NCAP Tysons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

Incorrect information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

Incorrect information.

Not really sure what’s incorrect. There are 13 year olds in Silver 1 at MU that don’t have sectional cuts. There are 13 year olds at our site without sectional cuts that are in our highest Silver group. At our site when you are 15, if you don’t have the sectional cuts needed to go to Gold 1 then you go to Gold 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

Incorrect information.

Not really sure what’s incorrect. There are 13 year olds in Silver 1 at MU that don’t have sectional cuts. There are 13 year olds at our site without sectional cuts that are in our highest Silver group. At our site when you are 15, if you don’t have the sectional cuts needed to go to Gold 1 then you go to Gold 2.

That may be your site bit that has not been true at MU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

Incorrect information.

Not really sure what’s incorrect. There are 13 year olds in Silver 1 at MU that don’t have sectional cuts. There are 13 year olds at our site without sectional cuts that are in our highest Silver group. At our site when you are 15, if you don’t have the sectional cuts needed to go to Gold 1 then you go to Gold 2.

That may be your site bit that has not been true at MU.

Are you saying that MU takes kids without sectional cuts to Gold 1? And that is not going to happen anymore with the Tysons/MU merger at the Gold level? If that’s the case, that’s not a bad thing. I’m guessing the club wants their Gold 1 groups to be similarly competitive across the sites instead of West, GP and Claude Moore dominating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in G1 at MU. There are kids already in that group that don’t belong there and can’t make the intervals or barely make them.

It isn’t about swim faster. It seems that kids are being placed arbitrarily into one group or another.

That is a problem.

Disagree. I have a G1 at MU and all but one or two are headed to Super Sectionals on Wednesday. It’s a strong, fast group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gold 2 is going to be a disaster. Too many kids. Zero interest in this. The old set up at MU was perfect. Too bad Tysons inability to have enough swimmers for an elite group ruined things.

TY does have enough- they have been training at MU for the last couple of years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But doesn't this all come down to who will coach the G2 group at Tysons next year? If Jeremy is at GP, and some other awesome coach comes in for G2 and gets these kids faster and keeps them passionate about the sport, that is worth the commute. Right?

I’m not an involved parent but that is some smoke you’re trying to blow up people’s arses. No one will have any idea what the new coach is like until the season actually starts. People pick clubs and sites based in large part on convenience and the G2 parents at MU kind of had the rug pulled out from under them and now have to scramble to figure out if schlepping their kid to Tyson’s works into their family schedule.

This. The current G2 coach at MU is great but it seems like the powers at be at NCAP are only interested in aligning their S1 kids to go directly to Gold1 at MU and could care less about their G2 kids. Who wants to pay top dollar when the message is clearly that your kid doesn’t matter. The S1 kids at NCAP that are moving up to G2 are very close and can easily go elsewhere and still train together and another Club will be happy to have them.

No where is the message your kid doesn’t matter. That is just your projection because you don’t like the decision because they dared inconvenienced you. You still got a great coach. Maybe the message to the Gold 1 swimmers is we care - we are going to create a stronger cohort that benefits both locations and more kids. Sorry in that inconveniences you for a year.

How do you know if my kid got a great coach or not? And even if they do, they already had him, and a strong training group, at a much closer and nicer facility. The only winners in this scenario are the Gold 1 kids.

Because the emails states they will be coached by the same MU coach they have now. Yes, absolutely it is an inconvenience to drive father but your child will have other strong swimmers joining them from TY making an overall stronger group than they have now - ultimately benefiting your swimmer where it matters most (not the facilities). Yes, it benefits Gold 1 but Tyson kids moving to MU will have the same inconvenience you are complaining about. I’m sure they would love to have Chris/John train at TY but understand no matter what location is picked, someone will be inconvenienced.

Thanks Spencer! My kid already had a strong training group at MU. Why not admit that this decision is all about the fact that you could not form a Gold 1 group at Tysons and needed to fill lane space with the MU kids.

Ha! I assure you I’m not Spencer. Just a parent impacted by all this too. Sure TY could bring their Gold PM back to TY but what purpose would that serve given the two groups training together make a better cohort of strong swimmers and have been doing so for awhile now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If swimmers do not have sectionals cuts, they should not be in G1

That is awfully snobby. Are you saying that if a kid is fast and can handle the workouts they should be shut out? What if they are only fast in one stroke and struggle at practices in anything else? What if they are .01 from a cut? Deciding placement on one factor is stupid.

Because they are 13???

If the swimmer is fast, then why don’t they have sectional cuts?

For the purposes of this thread about Tyson’s/MU (although it applies to other sites too) you can be 13 and in Silver 1, there is no issue with anyone being 13 and not having a sectional cut. It’s when you are 15 and haven’t hit a sectional cut yet that you find yourself looking at Gold 2.

Incorrect information.

Not really sure what’s incorrect. There are 13 year olds in Silver 1 at MU that don’t have sectional cuts. There are 13 year olds at our site without sectional cuts that are in our highest Silver group. At our site when you are 15, if you don’t have the sectional cuts needed to go to Gold 1 then you go to Gold 2.

That may be your site bit that has not been true at MU.

Are you saying that MU takes kids without sectional cuts to Gold 1? And that is not going to happen anymore with the Tysons/MU merger at the Gold level? If that’s the case, that’s not a bad thing. I’m guessing the club wants their Gold 1 groups to be similarly competitive across the sites instead of West, GP and Claude Moore dominating.

Agree. Hopefully they use this merge to reset the groups. Of course there will be angry parents when kids get moved down, but having transparency about the criteria would help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kid is in G1 at MU. There are kids already in that group that don’t belong there and can’t make the intervals or barely make them.

It isn’t about swim faster. It seems that kids are being placed arbitrarily into one group or another.

That is a problem.

Disagree. I have a G1 at MU and all but one or two are headed to Super Sectionals on Wednesday. It’s a strong, fast group.

I think the point is there shouldn’t be anyone in a Gold 1 group that is not qualified for Super Sectionals, you only need 1 cut to swim a full meet there. There are Silver swimmers at MU and other sites that are competing at Super Sectionals.

[Anonymous]

Some of these comments are off. My son swims in the Gold 1 group at MU and does not have a sectional cut. I'm fairly sure a handful of kids are not going to the Super Sectional meet... not just 1 or 2.

I'm not sure how anyone knows which kids in the group 'do not make intervals' unless they interrogate their kids about practice... which is weird/ toxic. As far as I know, the coaches like him and he does fine at practice. And if he's the worst one in the group, so be it. I've observed Chris watch and talk to him before and after his races regardless of seed or outcome.

In my estimation, what puts you in Gold 1 (or any group really) is capacity, current times and most critically, projected times. Is the swimmer a good or poor workout swimmer? I just don't understand what I infer as 'status' or this odd obsession about a kid being in Gold 1 or whatever group. It's silly. Relax and let your kids enjoy the sport.

[Anonymous]

I think people are upset that MU had a solid core of Silver 1 swimmers this year. Some are ready to make the jump to Gold 1 and some are not. Those who are being shipped off to Tysons are rightfully angry as inaccurate information on coaching has been given and not much thought about the development of this group of swimmers has been given. No one wants to pay 5,000 a year to be an after thought. If I was a parent of a Gold 1 swimmer I would be very happy with the changes but as a parent of a Gold 2 parent I would have a lot of reservations about the switch. Small things like dryland training have not even been communicated yet while Gold 1 gets a gym membership….

[Anonymous]

I’d like to know why Gold 1 only pays 500 dollars more than Gold 2 but has morning and afternoon options, more practices per week, longer practices, full time coaches at every practice, and a partnership with a gym? Is Gold 2 funding Gold 1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d like to know why Gold 1 only pays 500 dollars more than Gold 2 but has morning and afternoon options, more practices per week, longer practices, full time coaches at every practice, and a partnership with a gym? Is Gold 2 funding Gold 1?

Yes. As do the other group. At NCap it’s a pyramid scheme- a huge group of kids who are likely ignored or won’t go anywhere subsidize the careers of an elite few

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of these comments are off. My son swims in the Gold 1 group at MU and does not have a sectional cut. I'm fairly sure a handful of kids are not going to the Super Sectional meet... not just 1 or 2.

I'm not sure how anyone knows which kids in the group 'do not make intervals' unless they interrogate their kids about practice... which is weird/ toxic. As far as I know, the coaches like him and he does fine at practice. And if he's the worst one in the group, so be it. I've observed Chris watch and talk to him before and after his races regardless of seed or outcome.

In my estimation, what puts you in Gold 1 (or any group really) is capacity, current times and most critically, projected times. Is the swimmer a good or poor workout swimmer? I just don't understand what I infer as 'status' or this odd obsession about a kid being in Gold 1 or whatever group. It's silly. Relax and let your kids enjoy the sport.

Will you be relaxed if you get told that your son is now Gold 2 and moving to Tysons?