PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Times Post Tech Suit Ban?



jim thornton
February 27th, 2010, 02:21 PM
Do any of you guys who follow college swimming have a sense yet about the impact of the FINA tech suit ban is having on elite swimming times?

I tried looking up results this year and last year--I know the Championships haven't taken place yet for the top tier, but some big meet started Feb 17th (and is presumably over now)--but I just couldn't figure out how to find the data necessary to make a preliminary comparison.

Thanks.

Ahelee Sue Osborn
February 27th, 2010, 09:55 PM
Do any of you guys who follow college swimming have a sense yet about the impact of the FINA tech suit ban is having on elite swimming times?


There are already records being broken in the women's collegiate conference championships.
And at the high school level as well.

I think swimmers are looking to break records and improve times.
I don't hear them giving themselves excuses to swim slower because the record was set in a tech-suit.
I only hear excuses from individuals on deck and in the press who are not in the water training to improve.

What is that saying?
Something about, the individual spewing excuses for failure needs to get out of the way of the person getting the job done...

By the way, Julia Smit just broke her own NCAA 200 and 400 IM records. And Natalie Coughlin's 8 year old Pac10 Record in the 200 Back this weekend.

jim thornton
February 27th, 2010, 10:05 PM
I know that there will be individuals who emerge to do great things, but I am just wondering if, on average, the times are collectively going to stay the same, get a little worse, or who knows? improve.

Do you think the A and B time standards will be changed for next year?

Ahelee Sue Osborn
February 27th, 2010, 10:15 PM
Do you think the A and B time standards will be changed for next year?

Yes, I do think they will change...

It will take coaches and swimmers awhile to figure out how to build athleticism and train bodies to swim like they're wearing a tight and buoyant tech suit.

Speedo
February 28th, 2010, 08:17 AM
CAA Conference Championships were held at GMU this weekend-
http://www.nmnathletics.com/fls/8500/swimming_live/results/index.htm

I haven't looked at the results in detail, but I'd estimate that over 1/3 of the events had new conference records set, both male and female. Like the study that Chris posted, it seems that the suits are of more limited benefit to fast kids.

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 11:44 AM
The conference championships I followed were ACCs (for my alma mater) and A10s (since I know some of the UR swimmers).

Men ACCs: http://www.theacc.com/livestats/m-swim/
Women ACCs: http://www.theacc.com/livestats/c-swim/

A-10s (combined): http://www.star-meets.org/results/A-10/index.htm

I don't have any time to do a systematic study, but an effect didn't jump out at me for most people. I would expect the men to be more affected than the women, but I'm not sure that's the case.

In some cases, because of conference records and the like, you can directly compare without hunting up last year's results. For example, in the ACCs:

Men's 200 back: Andy Hodgson went 1:42.13 this year, 1:41.14 last year
Men's 400 IM: Gal Nevo went 3:40.47 this year, 3:39.33 last year.
Mens' 100 fly: Tommy Wyher went 45.57 this year, 46.21 last year.
Men's 100 back: Tommy Wyher went 46.08 this year, 46.41 last year.
Men's 100 free: Scot Robison went 42.42 this year, 42.89 last year.

Hardly apocalyptic changes. I'm guessing these people aren't going to be quitting swimming anytime soon because they are so discouraged by their poor performances.

But maybe the short sprint frees are most affected. I seem to remember there were a lot of people under 20.0 last year; this year there were only 3.

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 11:46 AM
I did the 1650 at Carnegie Mellon U. today and posed the question to the assistant coach. He said that it's hard to compare, especially for the guys, who get a little stronger and faster each year just from growth and more training experience under the belt.

With this as the backdrop, he said he thought the loss of the suits seems to affect the longer distance events more than the shorter ones.

It will be interesting to see what happens as more data filters in and the smoke clears.

Ahelee, I have the utmost respect for you. But I don't know if it's possible to train in a way that simulates body suits...athleticism and buoyancy, it seems to me , are contradictory, at least if you go by the old chestnut that muscle sinks and fat floats.

Going by this old chestnut, I have little problem with buoyancy per se. I have a decided problem with the jiggling of my buoyancy all over the place, and my lack of athleticism!

When you get hold of the "Ahelee's Revolutionary Training Techniques for Simulating Jaked Suits with Naked Flesh," I will be one of the first in line to buy a copy!

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 11:54 AM
I did the 1650 at Carnegie Mellon U. today and posed the question to the assistant coach. He said that it's hard to compare, especially for the guys, who get a little stronger and faster each year just from growth and more training experience under the belt.

Based on how the UR women swam, it seemed clear to me that some were about as fast (or faster) than last year with the suits (they wore LZRs), while some were slower. One person in particular, who is fast but is a little heavyset, was significantly slower this year; I remember wondering before the meet whether she would be in for a disappointing meet.

But without broad, systematic studies it is v hard to draw firm conclusions, to see if (or how far) the suit effect rises above the uncertainty. Some people have bad season-ending meets and in the past you'd shrug your shoulders and say s/he missed his/her taper. Now you have this extra factor.

Georgio
February 28th, 2010, 12:08 PM
Maybe something like this would "shave" a couple hundredths?
Skin Tight® Body Firming Lotion


Use the absolute strongest natural ingredients to tighten loose skin anywhere on the body including knees, stomach, elbows, legs, neck and more. Argireline®, Emu oil, hyaluronic acid, aloe vera, shea, green tea and more! Use on the neck to tighten and firm skin. Firm skin or tighten sagging skin with super strong skin firming ingredients!



(Recommended by plastic surgeons before resorting to plastic surgery) :cane:

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 12:38 PM
Are we making the assumption that the top masters swimmers can also improve at the rate of the top NCAA, USA-S and age group swimmers? Just curious on this one. . .

Ahelee Sue Osborn
February 28th, 2010, 01:23 PM
Are we making the assumption that the top masters swimmers can also improve at the rate of the top NCAA, USA-S and age group swimmers? Just curious on this one. . .

As a masters swimmer and coach I know that our swimmers and I do not train like NCAA, USA-S or age-group swimmers.
I don't compare myself or my times to those swimmer's achievements.

I do look to elite swimmers and their coaches for technique suggestions, training ideas and inspiration.
But life is completely different for most masters swimmers compared to our young athletes in school or racing professionally.

I like to think that USMS athletes condense and fine tune the best of ideas for our training and racing - and still swim pretty - and FAST as a result.

Ahelee Sue Osborn
February 28th, 2010, 01:35 PM
When you get hold of the "Ahelee's Revolutionary Training Techniques for Simulating Jaked Suits with Naked Flesh," I will be one of the first in line to buy a copy!

A few months ago, I relocated to start up a new masters swim team. I am training in the pool a lot less than normal and my pool workouts are not on the best track.

I enlisted the help of a CrossFit Coach in my new town and he is helping me build my athleticism.
I can swim, ride, and run but I'm not so great at pull-ups and other strength training.
While I'm unsure of any immediate fast swimming results, I have had good history of changing up my training and making improvements.

Keep your mind open.
Find ways to get stronger - and improve your technique to longer and longer spans of excellence.

Oh - and I plan to change my 5ft-10in body weight to sub 140...

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 03:18 PM
Are we making the assumption that the top masters swimmers can also improve at the rate of the top NCAA, USA-S and age group swimmers? Just curious on this one. . .

Well, the question of the OP was about NCAA times, not masters. Most will find out about the latter soon enough.

Also, I believe that -- with the notable exception of one university (causing bitter accusations of cheating from some forumites, as I recall) -- colleges did not use the latest and greatest suits: Jakeds and the like. Their last championship season was last Feb/Mar, after all; in other words, eons ago. I know the UR women all wore LZRs at A10s last year. Heck, they were practically obsolete by then.

College swimmers generally do not improve anywhere near the rate of age-groupers. I know of many (very fast) college swimmers who did not improve at all over their HS times, or only barely did so.

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 03:23 PM
Chris, for those who believed the benefit of the suits was primarily a placebo effect, I suppose they might suffer a nocebo effect upon suit withdrawal.

I am not that surprised that women's times, in particular, are not terribly effected because I believe the suits women are allowed to wear post-ban are almost as good as the suits pre-ban. I know Leslie will howl at this, but the loss of coverage from knee to ankle, and the loss of a zipper in the back (which means some loss of coverage in the back, too, and probably not as much overall compression) is significant, but in my mind, not that significant!

Ahelee, congratulations on your team formation out there in sunny California. I have no doubt your swimmers will prosper from your positive mental outlook on suit changes, no-whining philosophy, and adapted training regimen to resculpt flabby buoyant bodies into "human whippets that float" bodies.

Finally, Georgio, years ago I was assigned to do a story of the "science" of anti-cellulite cremes.

I don't remember that much other than you can make your own concoction for about $2 a tub. Just get some generic astringent, like witch hazel, and some cheap vegetable oil, and whip the two up into an ointment, then apply liberally.

The vegetable oil gets under your skin and (very) temporarily plumps the underlying fatty tissues up a little. Then the astringent tightens the skin itself.

The result: things look a little less dimpled with fat.

I am afraid, however, all of it would wash away within seconds of hitting the pool!

tjrpatt
February 28th, 2010, 05:10 PM
The conference championships I followed were ACCs (for my alma mater) and A10s (since I know some of the UR swimmers).


Wait a minute. Richmond changed conferences. Did they change the same time that American U did(I think in 00). Interesting.

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 05:43 PM
Oh - and I plan to change my 5ft-10in body weight to sub 140...

Wow! That's less than 1.5 points from being classified as underweight per the BMI index.

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 05:44 PM
Well, the question of the OP was about NCAA times, not masters. Most will find out about the latter soon enough.



True. But when posters start discussing their own personal height, weight, swimming goals and training patterns, I take that to mean anything goes.

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 05:54 PM
Wait a minute. Richmond changed conferences. Did they change the same time that American U did(I think in 00). Interesting.

Yes. Very controversial, they did it in the early 00's when we hired a new AD.

It was driven by basketball: the A10 was viewed (with some justification) as more likely to get at-large bids. The problem is that the CAA had all our local "rivals" like JMU, VCU and William and Mary. Now we play teams who are far away (adding to the budget, of course).

The ironic thing is that soon after, the CAA became much stronger. This was right around the time that (CAA member) George Mason made its memorable run to the Final Four.

Heartbreaking loss at Xavier today (by 2 in 2OT), but Richmond ought to be able to make the NCAA tournament this year as an at-large bid, unless they really crash and burn over their next 3 games.

From a swimming perspective, it wasn't a good move: the CAA was a stronger swimming conference at the time (I don't know about now, I haven't kept up). And there is the distance thing: I don't think UR swims ANY conference "rivals" in meets until they see them at A10s.

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 05:57 PM
True. But when posters start discussing their own personal height, weight, swimming goals and training patterns, I take that to mean anything goes.

I have my own comparison (http://forums.usms.org/blog.php?b=6948) which obviously applies to masters (though everyone is different), but I know how you feel about blogs. :)

tjrpatt
February 28th, 2010, 08:06 PM
Yes. Very controversial, they did it in the early 00's when we hired a new AD.

It was driven by basketball: the A10 was viewed (with some justification) as more likely to get at-large bids. The problem is that the CAA had all our local "rivals" like JMU, VCU and William and Mary. Now we play teams who are far away (adding to the budget, of course).

From a swimming perspective, it wasn't a good move: the CAA was a stronger swimming conference at the time (I don't know about now, I haven't kept up). And there is the distance thing: I don't think UR swims ANY conference "rivals" in meets until they see them at A10s.

Sounds very similar to why American U changed to A10. When I was in the CAA, James Madison and East Carolina had the great teams.

The Fortress
February 28th, 2010, 08:15 PM
I am not that surprised that women's times, in particular, are not terribly effected because I believe the suits women are allowed to wear post-ban are almost as good as the suits pre-ban. I know Leslie will howl at this, but the loss of coverage from knee to ankle, and the loss of a zipper in the back (which means some loss of coverage in the back, too, and probably not as much overall compression) is significant, but in my mind, not that significant!



But you're forgetting the most important dirty word all the purists use to describe tech suits -- rubber, rubber, rubber. That's more important than knee to ankle coverage. Women hate knee skins because they make us look fat and are extremely uncomfy on the thighs.

I'm sure the thinner swimmers will be less effected than those that could lose a few pounds.

I don't really hear much whining about the loss of tech suits from kids. I think masters (and definitely me) whine more b/c we've been wearing them longer and, in some cases (me, Ande, Mike Ross, etc.) every meet.

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 09:15 PM
Women hate knee skins because they make us look fat and are extremely uncomfy on the thighs.

Mom, I think anyone who looks at you, then looks at your oldest son, me, will more than forgive you for whatever imaginary flab you imagine you've gained since delivering me.

I only hope they will be so forgiving of me. It's only baby fat, I want to scream!

If boobs were not an issue, how many of you women would want to parade your guts in front of a leering world!

As far as your rubber argument goes, I am hoping that HB017 will be playing at my guest lodgings this year at Colony Zones so that I can investigate the world of women and tight rubber suits more intensely at night.

I recently did a Tyr textile vs. B70 rubberized comparison and found that the former actually outperformed the latter in the 50 fly and 500 free, though it was slower in the 100 free. This was in consecutive Y meets swum two weeks apart, identical events and time spacing in between. For those of you who somehow missed this:
Cheating Suit Maximus vs. Cheating Suit Lite: A case study (http://forums.usms.org/blog.php?b=7620)


When you do beat me in marquis events, Leslie, and we both know you soon shall, I hope that I have laid more than sufficient ground work for your ongoing cheating-suit-lite advantage being the main reason!

Thanks again for birthing me, which, given our age difference, is a true miracle of genetic engineering and modern science.

Chris Stevenson
February 28th, 2010, 09:20 PM
When you do beat me in marquis events, Leslie, and we both know you soon shall, I hope that I have laid more than sufficient ground work for your ongoing cheating-suit-lite advantage being the main reason!

At last, the true reason for this thread emerges!

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 09:27 PM
But you're forgetting the most important dirty word all the purists use to describe tech suits -- rubber, rubber, rubber. That's more important than knee to ankle coverage. Women hate knee skins because they make us look fat and are extremely uncomfy on the thighs.

I'm sure the thinner swimmers will be less effected than those that could lose a few pounds.

I don't really hear much whining about the loss of tech suits from kids. I think masters (and definitely me) whine more b/c we've been wearing them longer and, in some cases (me, Ande, Mike Ross, etc.) every meet.

So true!!!!!! Hubby will not be allowed to attend any more meets post the ban b/c he would otherwise mistake me for the Michelan man. :bitching:

Agree with you on the kid thing. The kids are amazing. No one in my group cared about the suit change. No one discussed it. They are still all dropping tons of time. A lot of the kids *just swim.* When I ask them questions about a skill, they often say, "I don't know. I just do it." I continue to learn from them - including those ultra tough 14 year olds. :)

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 09:31 PM
If boobs were not an issue, how many of you women would want to parade your guts in front of a leering world!



ME ME ME! I have a good stomach. In fact, I will change my avatar for you Jim. When hubby took this pic of me, he named the file "Ab monster." :bitching:

Instead, Fina has conspired against me while creating a suit that covers my abs and gives me sausage thighs, a flat, wide butt, and a flat(er) chest. :frustrated:

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 09:33 PM
In fact, I will change my avatar for you Jim.


The power I have over women!

Magnificent!

Thanks, BigNoodler, and sorry that I had to, for spaces purposes, edit down your quote to the most important gist.

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 09:35 PM
The power I have over women!

Magnificent!

Thanks, BigNoodler, and sorry that I had to, for spaces purposes, edit down your quote to the most important gist.

BTW Jim, it will be posted in a couple more minutes but I tell you - I think I WILL get kicked off the board for it. It's inappropriate for reasons that will be self explanatory. Sorry guys and girls. And yes, I continue to lift like a girl even though this torso shot looks like a man. Ugh.

Jim, do you suspect we are a bit off the topic here?

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 10:01 PM
At last, the true reason for this thread emerges!

Chris, I am amazed that you are a college professor and so evidently lacking in a background in the Classics.

Plus, you swam for the Greek Olympic team!

For this alone, you should be up on your archetypal myths.

And of these myths, none is more powerful than the myth of Oedipus Jim, who was conceived 9 years before his mother was born, implanted into her womb by genetic engineers when she reached the age of 14, giving birth to Oedipus Jim, who was 21 or 22 at the time, weighed 164 lb., and had to be delivered, for obvious reasons, by Caesarian. (Another very, very famous Greek poet renowned for his salad making, Chris. You really need to learn this stuff.)

The gods took Oedipus away from his mother, and sent her to a fat farm not because of weight so much as the exhausted elastic skin collagen of her abdominal regions.

Anyhow, Oedipus Jim and his best friend Narcissus were looking in a pond, and Narcissus saw his own reflection and could just not look away and fell in and drowned.

Oedipus Jim realized that there was nothing necessarily wrong with falling in love with yourself, as long as you were careful about it. Thus he took up swimming, determined to avoid the same fate for himself. When he met his mother much later, he didn't realize she was his mother. He thought she was just some hot chick.

He invited her to race in swimming and barely beat her in freestyle, his best event. She had this elaborate suit on, so he wanted one, and for a while, the Gods allowed it.

With the elaborate suit, he was able to beat the hot chick even worse!

Then the God Capricius, seemingly out of the blue, decided to outlaw the suit for men, but not for women, and Leslie started beating Oedipus Jim easily and regularly.

Finally, he couldn't stand it and ripped off Leslie's suit, exposing a still hideously stretched out abdomen from having a boychild years earlier that weighed 164 lb. at the time of his birth (and has subsequently ballooned up to 178.)

Anyhow, this is when Oedipus Jim had an epinephrine and realized this was not some random fast hot chick after all, but his MOTHER!

He instantly decapitated her with her monofin.

Then he plucked his eyes out, hoping to block the sight of that exposed abdomen. The gods would not allow it. The same God who was responsible for restoring Prometheus's liver from its nightly disembowelment by harpies brought back Oedipus Jim's eyes in the form of fiber optic athroscopic cameras and turned coverted the rest of his body into a canula, which is now used worldwide by liposcuctionists to remove the abdominal fat from wealthy women everywhere.

All Eternity poking and prodding in fat, unable to blink or turn away: the fate of Oedipus Jim, and all because of a swimming suit...

This is what passes for a Happy Ending in Greek Classics. Chris, again, I am surprised you didn't know any of this, which is, in point of fact, the real reason for this thread.

jim thornton
February 28th, 2010, 10:07 PM
BTW Jim, it will be posted in a couple more minutes but I tell you - I think I WILL get kicked off the board for it. It's inappropriate for reasons that will be self explanatory. Sorry guys and girls. And yes, I continue to lift like a girl even though this torso shot looks like a man. Ugh.

Jim, do you suspect we are a bit off the topic here?


My god! Those thighs are hideous!

Just joking.

That is an amazing picture, BigNoodler. What is the red line, though, where the clothing begins? Does the term "Viccies" mean anything to you. As in, "She was wearing her 'viccies' not her 'grannies.'"?

You may have just inspired yet another false memory of Greek myths here...

BigNoodler
February 28th, 2010, 10:14 PM
My god! Those thighs are hideous!

Just joking.

That is an amazing picture, BigNoodler. What is the red line, though, where the clothing begins? Does the term "Viccies" mean anything to you. As in, "She was wearing her 'viccies' not her 'grannies.'"?

You may have just inspired yet another false memory of Greek myths here...

ha ha

I hope this pic proves once and for all that I should not lift heavy. I mean, what on earth would happen to me then?!

No clue what that means. Will ask my husband. Yeah, I did have some Vickie's (Victoria's Secret) on. Pink striped actually.

ande
February 28th, 2010, 10:43 PM
For me, so far, my times are about a half a second slower per 50 in a jammer vs a full body blue seventy nero comp.

50 fr 22.47 vs 21.99
50 bk 25.15 vs 24.64
but I wasn't shaved or rested.

This season will reveal who the real swimmers are vs the suit swimmers.
The swimmers who swam fast in a full body suit but aren't as fast in jammers.

It surprises me that male swimmers aren't maximizing body coverage, at the texas state championships most boys wore their jammers 6 to 8 inches below their belly buttons. It's really a suit maker design flaw, they should provide more fabric.

I wrote a SFF tip about what to do to prepare for the change in suit rules. The jist was:

+ Get in Better shape,

+ lose weight,

+ Improve your kick, and

+ get stronger

qbrain
March 1st, 2010, 09:25 AM
True. But when posters start discussing their own personal height, weight, swimming goals and training patterns, I take that to mean anything goes.

It is a suit thread, so your assumption was correct, anything goes.

qbrain
March 1st, 2010, 09:34 AM
ME ME ME! I have a good stomach. In fact, I will change my avatar for you Jim. When hubby took this pic of me, he named the file "Ab monster." :bitching:


I like your choice of avatar. I too have my best feature prominently displayed as my avatar.

Chris Stevenson
March 1st, 2010, 09:58 AM
I too have my best feature prominently displayed as my avatar.

Me too. But I think the camera adds 10 lbs.

The Fortress
March 1st, 2010, 08:21 PM
Chris, I am amazed that you are a college professor and so evidently lacking in a background in the Classics.

Plus, you swam for the Greek Olympic team!

For this alone, you should be up on your archetypal myths.

And of these myths, none is more powerful than the myth of Oedipus Jim, who was conceived 9 years before his mother was born, implanted into her womb by genetic engineers when she reached the age of 14, giving birth to Oedipus Jim, who was 21 or 22 at the time, weighed 164 lb., and had to be delivered, for obvious reasons, by Caesarian. (Another very, very famous Greek poet renowned for his salad making, Chris. You really need to learn this stuff.)

The gods took Oedipus away from his mother, and sent her to a fat farm not because of weight so much as the exhausted elastic skin collagen of her abdominal regions.

Anyhow, Oedipus Jim and his best friend Narcissus were looking in a pond, and Narcissus saw his own reflection and could just not look away and fell in and drowned.

Oedipus Jim realized that there was nothing necessarily wrong with falling in love with yourself, as long as you were careful about it. Thus he took up swimming, determined to avoid the same fate for himself. When he met his mother much later, he didn't realize she was his mother. He thought she was just some hot chick.

He invited her to race in swimming and barely beat her in freestyle, his best event. She had this elaborate suit on, so he wanted one, and for a while, the Gods allowed it.

With the elaborate suit, he was able to beat the hot chick even worse!

Then the God Capricius, seemingly out of the blue, decided to outlaw the suit for men, but not for women, and Leslie started beating Oedipus Jim easily and regularly.

Finally, he couldn't stand it and ripped off Leslie's suit, exposing a still hideously stretched out abdomen from having a boychild years earlier that weighed 164 lb. at the time of his birth (and has subsequently ballooned up to 178.)

Anyhow, this is when Oedipus Jim had an epinephrine and realized this was not some random fast hot chick after all, but his MOTHER!

He instantly decapitated her with her monofin.

Then he plucked his eyes out, hoping to block the sight of that exposed abdomen. The gods would not allow it. The same God who was responsible for restoring Prometheus's liver from its nightly disembowelment by harpies brought back Oedipus Jim's eyes in the form of fiber optic athroscopic cameras and turned coverted the rest of his body into a canula, which is now used worldwide by liposcuctionists to remove the abdominal fat from wealthy women everywhere.

All Eternity poking and prodding in fat, unable to blink or turn away: the fate of Oedipus Jim, and all because of a swimming suit...

This is what passes for a Happy Ending in Greek Classics. Chris, again, I am surprised you didn't know any of this, which is, in point of fact, the real reason for this thread.

That's just a lovely Greek myth, son. I guess it was better to lobotomize me rather than forcing me to endure life with a hideously flabby abdomen and FINA mandated sausage legs.

I would like to re-vivify the rumor that Big Noodler and the Fortress are one and the same poster now.

ourswimmer
March 1st, 2010, 08:39 PM
It surprises me that male swimmers aren't maximizing body coverage, at the texas state championships most boys wore their jammers 6 to 8 inches below their belly buttons. It's really a suit maker design flaw, they should provide more fabric.

What are they going to do, pull them up to their ribs? :cane:

jim thornton
March 1st, 2010, 10:08 PM
What are they going to do, pull them up to their ribs? :cane:

It appears you may have missed this:

New Legal Suit Technology for Men!"]New Legal Suit Technology for Men! http://forums.usms.org/blog.php?bt=28622

Calvin S
March 2nd, 2010, 12:26 PM
From a swimming perspective, it wasn't a good move: the CAA was a stronger swimming conference at the time (I don't know about now, I haven't kept up). And there is the distance thing: I don't think UR swims ANY conference "rivals" in meets until they see them at A10s.

I know the conference has shrunk again. I swam for Davidson College. along with College of Charleston, we were the more recent newcomers to the CAA. but after my senior year in 07, the CAA decided the swim conference was too large and kicked us and CofC out.

off topic from the OP, but i saw the discussion about my old conference and had to chime in.

Chris Stevenson
March 2nd, 2010, 02:41 PM
I know the conference has shrunk again. I swam for Davidson College. along with College of Charleston, we were the more recent newcomers to the CAA. but after my senior year in 07, the CAA decided the swim conference was too large and kicked us and CofC out.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hate all this jockeying between conferences; it is always driven by football and/or basketball -- that is, by money -- and sports like swimming get shafted.

Davidson and CoC are both great schools.

Calvin S
March 3rd, 2010, 12:48 PM
I'm sorry to hear that. I hate all this jockeying between conferences; it is always driven by football and/or basketball -- that is, by money -- and sports like swimming get shafted.

Davidson and CoC are both great schools.

yeah swimming has always been looking for its niche conference at both of those schools. both are int he SoCon for some sports, but the SoCon doesnt have swimming, hence our joining the CAA. they have since formed their own new conference, the CCSA: Coastal Collegiate Swimming Association.

i always thought the CAA didnt have ENOUGH swimmers participating in it either, so the decision to remove teams based on over crowding always baffled me.

JimRude
March 3rd, 2010, 01:14 PM
It surprises me that male swimmers aren't maximizing body coverage, at the texas state championships most boys wore their jammers 6 to 8 inches below their belly buttons. It's really a suit maker design flaw, they should provide more fabric.

This is exactly right. The rise of the jammer suits is very low, so if you get a jammer big enough to pull up that high, you'll probably be very loose in the waist and the legs.

Rich Abrahams
March 3rd, 2010, 05:31 PM
I tried to convince both Speedo and Blueseventy to make a jammer for masters that was cut to allow it to be worn up to the waist. For masters men this would compress a lot of love handle giggling. I knew the look would take some getting used to (boxing trunks? matador pants?) but I do think they'd be efffective. I even pitched a name: "the record waister". No one was impressed. Oh well.

Chris Stevenson
March 3rd, 2010, 06:07 PM
I even pitched a name: "the record waister". No one was impressed. Oh well.

I think "The Urkel (http://jimbocyberdoc.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/urkel.jpg)" would have been a more appropriate name.

I'm not sure such suits would be faster, but if they were, it would be an interesting test. Would I be willing to endure the undying ridicule that my wife would heap upon me in the quest for greater speed? I'm pretty sure the answer is no...at least the tech suits LOOKED kind of cool, whatever you thought of them.

jim thornton
March 3rd, 2010, 10:47 PM
I even pitched a name: "the record waister". No one was impressed. Oh well.

I am very, very impressed. You, sir, are an amateur fashion merchandising phenome. Have you tried pitching this to J. Peterman? If Elaine Bettus still works there, I think she might just go for it.

BigNoodler
March 4th, 2010, 10:07 AM
I tried to convince both Speedo and Blueseventy to make a jammer for masters that was cut to allow it to be worn up to the waist. For masters men this would compress a lot of love handle giggling. I knew the look would take some getting used to (boxing trunks? matador pants?) but I do think they'd be efffective. I even pitched a name: "the record waister". No one was impressed. Oh well.

Do you think the jammer style is a reflection of the current *low rise* fashion? Everything (jeans and pants) seems to be low rise these days for both men and women.

knelson
March 4th, 2010, 11:12 AM
Yeah, I don't get it. Didn't Whitney Houston say "crack is whack!" I assume she was talking about low-rise pants. :)