their age group. It kind of stinks but what can you do? I was happy to learn that my 7 year old with a March birthday would be evaluated at a 7 year old in RMSC tryouts- for once he finally has an advantage! An acquaintance whose son has a September birthday was pissed he was being evaluated as an 8 year old. My view is he is finally the slightly disadvantaged one after always having the advantage of being the oldest - deal with it!

This totally makes sense. Your 7 year old will be 7 throughout the short course season. Your friend's kid will be 8 throughout the short course season. How does RMSC handle the kids who age up during the short course season (September - March)?

RMSC uses December 6 as the cutoff for minis vs non minis - if your kid turns 9 before December 6 they are not eligible for a minis slot.

http://rmscswimming.com/rmsc-20242025-season-tryout-information-montgomery-county-sites-copy

Most clubs have a similar age cutoff date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On our team, in the younger ages, most of the divisionals swimmers were swimming in the “wrong” age group. 11 year olds swimming as 9/10. 9 year olds swimming as 8&under. In the older kids, many of those dominating came back from college to swim a final year.

This rule was literally cooked up in a back room by the parents of summer birthday kids. It should be done away with. We follow USA Swimming rules for everything else. We should for aging up as well.

I was curious if this is even true. So lets look at the NVSL results for divisional in the top 3 divisions for boys 9/10

Division 1 Freestyle: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old placed 2nd
Division 2 Freestyle: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds placed 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
Division 3 Freestyle: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Division 1 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 yard old finished 1st!
Division 2 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd and 4th
Division 3 Backstroke: 2/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd

Division 1 Breaststroke: 4/12 are 9 year olds
Division 2 Breaststroke: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, 6th!
Division 3 Breaststroke: 1/12 is 9 years old

Division 1 Fly: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 5th
Division 2 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 5th!
Division 3 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 1st!

Division 1 IM: 6/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 3rd!
Division 2 IM: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, and 5th!
Division 3 IM: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Doesn't seem like "over age" (which is not the right term anyway) are dominating 9/10 boys. 9 year olds won 4/15 events.

Seems like this is a non issue.

Not sure this assessment is completely accurate. Looking at the 9 year olds (a few of whom are actually 10, but are considered 9 because of the summer cutoff), these kids are actually swimming in the RIGHT age group. What would be a better assessment is looking at the 10 year olds in the 9-10 age group, some of which are actually competing when their true age is 11.

An example of this is looking at club swimmers who do long course over the summer (which makes you swim your true age). There are some club swimmers whose times are just okay, but are impressive for summer league because of the age advantage.

You completely missed the point. Those 9 year olds (even if they are now 10) are not "over age" by your wacky definition. But they still did well in divisionals. You originally claimed that divisionals was dominated by over age kids. It clearly is not because 9 year olds won quite a few events in the top 3 divisions and placed in the top 6 in many others.

Current age of top 2 All-Star seeds from NVSL Divisionals, by event as determined by USAS databases. In most cases, it's the oldest of the best swimmers who get the glory.

8&u boys - 25 Free
1(t). 9.1
1(t). 8.9

8&u boys - 25 Back
1. 8.7
2. 9.1

8&u boys - 25 Breast
1. unknown
2. unknown

8&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 8.1
2. unknown


10&u boys - 50 Free
1. 10.9
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 50 Back
1. 10.7
2. 10.9

10&u boys - 50 Breast
1. 11.0
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 10.9
2. 10.3

10&u boys - 100 IM
1. 11.1
2. 10.7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On our team, in the younger ages, most of the divisionals swimmers were swimming in the “wrong” age group. 11 year olds swimming as 9/10. 9 year olds swimming as 8&under. In the older kids, many of those dominating came back from college to swim a final year.

This rule was literally cooked up in a back room by the parents of summer birthday kids. It should be done away with. We follow USA Swimming rules for everything else. We should for aging up as well.

I was curious if this is even true. So lets look at the NVSL results for divisional in the top 3 divisions for boys 9/10

Division 1 Freestyle: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old placed 2nd
Division 2 Freestyle: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds placed 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
Division 3 Freestyle: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Division 1 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 yard old finished 1st!
Division 2 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd and 4th
Division 3 Backstroke: 2/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd

Division 1 Breaststroke: 4/12 are 9 year olds
Division 2 Breaststroke: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, 6th!
Division 3 Breaststroke: 1/12 is 9 years old

Division 1 Fly: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 5th
Division 2 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 5th!
Division 3 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 1st!

Division 1 IM: 6/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 3rd!
Division 2 IM: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, and 5th!
Division 3 IM: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Doesn't seem like "over age" (which is not the right term anyway) are dominating 9/10 boys. 9 year olds won 4/15 events.

Seems like this is a non issue.

Not sure this assessment is completely accurate. Looking at the 9 year olds (a few of whom are actually 10, but are considered 9 because of the summer cutoff), these kids are actually swimming in the RIGHT age group. What would be a better assessment is looking at the 10 year olds in the 9-10 age group, some of which are actually competing when their true age is 11.

An example of this is looking at club swimmers who do long course over the summer (which makes you swim your true age). There are some club swimmers whose times are just okay, but are impressive for summer league because of the age advantage.

You completely missed the point. Those 9 year olds (even if they are now 10) are not "over age" by your wacky definition. But they still did well in divisionals. You originally claimed that divisionals was dominated by over age kids. It clearly is not because 9 year olds won quite a few events in the top 3 divisions and placed in the top 6 in many others.

Current age of top 2 All-Star seeds from NVSL Divisionals, by event as determined by USAS databases. In most cases, it's the oldest of the best swimmers who get the glory.

8&u boys - 25 Free
1(t). 9.1
1(t). 8.9

8&u boys - 25 Back
1. 8.7
2. 9.1

8&u boys - 25 Breast
1. unknown
2. unknown

8&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 8.1
2. unknown


10&u boys - 50 Free
1. 10.9
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 50 Back
1. 10.7
2. 10.9

10&u boys - 50 Breast
1. 11.0
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 10.9
2. 10.3

10&u boys - 100 IM
1. 11.1
2. 10.7

I think the fact that all those kids show up in USAS is a sign that the actual unfair advantage comes from kids who swim club.

15/18 kids have that unfair advantage. Maybe we should ban them.

[Anonymous]

I guess older kids really flourish in breaststroke. Age of NVSL All Star qualifiers in 9-10 boys 50 breaststroke ..

1. 11.0
2. 11.0
3. 11.1
4. 10.7
5. 11.1
6. 10.8

.. the average age of the top heat is 11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On our team, in the younger ages, most of the divisionals swimmers were swimming in the “wrong” age group. 11 year olds swimming as 9/10. 9 year olds swimming as 8&under. In the older kids, many of those dominating came back from college to swim a final year.

This rule was literally cooked up in a back room by the parents of summer birthday kids. It should be done away with. We follow USA Swimming rules for everything else. We should for aging up as well.

I was curious if this is even true. So lets look at the NVSL results for divisional in the top 3 divisions for boys 9/10

Division 1 Freestyle: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old placed 2nd
Division 2 Freestyle: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds placed 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
Division 3 Freestyle: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Division 1 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 yard old finished 1st!
Division 2 Backstroke: 4/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd and 4th
Division 3 Backstroke: 2/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 2nd

Division 1 Breaststroke: 4/12 are 9 year olds
Division 2 Breaststroke: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, 6th!
Division 3 Breaststroke: 1/12 is 9 years old

Division 1 Fly: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 5th
Division 2 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 5th!
Division 3 Fly: 5/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 1st!

Division 1 IM: 6/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st and 3rd!
Division 2 IM: 7/12 are 9 years old. 9 year olds finished 1st, 3rd, and 5th!
Division 3 IM: 3/12 are 9 years old. 9 year old finished 3rd

Doesn't seem like "over age" (which is not the right term anyway) are dominating 9/10 boys. 9 year olds won 4/15 events.

Seems like this is a non issue.

Not sure this assessment is completely accurate. Looking at the 9 year olds (a few of whom are actually 10, but are considered 9 because of the summer cutoff), these kids are actually swimming in the RIGHT age group. What would be a better assessment is looking at the 10 year olds in the 9-10 age group, some of which are actually competing when their true age is 11.

An example of this is looking at club swimmers who do long course over the summer (which makes you swim your true age). There are some club swimmers whose times are just okay, but are impressive for summer league because of the age advantage.

You completely missed the point. Those 9 year olds (even if they are now 10) are not "over age" by your wacky definition. But they still did well in divisionals. You originally claimed that divisionals was dominated by over age kids. It clearly is not because 9 year olds won quite a few events in the top 3 divisions and placed in the top 6 in many others.

Current age of top 2 All-Star seeds from NVSL Divisionals, by event as determined by USAS databases. In most cases, it's the oldest of the best swimmers who get the glory.

8&u boys - 25 Free
1(t). 9.1
1(t). 8.9

8&u boys - 25 Back
1. 8.7
2. 9.1

8&u boys - 25 Breast
1. unknown
2. unknown

8&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 8.1
2. unknown


10&u boys - 50 Free
1. 10.9
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 50 Back
1. 10.7
2. 10.9

10&u boys - 50 Breast
1. 11.0
2. 11.0

10&u boys - 25 Fly
1. 10.9
2. 10.3

10&u boys - 100 IM
1. 11.1
2. 10.7

I think the fact that all those kids show up in USAS is a sign that the actual unfair advantage comes from kids who swim club.

15/18 kids have that unfair advantage. Maybe we should ban them.

Yes, that’s what is so laughable about this entire thread. The random kid with the June birthday that only swims during the summer in the RECREATIONAL league is not the kid with the unfair advantage, it’s the kid swimming 3-5 days per week the other 47 weeks of the year!

I did not complain that all the kids ahead of mine at divisionals were crazy fast and seeded in the top 10/top 20 in the 12U championships. I thought it was amazing my kid who swims only in the summer could keep pace fairly well and outswam their seed and placed higher than they should have. They were really proud of that as well.