Swim Cap: Division II Weighs Options

Division II, long distinctive among the three divisions, is beginning to resemble the rest of its NCAA counterparts. It was joined by Division III last year in its hosting of a combined men’s and women’s championship, and now it looks like Division II will fall in line with a cap on its field size. That change is a result of a promising, but all too seldom, development in Division II – growth.

Over seventy-five institutions now sponsor swimming with nearly sixty sponsoring both men’s and women’s programs. That growth has come in the face of the departures of longtime Division II fixtures such as North and South Dakota, Cal State Bakersfield and Northern Colorado to Division I.  That’s made for a crowded pool deck, especially in 2009 when nearly 500 participants attended.

The NCAA Championships Committee has requested that the swimming committee cap the field at 360 participants by 2011.  The push comes from the Division II “Life in the Balance” initiative. That effort is examining ways to shorten select sports’ practice and competition season. How the championships get to those 360 will be up to the swimming committee.

While much of the focus of this month’s swimming committee meetings was focused on suits, the Division II members began discussions of the cap’s implementation. Dixie Cirillo, is the chair of the committee and told the NCAA News that they are working to provide the Championship Committee as much information as possible, with an eye towards ensuring that the best swimmers and divers make the meet.

Cirillo told the NCAA news, “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.” In this case, the field would be filled with NCAA ‘B’ qualifiers much the same way Division I and III do. This would ensure full fields while not burdening the meet with additional bodies who are unlikely to score.

A sticking point, however, is one of the other items that makes Division II distinctive – the 1000 freestyle. At present, swimmers who have achieved an ‘A’ time in a separate event and also have a ‘B’ time in the 1000 may be entered.  With a cap in place, the question becomes – how do you fill the 1000 freestyle? One option would be to institute an ‘A’ standard for the event, which would guarantee entries, but could potentially decrease the number of qualifiers in other events. The current selection method, however, could theoretically leave the top seed at home if he or she didn’t also have an ‘A’ cut in another event.  Another option would be to increase the cap size sufficiently to reflect the fact that Division II offers championships in more events than Division I or III.

Not answered is relay qualification. In Division I and III a set number of qualifiers are held aside for ‘relay-only’ swimmers.  As a result spectators at NCAA Championship meets have seen an interesting assortment of relays, ranging from those that have qualified on their own merits and those assembled by individual qualifiers. Many of those squads posted times well slower than other teams left home. In 2006, Division I instituted a “floating cap” that allowed for a greater number of relays to be filled based on the number of individual qualifiers.

Another question concerns gender. To get to the cap number, the committee must consider whether a set ratio of men and women would be appropriate. In 2006-07 there were 1,370 women and 1,065 men competing in Division II. Applying a straight ratio to the cap, the committee would find itself with 207 female and just 153 male qualifiers. Spread across fourteen individual events, those 153 bodies could result in as few as eleven qualifiers each. While swimmers qualifying in multiple events would push that qualifying line down, the addition of relay qualifiers could, depending on how the cuts are made, result in barely enough men to fill championship heats.

While such a scenario could be considered worst case, there are, according to Cirillo, “A lot of details that still need to be addressed.” She’s confident that the Committee can do right by the sport. “We believe we can provide the Championships Committee with good information by its February meeting,” before taking proposals to coaches for consideration at the 2010 Championships in Canton, Ohio.

Count Gary Kinkead as one of the optimists. “You can trust me,” said the longtime Indianapolis head coach and former committee member, “Division II is GOOD hands with the Committee. They have taken a LOT of time and effort to hash out a lot of critical decisions and have done a GREAT job for Division II”.

Men			Women
‘A’	‘B’		‘A’	‘B’
20.69	21.31	50 Free	23.79	24.50
45.59	46.95	100 Free	51.99	53.55
1:40.59	1:43.60	200 Free	1:53.09	1:56.48
4:34.29	4:42.51	500 Free	5:02.99	5:12.08
	9:46.59	1000 Free	-	10:48.09
15:58.09	16:26.83	1650 Free	17:32.29	18:03.85
50.99	52.52	100 Back	57.79	59.52
1:51.49	1:54.83	200 Back	2:05.19	2:08.94
57.19	58.90	100 Breast	1:05.39	1:07.35
2:05.99	2:09.77	200 Breast	2:22.19	2:26.45
49.99	51.49	100 Fly	57.19	58.90
1:52.39	1:55.76	200 Fly	2:06.99	2:10.80
1:53.39	1:56.79	200 IM	2:08.09	2:11.93
4:03.99	4:11.31	400 IM	4:32.99	4:41.18
		RELAYS
1:23.49	-	200 Free	1:36.19	-
3:04.99	-	400 Free	3:31.09	-
6:49.99	-	800 Free	7:42.59	-
1:32.99	-	200 Med	1:47.49	-
3:24.49		400 Med	3:54.99	-