Do New CSCAA Proposals for NCAA Swimming Qualification Have Merit?
The Division I NCAA Championships are among the most competitive swim meets in the world, incredibly intense three-and-a-half-day meets that captivate fans with record chases and team competitions. Qualifying for the NCAA Championships is more competitive even than Olympic Trials, with only 38-41 swimmers invited per event on the women’s side and 30-32 for the men. Teams can bring a maximum of 18 swimmers (or less if that team has divers), and that means that some squads leave athletes who would otherwise qualify at home, including the Texas men this season.
But if there is one knock on college swimming’s championships, it is the domination of the Power-Five conferences (SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12), while the non-scholarship Ivy League also attracts some top talent. Other than that? Very few swimmers on the so-called mid-major level make a dent nationally. Schools outside of Power-Five and the Ivy League combined to score nine points at this year’s women’s championships and just eight points at the men’s.
It’s also no secret that college swimming programs exist in a constant state of concern about their viability. Athletic directors all across the country have put swimming on the chopping block, particularly men’s, to save money. Sometimes a tidal wave of support from alumni and supporters of the program can help force a reversal but not always. So college swimming undoubtedly needs a shot in the arm on all levels, not just at the top. The loss of any college program and losing opportunities for swimmers to continue their careers hurts the sport.
With that reality in mind, the College Swimming and Diving Coaches Association of America (CSCAA) released a series of new proposals this week with the idea of increasing representation among non-Power-Five schools at the NCAA Championships. Among those proposals: allow conference champions to automatically qualify for the NCAA Championships, reduce the maximum roster size for each team at the meet and allocate a certain number of spots at the meet (possibly 25%) for athletes from outside the Power-Five.
Of those ideas, limiting roster size seems to only punish programs for having depth and increase intra-team competition among larger schools. Could that spread out the base of talent among more schools? Perhaps, but it would also seemingly team roster size and as a whole reduce opportunities for more athletes to swim in college?
Meanwhile, allowing automatic qualification for conference champions is intriguing, but there would be two major downsides to this. First, there are over 20 conferences in the country for both women’s and men’s swimming, and a handful of those conferences are quite small, especially for men’s competition. The primary factor in conference alignment is football (and to a lesser extent, men’s basketball), and other sports follow along. That can result in some especially weak conferences for swimming, such as the current Big 12 that includes only three men’s teams (Texas, TCU and West Virginia). Allowing automatic entry for all conference champions would bring some athletes to the meet who are well off the current NCAA consideration times.
The second big issue is that if the cap size for the meet remained the same, adding a dozen or so conference champions to the mix in each event would push the time-based cut line way down, likely into the low 20s or even teens for the men. The top-16 swimmers in each event at NCAAs score points, so this scenario could mean a lot of swimmers with a real scoring chance would not receive invitations. Plus, swimmers would need to essentially be at their best at their conference meets just to qualify. The majority of swimmers add time at NCAAs, so forcing a full taper for all swimmers at conference meets would likely mean a drop-off in performances at the national meet.
That said, the idea of adding more champions from mid-major conferences has merit — if certain conditions are met. First, only conference champions who had hit the NCAA “B” cut would be allowed to ensure a reasonably high time standard for qualification. Second, the cap on swimmers for both the women’s and men’s championships would need to be expanded. That way, expansion would not destroy the depth that makes prelims at the NCAA Championships so compelling.
Of course, expanding the NCAA Championships requires money, and the governing body for college sports has shown little inclination to divert more funds to the pool. Swimming is not considered a high-revenue sport on the college level, and while expanding the base of competitors swimming at the national championships could be profitable, this year’s NCAA Championships were purportedly “sold out” already, although good seats remained unoccupied throughout the venue.
In an ideal world, yes, including more schools at the national championships would grow the sport, but without college swimming managing to raise revenue and prove its status as a worthy investment, changes to the meet would only weaken the competition that swimmers and fans have grown to love.
Is this a belated April Fools joke? How can the CSCAA honestly recommend these changes? The beauty of swimming is that it is measured on an equal, objective standard across all levels of competition. Your time is your time – and it doesn’t matter if you attend Cal or Miami of Ohio. If you swim fast enough to make the NCAA Champs cut line, then you go. Swimming is not like football or baseball where it’s subjective as to how good a team actually is, and is often measured against the ranking of their competition (usually in-conference). The reason the Ivy League is well represented in swimming at the National Champs is simple – fast swimmers go there and get faster. There’s no “right” for schools to send athletes to NCAAs, and adding swimmers through any other means than by taking the top times is simply a political dilution of the sport in favor of giving recognition to programs that don’t deserve it. Attention small-conference coaches – if you want swimmers from your school to make NCAAs then go train fast swimmers, don’t change the rules. Are participation trophies next?
I 1000% agree. You said it perfectly.
Here are two ideas that would increase the number of participants, but would not increase the number of swims or dilute the quality of the meet.
First, modify the rules regarding additional swims for swimmers that only qualify for one race. Right now, if you make a cut in one race, you can swim up to two more. I think you need the B cut in those, but am not sure. What about limiting swimmers to one bonus race?
Second, eliminate bonus swims entirely, but offer time trials for swimmers that have qualified for the meet in one or two events.
Either way, you could invite more swimmers without increase the number in each race or diluting the quality of the meet. Both proposals would increase cost and the second one would place additional burdens on coaches and officials (although you could run the time trials with fewer officials). That makes more sense than what CSCAA is proposing.
No changes to basic selection process, but if there is a desire to open up to more swimmers outside the Power Five, invite the top three non -power 5 performers from the NCAA list of all “B” cut performers not already invited under the current system. Not just the conference champions, but the fastest 3. And to blunt a primary NCAA argument, the new magic three can be added but their school must pay for them to come. Trying to expand the monies from the NCAA (March Madness TV contract monies) will be more likely to create a backlash of some sort against Swimming than actually produce a bigger share of the NCAA pie for our sport.