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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wholeheartedly agree that the aging up on your actual birthday is the fairest. We have a january birthday- my kid rocked the december championship meets and is not back at the bottom of the age range and will not be swimming in JO's. Oh well- it happens, no big deal. I also fully disagree with the idea that the season is 'structured' around the JO competition- its not- its another meet. A fun, competitive meet, but its a meet. I find it frustrating for summer swim that basically all of our pool records are held by kids who are in fact 11 when they break the 9-10 record, etc. They all have June birthdays. Certainly wouldn't want to see USA swimming adopt that silly model- and I am confident that they won't.

Agreed. If anything, summer swim should follow USA Swimming rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

The reason USA Swimming has the rule that if you start the meet at one age you finish the meet at that age is because it would be a huge PITA for the host team to move kids from one age bracket to the next during the meet. Also you're talking about a couple days being unfair, while simultaneously arguing that USA Swimming should use some arbitrary cut off date during the year.

Are you the OP? It seems like your kid is just not that good if you are so wound up about this. I have a February birthday kid, and she works to make cuts for the next age group up so that she can swim the March meets, but she also dominates the December meets. Swimming is a year round sport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not the JO meet that matters. It’s zones. My kid ages up every year with a bad birthday. Just a few weeks later and this kid would make age group zones (and other travel meets) in the age up year.

First of all, zones is twice a year (spring and summer). Second, the age brackets are two years long, so even if your kid doesn't make it right after their b-day, they can make it the next year. If they can't make it the next year, they probably were not going to make it at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Sounds reasonable to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

The reason USA Swimming has the rule that if you start the meet at one age you finish the meet at that age is because it would be a huge PITA for the host team to move kids from one age bracket to the next during the meet. Also you're talking about a couple days being unfair, while simultaneously arguing that USA Swimming should use some arbitrary cut off date during the year.

Are you the OP? It seems like your kid is just not that good if you are so wound up about this. I have a February birthday kid, and she works to make cuts for the next age group up so that she can swim the March meets, but she also dominates the December meets. Swimming is a year round sport.

No, not OP. I'm arguing against the idea the system somehow more fair than a single cut-off date. It isn't. Any system is going to create winners and losers and you're going to get kids that have differences of nearly two years in age swimming against one another as long as the brackets span two years. But the idea that the current system is somehow more fair is pretty ridiculous. You don't suddenly become bigger and stronger on your birthday.

The main reason other sports use a single cut-off is that it would be very disruptive if kids were constantly aging out of a team so the members of the team would constantly be changing during the season as kids aged up. That rationale isn't quite as strong with swim because it's not a team sport, but it still does apply because teams train together by age group. My DD started the season in the 9-10 group and then started training with the 11-12 group in December after she turned 11 in Nov. That meant a whole new schedule and set of kids to swim with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Sounds reasonable to me!

Sure, if your kid is Adam who gets to trounce poor Johnnie who is two years younger. Then it's awesome. Not so awesome for Johnnie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Lol you do realize that in this scenario you have concocted, all the kids are actually just swimming in the age group for their actual age right? Johnny has to compete as an 11 year old on March 10 because he is in fact 11 years old. Adam competes as 12 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 12 years old on that date. You know what’s coming next, Mikey competes as an 10 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 10 years old on that date. How is this less fair in an individual sport than setting an arbitrary cutoff date that leads to a 13 and a half year old swimming in the 11-12 group at a champs meet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Lol you do realize that in this scenario you have concocted, all the kids are actually just swimming in the age group for their actual age right? Johnny has to compete as an 11 year old on March 10 because he is in fact 11 years old. Adam competes as 12 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 12 years old on that date. You know what’s coming next, Mikey competes as an 10 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 10 years old on that date. How is this less fair in an individual sport than setting an arbitrary cutoff date that leads to a 13 and a half year old swimming in the 11-12 group at a champs meet.

I am starting to come to the realization that some people think kids magically get an entire years' worth of size and strength on their actual birthday.

[Anonymous]

My kids bdays are August, January, and December. There are pros and cons to all bdays. If you ever start to worry too much, you can always remind yourself as I do, that the true phenoms are lightyears ahead of their peers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Lol you do realize that in this scenario you have concocted, all the kids are actually just swimming in the age group for their actual age right? Johnny has to compete as an 11 year old on March 10 because he is in fact 11 years old. Adam competes as 12 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 12 years old on that date. You know what’s coming next, Mikey competes as an 10 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 10 years old on that date. How is this less fair in an individual sport than setting an arbitrary cutoff date that leads to a 13 and a half year old swimming in the 11-12 group at a champs meet.

I am starting to come to the realization that some people think kids magically get an entire years' worth of size and strength on their actual birthday.

They don’t, but club swim is an individual sport with age group competition categories, not competition categories based on kids’ size and strength. Are you suggesting that kids’ size and strength need to be measured and only kids of similar size and strength should compete against each other regardless of age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Lol you do realize that in this scenario you have concocted, all the kids are actually just swimming in the age group for their actual age right? Johnny has to compete as an 11 year old on March 10 because he is in fact 11 years old. Adam competes as 12 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 12 years old on that date. You know what’s coming next, Mikey competes as an 10 year old on March 10th because he is in fact 10 years old on that date. How is this less fair in an individual sport than setting an arbitrary cutoff date that leads to a 13 and a half year old swimming in the 11-12 group at a champs meet.

I am starting to come to the realization that some people think kids magically get an entire years' worth of size and strength on their actual birthday.

They don’t, but club swim is an individual sport with age group competition categories, not competition categories based on kids’ size and strength. Are you suggesting that kids’ size and strength need to be measured and only kids of similar size and strength should compete against each other regardless of age?

The point of the age groups is to approximate that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

I think it’s fair in theory, but then the swim season shouldn’t be structured around very few championships where the same swimmers benefit from a fortunate birthday year after year.

Nothing is fair. Summer birthdays benefit greatly in summer league. Not fair to others. There are three championship times of year that a kid can excel. We have a kid that is 10 and ages up at the end of February and was able to make the 11-12 cuts for championships. That was the goal and she accomplished it.

New poster: that’s great but it doesn’t change the fact that the worst birthdays for most of swim is feb to mid March. This is especially true once you’re swimming against kids undergoing early puberty or who have a late birthday.

No one is saying that February to early March are good swim birthdays, but using actual birthdays is the most objectively fair way to decide when a kid ages up. An 11 year old or 13 year old cleaning up by swimming down at age group champs is not fair either.

It will never change…but a fairer way to do it is to end it based in mid august when swim ends for everyone. So the age you are as of 10/1 each year is how you will swim the year. Most on the fence kids then have through the March championship meets to make cuts or motivational times.

No, that is not a fairer way, the fairest way is the way they are doing it.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately the only way to make this "more fair" is to have smaller age groups - instead of the current 24 months (9-10, 11-12, 13-14) have 1 year or even 6 month brackets. Because as we all know, you can now have a 11y1d swimmer competing against a 12y364d swimmer in the same event - a 24 month difference. A reconciling would be to have the range be 6 months - 11y1d to 11y181d instead. But 1) there aren't always enough swimmers to flesh out a heat and then you have half empty heats which takes longer and then 2) you'd end giving out 4x as many medals etc. So unfortunately there isn't really a great solution for this that I can envision. Part of the problem is that the season is so long for the swimming (oct-apr or so) that it doesn't track well to have a singular cutoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think aging up on your birthday makes swimming the fairest sport out there.

It can't be anymore fair than that.

I think what OP doesn't like is that it's TOO fair - no potential ambiguity by which one could gain an unfair advantage.

Lol, what?

What could be more fair than competing the age you are at the time of competition, not the age you may have been at some point in the past?

No wiggle room, no ambiguity - you compete at your age.

It's so fair, it just may be too fair for OP because she is used to the the less fair ways that other sports determine age eligibility.

Is this actually a serious post? Let me help you out here. The JO's are March 10. Johnnie turns 11 on March 9, so he has to compete as an 11 year old. Adam turns 13 on March 11, so he competes as a 12 year old in the same races as Johnnie even though he is two years older. Mikey turns 11 on March 11, so he gets to compete as a 10-year old and doesn't have to compete against Johnnie even though he is older 2 days younger.

Sounds reasonable to me!

Sure, if your kid is Adam who gets to trounce poor Johnnie who is two years younger. Then it's awesome. Not so awesome for Johnnie.

But Johnnie will have the advantage for December champs when he is just a few months away from aging up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately the only way to make this "more fair" is to have smaller age groups - instead of the current 24 months (9-10, 11-12, 13-14) have 1 year or even 6 month brackets. Because as we all know, you can now have a 11y1d swimmer competing against a 12y364d swimmer in the same event - a 24 month difference. A reconciling would be to have the range be 6 months - 11y1d to 11y181d instead. But 1) there aren't always enough swimmers to flesh out a heat and then you have half empty heats which takes longer and then 2) you'd end giving out 4x as many medals etc. So unfortunately there isn't really a great solution for this that I can envision. Part of the problem is that the season is so long for the swimming (oct-apr or so) that it doesn't track well to have a singular cutoff.

You're right, the real source of the unfairness is the wide brackets and not the cut offs. There's a gigantic difference between a 11y1d and 12y364d kid in terms of physical development and you're going to have issues like that no matter what the cut off date is. I don't think it's really unsolvable though. You could make the brackets smaller and just swim kids together in heats when there aren't enough, but then produce the results by age. They do this in a lot of the mini meets where the 6-8s are in the same heats (and sometimes they even combine boys and girls heats), but then the results are Girls 8, Girls 7, and so on. One year brackets are also somewhat unfair (there's no perfect system), but a lot less so than the two year ones.