Yesterday, the NCAA announced a controversial new format for the Division I Championship meet at the end of the season, and, along with much of the swimming community, the Power Four conferences are reportedly opposed to the changes.
Among the changes made to the NCAA Championships was the elimination of ‘A’ and ‘B’ standards and the addition of a “Win-and-You’re-In” system for conference champions. This new policy will give athletes who win their conference championship with a time that is under the NCAA standard an automatic berth to the NCAA Championships.
This new format benefits the mid-major conferences significantly. In July, we analyzed what this would have looked like for last season’s conference meet. On the men’s side 34 new swimmers from 18 schools and 11 new mid-major conferences would have qualified. On the women’s side, the numbers are greater with 45 new swimmers from 18 schools and 11 new conferences.
Our estimated qualifying standards were slightly slower than the official times released yesterday, but the actual numbers are likely similar.
The changes to the format do not include an increased number of spots for the championships, meaning all the additional swimmers who qualify via conference title swims will replace others, likely from Power Four schools, who qualified with faster times.
One Power Four coach reached out to SwimSwam today, saying that all four conferences unanimously opposed the system as did many of the coaches from teams within those conferences. Some of these coaches reportedly feel that “self-interest” was a big motivator in moving the proposal through.
This report is corroborated by a distribution obtained by SwimSwam that details the opinions on Big Ten conference coaches. The conference polled the coaches on their thoughts about the proposal and every coach responded with their opinions. Of those coaches, only 4% supported the whole proposal while 68% were in favor of only the changes to the Championship format (event order and ‘B’ finals changes). There was also a contingent, 21%, that was against the whole proposal.
Most coaches opposed the proposed qualification changes, and those that did support only did so with significant modifications. Many of the coaches were concerned that the changes to qualification procedures disproportionately benefited mid-major programs to the detriment of the Power Four programs.
On the other hand, a mid-major head coach has said that, since the qualifying time has to be swum en route to the conference title, it will give mid-major conferences the chance to create a “moment” at the meet where qualifications can be celebrated in real time.
This real-time celebration mirrors that which we see in other sports, like basketball, where mid-major teams receive an automatic bid to the March Madness tournament via conference title and are able to celebrate that moment on the court.
I just did a deep dive into last year’s NCAA cut line and who would make a conference auto-bid based on this year’s cut times for the men’s 50 and 100 free. There were 6 guys who would displace faster swimmers in the 50 free and 3 guys who would displace swimmers in the 100 free. Not fair in my opinion. For example, last year it took a 19.02 to make it. This past year a guy from Delaware swam a 19.43 at his conference championship and won so he would technically make it over that 19.02 guy. That is a SIGNIFICANT time difference. Also, do these conference winners count towards the 235 swimmers invited? There’s another kick in the… Read more »
Another dumbing down of sport. Ridiculous that, in a completely objective sport, the NCAA found a way to not invite the top 36 (or whatever) swimmers in each event. And what about the Big 12? It’s not really a power conference for women. There were definitely females who won events there that did not qualify for NCAAs. Now they get to go to NCAAs over faster girls from the ACC/SEC/Big Ten.
As for no B finals. Championships are often decided by 9-16 place points. Understand those points still count but those swimmers won’t necessarily be racing each other on prelims. Why not just run B finals after A finals???
Power 4 should run their own championship and let the corrupt, money-driven NCAA circus die out. These kids grind for years, families invest countless time and money, only for ESPN+ and USA Swimming to cash out. It’s exploitation disguised as opportunity.
Disappointed to hear 68% of Power 4 coaches back eliminating B-finals and reshuffling the schedule, gutting diving finals and sending a clear message that divers are nothing more than an afterthought.
I’ve been saying that for years. Maybe 5 conferences (geographically organized) of 16 each just go their own way and the others admit they are wasting tons of money and athletes time flying from west to east coast for dual and conference meets.
Soon the NCAA will be irrelevant for the Power 4 Sports. The higher revenue schools in the Big 12 will soon also be absorbed big the real Big 3 and the SEC, Big 10 and ACC will not deal with the NCAA (at least not in the revenue sports (football and basketball).
Have not seen it mentioned in comments, and may have missed it. BUT how does this affect NCAA roster sizes for larger schools? Seems IF it is an expanded meet in number of entries, there should be no effect(s). If there is an effect(totals for events and the championship not changed), other swimmers making the cuts will be left off the NCAA rosters even if the team is not at capacity. A point of contention (not mentioned) by the Power Four and maybe some other programs? And, do these changes have the effect, in time, of spreading the talent pool over more schools as the opportunity become greater(not sure how much) for a swimmer to make the NCAAs from a… Read more »
No expanded participation in the meet, thus why the P4 schools complain.
Cutting B finals altogether is brain dead
If you want to streamline the product for television, when you actually air it, then just swim the B finals before the session starts and it’s televised, there is still a lot of value in those swimmers getting second swims, and a chance to work on their races, their times and the handling of a second swim in the day
Why couldn’t they split-screen (think NBC going to commercial during distance event), where they have the B-final race in the small screen, but the commentators are not talking about the race? This could be commercial breaks, on-deck interviews, human interest stories, etc. going on while the swim happens in the background. In practice, there will probably be 1-2 minutes of “break” between events when NCAAs happen at the end of this season – most swimming races take 1-2 minutes.
Now THAT’S a good idea
Last year at NCAA an average of 4.58 female swimmers had faster swims in B finals and an average of 3.75 men swam faster in finals. The 100 free was the toughest to swim faster. Only 2 male swimmers and 2 female swimmers cut time, but in most events over half of the athletes had faster swims in B finals. You race the person next to you. Do coaches really want to cut these swims? Exec board members are in programs that had few B finalists..Northwestern, had no female swimmers in the b final….
Surprise!
Opposition to this seems pretty hypocritical.
Swimming needs more interest from a broader audience. This new format provides exactly that.
Commentary here is often…why are we doing things the same old way….but then the same people want things done the same old way.
With roster limits now in place, thanks to a swimmers initiative, smaller schools and mid majors are recruiting very differently, adding much much faster swimmers that are now booted from power 4.
At some point this sport is going to have to evolve.
But, those conference champs who got an auto-bid aren’t likely going to make A finals. And, A finals are the only finals that will be televised at night. How is this new system going to draw a broader audience? I really don’t get it. My guess is that this will not work–those who want to watch swimming will watch swimming and will be happy watching B finals (and will want to see the fastest meet possible). And, if there is an uptick in viewing, we won’t know which of the many changes led to it (it would have been much smarter to introduce one or two changes each year). I feel for the swimmers who are facing all these changes… Read more »
But…the swimmers displaced by the auto-bid swimmers likely weren’t making the A finals either, so the point is moot.
OK, but then how does this change save swimming as a sport? And, it still means that swimmers with faster times won’t have the opportunity to participate at NCAAs (and none of these swimmers will be viewed at finals–especially with those placing 9-16th not swimming in the evening).
Your argument could replace the sport of division 1 swimming with division 1 basketball. Many of the teams that make the divison 1 tournament do not have a prayer to win a game and many of the teams that make it because they won their conference tournament replace more skilled teams from power conferences. At least in basketball the occassional upset occurs, whereas, this will probably not happen in swimming due to the nature of the sport. Not really sure what the NCAA rationale is for excluding more skilled swimmers from Power Conference schools for swimmers from weaker conferences that win an event at a conference championship. This is not summer league where everyone gets an award. Swimming should not… Read more »
Basketball gets almost 1 or if every 5 athlete into March Madness. Swimming won’t get that many (& doesn’t deserve that many).
The point of allowing conference champions in is for the slower schools to show they have success and didn’t get cancelled.
I agree with Braden that the change in adding conference champs in but cancelling B finals seem to cancel each other out.
What do you mean “didn’t get cancelled?” No one is getting cancelled–some athletes are just swimming faster than other athletes. Because it is a competition. And, usually, in time-based competitions, the fastest people win. I have nothing against mid-majors, in fact, I love mid-majors, but I strongly feel that the fastest swimmers should swim at what is supposed to be the fastest college meet in the nation.
The straw man in this whole thing is that this format will attract any new viewers or a “broader audience.” I think swimmers/swammers and parents/relatives of swimmers are the only people that have watched and will watch NCAA swimming.
This will possibly (likely) lead to lower viewership…I’m less inclined to watch with no B Final. Watching someone in a tight team race go from 15th to 10th is exciting! Some of us are counting ups/downs between p prelims and finals…figuring out where athletes can move up and grab a few points.
It’s delusional to think that this will turn NCAA Swimming into a huge media/TV attraction. Your audience is your audience.
The casual viewer is fine watching… Read more »
Interested to see how this impacts funding and general excitement watching the sport. Maybe more spectators will watch NCAAs that would otherwise have watched. It would be fun to go see your mid major team represented at NCAAs. This format might be good for the sport overall but we’ll see
If they’re dropping B finals and only swimming the top 8 relays in the streamed portion then there will be very few mid major teams represented.