Relay Carnival

[Anonymous]

Mclean ran a good meet but spectator viewing is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the compliments to McLean. Will share it with our super hard working Team reps! Sorry about our tiny viewing deck…we are working on that…..

[Anonymous]

Canterbury Woods did an excellent job in division 7. Only negative was the team viewing areas were behind the timers so it was really hard for the kids to cheer on their teammates

[Anonymous]

We've been to many meets at Mclean. You could consider having viewing behind diving boards in that grassy area and along the deck. Or set up bleachers by the picnic tables. It's super fun to sit along the pool just hardly any spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Yes. Club swim, everything posted almost immediately. It’s not the 1950s anymore and everything is electronic. Lack of transparency from NVSL is concerning.

I don’t think it’s lack of transparency as much as a reluctance to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

I’m pretty sure a NVSL official stopped anyone who was posting to meet mobile last night. A few divisions started too and then stopped after a few events. This happened to us at divisionals last year. We were posting to meet mobile until an NVSL official came over and shut it down

So ridiculous! Our Division results were sent out already as I’m sure others were. There has to be a better way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

I’m pretty sure a NVSL official stopped anyone who was posting to meet mobile last night. A few divisions started too and then stopped after a few events. This happened to us at divisionals last year. We were posting to meet mobile until an NVSL official came over and shut it down

So ridiculous! Our Division results were sent out already as I’m sure others were. There has to be a better way!

Better in whose mind? NVSL likes how they do this. They like the suspense of everyone waiting for the announcement. They like all getting together and reviewing cards. It’s kind of like the white smoke when picking the Pope, of course there is another way to do it they just don’t want to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

I’m pretty sure a NVSL official stopped anyone who was posting to meet mobile last night. A few divisions started too and then stopped after a few events. This happened to us at divisionals last year. We were posting to meet mobile until an NVSL official came over and shut it down

So ridiculous! Our Division results were sent out already as I’m sure others were. There has to be a better way!

Better in whose mind? NVSL likes how they do this. They like the suspense of everyone waiting for the announcement. They like all getting together and reviewing cards. It’s kind of like the white smoke when picking the Pope, of course there is another way to do it they just don’t want to

And they are volunteering their time. Just let them do it their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Yes. Club swim, everything posted almost immediately. It’s not the 1950s anymore and everything is electronic. Lack of transparency from NVSL is concerning.

I don’t think it’s lack of transparency as much as a reluctance to change.

There is a culture that promotes a lack of transparency throughout NVSL. Our Division decided not to share meet sheets with times. Sigh. They way they guard these sheets is beyond stunning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

I’m pretty sure a NVSL official stopped anyone who was posting to meet mobile last night. A few divisions started too and then stopped after a few events. This happened to us at divisionals last year. We were posting to meet mobile until an NVSL official came over and shut it down

So ridiculous! Our Division results were sent out already as I’m sure others were. There has to be a better way!

Better in whose mind? NVSL likes how they do this. They like the suspense of everyone waiting for the announcement. They like all getting together and reviewing cards. It’s kind of like the white smoke when picking the Pope, of course there is another way to do it they just don’t want to

+1 Well said! lol It’s how we would do things before computers!

[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:
NVSL reviews all the cards to make sure the times are entered in correctly - hence the 24 hour rule.

I used to think that was silly but this year we have had numerous issues with times being entered wrong and needing to be corrected.

They could volunteer a lot less of their time if they updated their SOPs.
22 events * 102 teams = 2,244 cards! How many people at the NVSL level are reviewing each and every one of those cards? I thought each division was responsible for verifying data accuracy, at the meet, hence the position of verifier.

They review the top 50 or so in each stroke.

They are verified at the meet and then again at the meeting that division coordinators attend. Mistakes are found but that’s why they double check.

Last year 1:17.96 was good enough for 70th place in boys 9-10 100 free relay, while 1:07.70 was 8th place. The additional NVSL level review you are describing doesn't guard against the case where someone fat fingers 1:07.70 into 1:17.70 and sends a team that was rightfully 8th outside of the scope of review for determining which teams ultimately make ASR.

As a table chief, “fat fingering” should not occur because there are two verifiers who check what was entered by data entry matches the time cards.

So why the extra review by the league then?

I don’t know. NVSL seems archaic to some degree IMO. Not sure why you’d need a seeding meeting. Should be electronic at this point.

Especially since all the individual divisions have sent out the results already. We need to all move to Meet Mobile.

I’m pretty sure a NVSL official stopped anyone who was posting to meet mobile last night. A few divisions started too and then stopped after a few events. This happened to us at divisionals last year. We were posting to meet mobile until an NVSL official came over and shut it down

So ridiculous! Our Division results were sent out already as I’m sure others were. There has to be a better way!

Better in whose mind? NVSL likes how they do this. They like the suspense of everyone waiting for the announcement. They like all getting together and reviewing cards. It’s kind of like the white smoke when picking the Pope, of course there is another way to do it they just don’t want to

And they are volunteering their time. Just let them do it their way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Yes. Club swim, everything posted almost immediately. It’s not the 1950s anymore and everything is electronic. Lack of transparency from NVSL is concerning.

I don’t think it’s lack of transparency as much as a reluctance to change.

There is a culture that promotes a lack of transparency throughout NVSL. Our Division decided not to share meet sheets with times. Sigh. They way they guard these sheets is beyond stunning.

It's not your division- its literally in the NVSL recommended procedures not to include seed times. https://www.mynvsl.com/file/36493/2024_NVSL_Handbook_Web___clickable_TOC_pdf look at page 62 and on for recommended procedures. I disagree with it, but it is extremely engrained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Canterbury Woods did an excellent job in division 7. Only negative was the team viewing areas were behind the timers so it was really hard for the kids to cheer on their teammates

The spectator area was behind a sliding board - bleachers might have helped but most pools are not really designed for these big events in mind. They had great concessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s hard to imagine what all the fuss and secrecy is for when it should just be the top times.

Yes. Club swim, everything posted almost immediately. It’s not the 1950s anymore and everything is electronic. Lack of transparency from NVSL is concerning.

I don’t think it’s lack of transparency as much as a reluctance to change.

There is a culture that promotes a lack of transparency throughout NVSL. Our Division decided not to share meet sheets with times. Sigh. They way they guard these sheets is beyond stunning.

There are a lot of reasons not to share times in a rec league, using human timers, handwriting, and manual typing of entries. Teams want to guard their B meet times from other teams to help with seeding. Parents start second guessing coaches and who they put in races, when it is more to consider than just a time on a card.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canterbury Woods did an excellent job in division 7. Only negative was the team viewing areas were behind the timers so it was really hard for the kids to cheer on their teammates

The spectator area was behind a sliding board - bleachers might have helped but most pools are not really designed for these big events in mind. They had great concessions.

Yeah, we can't afford bleachers. 😂