03-05-2017, 03:17 PM
Thanks, Denver Card.
IIRC, during Stanford's run of 31 straight MSw&D conference championships, there were multiple times that other teams won the national championship after having been beaten at PAC-12s. Historically, Stanford MSw&D had enough depth to win PAC-12, but had fewer of the top swimmers that score big at nationals.
I am quite pleased that Stanford swimmers improved enough on the last day (which had no diving) to pull it out. It was interesting after the 200 Br (I think) that they showed a shot of the stands and the Cal coach was intently looking at the results board, probably trying to figure out the meet scoring. I really expected Cal to win that last 400 free relay as 4 of their swimmers finished in the top 11, whereas ASU's 3rd fastest swimmer finished 16th. Bob Bowman is going to make ASU a contender.
I wanted to see the split for the freestyle on our 400 Medley Relay. It looked to me like Perry had a great swim to touch out Condorelli of USC by 0.01.
It looks like the conference championship meet coverage could improve in some areas. I continue to miss the reaction times (missing for the women too), esp. on the relays. Then there was the fact that the live results page didn't have the last prelim's results before the finals on the last day. But why the heck didn't the men's results have the splits?  When the PAC-12 TV coverage happened the day after the meet finished, it started with "The content has been modified to fit in the time available.", and then they finished coverage of the meet 20 minutes earlier than scheduled, missing most of the 100s, several of the relays, and of course most of the 1650. The coverage was spotty as to whether they even showed who was in what lane -- they didn't systematically announce the swimmers and only sometimes used graphics to show the school. If you wanted to figure who was in what lane, you had to have the sound up (Amy Van Dyken's coverage annoys me, but that may just be a matter of taste). The announcers (IMO) focused too much on certain individuals without giving coverage of them all. They showed the moving record swim line a few times, but it was poorly done (at the very least, no adjustment for dives on relays; it always seemed as though the current swimmers' last laps started out ahead and finished far behind the line). I can understand showing some of the events out of order and they were good to say the swims were from day 2 or whatever. I would have appreciated if they had shown graphics of not just the meet & PAC-12 records (with indication if that was a A.R.), but also A&B times, or at least show that when the results were shown. Again, the Live Results page is also missing that info.
The diving coverage was better (Cynthia Potter was contemporary to me & in the same city, and I like her coverage), but I would have liked to see graphics of the judges scores, DD, and total for the dive, not just the total after the dive.
IIRC, during Stanford's run of 31 straight MSw&D conference championships, there were multiple times that other teams won the national championship after having been beaten at PAC-12s. Historically, Stanford MSw&D had enough depth to win PAC-12, but had fewer of the top swimmers that score big at nationals.
I am quite pleased that Stanford swimmers improved enough on the last day (which had no diving) to pull it out. It was interesting after the 200 Br (I think) that they showed a shot of the stands and the Cal coach was intently looking at the results board, probably trying to figure out the meet scoring. I really expected Cal to win that last 400 free relay as 4 of their swimmers finished in the top 11, whereas ASU's 3rd fastest swimmer finished 16th. Bob Bowman is going to make ASU a contender.
I wanted to see the split for the freestyle on our 400 Medley Relay. It looked to me like Perry had a great swim to touch out Condorelli of USC by 0.01.
It looks like the conference championship meet coverage could improve in some areas. I continue to miss the reaction times (missing for the women too), esp. on the relays. Then there was the fact that the live results page didn't have the last prelim's results before the finals on the last day. But why the heck didn't the men's results have the splits?  When the PAC-12 TV coverage happened the day after the meet finished, it started with "The content has been modified to fit in the time available.", and then they finished coverage of the meet 20 minutes earlier than scheduled, missing most of the 100s, several of the relays, and of course most of the 1650. The coverage was spotty as to whether they even showed who was in what lane -- they didn't systematically announce the swimmers and only sometimes used graphics to show the school. If you wanted to figure who was in what lane, you had to have the sound up (Amy Van Dyken's coverage annoys me, but that may just be a matter of taste). The announcers (IMO) focused too much on certain individuals without giving coverage of them all. They showed the moving record swim line a few times, but it was poorly done (at the very least, no adjustment for dives on relays; it always seemed as though the current swimmers' last laps started out ahead and finished far behind the line). I can understand showing some of the events out of order and they were good to say the swims were from day 2 or whatever. I would have appreciated if they had shown graphics of not just the meet & PAC-12 records (with indication if that was a A.R.), but also A&B times, or at least show that when the results were shown. Again, the Live Results page is also missing that info.
The diving coverage was better (Cynthia Potter was contemporary to me & in the same city, and I like her coverage), but I would have liked to see graphics of the judges scores, DD, and total for the dive, not just the total after the dive.