View Full Version : Number of Entries for Hawaii

michael martin
April 14th, 2002, 10:58 PM
Any idea how many entries there are for Short Course Nationals in Hawaii?

April 23rd, 2002, 09:12 PM
We will have the official count out shortly.

Janet Renner
Co-Meet Director

April 28th, 2002, 01:09 AM
1,101 is the official count as of today.

April 28th, 2002, 10:56 AM
How does that compare to nationals held on the mainland?

April 28th, 2002, 11:29 AM
If everyone attends it will be the smallest nationals since 1982.

The last ten years

2001 - Santa Clara - 1850
2000 - Indianapolis - 1390 (Indianapolis took over after another venue could not make it).
1999 - Santa Clara 2060
1998 - Indianapolis 1738
1997 - Federal Way 1438
1996 - Cupertino - 2048
1995 - Ft Lauderdale 1992
1994 - Tempe - 1912
1993 - Santa Clara 2055
1992 - Ft Lauderdale - 1992


April 28th, 2002, 12:51 PM
Too bad there ain't ten more! And forgive me, please, but the burning question is, "Will it still be the smallest if everyone does NOT attend"?

Peter Cruise
April 28th, 2002, 04:50 PM
It does seem like a low number, but it will be interesting to see if the number of records broken assumes the same ratio compared to other, better attended meets. Any bets?
On another statistical front, what were the odds against 3 of the top 4 seeds in mens 40-44 100IM all sharing the surname of Smith? Perhaps we should stage a mythical nationals with common surnames competing against each other as teams...

May 1st, 2002, 10:48 AM
:confused: Hmmmm, think of this, if it weren't for the 109 swimmers from the HIMA (Hawaii Masters), the number would be 992. 10% of the athletes are Hawaiian Masters. I'll give 3:1 odds on which team is going to win this years Nationals.:D Is HIMA considered a Large Team category?

I'm always thinking math, can't help it.


Robin Parisi
May 1st, 2002, 02:05 PM
The original question in this thread spoke in terms of entries, not entrants (the 1,101 refers to entrants). I notice that in my age group, women 45-49, in the six events that I'm swimming, the total number of swims (assuming no scratches) will be 15 more than in those same events at Santa Clara. I tried to compare total number of entrants in my age group, but the data from prior years did not have a sort function that shows all entrants in a specific age group (as this year's data does). It may be that the great travel distance has resulted in a greater proportion of the attending swimmers being those who qualify to swim six events, or a greater proportion being those who, in middle age, can better afford the travel (I also notice that the highest attendance numbers peak out for women in the 35-39 age group, with 81 entrants, and for the men in the 40-44 age group, with 89 entrants). More manipulation of the statistics would be useful before drawing conclusions about the meaning of the low number of entrants.:cool:

May 1st, 2002, 03:13 PM
Excellent point Robin, I would imagine that such distance to travel would keep the 'non qualifying' swimmers away. There's been much talk about that in the past, wheter or not to continue the 3 event rule. Could this be the answer?

Also, great point about the affordability/age factor. Notice, some events have no 19-24yr entrants (at least mens). I hate to bring this word up, but I have gotten it thrown at me... elite? Or what Al Gore would refer to, the top 5 percent. :)


Philip Arcuni
May 1st, 2002, 03:36 PM
Despite being the most popular age group, and the amazing number of fast Smiths, the depth in the 40-44 mens events is not what it was last year. I can name several top-level swimmers in that age group alone that are not attending, and who regularly attend nationals.

But, I am looking forward to a less-crowded, perhaps more intimate, meet in a beautiful place. The fact that I have a chance to place well in some events gives me even more to anticipate. :)

I suspect the lack of swimmers at the meet will have the greatest effect on the relays.

May 1st, 2002, 04:13 PM
Janet (or anyone else...),

How do the timelines look for each day? How do they compare with previous nationals that had twice the entrants? My concern is that the meet may run too fast and swimmers may not get enough rest between events. Some may already plan on scratching events which would make the timelines even shorter. Could the meet be run in just one pool, with the longer events (400s & up) run in two?

Henry Clark

Peter Cruise
May 1st, 2002, 06:43 PM
There's an idea for a new thread..."should we find a way for Nationals to run longer"(!).

Matt S
May 1st, 2002, 07:40 PM
A number of folks have pointed out that this year's SC Nationals will be different from past years'. There has been some speculation as to why, and what those differences mean.

Just a thought: accept the fact that this meet in Hawaii is going to be different. (Go ahead. I'll just listen to elevator music while you go through whatever 4 step process you feel you need...[Sailing..., take me away... to where I'm going...])

Back already? Tell yourself that the meet will not be in Hawaii again for several more years. Now ask yourself this question: is it necessarily bad that this one time the meet is different? If your answer to this question is yes (Excellent! Self discovery is just around the corner!), look inside and see if you can discern what are your assumptions or values that cause you to feel this way.

Hey, your feelings are your own, and you're entitled to have them regardless of what they are. But, you might like to know more about them.

Just a thought...


Philip Arcuni
May 1st, 2002, 08:45 PM
I'm not sure what you are implying here, Matt. One way the meet is 'different' is that it has only slightly more than half of the normal attendence. The assumption (but not a proven one) is that significant numbers of swimmers were discouraged because of the time/cost required to attend the meet.

This is not good if you think a primary goal of the meet is to get as good a competition at the top levels as possible. It is also not good if you think a primary purpose of the meet is to get swimmers from all over the country to meet, discuss shared interests, gossip, and otherwise socialize. It is also not good if a purpose of the meet is to include significant numbers of the swimmers that do not make the cutoff times, as they are probably the ones most easily discouraged from attending. If relays are your thing, the depth of the relay events will probably be weak. Most of the top ten times last year were swum at the national meet; if fewer swimmers are at that meet, will the top ten times be as competitive?

It is especially not good if you are the one who could not afford the flight or the required week off from work, and can not attend the meet. Maybe this was your special year, where you could have done especially well?

Of course, the most significant way the meet is 'different' is that it is in Hawaii (and not Cleveland :D ). That makes it a great place to combine a meet and a vacation. It is also good because it makes it easier for our Hawaii swimmers to attend a national meet. All meets have a regional bias, but since the Hawaii region is smaller than the regions in the mainland, it will be a fairer meet for those mainland teams that aspire to national championships.

Personally, I am glad the meet is in Hawaii. It probably won't be back there for a long time, and I will take advantage of that unique opportunity. It isn't too expensive to fly from California, and I have saved up my vacation days, and recruited my inlaws to babysit.

May 1st, 2002, 10:43 PM
The roster and psych sheets have been updated with a number of corrections. After finding a lost swimmer's data, the total number of swimmers is now at 1102.

The estimated timelines will be posted when they are finalized. It will probably be some time this weekend. I don't believe there is any chance of changing anything that was in the provided in official meet information - especially the number of pools used for competition. Yes, the meet will be finished earlier than usual each day, but what better location is there to have more time to yourself after an earlier end of the days events? I wouldn't worry too much about the meet going too fast. The recent Colonies Zone meet had 420 swimmers in 2 pools for a 3-day meet. Saturday's events were all done by noon. The Hawaii meet has about 2.5 times as many swimmers, so it should take longer than that each day, even though the meet is spread out over 4 days.

Matt S
May 2nd, 2002, 01:36 PM

You understood very well what I was trying to say. Every meet is different, and each individual has to decide whether the net effect of the differences is good or bad. But, don't assume all "right thinking" people will reach the same conclusion.

I guess I was a little weary of some of the posts in this discussion thread, and others, that seem to suggest having Nationals in Hawaii should never be allowed because it makes THEIR attendance more difficult or expensive. My pat riposte has been "what about the Hawaiian swimmers?" So, I wanted to explore that theme a little more.


Sally Dillon
May 2nd, 2002, 02:43 PM
Regarding the meet being so "small" - I've recently returned from New Zealand and the World Championships. It was a "small" meet too - fewer than 1/2 of the swimmers that attended in Munich 2 years ago. What a joy it was to be done while it was still daylight! We didn't even start competition until 9 AM each day. Boy was that great! And what a joy it was to have a record 105 world records set (previous record is 95 I believe). "Small" certainly didn't affect the quality of the meet! We had a terrific experience (if you don't count the unfortunate problems with the open water event timing).

I am against trying to make the meet run slower by running only one course. Let's be done early and have time to enjoy Hawaii. The meet was arranged to be mid-week to allow participants to travel the distance and enjoy a vacation so lets make the most of it. Don't forget your sunscreen, sunglasses, mask and snorkle!

I'll see you there!

May 2nd, 2002, 03:36 PM
Ouch, that hurt.
Anyway, any teachers out there want to chime in as to trying to get time off from school? One day, yes, two? is pushing it. I do believe it was a bad idea to have Nats in Hawaii, and I'm not shy about talking about it. And it's not just about me, not being able to go. It's a common feeling among my team, and many other swimmers I talk to. I guess, in today's "feel good" society, it's not polite to talk about or point out 'bad' ideas.:o Sorry.


May 2nd, 2002, 04:04 PM
Thanks for the replies to my post.

Here at Texas A&M University, we've hosted many (USA Swimming, high school and College) championship meets. The timelines and meet sizes are always big topics for discussion---too fast, too slow, too big, too small....you name it. I'm (relatively) new to Masters Swimming and wanted to find out some opinions about the timeline. The USMS Discussion Forum appears to be a great resource.

The Texas A&M swimmers and coaches that have trained in Honolulu all have great things to say about the facility, the people and the sites.

I'm looking forward to doing it all. See you in Hawaii.

Henry Clark

May 2nd, 2002, 04:33 PM
Joe, I agree with pointing out BAD ideas. My perspective is that EVERY Nats location has been a bad idea - in SOMEBODY's book, anyway.

EVERY location we've had or ever will have) Nats has given a "home team" advantage to one or more teams.

EVERY location we've had (or ever will have) Nats has caused hardships - expense, travel distance, time off, climate, allergies, availability of alcohol :) etc - for individuals, for entire teams, for entire classes of people.

EVERY Nats we've had (or ever will have) favors either those who like to have half their days open for other things, or those who want full days of competition with LONG periods between events - but not both groups at once.

I think it is a GOOD idea to spread both the wealth of opportunity AND the hardships of participation around the entire Masters swimming community. For most Masters that contemplate going to Nats, this is a long-term sport. If you don't get things your way this time, you will eventually (just don't count on getting them all at the same time). On any given day, life ain't fair for some people. But, over time, things have a tendency to balance out.

Think of it another way - If the Hawaiians (and all the others who are fired up about a Hawaiian Nats) can't have it their way every once in a long while, then YOU shouldn't ever get to have it YOUR way either.

Philip Arcuni
May 2nd, 2002, 04:34 PM

Your post did *say* that those people who did not like the meet in Hawaii had some deep psychological reason for that opinion, that required some significant soul searching. Also, the implication was that that reason was not very 'fair' or very 'nice.' That was what I was unsure about. Actually, the reasons to not like the meet in Hawaii are very clear and very much on the surface, and require no Freudian-like analysis. No, I do not agree with them (or rather, there are other reasons to appreciate the meet at Hawaii), but I respect Joe's opinion, especially since he is willing to put his name on them.

By the way, I made an unfair crack at Cleveland. I've been there, and it is beautifully situated on the Ohio river. There is a lot of natural beauty, history, and culture that make it an excellent place for a meet and vacation.

Matt S
May 2nd, 2002, 07:46 PM

I think we are in violent agreement. I'm NOT accusing the people who don't like Hawaii of having any deep psychological issues which I have magically transcended. I have MY emotional assumptions and bias; they have theirs. What I was suggesting is that anyone can benefit from taking a closer look at why they are so annoyed.

Let me lay this one the line: after participating in these discussions for some time now, I have reached the conclusion that many of us Masters swimmers tend to be self-centered and dismissive of anyone's concerns except our own. (And please, I am NOT singling out anyone. We're all people; none of us are perfect; let all try to see the person behind the opinion we don't like.) Just think about all the whining associated with Nationals. I'd recap here, but Emmett's last post did such a good job of doing that, let me simply refer you to it. My point is that there are some very structured people in this sport, and some of them are quite passionate in their desire to shove their structure down my throat because it makes sticking to their routine easier. I have two objectives when I encounter such people. First, I'd like to help explain to them that different people with different values and goals might see things differently, and still be decent, rational people whose concerns deserve as much respect as anyone's. Second, I would like to help them see the assumptions behind their passionate beliefs because, just maybe, they might see creative solutions if they question the universal truth of their assumptions. I believe it was Thoreau who said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."

So, whap me on the knuckles if I'm wrong, but I think we mostly agree with each other.


May 2nd, 2002, 08:57 PM
ALMOST everything said about Cleveland is correct. It will be a wonderfully fun LC Nationals at a great facility, Rock Hall of Fame and great nightspots on the waterfront. But the Ohio River???

Every location is inconvenient to someone. Hawaii is a great opportunity for those fortunate enough to make the trip. I'm excited for those going --- have a GREAT time!

Philip Arcuni
May 2nd, 2002, 09:09 PM
zoomer, I am so embarrassed . . . .

Philip Arcuni
May 2nd, 2002, 09:40 PM

I think I just have a little more tolerance for whining than you do, and don't mind letting people vent, even when it could be annoying (otherwise, how could I justify my own vents?). Rather than a violent disagreement, I think we generally agree on the generalities and the specifics of this case.

But lets be honest about the location - I could imagine a permanent national-meet facility in someplace like Cleveland, or St. Louis, or Colorado Springs, because these locations are relatively centrally located. I could not imagine one in Hawaii, just because it is not centrally located. We are trading convenience of location for a pretty location and the desire to spread the location around the country from year to year. That way everyone is convenienced one year or the other, and the rest get to see new places. But it is fair for people to judge the pluses/minuses differently.

I believe it was Plato that said it first, at least. I once put that phrase ('only an examined life is worth living') in the introduction to the Physics Department in a college catalog. It really was not out of context with the rest of the text, and the Philosophy Department appreciated it. It was *not* appreciated by the students, however (what do physics students fear most? the exam!) :( :rolleyes:

michael martin
May 2nd, 2002, 11:17 PM
I'm not going to Hawaii for Nationals this year. The reason doesn't really have much to do with the location, it's just that this year I don't have the money and was pretty disgusted with my last 2 National perfomances. But if I did have the money and the interest I would have gone. I wish everyone who is going a great meet and terrific vacation.

May 3rd, 2002, 10:06 AM
Emmett, you are ABSOLUTELY 100% right on the money, as usual. And you know what, I do have to think Masters Swimming on a long term basis. This is my 4th year now, and my subconcious clock says "this is it, your senior year". I need to understand, for myself, that I'm going to be doing this sport (that can only be played, not won) for a good number of years to come.

Thanks. BTW, Indianoplis was probably my most favorite nationals, excellent Micro-Brewerys. :D

Thanks for the rest of you for not comming down hard on me. I know everyone going is as excited as can be, and don't want to listen to the nay-sayers such as myself. I wish you all luck, and it's going to be a great meet. Timewise especially. It won't go too fast, you can bet on that.

BTW, I never did get any takers on my wager?:p


May 3rd, 2002, 10:02 PM
The check-in deadlines for all events and the team divisions are now available in the SC Nationals area at http://www.usms.org/comp/scnats02/. The psych sheets and meet roster have also been updated to match the data that was sent to the printer for the meet program. Another lost swimmer's entry was located, so the total count is now up to 1103.