Arizona is winning men's by a little, and the women's by a LOT. Could be a shakeup at the top of the rankings...If things stay as is, Arizona will likely be no. 1 on the men's side in the next poll, and either Stanford or Cal will be on the women's.

http://theswimmerscircle.com/2010/01/29/cats-on-top-arizona-men-women-lead-longhorns-after-day-1/

Not gonna be Cal...they got beat by USC tonight.

http://theswimmerscircle.com/2010/01/30/wildcats-pounce-on-longhorns/

Annnddd Texas goes down! The girls went down BIG! The guys were much closer.

And wow on the USC win over Cal. USC doesn't lose anybody important after this year, and only 2 or 3 after next.....Trojans will likely open next year in the top 2 or 3 teams in the nation.

The Pac-10 is having an amazing season as a conference.

As an old school swimmer from back in the day before their were cheat suits, its interesting to note how close the Aggie men swims this past weekend were to Texas's times. It's easy to forget how times were before those suits...The Ag's certainly don't have the depth that UT has, but would have won a few events out there in Arizona, considering they swam in SMU's dungeon pool....

[This message has been edited by Anonymiss (edited 1/31/2010 9:43a).]

Brackin made some comments about the meet being outdoors being a potential issue for them. tu had some good swims, and some bad swims. A few odd races - like how slow their A 200 medley relay was. They obviously sandbagged the race.

I actually was talking about the men....A&M's women should beat UT this year. Bultman is just a plain better coach.

The A&M Women have a LOT of swimmers sitting in the top 8 of their events right now, a lot of which seems to be from the UH meet where they got a bit of rest week. It's great to have so many cuts that early in the season, but the flipside is that they may not be as tapered for Big 12's as t.u. will be (not sure what the strategy will be). Of course, that could be better for the Ags when it comes to NCAA's, but it makes me nervous as to whether they will pull off the Big 12 championship.

If the Aggie girls lose Big XIIs but do better at NCAAs, Steve has the advantage of saying that to recruits. I'd rather hear a coach do well when it counts.

quote:

---

If the Aggie girls lose Big XIIs but do better at NCAAs, Steve has the advantage of saying that to recruits. I'd rather hear a coach do well when it counts.

---

Totally agree. But all else equal, I still like winning Big 12 championships. Especially over the sips.

I agree that the primary focus should be on doing well at NCs over winning conference, but its still Steve's job to have the girls ready to race and win Big XIIs. Its a point of pride for those girls to win that meet again and defend their title, whether they are fully tapered for it or not.

Blu - I'd bet good money Bultman hasn't changed the way he prepares his girls from Sept. to March in years...they've always had a fast invite in November and they've always kicked ass at Big 12's and done just as good or better at NCAA's..insinuating the few days rest they got in mid-November will affect anything in late February or mid-March is beyond ridiculous...history has proven this over and over again.

If anyone should be worried, it should be the Texas women...the fact that the outcome of last year's Big 12's was in question on the final night of competition with A&M missing Heiss, Wilkinson, Atkinson and Jaele is as much a credit to Bultman as it is a discredit to Brackin.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 1/31/2010 10:06p).]

quote:

---

insinuating the few days rest they got in mid-November will affect anything in late February or mid-March is beyond ridiculous...history has proven this over and over again.

---

Sigh, don't be a drama queen. I wasn't implying that the few days of rest would affect anything, and I think it's a great strategy when your program is in as good of a position as ours is. Who wouldn't like to get their cuts early, and not have to worry about tapering for anything before NCAA's? I was merely wondering if the fact that they had so many cuts already means that those who are in for NCAA's would delay their cut. Do you think Bultman tapers his swimmers the same regardless of whether they need to swim lifetime bests at Big 12's to qualify for NCAA's, or if they are already an A cut or solid B cut? I doubt he does.

I agree, they still have a very good chance at winning. And it's still much better to be this way for NCAA's. I was just thinking out loud that if they have, say, 10 girls who are going to NCAA's regardless of Big 12's, and Texas only has 5 (just making the numbers up), then even though the very top should cancel each other out, in that second tier of swimmers, that could tip the balance in Texas' favor.

AGAIN! I'm not implying that he has or will do anything wrong. We all realize that swimming is unique in that you often have to train for multiple apexes in the same season. For example, Americans, who have a cutthroat Olympic trials, have to taper a bit for trials or risk not making the team, whereas the Bolivians, or Estonians, or Zimbabweans, can aim everything at the Olympics. And the Americans do nothing wrong by having to taper off a little for trials, it's just what they have to do. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have any affect. Simply wondering about how it will effect their chance at a Big 12 championship.

[This message has been edited by gobluwolverine (edited 2/1/2010 12:04a).]

You said A&M may not be as tapered as Texas for Big 12's. Call me a drama queen, but I think that statement is a crock of ****.

The only two with A cuts -- including relays -- are Heiss and Atkinson. Wilkinson is pretty much a lock at this point too. The rest should not be comfortable and 'should' be looking to get faster at Big 12's in order to make the NCAA meet. A&M has had girls in the very recent past that looked like they were in and it turned out they weren't.

Even if the three I mentioned aren't tapered as much as the others, those three are seniors who have brought it time and again and are among the best swimmers on any team. They will bring it.

Just for the record, a lot of the foreigners still had to taper for their Olympic trials because they had to make the Fina A cuts, not just win the race. Just an FYI.

Just an FYI, they can get their FINA A cuts any time they want, not just at the trials. Just FYI.

kind of hard to fit getting a FINA A cut into the collegiate schedule...

quote:

---

kind of hard to fit getting a FINA A cut into the collegiate schedule...

---

????

What don't you get?

What does getting a FINA A cut have to do with the college schedule?

First of all, if you're by far the best in your country at your event, all you need is a B cut, because countries get 1 entry for events where someone has a B cut.

Furthermore, if you're a world elite swimmer, the FINA A and B cuts are not ALL that fast.

An international swimmer who was a college swimmer could easily swim their FINA cuts in the summer season, or go swim a long course meet the week after NCAA's and make them.

I'm not sure why you guys are pretending like I made this up. It's a controversial issue, and most people in the swimming world are aware of it. It's the biggest reason why some countries (like Canada) moved their trials to earlier in the year. It's also why some athletes choose to compete for a different country when they hold dual citizenship.

"What does getting a FINA A cut have to do with the college schedule?"

Colleges swim yards, the Olympics are in meters. Collegiate kids don't get a whole lot of chances to race LCM on a taper in a year. The post-NCAA meet is normally a one session deal. If you are trying to qualify in numerous races you can't possibly get them all in.

"First of all, if you're by far the best in your country at your event, all you need is a B cut, because countries get 1 entry for events where someone has a B cut."

What if you:

1) are not by far the best in your country and need to win the race

2) are trying to qualify in multiple events that, for whatever reason, you might not have gotten your A cut in yet

3) finished second at your trials and can get in with a FINA A cut?


...and for most collegians, the A cut is indeed fast.

[This message has been edited by Look Out Below (edited 2/1/2010 12:18a).]

quote:

---

Sigh, don't be a drama queen

---

He's baaaaaaccckkkkk!

I got so confused trying to follow who is arguing what point, so I'm not gonna even try to address the issue at hand...which also happens to be completely different from the thread topic. That's kinda common around these parts isn't it? Oh well.

It's not an issue that affects everybody. It's an issue with the elite swimmers. Nobody cares if the international swimmers have an advantage for 35th place. For the swimmers who are competing for medals, getting their FINA cuts is not an issue. They are also far-and-away higher than the rest of their nation. Most of the time, they also don't swim college.

Think Kirsty Coventary, Arkady Vyatchanin, Oussama Mellouli. They can get their A cuts this summer and not even have to worry about it.

I know you're arguing with me just for the sake of trying to make me wrong, but it is, in fact, real.

GoBlu, not true mister know at all.

Most countries make their athletes get the FINA A, even if they are the only one. And some even have typical politics involved that they only take who they want regardless of A or B cuts(Japan, Mexico to name a couple)

I'm not even going to try to argue this with you guys anymore. You think you're arguing with me, but you're really arguing with several national swimming federations, national team coaches, and people that know a lot more about it all than any of us.

You can't tell me that people like Kirsty Coventary don't have an advantage by swimming in a country where she will cruise to an Olympics berth, and not have to taper. Because it's simply not true.

And really anonymiss? Mexico? Mexico is your citation? Mexico who didn't have a single swimmer advance out of the heats at the Olympics? Good call, broham.

I am not trying to argue with you just for the sake of arguing. There is (at least) one very talented A&M swimmer that had to deal with a few of the issues I just laid out for you.

It seems like youre all arguing different points...

and Mexico is a PERFECT citation. especially considering how many swimmers from Mexico the A&M team(s) have had in the past years. We've seen first hand how the politics/nat'l federations have screwed over some athletes.

<-- The star's told me this is a pointless argument!
<--

Hey favre are you retiring or coming back? I want the inside scoop.

Just because you guys all have bff's from Mexico who got screwed, doesn't make it relevant. If the federations take who they want anyways, then it makes the whole concept of a trial/Time Standards irrelevant anyways. And the athletes in question are ones who would contend to at least final, if not medal. A country is not going to leave a potential Olympic finalist or medalist home because of "politics".

Situation- I'm not sure, the stars have not told me yet! I do everything by what they tell me, so when they tell me I'll let you know, probably in August. It's possible they will tell me something different in July though

I suggest skipping training camp again...your TD-int ratio was amazing this year!

blu - so far you have straight up called several people liars, when the stuff they are saying is correct, and then you continually get offended/defensive when people argue youre point (which I agree is probably being misunderstood by most people). Nobody is arguing just for the sake of arguing. Have you ever thought that it is possible, and in fact probable, that there are people who post on this forum who know more about certain subjects than you do? no, im not talking about myself, I am insignificant as far as this is concerned. And im certainly not trying to say that everyone knows more about everything than you, so dont twist my words. It has nothing to do with who knows more people "in the know", or who has cooler/more important friends, or people thinking theyre better than you just because they swam forever.

Right now you are talking about a subject that you appear to have some good knowledge about, but have zero personal experience with (yes I do know this for a fact). isnt it possible that some of the people responding to your posts have actually experienced some of the stuff you are talking about, or have dealt with it directly? Thats the tricky thing about message boards (as Anonymiss is always quick to point out), is that (most of the time) you really have no clue who everyone is. Thats not to say you cant speak your mind, dont get me wrong. Thats what message boards are for, and I agree with you that discussing the less publicized sport of swimming is a lot of fun, and I enjoy it. But when you start attacking people for arguing your points, it looks a bit hypocritical, considering that you always rag on some of the guys who get on and go a overboard in response to some of your posts.

Dont go and get all defensive on us now, I just wanted to try and civilly speak my thoughts about this. No caps lock yelling or sarcastic laughing posts are needed here. That was not my goal/intention.

and favre the Packers are gonna be better without you!!!

Aaron Rodgers is the man! ;-D