Why doesn’t USA Swimming use cut-off dates like every other youth sport?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

Some meets do this already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

You could also compile your own age-adjusted results where you add somewhere on the order of 0.4% for each month beyond the minimum for the age group to compensate for differences in age (10 percent improvement over 2 years in pretty standard in the younger age groups). That way the results will rightfully reflect that a new 9 year old who swims the 50 free in 35 seconds "faster" than a 10 year and 11 month old who swam a 33 second 50 free (which would scale to about a 36 second on an age-adjusted basis). Or you could start at the top and subtract for the younger kids and really make them feel like superstars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

You could also compile your own age-adjusted results where you add somewhere on the order of 0.4% for each month beyond the minimum for the age group to compensate for differences in age (10 percent improvement over 2 years in pretty standard in the younger age groups). That way the results will rightfully reflect that a new 9 year old who swims the 50 free in 35 seconds "faster" than a 10 year and 11 month old who swam a 33 second 50 free (which would scale to about a 36 second on an age-adjusted basis). Or you could start at the top and subtract for the younger kids and really make them feel like superstars.

Why would you make up fake times? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

There are big meets all year round. I have swimmers with bdays at different times of the year. Their "big meets" are different, but they all have an opportunity to be the oldest.

There are not big meets all year round. For 99.99% of the swimmers, what big meets are there in Sept, Oct, Nov, Jan, Feb, April, or June?

What are all those swimmers doing for the other 5 months of the year?

Huh?

[Anonymous]

I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

You could also compile your own age-adjusted results where you add somewhere on the order of 0.4% for each month beyond the minimum for the age group to compensate for differences in age (10 percent improvement over 2 years in pretty standard in the younger age groups). That way the results will rightfully reflect that a new 9 year old who swims the 50 free in 35 seconds "faster" than a 10 year and 11 month old who swam a 33 second 50 free (which would scale to about a 36 second on an age-adjusted basis). Or you could start at the top and subtract for the younger kids and really make them feel like superstars.

Why would you make up fake times? That makes no sense.

NP. I think PP is pointing out that there are a million ways to slice up the data to accomplish what OP’s gripe is - that kids don’t get enough “credit” and chance for 10 year old glory due to the meet schedule. It doesn’t feel like the system is broken, so I don’t know why it should be fixed. Kids compete with 1 year age groups every time they get into the pool. Any of the other suggestions would still have kids that are the oldest and kids that are the youngest in the same group, except with the added distraction and confusion that they are not actually the same age in years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

This is really overly complicated and USA Swimming is never going to change how they do age groups. Your age is your age, and every age has their moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that there is no fair way. There is just shifting who gets hit the most. For summer swim everyone with a may birthday has it hard. For sc champs, February. For lc champs, June. The only really possinly equitable answers are to make 1 year (instead of 2 year) brackets so that there is a 12 month window instead of 24 month and/or the LSC to step up and make some December LSC sanctioned champ meets that can allow the swimmers with first quarter birthdays to compete in “big meets”. Beyond that there is no functional change.

1 year brackets would make a pretty big difference. Unclear why they don't do this. They can even still swim heats in 2 year brackets and then break out the results by age.

You could also compile your own age-adjusted results where you add somewhere on the order of 0.4% for each month beyond the minimum for the age group to compensate for differences in age (10 percent improvement over 2 years in pretty standard in the younger age groups). That way the results will rightfully reflect that a new 9 year old who swims the 50 free in 35 seconds "faster" than a 10 year and 11 month old who swam a 33 second 50 free (which would scale to about a 36 second on an age-adjusted basis). Or you could start at the top and subtract for the younger kids and really make them feel like superstars.

Why would you make up fake times? That makes no sense.

NP. I think PP is pointing out that there are a million ways to slice up the data to accomplish what OP’s gripe is - that kids don’t get enough “credit” and chance for 10 year old glory due to the meet schedule. It doesn’t feel like the system is broken, so I don’t know why it should be fixed. Kids compete with 1 year age groups every time they get into the pool. Any of the other suggestions would still have kids that are the oldest and kids that are the youngest in the same group, except with the added distraction and confusion that they are not actually the same ages as the category suggests, ie there would he a handful of new 13 year olds in the 11/12 group

Pp - meant to say TWO year age groups.

[Anonymous]

I think this thread is summarized as follows:

85% of responders: The current system is perfect and makes perfect sense. No one is hurt by it bc there are championship meets all the time. Just like there are no “bad” swim birthdays, there are also no “good” swim birthdays. - signed parent of kid who doesn’t have a birthday in Feb or March (and possibly the last week in May)

15% of responders: The current system is terrible and makes no sense. It unfairly hurts the kids born in Feb and March (and possibly the last week in May). “Bad” and “good” swim birthdays are a real thing and the “bad” ones suck. signed parent of kid who has a birthday in Feb or March (and maybe the last week of May)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

This is actually a very good system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

This is actually a very good system.

Eh, it still would lead to some absurd results. I have a kid who would “benefit” from this system for the LC champs in July. But it would have been kind of absurd for them to compete in the 10 and under group at age 11 with their 11-12 cuts. They would have won more than 1 event but everyone would have been complaining about that kid is actually 11. There are reasons for the summer swim cutoff that just aren’t applicable in a year round system. And I don’t mean this in a nasty way, but comparing YMCA league to USA swimming is really not an equivalent comparison.

[Anonymous]

The current system can produce really wacky results when the champs meets are held on different dates in different years. We have a boy with a March 13 birthday on our team. Last year, PVS champs was March 9-12, so he competed as 11 year old. This year, PVS champs is March 14-17, so he'll have to compete as a 13 year old (and probably won't make any cuts). The kid never gets a chance to compete as a 12 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

This is actually a very good system.

Eh, it still would lead to some absurd results. I have a kid who would “benefit” from this system for the LC champs in July. But it would have been kind of absurd for them to compete in the 10 and under group at age 11 with their 11-12 cuts. They would have won more than 1 event but everyone would have been complaining about that kid is actually 11. There are reasons for the summer swim cutoff that just aren’t applicable in a year round system. And I don’t mean this in a nasty way, but comparing YMCA league to USA swimming is really not an equivalent comparison.

It is way less absurd to have a kid who is 11+3 months competing against kids who are 10+3 months than it is to have kids who are 11+1 month competing against kids who are 12+11 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there would be benefit to all age group swimmers if they broke the swim year into thirds based on each championship and utilized cutoffs to allow swimmers to train with their appropriate age group and compete in the championship for that segment of the season with the same group. For example, age as of Oct. 1 remains through December champs, age as of January 1 remains through March champs, age as of May 1 remains through LC champs. Solves so many problems and disadvantages no one, and avoids the lunacy of throwing a kid from a meet whose birthday is the day before the first day of competition. This is the way YMCA (non-USA) swim teams do it, and it works perfectly.

This is actually a very good system.

Eh, it still would lead to some absurd results. I have a kid who would “benefit” from this system for the LC champs in July. But it would have been kind of absurd for them to compete in the 10 and under group at age 11 with their 11-12 cuts. They would have won more than 1 event but everyone would have been complaining about that kid is actually 11. There are reasons for the summer swim cutoff that just aren’t applicable in a year round system. And I don’t mean this in a nasty way, but comparing YMCA league to USA swimming is really not an equivalent comparison.

It is way less absurd to have a kid who is 11+3 months competing against kids who are 10+3 months than it is to have kids who are 11+1 month competing against kids who are 12+11 months.

Ok? I’m aware of this, my kid did it last summer. They went into LC season with the mindset that it was going to be rough to transition out of 10 and under but they worked hard and stayed really competitive in their best events even with the 12 years and 11 months kids. This is how swim is set up, in 2 year age bands, it’s the same for everyone.