National Rankings for College Dual Meet Competitions

I am (annually) bemused at the "polls" published on swimming websites which purport to rank college
teams with regard to their dual meet performances.

I personally think that the dual meet format offers the truest test of the team -- as a team. Large,
championship meets, such as conference meets and, even more so, very large meets, such as the NCAAs
are often tests of which team has the best 4-6 swimmers, rather than which team is the best overall
in all events, where all team members "count" and contribute.

In a sport such as football, where teams may face only a handful of opponents, "polls" may be the
only way available to rank teams, but, in swimming, it seems that a method much more objective and
accurate could be used, other than a popularity poll.

Why could not performances be submitted to a central, computerized clearing house? Only actual
performances in sanctioned dual or triangular meets could be submitted. Each swimmer could have a
performance submitted in no more than 3 individual events, plus two relays. The computer would then
run head to head comparisons between all 300 teams in the country submitting performances and
determine overall "won-loss" records. As an example, Auburn might have a won-loss record of 299-0
and, on that basis, be ranked objectively as #1. Georgia might be 297-2 and be ranked #2; Stanford
294-5 and be ranked number 3 and so on. At the end of the year, the NCAA could award two
championships: a dual meet championship (national champion dual meet team) and a national meet
championship (identical to the current NCAA championships). I think that this would make the dual
meet season more interesting and competitive and would recognize the strong balance of great dual
meet teams who may be lacking in superstars.

Larry Weisenthal

Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

Lary,

I like your idea. I guess no one on the group was interested though, just us dads (I am catching up
on the newsgroup after missing a month).

Larry Weisenthal wrote:

>I am (annually) bemused at the "polls" published on swimming websites which purport to rank college
>teams with regard to their dual meet performances.
>
>I personally think that the dual meet format offers the truest test of the team -- as a team.
>Large, championship meets, such as conference meets and, even more so, very large meets, such as
>the NCAAs are often tests of which team has the best 4-6 swimmers, rather than which team is the
>best overall in all events, where all team members "count" and contribute.
>
>In a sport such as football, where teams may face only a handful of opponents, "polls" may be the
>only way available to rank teams, but, in swimming, it seems that a method much more objective and
>accurate could be used, other than a popularity poll.
>
>Why could not performances be submitted to a central, computerized clearing house? Only actual
>performances in sanctioned dual or triangular meets could be submitted. Each swimmer could have a
>performance submitted in no more than 3 individual events, plus two relays. The computer would then
>run head to head comparisons between all 300 teams in the country submitting performances and
>determine overall "won-loss" records. As an example, Auburn might have a won-loss record of 299-0
>and, on that basis, be ranked objectively as #1. Georgia might be 297-2 and be ranked #2; Stanford
>294-5 and be ranked number 3 and so on. At the end of the year, the NCAA could award two
>championships: a dual meet championship (national champion dual meet team) and a national meet
>championship (identical to the current NCAA championships). I think that this would make the dual
>meet season more interesting and competitive and would recognize the strong balance of great dual
>meet teams who may be lacking in superstars.
>
>
>
>
>
>Larry Weisenthal
>
>Certitude is poison; curiosity is life

I'm refining the idea a little in my mind; here's my idea:

Someone has to start it, may as well be me. No reason it has to be NCAA sanctioned. Precedent is the
"Wiseman Trophy," which is given by a group of private people to the football player that they think
is really the most deserving.

I start out by buying a real nice plaque:

"First Annual Usenet Collegiate Swimming Dual Meet National Championship"

I take the top 10 teams in the collegeswimming.com poll (If I had a better/faster computer and more
money to pay a programmer and data entry people I'd do it for all the teams, but you've got to start
somewhere).

I make up a nice spreadsheet.

Here are the rules:

1. No swimmer can swim in a total of more than 4 events (combined individual + relays).

2. Computer begins by taking the top 3 1650 times for each team, and these three swimmers are
designated to "swim" the 1650. After that, swimmers are "entered" into those events that they
have swum most often during the dual meet season. In this way, the entry roster for each of the
10 teams is determined. No more than three swimmers per event.

3. It then becomes a simple process for the computer to run dual meets between all 10 teams and
determine team records and produce a champion. In case of a tie (won lost record) obviously
champion is determined by results of the head to head dual meet between the teams with the
identical won-lost record.

4. Get plaque engraved. Send to head coach of winning team (along with suitable announcement on the
newsgroup and press releases to all the swimming web sites and magazines). Later on, timidly ask
coach what he/she did with the plaque and report it back on the newsgroup.

5. Next year, look for someone else to take over the job. Perhaps also ask for logistical support
from one or more sponsors (e.g. Hy-Tek,Speedo).

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:38:25 +0000, Larry Weisenthal wrote:

> I'm refining the idea a little in my mind; here's my idea:
>
> Someone has to start it, may as well be me. No reason it has to be NCAA sanctioned. Precedent is
> the "Wiseman Trophy," which is given by a group of private people to the football player that they
> think is really the most deserving.
>
> I start out by buying a real nice plaque:
>
> "First Annual Usenet Collegiate Swimming Dual Meet National Championship"
>
> I take the top 10 teams in the collegeswimming.com poll (If I had a better/faster computer and
> more money to pay a programmer and data entry people I'd do it for all the teams, but you've got
> to start somewhere).

the computer, in a project like this should be a non issue, as should be the programming. I'm sure
there's several people here who can hack together something more robust, and more available, then a
spread sheet. With a well defined project and a multi user interface the data entry could be shared.
It'd be _much_ easier if NCAA results are published in some central repository. Something like
swimdirect.com where all Canadian sanctioned events are supposed to be reported. I don't follow
american college meets (save scm NCAA's ) but maybe someone here knows if there's something
similar down south.

--Mike

> I make up a nice spreadsheet.
>
> Here are the rules:
>
> 1. No swimmer can swim in a total of more than 4 events (combined individual + relays).
>
> 2. Computer begins by taking the top 3 1650 times for each team, and these three swimmers are
> designated to "swim" the 1650. After that, swimmers are "entered" into those events that they
> have swum most often during the dual meet season. In this way, the entry roster for each of the
> 10 teams is determined. No more than three swimmers per event.
>
> 3. It then becomes a simple process for the computer to run dual meets between all 10 teams and
> determine team records and produce a champion. In case of a tie (won lost record) obviously
> champion is determined by results of the head to head dual meet between the teams with the
> identical won-lost record.
>
> 4. Get plaque engraved. Send to head coach of winning team (along with suitable announcement on
> the newsgroup and press releases to all the swimming web sites and magazines). Later on,
> timidly ask coach what he/she did with the plaque and report it back on the newsgroup.
>
> 5. Next year, look for someone else to take over the job. Perhaps also ask for logistical support
> from one or more sponsors (e.g. Hy-Tek,Speedo).