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.

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.

What about a team with twins? Our pool has one age group with twins on the relay team

I actually know numerous teams with twins on relays.

I am sure poster will say- well they can change rule to sub more than 1 swimmer. but then someone will say that is unfair and not the original relay.

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.

What about a team with twins? Our pool has one age group with twins on the relay team

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?

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.

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.

For some background- prior to the rule change and setting a June 1 age cutoff the league DID have kids age up on their birthdays. They also had the policy that in order to use a time to swim at All Stars your time had to be sum in the age group you would swim in at All Stars. Meaning if a kid was 12 at divisionals and got an all star time that wouls qualify them in both the 11-12 and 13-14 age group they could not swim that event event in the 13-14 age group.

Now imagine they let them swim in the next age group even with an 11-12 yr old time. So on Divisional Saturday a 12 yr old gets a great time and result is in the 11-12 age group and make all stars. What If that time was also a qualifying time for the 13-14 group. They age up the following Friday do you now kick out kids who thought they made it as 13-14s because this other kid is now 13 and has a faster time? Seems like a seeding nightmare.

you may say this wouldn't happen but there were kids who, because of the previous rule, could only swim at All Stars every other year/the year they didn't age up. Hence the rule change so kids are one age during all 7 weeks of summer swim.

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

I’m not saying the rules should change either, but the people so vociferously supporting June 1 and crying that August 1 would be absolutely terrible and would put too much work on coaches and volunteers are being disingenuous. Both options disadvantage a small group of swimmers, but it’s a different small group of swimmers for each option. Neither option is actually fairer than the other.

Who has said that?

Everyone I have read who has something would be unfair to coaches and volunteers is talking about the idea of having kids age up on their birthday.

Changing to August 1 wouldn't be more or less fair, but doing it in response to some whiny parent whose is just trying to get their kid advantaged seems kind of wrong.

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

I’m not saying the rules should change either, but the people so vociferously supporting June 1 and crying that August 1 would be absolutely terrible and would put too much work on coaches and volunteers are being disingenuous. Both options disadvantage a small group of swimmers, but it’s a different small group of swimmers for each option. Neither option is actually fairer than the other.

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

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).

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

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.

They could get times at the longer distance in the first B meet. Not having times isn’t a real argument because there is an easy solution in every case.

Lots of low age winners throughout the MCSL who are actually the lower age.

It is super motivating to swim against older kids.

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.