Courtesy of Barry Revzin
A now infamous comment in an early live recap post suggested that the NCAAs are overhyped. Leading into the meet, we make all sorts of crazy predictions about what might happen. Katie Ledecky is going to go 1:38/4:22/14:56. Kathleen Baker is going swim a 1:46 200y back. Lilly King is going to give a non-controversial post-race interview. So now that the weekend is over and we have some time to reflect on the crazy swims that did happen, we can attempt to answer the question – was it overhyped? As usual, it depends.
The first place to look might simply be: do swimmers at NCAAs improve upon their seed times? Turns out, typically not. If we compare the better of a swimmer’s prelim and finals result to his or her seed time, we find that most swims were worse than seed. In fact, this year’s women’s meet had the highest improvement rate of the last 7 years: at 41.9%. On the plus side, if we aggregate by swimmer instead of by event, we find that a majority of swimmers do improve in at least one of their events (70.5% of the women this year, also a 7-year high), but very few improve in all of their events (just 12.1%). So from that standpoint, expecting all swimmers to drop buckets of time at nationals is unrealistic. You could even call it… hype.
But even if not every swimmer in not every swim improved, how does this 2017 edition of NCAAs compare to 2016 or 2015? In only one individual event, the 200 Breast, was the 8th place time prelims slower this year than it was in 2016. In all but three events (adding in the 100 Breast and 200 Fly), it was the fastest cut we’ve ever seen. In one event in particular – the 100 Back – the cut has gotten faster every year, dropping nearly 3% in the past 6 years. In 2011, a 53.34 was 8th. This year, that would’ve finished 40th.
Why are time drops and records the primary criteria for whether a meet lives up to the hype? What about the excitement of the head-to-head races? The drama of the team rankings? The appreciation of the strategy employed by different teams to maximize their point totals? That middle-tier swimmer whose 8th-place qualification meant the difference between a third and fourth-place finish for their team? Stepping up and winning the relay when your rivals were supposed to walk away with it? There’s so much more to this meet than time drops.
They are way over hyped. If this is the “biggest” swim meet of the year and the stands aren’t even half full the event is a loser. You could literally sit anywhere you wanted every day of the meet.
+1 to the author for this gem:
Leading into the meet, we make all sorts of crazy predictions about what might happen… [like] Lilly King is going to give a non-controversial post-race interview.
The one race that was faster than my most optimistic expectations was Simone Manuel’s 100 free. I thought she could break 46 with a good race, but 45.56 is bonkers. That brings the US Open 1 full second faster than it was 5 years ago.
Comerford looked like a boss all season, but she also swam even faster than I expected.
If “overhyped” means didn’t live up to our (high) expectations then perhaps this meet was overhyped. What we really needed was a close race for first place and unfortunately it wasn’t really there, especially after Cal’s relay DQ.
Since NCAAs is such a team oriented event I think there’s a lot of good drama and excitement that could have come if the race for first was a little tighter.
Great analysis! Helps frame the issue and give an objective answer to the question. While at NCAA all swimmers care very much about their place and the points they contribute to the team, as to whether they had a good swim or not is usually based on their times – did the do a best time or not? For example, in an interview with Katie Ledecky, she was really happy she got a first place and earned Stanford 20 points, but she said her swim was just OK because it wasn’t a best time. I was wondering about this question of how many people really do a best time here at NCAA and this gives some interesting data and perspective… Read more »
I think it’s less “overhyped” as expectations being a bit too high for certain kids. You mentioned Ledecky – like, the girl went a dang 4:24 (I think) and it almost came as a disappointment. SHE DIDN’T GO UNDER 4:20, HARUMPH.
Same with like, STANFORD IS GONNA WIN ALL 5 RELAYS. Could it have happened? Sure. But it’s almost a disappointment when they didn’t.
Agree 100%. its almost impossible for the top swimmers and the team favorite to live up to the ridiculous expectations put out in the media. The fact that they sometimes do is even that much more amazing.
Exactly. Which imo, is the definition of ‘overhyped’.
Hm, I suppose that’s also true! I was thinking about the meet as a whole being “overhyped” – which, nah! It’s still one of the fastest meets in the world! and it has teams! – but sure, on a micro sense, I suppose we might get ourselves a little worked up.
I couldn’t help but wonder why there is a 1650y event? I feel that 1000y is long enough. There is no LC equivalent, since the 800m is the longest event contested internationally. I see no need for the 1650y event to be contested at the women college level.
Not true that 800m is longest contested internationally. Every odd numbered year the world championships contest both the 800m and 1500m for women. Only the Olympics fails to hold the 1500m, and that’s the problem that needs to be rectified.
The women have the 1500 at worlds
I truly hope the NCAA takes into account the preferences of some random dude on the internet.
Not just any dude. We’re talking “Dave” here.
I’m sorry Dave, but that is something I can not allow to happen. – Hal 9000
To be honest, all events over 200 should be cut.