Anonymous wrote:How do virtual meets work? Do they take the best times from the season across all events, or is it the best meet from Team A vs the best meet from Team B? This is new to me, just curious. Thanks.

You can tinker with it here:

https://www.mynvsl.com/virtual-meet

How do virtual meets work? Do they take the best times from the season across all events, or is it the best meet from Team A vs the best meet from Team B? This is new to me, just curious. Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My trouble with using virtual meet is with the jump to the next age range and relays. OKM had 75% of their best swimmers in their “down” year. This affects relays (look at the differences between placement at ASRs in 2023 v 2025), which largely affects scores. The other factor is always the young swimmers who start swimming club this year. By Feb/Mar, club times tell a lot for the young ones. One example is a little girl on Langley who was good at 7 but now is superb, ostensibly because she started swimming club.

The team rep survey asks about this factor too. The reality is the seeding committee does the best they can with the info they have, but it's an inexact science. Families leave after seedings are determined, kids come out of nowhere to become high point scorers, coaching changes help or hurt some teams, etc. The fact that most meets are competitive despite those limitations suggests the seeding committee is generally doing a good job.

+1 to the above. Seeding committee generally does a great job.

I'm a former rep and a few years ago we explained in a survey that we were losing 4 of our top point getters due to graduation or moving. A few others were moving up an age group and so were likely to be less competitive the following year. That year we also had a number of very close meets that could have gone either way given a different outcome in just two or three events. That's far different from a series of wins or losses by 40pts or more.

We didn't get to demand where we wanted to be but we offered insight into why we thought the best option was to move us up or down or stay where we were.

Anonymous wrote:My trouble with using virtual meet is with the jump to the next age range and relays. OKM had 75% of their best swimmers in their “down” year. This affects relays (look at the differences between placement at ASRs in 2023 v 2025), which largely affects scores. The other factor is always the young swimmers who start swimming club this year. By Feb/Mar, club times tell a lot for the young ones. One example is a little girl on Langley who was good at 7 but now is superb, ostensibly because she started swimming club.

The team rep survey asks about this factor too. The reality is the seeding committee does the best they can with the info they have, but it's an inexact science. Families leave after seedings are determined, kids come out of nowhere to become high point scorers, coaching changes help or hurt some teams, etc. The fact that most meets are competitive despite those limitations suggests the seeding committee is generally doing a good job.

Anonymous wrote:My trouble with using virtual meet is with the jump to the next age range and relays. OKM had 75% of their best swimmers in their “down” year. This affects relays (look at the differences between placement at ASRs in 2023 v 2025), which largely affects scores. The other factor is always the young swimmers who start swimming club this year. By Feb/Mar, club times tell a lot for the young ones. One example is a little girl on Langley who was good at 7 but now is superb, ostensibly because she started swimming club.

Edit: *2023 v 2024

My trouble with using virtual meet is with the jump to the next age range and relays. OKM had 75% of their best swimmers in their “down” year. This affects relays (look at the differences between placement at ASRs in 2023 v 2025), which largely affects scores. The other factor is always the young swimmers who start swimming club this year. By Feb/Mar, club times tell a lot for the young ones. One example is a little girl on Langley who was good at 7 but now is superb, ostensibly because she started swimming club.

DP - make that 90 more points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

But the seeding survey asks what division you think you should be in, and NVSL can weigh that answer heavily in their decision.

Also, the factor that folks aren’t discussing are the virtual meets. The seeding survey asks which meet was most representative of your team and then they can use those meets to run virtual meets between teams. I understand that those results can heavily sway the seeding committee.

And, based on the virtual meet, OKM would have won in a head-to-head matchup with CP on Saturday. Barring an unusual number of departures by points scorers, another factor in the team rep survey, they'll stay in D1.

But based on virtual meet OKM would’ve lost to Langley on Saturday.

Promoting Langley over Crosspointe would be a tough sell given Crosspointe racked up nearly 90 total points. OKM also comes out ahead of Langley in 3 of 5 dual meets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

But the seeding survey asks what division you think you should be in, and NVSL can weigh that answer heavily in their decision.

Also, the factor that folks aren’t discussing are the virtual meets. The seeding survey asks which meet was most representative of your team and then they can use those meets to run virtual meets between teams. I understand that those results can heavily sway the seeding committee.

If virtual meets really matter, we should see Ravensworth Farm (D8) make a big jump. They are very STRONG against the adjacent division champions.

vs. D4 champion; Ravensworth Farm 209 - Little Hunting Park 206
vs. D5 champion; Ravensworth Farm 212 - Pinecrest 208
vs. D6 champion; Ravensworth Farm 236 - Fairfax 184
vs. D7 co-champion; Ravensworth Farm 223 - Rolling Hills 197
vs. D7 co-champion; Ravensworth Farm 243 - Parklawn 177

* All virtual meets based on July 13, 2024 results

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

But the seeding survey asks what division you think you should be in, and NVSL can weigh that answer heavily in their decision.

Also, the factor that folks aren’t discussing are the virtual meets. The seeding survey asks which meet was most representative of your team and then they can use those meets to run virtual meets between teams. I understand that those results can heavily sway the seeding committee.

And, based on the virtual meet, OKM would have won in a head-to-head matchup with CP on Saturday. Barring an unusual number of departures by points scorers, another factor in the team rep survey, they'll stay in D1.

But based on virtual meet OKM would’ve lost to Langley on Saturday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

But the seeding survey asks what division you think you should be in, and NVSL can weigh that answer heavily in their decision.

Also, the factor that folks aren’t discussing are the virtual meets. The seeding survey asks which meet was most representative of your team and then they can use those meets to run virtual meets between teams. I understand that those results can heavily sway the seeding committee.

And, based on the virtual meet, OKM would have won in a head-to-head matchup with CP on Saturday. Barring an unusual number of departures by points scorers, another factor in the team rep survey, they'll stay in D1.

Anonymous wrote:Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

But the seeding survey asks what division you think you should be in, and NVSL can weigh that answer heavily in their decision.

Also, the factor that folks aren’t discussing are the virtual meets. The seeding survey asks which meet was most representative of your team and then they can use those meets to run virtual meets between teams. I understand that those results can heavily sway the seeding committee.

Teams do not decide if they get to move up or down. They fill out a seeding survey. The NVSL determines who moves up or down. You find out at the seeding meeting. OKM or some other team doesn't get to "decline" to be in division 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any moves predicted in d4-6?

Here’s a wild guess of what you will see in D4-6. Some of the lower 1/3rd teams in each division will slide down a peg or two and some of the upper 1/3rd teams in each division will move up a peg or two. Plus, because most D6 stunk, the bottom half of that division will fall out to make room for the top teams from D7/8 and perhaps D9 to move into the D4-6 range.

This is the generally safe bet across most divisions. Top one or two teams are likely to move up by one or two spots. Bottom team(s) likely to drop one or two spots. The team rep surveys also matter since they provide some context for the following year that the seeding committee takes into account.

I think it comes down to whether OKM wants to stay in D1. Word of mouth in D1 earlier in the season was that OKM decision makers wanted very much to be there but a season of straight losses can’t be fun. Especially knowing that they’d be in for the same thing next year.

Langley was the sacrificial lamb a few years ago; maybe it’s Crosspointe’s turn if OKM declines next year.