Bucknell's Methods and Lightweight Rowing

Observers of women's lightweight rowing have to be wondering today what Bucknell's method of having heavyweights drop to lightweight for IRAs will mean for other programs. As I mentioned before, I was told that last year's Bucknell light eight had problems with weight. Bucknell's solution, apparently, was to race them as heavyweights and only require them to drop weight three times during the season (presumably timed for lulls in the competitive schedule).

I find two serious problems with this. First, Bucknell, which could lead the lightweight community, has instead chosen to use the lightweight community. While other programs spend the time and money necessary to create separate programs and race schedules separate from their heavies, Bucknell does none of that and simply goes pot hunting at IRAs. It's obvious, but worth saying, that if every other lightweight crew did what Bucknell does, there would be no lightweight league and no IRA championship. There would be no Dad Vail, Windermere, Knecht Cup, Crew Classic, ECAC (oops, that's already gone with Bucknell racing only heavyweights there), or Sprints lightweight events. While other programs put their blood, sweat, and money where their mouths are, Bucknell apparently sees the lightweight category as simply another way to burnish resumes.

Bucknell's manipulation of the category is further highlighted by the fact that last year, when the student newspaper was writing about the "light eight," the coaches asked the paper not to refer to them as lightweights, but to call them the "2V." Is this a program that supports lightweight rowing?

The second problem with the Bucknell method, is that the strategy of dropping heavyweights for key lightweight races is exactly the kind of thing for which the category is criticized and which the NCAA finds unsavory. Clearly the leaders of the lightweight category also find this unsettling. Last year, when I repeated the false rumor that in 2004 Wisconsin dropped two heavyweights into the light eight for IRAs, it was met with instantaneous and emphatic denial from the Badgers. UCF, although actually racing a lightweight schedule, was faced with the same opportunity as Bucknell to pull down some of their heavies into the light eight, but chose not to. For better or worse, the coaches there made the decision to allow their rowers to race in only one category. With Bucknell, however, we have a national champion who may not even field a lightweight eight next year. Will they have enough lightweights and near-lightweights to field a full eight? Will they be fast? If not, will they enter anyway in support of the category or will they take their ball and go home?

Let me quote instructions that went out from the CRCA lightweight committee with last year's new weigh-in rules:

The goal of the weigh-in documentation is to ensure that crews racing at the collegiate lightweight women's National Championship have been racing as lightweights with consistency throughout the season.

Clearly this procedure failed this year, and one must wonder if it needs to
be revised for next year.

While we're at it, let's dispose of the silly notion, put forth both last year and this, that Bucknell somehow makes faster lightweights by racing them as heavyweights. Any athlete would know this is spurious - it doesn't matter what your opponent is, it matters how fast your opponent is. Perhaps those making the argument are suggesting that no lightweights exist fast enough to challenge Bucknell, yet that was obviously not true last year, and this year when Bucknell raced the Princeton lights, a crew that just pushed them to the limit, they raced heavyweights. Is that supporting the category?

Bucknell is at a crossroads; it can become a leader of lightweight women's rowing or it can continue to ride on the back of the programs that actually do support and maintain the sport.

What's it gonna be?

Bucknell Ends Wisconsin's Streak

Proving the old adage that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, Bucknell won the national championship by 3.5 seconds over second place Princeton. Wisconsin was another 1 second back, followed by Radcliffe, Stanford, and Georgetown.

In a race that, while still close, sorted itself out surprisingly quickly, Princeton and Bucknell fought a seesaw battle through 1000 meters. Through the third 500 Bucknell began to assert itself and once Princeton hit its personal dead zone - the sprint - the Bison pulled away to take the crown. It would surely be a compliment to say that Bucknell rowed a Wisconsin-like race - entering the lead pack early, allowing one or two other crews to believe they have a chance, and finally closing the door on the field through the last 500. Wisconsin occasionally threatened to make it a three boat race, but was never quite able to pull back until the very end.

As Bucknell and Princeton entered the last 500 meters, the Bison, with half a length or so lead, must've felt confident of the win, knowing the Tigers' problems with the sprint. Anyone who watched Princeton in a close race over the last two years knew what would come next - rushed slides and short strokes - as they lost ground to Bucknell ahead, and saw Wisconsin charge up their stern. If Princeton could fix this flaw, they'd be truly dangerous. Bucknell, meanwhile, showed no such flaws as they rowed a clean race from start to finish, looking as strong in the last 20 strokes as they did in the first.

MIT once again took the petite final, a nice turnaround from where the Engineers' season seemed to be headed just a few weeks ago. Ohio State finished after MIT, followed by LMU, UCF, Long Beach State, and Lehigh. It was great to see three California crews make the trip east and when the IRA moves west, hopefully all of the eastern crews will reciprocate.

So the lightweight field grows even stronger and crowns a brand new national champion. After all of the lightweight haters had their say about the lack of competition a few weeks ago, it's instructive to compare heavyweight and lightweight championship finals. The times are remarkably similar. Eleven seconds separated the field at IRAs while seven seconds separated it at NCAAs. (In fact, Bucknell's raw time was faster than Yale's raw time. I point this out not to suggest that Bucknell is faster, only to further make the point that spreads were very comparable.) This is really quite remarkable given how the proliferation of heavyweight programs and the abundance of scholarship money has spread the talent around the heavyweight world. Any such dispersion of talent naturally results in more crews of similar speed, but lightweights have had none of that.

The 2007 season ends without controversy and with a clear cut, if surprising, champion in Bucknell. Princeton, whose season began so promisingly, comes away with a gold in the four (which surprisingly turns out to be the only gold won by any Princeton crew at a national championship race). Wisconsin and Radcliffe move out of the dreaded "rebuilding year" and become major threats on the horizon, as does Stanford. Georgetown remembers how difficult it is to follow up on success. Another season down, an even stronger one on the way.

IRA Eights

Switch Princeton and Radcliffe, and we enter IRAs in a similar position to that of last year. Wisconsin coming off a Sprints win, Princeton (Radcliffe last year) coming off a strong regular season but with only a silver medal at Sprints, and Georgetown gaining speed throughout the season to finish third at Sprints. It all made for a rather unpredictable national championship regatta.

The favorites in this year's first heat are Wisconsin and Georgetown. Radcliffe probably has the best opportunity to send one of those two to the reps, especially now that they are able to bring the freshmen fully into the mix. Loyola Marymount will get a feel for an Ohio State crew that knocked off Long Beach State at Dad Vail, while MIT, which has struggled in the V8 this year, will see if it has a shot at the grand final.

The second heat may be the more difficult of the two, with Princeton and Stanford, two crews close in speed, facing UCF, Bucknell, Lehigh, and Long Beach State. UCF is a relative unknown, having last raced at Windermere in mid-April. Bucknell is a complete unknown, since they only boated a light eight twice, neither time against any crews at IRAs. Bucknell only lost a couple of athletes from last year's boat, but apparently some of last year's lightweights had some weight issues and may have made a permanent move to heavyweight. This will be a good test for LBS since although they've beaten Lehigh before, they haven't faced competition at the level of Princeton and Stanford. Lehigh gets a chance to show what they've learned from their Dad Vail experience. Of Stanford and Princeton, I actually think the Tigers may be in the most danger of finding themselves in the reps. Stanford is getting faster but having lost to Princeton before, will want to make sure no one sneaks up on them for second. If Princeton snoozes at all, they fall behind Stanford and are then worried about trying to stay ahead of Bucknell and UCF, two crews who could make a run at them. Sounds unlikely, but it happened to Wisconsin last year.

It's hard to imagine a final without Wisconsin, Georgetown, Princeton, and Stanford. Given Radcliffe's new pool of talent (even if there are no new faces in the boat), I suspect they'll pick up speed and make the grand. The battle for last place in the final should be a dog fight, and it's hard to call it now. Thanks to Stanford, I would guess that either Bucknell or UCF will race the petite after making last year's grand, but in no way is it a foregone conclusion that one of those two makes it in.

If we're completely honest about how the field looked at the beginning of the season, we'll admit that it looked weak. Other than Princeton, that is. While Wisconsin lost five from last year's boat, and everyone else lost at least two, Princeton lost none. None, by the way, from a boat that beat the Badgers in the heat in 2006. If this isn't the year of the Tiger, when will it be? Somehow, though, Princeton finds itself an underdog. The Tigers no doubt know what their issues are, and if they spent the last few weeks making some technical corrections and seat racing with that fast 2V, they could blow away the field. If they simply did pieces, they're in for disappointment. Wisconsin comes in with a young crew (four sophomores), but as the favorite. Their speed this year not only puts them in position to win their fourth national championship, but suggests that the string won't end this year. Stanford, meanwhile, could surprise everyone. With an even younger crew of three freshmen and one sophomore, the Cardinal is in a position to make a sustained run at the national championship. [Update: See comments for more information on the latest boatings.]

All signs point to another tight final this year, and given last year's surprising turn of events, just about anything can happen.

IRA Fours

The addition of the four to the IRA, even as an exhibition, is a great step forward for women's lightweight rowing. I don't know what will be used to determine if it becomes a permanent event, but I'm sure interest will be high. With a bit more notice more schools will be able to plan for the race and I would guess that it will become one of the more competitive events (both to enter and to win) at the IRA.

Pitt's absence from the field leaves us without an obvious favorite, although perhaps not everyone would agree. While Pitt beat up on the Knecht Cup field by almost 14 seconds, at Dad Vail Lawrence was within 7 seconds. The only boat in this field that didn't race either Lawrence or Pitt this spring is Princeton. The Tigers did, however, race Pitt in the HOCR, finishing 18 seconds back. This looked like a pretty big gap then, but now that we've seen Pitt race 2ks, it doesn't seem quite as large.

I think Lawrence, though, must be considered the favorite in this race. At only 13 seconds behind Pitt at Dad Vail, Duquesne can claim to be a likely second. Princeton's chances, I think, are tempered by how they approach this race. If they use it to race a fast boat - say the top four from their 2V - they've got to be one of the favorites. If on the other hand, they use it as a development race for some of their freshmen, they're not. The same goes for Wisconsin, Radcliffe, and Georgetown, although to a lesser extent since their 2Vs weren't up to Princeton's speed. With the quirkiness of the four though (meaning it takes more skill to row it well), any one of these crews could put out a very fast boat.

Lawrence's biggest enemy, I think, will be their lack of big race experience. Or really, just race experience. This didn't seem to bother them at Dad Vail, however, so they apparently know how to handle it. If they race with confidence and poise, Lawrence can pull this off. We can't count out Duquesne, however, because 5 seconds (Dad Vail time to Lawrence) isn't a huge gap to a crew that made up 20 seconds on Pitt between Knecht and Dad Vail. But with all of the Sprints schools unknowns, truly anything can happen. Without heats, each crew will have to watch the entire field for a sign of who will challenge, adding pressure to the coxswain's job. These fours could very well provide the most exciting racing of the regatta, a result that just might ensure a 2008 race.

Lessons Learned

As we prepare for the 2007 IRA, one can't help but think about last year's dam opening that occurred during the championship races. Despite the fact that Rowing News and row2k never admitted that they published false information about the opening, there was one organization that acknowledged the problem and seems resolved to do their best to avoid a repeat - the ECAC, the regatta sponsor. While I still think it odd (and somewhat unethical) that the rowing press never admitted their mistakes in the reporting of the situation (Oh the shame, scooped by an anonymous blogger!), the ECAC had nothing to do with that and admitted the problem from the beginning. I'm pretty sure everyone will know when that dam is open and when it is closed this year.

About a month ago a story appeared in South Jersey's Courier-Post that gave some perspective to what the local authorities wrestle with when deciding when to open the Cooper River dam. This story dealt with local residents' concerns that the dam was kept open for the Knecht Cup, resulting in unnecessary flooding. This situation seems to be the opposite of last year's IRA when the dam was opened to the detriment of the regatta. (Recall that the issue last year, of course, was not that houses should be flooded for the regatta, it was communicating the state of the dam.) This Knecht Cup story leaves unanswered the question of why the dam wasn't opened until Sunday when the regatta ended Saturday afternoon, but it certainly gives you a good idea of the competing interests that must be balanced by the county. Take a look at some of the comments to this story to see just how sensitive an issue rowing on the Cooper is. Remember this when you're there in two weeks and have the urge to park in a no-parking zone or leave your Power Bar wrapper on the ground.

We're all praying for good weather for this year's IRA, but as an outdoor sport contested on nature's racecourses, problems will occur. This year, though, I feel pretty confident that they won't be of the man-made variety.

Comments on the IRA Fours

The Exhibition race for women's lightweight fours that will be held at the IRA (see previous post) is, of course, a tremendous step forward for lightweight women. Many programs that are unable to put out competitive light eights, are able to boat extremely competitive light fours. For this reason, a fours event at the IRA is even more meaningful for the lightweight women. The addition of this race (although on a temporary basis at the moment), is another sign of the growth of the category. At Sprints this year, the spread among the top three boats was as tight as among the top three heavyweight boats, with first and second even closer among the lights than the heavies. At Dad Vail, the spread was a little wider, but still compared favorably among the top three. At lower levels, of course, the category continues to see a wider dispersion, but it's not what it was just a few years ago. This is an exciting new initiative and I feel confident it will be successful this year and become a permanent event.

As for the selection process, it's hard to get too worked up about an exhibition race (which I suppose simply means no medals, no championship, and temporary for now), but let's take a quick look. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea of inviting the gold medalists from the A-10, WIRA, SIRA and Dad Vail. This provides an opportunity for boats who rarely, or never, race at the IRA to do so (perhaps the PCRC champs could be added). More importantly, however, it makes those championship regattas that much more meaningful. The boats that receive invitations because they are champions, earned their invitations on the water. Although a reader has posted that Pitt will not be racing, I desperately hope they can work out their conflicts because they deserve to race at the pinnacle of collegiate rowing. (BTW, see Pitt story here.) I'm also thrilled for Lawrence. I would argue that the Dad Vail fours silver should be invited before the WIRA eights silver, but Long Beach's entry in the eight mooted that concern. It can be hard to imagine what this kind of exposure can mean to a school like Lawrence if you've never worked your butt off for a club program that is all but unknown at your school (of course, this is true for most club programs, Pitt included). It's hard not to have a soft spot for this little school in Wisconsin that's coming to the big stage. As the winner of A-10s, Duquesne deserves an invite as well.

I find the IRA program invites a bit more curious. The theme for the other invites is that they earned it on the water this year. The IRA boats are invited based on what they did a year ago in an unrelated boat. Unrelated because the rowers in the four would come from the 2V eight, not the varsity eight. A look back at the past several years shows that rarely does the V8 winner also win the V4, suggesting that there is no correlation between the two.

It seems to me that there two more logical ways to choose the IRA program fours. The first, and best, is to pick the gold and silver medalists in the 2V at Sprints. The fours from these programs will be made up of athletes from the 2V and this is where those athletes proved themselves on the water. The speed of last year's 1V says little about the worthiness of this year's 2V athletes. The other option is to invite the gold and silver medalists from last year's Sprints fours final. Although it still relies on a performance from a year ago, at least it's in the right boat.

Now, let's compare. The IRA programs that are actually coming are Wisconsin and Georgetown (Radcliffe gets in through a loophole). If the preferred option were used it would be Princeton and Radcliffe. Given the Tigers' victory at Sprints, it's pretty hard, well, impossible, to argue that Princeton doesn't have the most deserving 2V athletes. I suppose it's possible that Wisconsin's and Georgetown's best four are as fast as Princeton's best four, and that the 20+ seconds was all due to the relative quality of the next four, but that stretches too far for me. If we used the second method the invitees would be Princeton and Radcliffe again. (Oh, and don't forget that Princeton was just after Pitt at the HOCR.) Because Radcliffe gets in through a loophole, it looks like Princeton is really the program that suffers here.

One is tempted to wonder about MIT. After all, they did beat a Princeton four during the season. The problem there is, with the Sprints programs concentrating on 2Vs instead of fours, we have no idea who was in either four. The boats weren't put together with an IRA invitation in mind, so we can't really look to that race. Nonetheless, it does seem as if MIT should be there, but I can't think of formula that puts them in the race.

The upshot of all this is that all of the right boats seem to be involved except for Princeton. It's difficult to get too exercised over an exhibition race, but it just misses being a race of this year's top fours.

About the IRA Fours Race

Steve Kish was kind enough to explain how the lightweight four event at the IRA came into being and how the invitees were selected for this year's exhibition race:

CRCA Lightweight Committee met over the winter and one of the initiatives that came of its meeting was the goal of increasing participation in the lightweight eight at the IRA. In addition to encouraging the eights to attend (good to see LMU and Long Beach coming this year), the thought was to also encourage programs that are still developing and perhaps racing the lightweight four, in the hopes that the experience would lead those programs to put together an eight for the next year. It is not meant to be exclusive nor do we think it is the perfect system and I am sure there are plenty of ways to look at the idea and poke holes in it. Long of the short is that a number of programs who have never raced at the IRA will be there this year. We’ll see where it goes from there.

It took a while to get the idea off the ground and definitely on the program. Very happy that the IRA (Gary Caldwell) was supportive and the CRCA lwt committee is very happy that they agreed, as are all the coaches I have been in contact with. It is an exhibition and we’ll see how it goes. It is a six boat straight final on Friday afternoon.

The initial idea was to invite the gold medalists from the A-10, WIRA, SIRA and Dad Vail. The other two spots were to be filled by the top lwt eights programs based on their finish from the previous IRA. So, that is Wisconsin and Georgetown .

Duquesne accepted the invite. LMU is coming in the eight, not in the four. Georgia could not accept as a result of scheduling conflicts. And Pitt is still working on their scheduling conflicts but we hope they will be able to come. The scheduling conflicts are a result of me not getting the word out soon enough. Hopefully, if all runs well this year, it will be something that everyone will be aware of right from the start next year.

Without the WIRA champ available as they are coming in the eight, the next idea was to invite the WIRA silver, but that is Long Beach and they are also coming in an eight. The decision was then made to simply find the most competitive non-IRA program and invite it. So the next one on the list was from the Dad Vail, and that is Lawrence . They have accepted. Brock was considered but the IRA would like to keep the regatta as a US championship, as is the general IRA as well as the NCAA, etc.

So, the sixth spot has been filled by Radcliffe, as they were third at last year’s IRA.

Stanford made a case for their four which won the PCRC’s. But, again, based on the spirit of what we were trying to do, it didn’t make sense to bring a VL4 from Stanford, when Stanford is also rowing a lwt eight. Radcliffe on the other hand, is being invited based on last year’s finish, similar to Wisconsin and Georgetown .

So, currently it is Duquesne, Lawrence , Wisconsin , Georgetown , Radcliffe and hopefully Pitt.

LMU IS Headed to IRAs

After I passed along some bum scoop I thought I picked up from the LMU web site, a member of the Lions light eight wrote (and a reader commented) to tell me that they are going to IRAs. It's no small commitment to travel across the country for a race, and athletic departments, rowers, coaches, and parents only put out the money for deserving crews. LMU deserves to go. This won't be an easy final to make, but with a strong, fearless row I think LMU has a good shot at it. Although the Lions lost to UCF by 10 seconds at Windermere, the Golden Knights have had the misfortune of going without a race since then, while LMU will have WIRAs and the upcoming PCRCs under their belt. (Let's stop a moment for some empathy for UCF - imagine training all this time without a race!)

While WIRAs, PCRCs, and Windermere are big time regattas, they aren't necessarily big time lightweight regattas. As the only women at IRAs, you know you are there to compete for a championship. I'm happy to see Loyola Marymount compete in New Jersey, although I suspect there will be a few crews there who won't be.

IRA Participation

It's been an awfully slow winter and rather than see how long I can sit on an erg before I hurt my back, I decided to take a look at who's been racing at IRAs.



I looked at 1997 through 2006 with the exception of 1998 (there seem to be no records from that year although I thought I saw them once), so it's a period of nine years, with the one break. It will surprise no one to hear that Radcliffe has raced at IRAs in every one of those years, since the Black and White are really the pioneers of collegiate lightweight women's rowing in the US. Perhaps a bit surprising however, is the fact that Wisconsin has also raced in each of those years. Surprising because I think we tend to think of the East coast schools as rowing forever while the western (west of Washington DC, that is) schools seem like relative newcomers. Wisconsin's tenure at the IRAs shows that dynasties aren't made overnight.



Princeton has raced eight times and Georgetown six. It's hard to remember that Wisconsin's program is older than Princeton's and Georgetown's is only two years younger. At five races come Villanova, UCF, and Stanford, a mix of the old and new. Villanova was quite a power in its day, which was really 1997 through 2000. Although the full results are missing, I do recall that Villanova won the national championship in 1998. Villanova lost its focus on lightweights and sunk into the morass of middling Dad Vail schools (attention class, that lesson will be on the final exam!).



In all, 30 schools have raced lightweight women at IRAs in those nine years. One can only wonder what happened to Mercyhurst who raced four times from 1999 to 2002. Will they ever be back? MIT, with a long lightweight tradition, has only raced twice. Some odd names show up as well, such as Brown and Virginia, two schools now known more for meat boats than for lightweights.



Over the nine year span, 90 boats raced (Wisconsin entered a B boat one year) for an average of ten entries per year. The number of entries per year has been quite variable, however, from a low of seven in 1999 to a high of fourteen in 2001. An average of 3 and a third boats drop each year while four new ones come on. For some reason 2001 and 2004 both saw a surge of a net four new boats racing. Since the field is now capped at 12 we won't see another fourteen entry year.



Of the thirty schools that entered boats over this period, nine only entered once and only nine (not the same nine) failed to make the grand final at least once. Of course making the grand has become harder in recent years. I've pointed out before that over the past ten years (including 1998) there have been four different national champions, a record the same as the heavy men and similar to the heavy women (they have five, I think). One other little surprise in the record is that in 2000, Radcliffe didn't make the final and finished 9th out of ten boats. Unusual for that program but a not unexpected sign of how difficult it is to maintain top finishes year in and year out.



Judging by these entries, the foundational programs of women's lightweight rowing stand out - Radcliffe, Wisconsin, Princeton, Georgetown, UCF, and Stanford. These are the key schools that make lightweight women's rowing work in the US (normally I'd put MIT in there too but their IRA attendance is pretty low). The names would be only slightly different ten years ago but I hope there will be many more on the list ten years hence. The fact that the average net change in boats each year is positive and the anecdotal evidence we see of varsity programs adding lightweights (e.g. Tulsa) are good signs for continued growth. The field is extremely competitive at the upper end and the days of near row overs are long gone. This year should be even better as crews normally relegated to the petites claw their way into the grand.



Speaking of this year, it's almost half way through January which means only about two months until racing begins. It's been so warm I wonder if they haven't already been rowing on Lake Mendota.



Technorati Tags: rowing

Regatta Race Order

The recent news that the NCAA is considering moving the women's basketball championship back one week to avoid conflicting with the men's championship made me think about the order of finals at major regattas. Somewhere along the line many regattas decided to move the women's final after the men's final. The prime example of this is IRAs where last spring the order was men's heavy eight, women's light eight, and men's light eight.



I would guess that this was originally done as a show of support for the women, giving their final a better (later) spot on the program than the heavy men. The reality, unfortunately, is a bit different. Those who attended the IRA finals saw the stands and shoreline near the finish tower fill to capacity in anticipation of the heavyweight men's championship. Once that race finished spectators moved in to see the medal presentations and then promptly began to wander off. As the light women came across the line, only those specifically interested in that race seemed to be watching. That was a decent enough crowd, but no heavyweight men fans lingered to see what the lightweight women were all about.



I assume this ordering of the races was well intentioned, but it doesn't work. The order should be light men, light women, heavy men. It would be nice if the heavyweight men's fans stayed to watch the lightweight championships, but they don't. At least not yet. We should take advantage of the forming crowd and run the light women just before the heavy men. With the increasing quality of the lightweight women's field, I have no doubt it would be a show worth watching.





Technorati Tags: rowing

An Idea for the National Championship

With the announcement of the BCS match-ups come the annual calls for a I-A college football playoff system. Although this world of big-time sports seems far removed from lightweight rowing, it reminded me of a rowing championship format espoused by Mike Teti. Before I go farther, let me say that this idea comes from Mike, but I will no doubt not explain it quite the way he would and may get some key elements wrong. So, the idea is not mine, but any differences from the originator's actual concept are the result of my own faulty memory or misunderstanding.



In essence, the plan would work like this:





- The championship would include men's and women's heavyweights and lightweights, varsity eights only.



1) For each category there would be 12 entrants who would race in two qualifying heats (two 6 boat races)



2) Three top boats from each qualifier would move on to a quarterfinal (6 boat race)



3) The top three boats in the quarterfinal would race again in the semi-final (3 boat race)



4) The top two boats in the semi would race again in a match race to decide the national championship (2 boat race)





So, we have a tournament format, for V8s only, and all four collegiate rowing categories would have a NCAA championship. The idea is that the tournament format would create increasing excitement, building toward the last match race for the national championship (I may have added an extra race in there). By only allowing V8s we cut to the heart of the matter, avoid those silly team championships, and avoid the embarrassment of listening to the "national champion" 2V pair tell an interviewer how they just started rowing together last week. To make it a true championship event, all categories would need to be present and racing for a national championship.



That's the idea and, again, my apologies for any deviation from the original scheme. What do you think? Could this work? How would you improve it? Other ideas?







Technorati Tags: rowing

IRA Dam Opening: The Final Word

As I reported earlier, the Camden County Parks Director informed me that the Cooper River Parkway Dam was, in fact, open during the afternoon of June 3rd - the most important afternoon in college rowing. During the championship races that afternoon, including the women's lightweight eight, the dam opening created seriously unfair conditions for lane 1 and most likely lane 2 as well. Since lanes one and two were given to those qualifiers with the fastest times, the championship finals were seriously flawed. I gave this information to the ECAC which, to its credit, conducted its own investigation. The ECAC has determined that THE COOPER RIVER DAM WAS OPEN that afternoon.

It is difficult to imagine a more serious error in rowing than racing when there are drastically different conditions for different lanes. This was made all the worse by the fact that the affected races determined the national championship for the men's heavy eight, the men's light eight, and the women's light eight.

This is no small matter. While no one can say what the outcome would have been of fair races, we do know that fabulous crews had their hopes dashed against the shoals of miscommunication. While pride and lasting memories hung in the balance, so too did alumni donations and coaches' jobs. Wouldn't it have been great to see Princeton v Cal from lanes 5 and 6? What would a resurgent Princeton women's light eight have done from lane 5? What would a highly touted Navy men's light eight have done from lane 6? What's done is done, but it was done unfairly and it should not be allowed to happen again.

Gothard Lane, Director of Championships for the ECAC, did the research for the regatta committee. Gothard explained to me that "Without notifying us, the dam was opened on Saturday. From what we understand, the water got so high that they had no choice but to open the dam. If they had not released the water when they did then some of the local neighborhoods might have experienced some flooding later on that day during high tide." It seems then, that this was a tragic case of miscommunication. It's more difficult to understand, however, how spectators and coaches alike knew of the dam opening but the regatta committee did not. As Gothard goes on to say, "If we had been notified by the dam operator, then we could have gathered the coaches together to decide about what to do with regard to the schedule." If I were a coach, I would want to know what the regatta committee's plan is to ensure that this does not happen again. I would expect a letter acknowledging the problem and the plan.

Here is a short chronology of how this all came to light:

- As the women's light eight grand final is crossing the line on June 3rd, spectators mention to Fight in the Dog that the dam has been opened

- FITD analyzes race results after the rumored dam opening and finds obvious abnormalities

- row2k publishes a post-race report stating that the dam was closed all afternoon and was incapable of being opened because of the force of the current

- FITD reads the row2k report but decides that the facts still suggest a serious problem and publishes a post-race report noting the rumored dam opening and its affect on the races

- After taking some criticism from readers for publishing the rumored opening, FITD decides to research the issue and is told by the Camden County Parks Director that the dam was open from 1pm until 3:30pm.

- FITD informs the ECAC of the dam opening; the ECAC launches its own investigation

- The ECAC confirms that the dam was open during the IRA championship races

Sometimes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.

[Update: The most recent issue of Rowing News repeats the false story about the dam not being opened and unable to be opened for the championship races. No doubt the truth came out after they went to press. It's particularly unfortunate that they led the IRA article with the false story. The article also says that the Cornell light men were in lane one while they were actually in lane two and Navy (sixth place) was in lane one.]

What Did They Know and When Did They Know It?

I was feeling bad after being taken to task by a few readers for writing so much about the lane problems at the IRA final (I should have written it in a separate post) and I decided it would only be fair to see if I could get more information.

After some online research I determined that the dam in question was the Cooper River Parkway Dam at Kaighn Avenue. I then made a few phone calls and sent a few emails before I determined that Camden County Parks controls the dam. Finally, I sent an email to Caren Fishman, the Director of Parks for Camden County and asked for the Cooper River Parkway Dam opening times for June 2nd and June 3rd. This morning I received the following response:

6/2/06 12:45 - 2:45 p.m. dam opened
6/3/06 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. dam opened

The June 2nd opening coincides with the halt in racing on that day - the last race ran at 12:36 and the next race ran at 3:15 - so it provides confidence that this is the correct dam.

If you recall, the row2k June 3rd post-race report said

the water folks did not open the dam during racing - in fact, they were not able to, as there was too much water for them to be able to do so, so they had to let water spill over the top of the dam naturally.

We have a serious discrepancy. The dam was open during the final races of the day Saturday. I'm not sure who "the water folks" are, but they didn't seem to know when the dam was open and when it was closed.

There was a 2 hour dam opening Friday, racing was halted, and when it resumed the lane seedings were switched. Saturday there was a 2.5 hour dam opening, racing continued during the opening and lane seedings were not switched. A mistake was made on one of these days and judging by the Saturday results, it was that day. The current effect first showed up on Saturday in the men's heavyweight V8 final, which was raced at about 2:15 (it was delayed). Races just prior to that, ending at 1:45, did not show the effect. The river current had to go from near zero to fast enough to affect racing and, although I don't know how long that would take, 45 minutes seems within reason.

So here we are. The rumors seem to be true and it looks like we had a serious problem with the fairness of the National Championship races. This is not a function of rowing being an outdoor sport. This condition was controlled for on Friday and it should have been controlled for on Saturday. Competing championship regattas (e.g. ECAC) have been organized as a result of perceived unfair conditions such as this. Serious questions need to be asked of the IRA Regatta committee. We are now left to wonder how much of a disadvantage lane one, and probably lane two, had in the men's heavy V8 grand, the women's light V8 petite and grand, and the men's light V8 petite and grand.

The worst part of all of this? It gives the Pac 10 ammunition on their quest for a men's heavyweight NCAA championship.

[Update: The ECAC is checking into this; see comments.]

IRA Race Video

The IRA race video is up over at goldmedalfilms.com. Good video and for those of you who tend toward the excessive, you can click through it frame by frame.

Furthermore...

If lightweights were heavyweights, and prone to self-congratulatory awards, the crew of the year would likely be Georgetown. To some, a move from fourth to second doesn't seem like that big of a deal. We all know better. Most obviously, it's a move from no medal to a silver medal. Even bigger though, is the fact that Georgetown had become a reliable fourth. Plugging along never quite able to see the big three ahead of them and always worried about Stanford to the rear. No longer. Despite the fact that the light women were the most successful program at Georgetown, they never seemed to get the respect they deserved in their own boathouse. They can't be ignored any more, can they? With a silver medal around their necks and a coach of their own, they've shown what some focus can do.

Another crew that I think should be mentioned is MIT. Earlier in the year MIT lost to Dayton by 20 seconds and URI by 17, both of whom MIT beat in the petite final. With some injuries in the boat, MIT didn't enter an eight at Sprints, so it was something of an unknown coming into IRAs and it showed that it had clearly done some work over the last three weeks.

Cliffies and Princetonians no doubt lament the days when they could win five national championships in a row and then simply trade it off with the other. Those days are gone. This is a new, much more competitive world. Although the Wisconsin dynasty is threatening a similar reign, the deck below is getting shuffled. Wisco's three championships now, are more impressive than Radcliffe's and Princeton's runs in past years because of this new competitiveness. As more dedicated lightweight crews come into existence, the in-season racing gets tighter and more frequent creating momentum for even more programs to enter the fray. Although some would have us think otherwise, this season has once again shown that women's lightweight rowing is growing stronger every year. [See comments for a nice view of the regatta.]




As the inevitable criticisms begin to roll in of my last post, I need to address the lane kerfuffle one last time. I thought long and hard about mentioning it in my post because I knew I would open myself up to accusations of Princeton partisanship and an intent to belittle the achievements of the medalists. I had planned not to mention it, particularly when I saw the row2k report - until I looked at the results. Clearly, there was a problem. In no way does this mean that I think Princeton would have won or medaled in a different lane. I have no idea. The rest of the field may have gone even faster with a faster boat on their tail. There are no asterisks in rowing. There are, however, regatta committees who must make decisions at next year's regatta. At the risk of sounding like Stanford, if no one points out the obvious, they'll think they can continue to fool all of the people all of the time. This went beyond the women's event and into the heavyweight and lightweight men's as well, affecting Yale and Navy. I regret that a full explanation took up so much space, but if I was going to mention it I had to justify it. Remember, it could be you in lane one next time. There, I'm done with it. Shoot the messenger if you will. I've been waiting for it and I've put on my armor in anticipation. Read the comments for opposing views and be civil when you post. Passion is good!

By the way, I may mention it again. Next year. Someone has to stir the pot, right?

Wisconsin - Again!

The University of Wisconsin came out of the reps to win its third consecutive National Championship today. Facing the most talented field in the history of women's lightweight rowing, Wisconsin won the gold by 4 seconds over second place Georgetown and 8 seconds over third place Radcliffe. Princeton, UCF, and Bucknell rounded out the field.


Wisconsin had the race pretty well in hand after 500 meters, although it had to fend off Radcliffe most of the way until Georgetown began storming back on the field at the 1000 meter mark. Georgetown, who was rowing in fourth place for the first half of the race, seemed to catch a second wind at the halfway mark and rowed through both Princeton and Radcliffe to take the silver. Wisconsin looked cool and in control, rowing long in the wind, and powered their way down the course to start dynasty talk in Madison.


In the petite, MIT pulled out a win to signal that they're not content to rest on their history any longer. Dayton came in second, just ahead of URI. Lehigh, Ohio State, and Stanford rounded out the field.

A few years ago, observers would criticize this event as not competitive. Last year the spread between first and sixth was 35 seconds, and the spread between first and tenth was 58 seconds. Two years ago the same spreads were 37 and 64 seconds (1st and 12th). This year the spreads were 15 and 37 seconds. Two months ago, not many outside of the category would have thought that the women's lightweight eight final would be this competitive. Women's lightweight rowing has come into its own this year and I don't think it will ever look back.

A discussion of this race would be improper if it did not mention the elephant in the room - lane assignments. This was a major topic of discussion in the boatyard and among coaches (losing, that is). The first inkling of a problem came when the starting line announcer commented on a strong crosswind blowing from lane one to six. This means lane six is favored. The wind was the least of the problem, however. Yesterday afternoon, the river was drained resulting in a several hour delay. When racing resumed, lane assignments were reversed, with those crews earning a higher seed in earlier racing assigned lane six. This afternoon the river was rumored to have been drained again, beginning around 1pm or 1:30pm. When the river is drained, lane one has a decided disadvantage because it has to row against the heart of the current. This disadvantage eases up as you move to lane 6. This meant that those crews earning the best seed for the final, Princeton and Radcliffe, would be at the greatest disadvantage. The lanes were not switched today.

This kind of talk is heard at regattas all over the country, and is easily dismissed as sour grapes. On row2k Ed Hewitt said that the river was not drained and that the water naturally spilled over the top of the dam. While denying a heavy drainage current, this statement actually confirms the existence of a current. Watching the races that were run after 1:45 (giving the alleged drainage a bit of time to develop a current), there certainly appeared to be a problem with lane one. Despite the row2k report, I heard observers say they could see current in lane one, particularly near the start, and a rower or two who claim to have actually seen the gates open. Readers of FITD know I like to look at statistics, and this situation seems to lend itself to that kind of analysis.

I reviewed all the finals run today except those in which the lanes weren't set until after races today (unfortunately I didn't note those lane assignments) and one race with an incomplete result (MO4+ grand). Not all had six boats. In these races (25 in all) prior to the MV8 grand (at 2:15), the average finish of lane one was 2.4, while the average finish of lane six was 4.2. Further, 39% of the time lane one finished first, and 68% of the time lane one was in the top three. Lane one was last just once. In the four races for which I know the lane assignments after 1:45pm, lane one was last, last, fourth (Princeton), and last. Lane six was 4th, 4th, and 2nd (Georgetown).

Now let's look at specifics. In the men's heavy V8, Yale finished last from lane one. In its heat Yale finished second, 1 second behind Princeton, and won its semi, beating eventual winner Cal. Favorite Princeton rowed in lane two and lost to Cal in lane four. In the WLV8 petite, Stanford, who never had a time slower than any of the boats in the petite, finished last from lane one. In the MVL8 Navy was in lane one. Navy, seeded second going into the regatta, won its heat with a faster time than eventual winner Cornell. Navy finished last in the grand from lane one.

I find this to be pretty damning evidence. In our case, it turns out that the best thing that could have happened to Wisconsin was to go to the reps. The absolute worst thing that could have happened to Radcliffe and Princeton was to win the heats. I'm particularly sorry to see this happen to Princeton (lane one) because yesterday they were a crew risen from the dead, and there is no better story line in athletics than redemption. Radcliffe (lane two) was on course to row possibly its best race ever. I don't think the data suggest an advantage to the outside lanes, but it clearly shows a disadvantage to lane one. Even if true, Ed's report that the water was only spilling over the top of the dam is confirmation of a current and evidence that the lanes should have been switched. They switched lanes yesterday and they should have done so today. Without the switch the five most important races of the day were suspect. Quite honestly, I'm upset that any of us has to spend time talking about this. A few things seem to be obvious - there was a current (from the row2k report) which disadvantaged lane one, there was a cross wind (from the race announcer's report) which disadvantaged lane one, and the lanes should have been switched (from the regatta committee's actions on Friday). Who knows if it would have changed the outcome, but we wouldn't be here now talking about it.

So, that's the conspiracy theory, believe it if you will. Like all good conspiracy theories, the "authorities" deny it but the evidence "proves" it. Despite the lane problems, we all participate in an outdoor sport in which factors beyond our control come into play. We have to believe that for every day conditions go against us, there is a day when they are with us. As Darrell Royal once said, "Breaks balance out. The sun don't shine on the same ol'dog's rear end every day."

Congratulations to Wisconsin, they took the long road to the championship and did the Midwest proud. With all of the East Coast vs. West Coast talk it's great to see the Badgers stand up for the Heartland to remind everyone that people row there too. Six Wisco seniors now head off into the world with cheese hats and three National Championship gold medals. Georgetown finishes its best season ever and will never again be taken for granted. New coach Jim "Beastmaster" O'Conner must be doing something right. Despite seeing bronze once again, Radcliffe is clearly on the way back. With the number one ranking for most of the season the Black and White were the top program in the Weld boathouse and are challenging the men for top program at Harvard. Over this season I've called Princeton the Sybil crew and the light switch crew. Today I have a new name for them - the most courageous crew. They beat their heads against the wall several times this year and, like a knocked-down champion fighter, kept coming back for more, punishing their opponents all the while. After a few years of knocking on the door, UCF and Bucknell are now among the elite of lightweight women. They, along with the crews in the petite final, are part of a new vanguard in women's lightweight rowing making the category stronger than it's ever been and proving that history doesn't make the difference, athletes do.

Oh My!

The lightweight women at IRAs awoke early and were greeted by a steambath of a day. As it turned out, the temperature wasn't the only thing that was hot. After watching today's heats I'll go out on a limb (but not far) and say that when considering all six boats, tomorrow's grand final will be the most competitive in the history of women's lightweight national championships. In years past there has always been one or two boats in the grand simply because someone had to win the reps. That's not so this year - every boat in the final deserves to be there and can challenge for the gold.


On paper, the first heat looked to be a laugher for Wisconsin - they had just beaten Princeton by 16 seconds at Sprints, and UCF had lost to Georgetown earlier in the season. Wisco's relaxed manner at the start suggested they had hopes of only racing for 1000 meters and cruising the rest of the way. Two thousand meters later the Badgers were left looking for the license plate number of the truck that just hit them. The number one seed was sent to the reps by Princeton, a four seed, and UCF, a five seed. UCF, after trailing Wisconsin the whole race, turned on the afterburners in the last 250 and pipped the Badgers by 5/100s of a second. It doesn't get any closer than that. (See picture)


In the second heat, Radcliffe finished 3/10s of a second ahead of Bucknell, who finished about 4 seconds ahead of Georgetown, sending the third seeded Hoyas to the reps. The Radcliffe margin in this race is a bit deceiving, however, because the Black and White hit a log about 250 meters from the finish and swerved severely in their lane as a result. (See picture) At the time, they were a comfortable 3/4 of a length ahead of the Bisons. Give Radcliffe 2 seconds for the log mishap and we have two heats with the same winning times.


Wisconsin and Georgetown both won their reps easily, crossing the line rowing somewhere between a 28 and a 30. We end up with a grand final as predicted, but with all crews but Radcliffe taking unexpected routes to get there. It's no fun to race in the reps, even if you win easily. As the reps approached and the Wisco rowers walked past the port-a-potty sentinels on the way to their trailer in a secluded section of the boatyard, there weren't many smiles. When racing was subsequently delayed for bad weather, and the races started around 6:45pm, relegation to the reps became even more onerous.

I hope you weren't surprised by UCF and Bucknell. As any long time reader of FITD knows, I've been on the UCF bandwagon for a long time. The thing is, you can read about them all you want, but when you actually see them fly down a racecourse, it's always a bit of a surprise. Same goes for Bucknell. We've seen them at Dad Vail and at Princeton, so it was clear they had some speed, but knowing it and seeing it are two different things.


In the end, it may turn out that the reps were the best thing to happen to Wisconsin. They won't be caught napping tomorrow. Neither will Georgetown. UCF and Bucknell now have the confidence they need to win gold. Radcliffe may be the most dangerous boat because they did just what they were supposed to do. If Wisconsin stumbled Radcliffe was next in line and after today their position has only improved. And Princeton - well I warned you about poking wounded Tigers with sticks.

The rest of the field acquitted itself nicely today. I was a bit surprised at the speed shown by MIT, mostly because we haven't seen that boat race too much. Stanford, having a bit of a down year, rowed a nice rep. It was hard to get a feel for what URI, Dayton, Ohio State, and Lehigh can really do because as they saw their shot at the grand final slip away, it's not clear how much effort they put into racing for a lane.


This was a great day for women's lightweight rowing. The top of the field is getting bigger and much more competitive. There is little question that this will be the best final we've ever seen for women's light eights. Taking a minute to think about today's races, I can only remember what Apollo Creed's trainer said to him in between rounds as he fought Rocky, "He doesn't know it's supposed to be a show! He thinks it's a damn fight!"

Dayton Too...

Dayton is also sending a new lineup to IRAs. Head Coach Mike Farrey said, "It is hard for us to get a realistic gage of where our speed is currently because this lineup has never rowed together in a regatta. However, with different lineups we finished in the finals of the Knecht Cup and won both the Atlantic 10 Championship and the Dad Vail."

Radcliffe - The Fine Tuning Continues

Radcliffe has switched around their lineup for IRAs. The latest press release has their captain, a starboard, in stroke. Looks like the boat is fully re-rigged to starboard stroke, rather than a bucket. They've also added another freshman into the lineup.

UCF Beefs Up Its Eight

As predicted, UCF has brought three lightweight rowers into its lightweight eight who rowed heavyweight all season. Two come in as the stern pair. This move, along with the lineup shift, is calculated to bring more speed to the boat than it had during the regular season, a season notable for its successes. This will be a fast IRA field!