PDA

View Full Version : men's ncaa psych sheet 09 vs 10



tdrop
March 12th, 2010, 10:40 PM
2009 psych sheet at (click on results)
http://collegeswimming.com/results/10971/session/3954/

2010 psych sheet at
http://championships.coloradotime.com/men10/pdf/m10_off_ps.pdf

After a quick run down there seems to be some pretty significant differences throughout. For example, here is a comparison of the 1650...

2009:

1 seed = 14:35
23 seed = 14.58

2010:

1 seed = 14:46
23 seed = 15:08

tdrop
March 12th, 2010, 10:55 PM
I should add that I'm speculating the gap will be closed somewhat when comparing the final results.

Whereas most swimmers were probably wearing tech suits at conferences last year and then again at NCAAs, this year many were probably unshaved at conferences but will be shaved at NCAAs. So, we can expect some time drops for sure.

Rykno
March 13th, 2010, 06:05 AM
but then if you look at the 200 IM, remove the nr 1 seed in 2009 and there is no change in the top 23.

too bad the sheets don't their yrs. it would be interesting to see how many that qualified last yr didn't this year

tdrop
March 13th, 2010, 10:24 AM
but then if you look at the 200 IM, remove the nr 1 seed in 2009 and there is no change in the top 23.

too bad the sheets don't their yrs. it would be interesting to see how many that qualified last yr didn't this year

Ya...I did notice that some events appear to be more affected than others. A couple didn't have much difference at all. The freestyle events in particular, from sprint to distance, seem to have produced the greatest disparity.

All in all, though, I would say that the 09 psych sheet is noticeably faster. But I didn't really study it closely. I'll be interested to see how NCAAs come out. I think its going to be fast.

Chris Stevenson
March 13th, 2010, 01:47 PM
My belief -- true or not -- has always been that the suits affect in-season times even more than end-of-season times. If true, the psych sheet might show a greater disparity than the final results. But we'll see soon enough.

Wasn't NCAAs last year mostly the LZR and B70 suits? With the notable exception of Auburn, who according to some sore losers only won b/c they used faster Jakeds.

tdrop
March 13th, 2010, 02:23 PM
My belief -- true or not -- has always been that the suits affect in-season times even more than end-of-season times. If true, the psych sheet might show a greater disparity than the final results. But we'll see soon enough.

Wasn't NCAAs last year mostly the LZR and B70 suits? With the notable exception of Auburn, who according to some sore losers only won b/c they used faster Jakeds.

Ya, agreed. I don't think the difference is going to be as noticeable, or hopefully not noticeable at all, at NCAAs.

orca1946
March 13th, 2010, 03:10 PM
Let's see the final results to se the diff! Tech suits make ,for me . a diff. I only use it for the state meet.

no200fly
March 18th, 2010, 11:54 AM
Reviewing the A cuts - Avg 10.6 per event in 2009 5.5 in 2010. I also looked at the first few events and compared each seed in succession and there was a fairly consistent increase by position. The 400 IM & 800 Free relay A cuts were a little surprising to me.

2009 2010 Event
10 3 200 Yard Freestyle
12 6 500 Yard Freestyle
10 8 200 Yard IM
14 5 50 Yard Freestyle
6 4 400 Yard Medley
11 7 200 Yard Medley Relay
11 10 400 Yard IM
12 4 100 Yard Butterfly
8 3 200 Yard Freestyle
12 4 100 Yard Breaststroke
16 10 100 Yard Backstroke
12 10 800 Yard Freestyle Relay
14 5 1650 Yard Freestyle
12 4 200 Yard Backstroke
5 2 100 Yard Freestyle
4 2 200 Yard Breaststroke
12 6 200 Yard Butterfly
11 6 400 Yard Freestyle Relay
10.67 5.50 Avg

That Guy
March 18th, 2010, 04:09 PM
The number of A cuts is interesting, but I think a better measure is looking at the Meet Qualifying time for each event year-over-year. (The Meet Qualifying time is the time performed by the last person listed above the INVITED line in the psych sheet.) So I put on my nerd hat (oh wait, I was already wearing it) and fired up the ol' abacus. Note: I only went through this exercise for Division I championships.

From 2008 to 2009, 100% of the men's and women's Meet Qualifying times got faster.
From 2009 to 2010, 100% of the men's Meet Qualifying times got slower.
From 2009 to 2010, 14 of 18 women's Meet Qualifying times were slower, 1 was exactly the same (100 breast @ 1:01.20), and the other three were actually faster (400 IM, 1650, and 200 breast).
Most of the percentage differences are well below the claim of 2% improvement due to tech suits, though the data does support the assertion that techsuits help men more than women.

The average women's Meet Qualifying time improved from 2008-2009 by 0.99%. The biggest improvements were in the 200 IM and 200 back, each @ 1.58%. Next biggest was the 200 free relay @ 1.52%.
The average men's Meet Qualifying time improved from 2008-2009 by 1.22%. The biggest improvement was in the 100 free @ 2.32%. Next biggest were 200 breast and 200 fly, each @ 1.50%.
The average women's Meet Qualifying time slowed from 2009-2010 by 0.44%. The biggest slowdown occurred in the 200 IM @ 2.98%. That event is a freakish outlier, as the next biggest slowdown was the 100 back @ 1.04%, and everything else is 0.70% or less. And don't forget that the other IM event got faster.
The average men's Meet Qualifying time slowed from 2009-2010 by 0.68%. The biggest slowdown occurred in the 50 free @ 1.49%. Next biggest was the 200 free relay @ 1.34%. (Yes, those are both sprints...)
I tried looking at percentages based on the different strokes, sprint vs distance events, and so on. That exercise didn't yield anything meaningful aside from repeating much of what you've already read above.
This message lacks smilies. RECTIFY! :banana::bouncing::bow::cheerleader::bump:

james lucas
March 18th, 2010, 05:57 PM
Most of the percentage differences are well below the claim of 2% improvement due to tech suits, though the data does support the assertion that techsuits help men more than women.
Interesting. It seems the 2010 times are slower, ending a period of steady improvements in times. At what level, based on all your data, are 2010 times comparable to? In other words, are we back to 2008 speeds? Or 2007 speeds?

That Guy
March 18th, 2010, 08:34 PM
Interesting. It seems the 2010 times are slower, ending a period of steady improvements in times. At what level, based on all your data, are 2010 times comparable to? In other words, are we back to 2008 speeds? Or 2007 speeds?

17 of the 18 women's events have 2010 Meet Qualifying times that are faster than they were in 2008. The exception is the 200 IM oddity.

16 of the 18 men's events have 2010 Meet Qualifying times that are faster than they were in 2008. The exceptions are the 50 free and the 200 free relay, and the differences are tiny: 0.04 seconds in the 50 free, and 0.03 seconds in the 200 free relay.

So overall I would say that the times are faster in 2010 than they were in 2008. An interesting question is, how long until all or most of the Meet Qualifying times are back to 2009 levels? For the women, it might only be a couple years.

no200fly
March 22nd, 2010, 02:31 PM
The number of A cuts is interesting, but I think a better measure is looking at the Meet Qualifying time for each event year-over-year.
This message lacks smilies. RECTIFY! :banana::bouncing::bow::cheerleader::bump:
[/LIST]

That is a lot of work you put in, and it does support what, to a casual observer, appears to be a fairly consistent slowing of times across all of the events. I heard Gary Hall Sr. speak a few weeks ago and one of his points was that the tech suit experiment demonstrated concretely that even small changes in drag can make big differences in performance.

Chris Stevenson
March 22nd, 2010, 02:50 PM
I heard Gary Hall Sr. speak a few weeks ago and one of his points was that the tech suit experiment demonstrated concretely that even small changes in drag can make big differences in performance.

I don't think you can say that, because I don't think anyone has demonstrated why the suits work. I've heard a lot of theories, with much hand-waving:

-- less fatigue due to muscle compression
-- buoyancy and changes in body position
-- (surface) drag
-- hydrodynamics (form drag)

If anyone has actual conclusive data to support one over the other, I'd love to see it.

no200fly
March 22nd, 2010, 03:12 PM
I don't think you can say that, because I don't think anyone has demonstrated why the suits work. I've heard a lot of theories, with much hand-waving:

-- less fatigue due to muscle compression
-- buoyancy and changes in body position
-- (surface) drag
-- hydrodynamics (form drag)

If anyone has actual conclusive data to support one over the other, I'd love to see it.

I don't know that he was trying to opine as to all of the reasons that tech suits might improve performance. I think he was using tech suits as an example of how large changes in performance could be produced by small changes in conditions.

hofffam
March 23rd, 2010, 03:49 PM
One additional factor that might be interesting to consider is the Olympic effect. 2008 was an Olympic year - and we might expect many of the very best NCAA swimmers were training for the Olympics too. Could the 2009 times be very fast because of both the suits and the lingering effects of intense training for the Olympics?