The Division II Championships Committee has asked the Division II Men’s and Women’s Swimming and Diving Committee to consider capping the field size for the 2011 national championships and beyond as part of the division’s Life in the Balance initiative.

The Life in the Balance effort emerged last January when the Division II Presidents Council charged the Legislation and Championships Committees to lead a review of the division’s playing and practice seasons to ensure alignment with the strategic-positioning platform.

Division II delegates will consider a four-proposal package at the 2010 Convention that would shorten seasons and reduce the maximum number of contests in 10 sports. In addition, the Championships Committee also is considering policy changes for future years that would add efficiencies to the postseason. In that vein, the Championships Committee has asked the swimming committee to consider capping its field size for the 2011 championship meet to 360 competitors.

Division II never has employed a cap for the swimming and diving national meet (Divisions I and III do) because sponsorship numbers in the division (which have ranged from about 51 to 58 men’s programs and 72 to 76 women’s programs) have allowed the committee to manage the meet through time standards (“A” and “B” cut times). However, the Championships Committee’s request to cap the field at 360 is close to what the field size has been for the last several years (except for last year when the techno-suit issue resulted in a field of about 500).

The swimming and diving committee began preliminary discussions about the cap during its recent annual meeting in Indianapolis. Committee Chair Dixie Cirillo, assistant athletics director at Colorado Mines, said the group is working on providing as much information as it can in advance of the Championship Committee’s February meeting.

While several details still need to be addressed, Cirillo noted that a cap would accomplish the following:

• A cap would establish a guaranteed number of participants who will be invited to the meet annually that is in line with previous championship fields.
• The cap continues the committee’s practice of selecting the best swimmers and divers to the championships field. 
• It also assists the committee with the annual development of fair and accurate qualifying standards.

“The nice thing about a cap is that, one, it obviously sets a ceiling for budgetary reasons but, two, it affords the committee some flexibility if there is a year when for whatever reason (a rule change or a stroke change, for example) we end up with fewer competitors,” Cirillo said. “The cap gives you room to fill the field in those cases with ‘B’ time swimmers to sustain the meet. If that situation were to occur under the current system, swimmers that don’t meet an ‘A’ time in an event cannot be in the meet.”

Cirillo said since the proposed cap is so close to the norm for recent meets, there’s not a general sense within the Division II swimming community that it would decrease participation opportunities.

Possible cut for the 1,000 free

Cirillo also the committee likely will examine whether the cap should allow for more participants through the addition of an “A” cut time for the 1,000 freestyle. That event currently is filled by swimmers who have met an “A” time in another event and a “B” time in the 1,000 (in other words, a swimmer cannot participate only in the 1,000 just by making a “B” time in that event).

Cirillo and others believe that establishing an “A” cut in the 1,000 would not add that many competitors to the meet, though, since most of the qualifiers still would have qualified in other distance events.

The committee also plans to review sponsorship numbers and consider whether a ratio formula ought to be applied to the cap to determine the number of competitors per gender.

“There are a lot of details that still need to be addressed, but we believe we can provide the Championships Committee with good information by its February meeting and then present our coaches with various proposals by the 2010 championships, which would give them time to provide feedback before any changes are implemented for the 2011 national meet,” Cirillo said.

Neutral judges for diving prequalification

In other action at the committee’s annual meeting, members agreed to pursue the concept of using a neutral judging panel for the prequalification diving meets rather than populate the panel from coaches already at the meet.

Previously, the panel has been composed of coaches whose divers are performing, which poses a competitive-equity concern. The committee would prefer a neutral panel that may include coaches without divers at the meet or qualified individuals from near the championship site.

Cirillo said it would benefit divers to not have their coaches be preoccupied with having to judge the meet.

“It will allow coaches to coach their own divers instead of judge divers on other teams,” she said. “It will be a great improvement for divers at the meet to have their coach be able to give them more attention during their attempt to qualify for the national competition.”

The committee also recommended that a permanent announcer for the diving portion of the national meet be selected and provided with transportation, per diem and a $500 honorarium. The committee currently compensates an announcer for the swimming events and believes doing the same for the diving announcer would be appropriate (a diving announcer has been used for the last two years and has received positive feedback from fans, coaches and teams).

Committee members also recommended that Wendy Snodgrass, associate director of athletics at Clarion, serve as chair for 2009-10.