Locations of 2004 Nationals

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Tue, 01 Oct 2002 09:58:49 GMT

Since it is the LMSC that benefits directly from new registrations, the thing to do would be to lobby the LMSC to cut the registration fee for newbie registrants. Or lobby the Clubs that the newbies are swimming with (and, ostensibly, paying dues to) to subsidize the newbies' meet participation. Meet directors already have enough financial pressure on them to be giving away money in the name of recruiting for the LMSC.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Jim Clemmons — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:07:15 GMT

If you don't agree with the cost, don't participate. We all have choices to make and we shouldn't try making it a negative issue, just make the decision. I'll be there. Jim

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:48:41 GMT

I doesn't matter to me personally to pay $20 to swim in this meet, I would enter it and pay the fee if I could swim. It was the new swimmers I was trying to encourage to enter the meet that complained. Next time I won't bother asking them. I plan on timing at this meet.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:51:41 GMT

When you consider the cost of attending a meet, even a local meet - transportation, time, disruption to the family - $20 is a very small expense. What the people who say they won't attend a meet because of the entry fee are *really* saying is that the meet isn't worth going to at all. I suspect that this meet will get the same number of swimmers as any of the others.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:49:01 GMT

Phil, Amen, brudda! Given the opportunity cost of going to a meet (plus travel expenses if it is not a day trip), a $20 entry fee is a laughable consideration. If the meet itself fits my schedule, etc., I couldn't care less if the entry fee is $10 or $20. Matt

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:47:54 GMT

I'll assume that the LMSC is not underwriting the cost of the meet but, rather, a club is taking the $$ risk and investing a bunch of volunteer effort to make the meet happen. If this is true then the price should be whatever they decide the price should be. In most volunteer organizations, volunteer time and effort are the MOST VALUABLE resources. And because this resource is limited, using it has a very REAL COST. So when an organization decides to SPEND its volunteer resources on a project, there need to be tangible gains for the organization or the organization is engaging in deficit spending. In some cases the gain might be new members. In some cases it could be warm fuzzy feelings. In other cases it might be money. At a bare minimum, the REAL COST of volunteer time and effort is what the meet director would have to pay in real dollars to HIRE a person to do what the volunteer is being asked to do. Let's assume that there will be, say at least 15 volunteers associated with this 4 hr meet. That would be 60 man hours. We can probably add AT LEAST an additional 20 man hours that at least one or two people will be investing pre- and post-meet. (All those meet directors out there realize I'm being quite conervative with my numbers here.) If we assume that each volunteer's time is worth $10 per hour (that would likely be considered low by the volunteer) and we assume 1 full heat every 20 minutes (I know, on average they'll actually take longer, but bear with me) then we can calculate a maximum of $1440 income for the meet. The REAL COST of putting on this event will be at least: Pool cost: $600 Volunteer resources: 80 man-hrs X $10 = $800 ------------------------------------------------------------- Total: $1400 WOW! A whole $40 profit! And since they are NOT going to run 3 heats every hour for 4 hours (what with warmup and slower swimmers etc) and there will likely be even MORE volunteer resources spent than I estimated above, and I haven't even mentioned the lifeguard or awards or office supplies or hospitality costs or...or...or..., I still estimate they are undercharging for the meet. Now, if the LMSC decides that they want to spend their members' registration money to subsidize meets, they can lower the cost of the meet. If the LMSC wants to encourage swimmers to enter their first meet then the LMSC should bear the cost, not the individual club hosting the meet. But to ask the club/meet director to go into debt, either in dollar or in volunteer terms, to make the meet more affordable to swimmers, simply doesn't make sense. If it isn't the swimmers who should bear the cost of having meets then who should it be? You may be right that they have priced their event such that they have a small turnout and thus not realize a reward from the risk they are taking. In which case they'll learn a valuable lesson and others will benefit from that knowledge. On the other hand they may fill all their heats and generate a modest cash balance for the club. In which case they'll ALSO learn a valuable lesson and others will benefit from that knowledge.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

michaelmoore — Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:39:33 GMT

The $600 is usually not all the costs associated with the meet. Besides your volunteer costs, there are phone, awards - if any, and thank you gifts for meet officials to name a few extra. You mentioned a lifeguard has to be paid for, how much is that? All of these costs have to be spread among the participants. Last year the Pacific Masters 1500 Short Course Meters Championships had 33 contestants which would make it real tough to make a profit on $10/contestant. michael

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Sat, 28 Sep 2002 08:56:02 GMT

The club that is running the 1500 scm meet is being charged $600 for four hours that should cover the meet, including warmups and downs. They are running six lanes with a warm up-down lanes on the end. There will be no electronic timing. It is an outdoor pool with no building costs. They will pay for a lifeguard for the four hours. I have been trying to talk up the meet and encourage both old and new swimmers to enter and swim but the opinion is that the $20.00 cost is too much. It is not an open water swim where you get a T-shirt, awards and ususally a drawing. If we want to encourage swimmers to enter their first meet, the cost should be reasonable. Ten at the most.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 13:19:43 GMT

I know that at least one pool in our area costs roughly $300 per hour to rent for meets once you add up facility rental, security, janitorial, utilities etc. Assuming an average of, conservatively say, 20 minutes per heat and 8 swimmers per heat that's only $480 income per hour of competition. That doesn't account for incomplete heats, warm-up time before the first swim or warm-down after the last swim or time to clear the building afterwards etc. I would estimate that, in the local pool I'm talking about that at $20 per swimmer, the meet director would be losing money during the 1500meter event.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

michaelmoore — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 06:44:49 GMT

What Gail is referring to is the Pacific Masters' 1500 SCM Championships. I am sure that there are some swimmers who will think that it is excessive, however, I dont. Look at the fees for a one mile open water event. Most are $25-30. The money to pay for the rental of the pool has to be covered as well as the rental of any timing equipment and most meet hosts like to make a few dollars for their effort. The bad thing about distance swimming is that there are fewer swimmers to cover the costs. Therefore the only way to make the money is to raise the fees. michael

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Fri, 27 Sep 2002 02:51:02 GMT

Some of the swimmers in this area are staying away from the 1500 meters event run by the Airport Club because of the $20.00 entry fee. Does anyone else think this is excessive for one event?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Jim Clemmons — Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:03:25 GMT

The Pacific SCM Championships are Oct 12 and 13. The 1500 is Oct 5 this year. I'm thinking you can call it a 3 day meet? Or is it a 2.5 day meet? The 1500 is in a different locale. Jim

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:56:13 GMT

The NEM meet is a two day meet. This year, it will be held Saturday December 14th and Sunday December 15th at Wheaton College (very fast pool) in Norton, MA. More information can be found at: www.swimnem.org Yes, the SPMA will not be held at Long Beach. They are searching for another venue. Word has it that UNLV might be the site. Stay tuned for a "challenge" from NEM. We are working with several regional championship meet directors to create a "virtual" SCM championship. More on that later, as NEM seeks to retain its title as "center of racing for masters swimming."

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Tue, 24 Sep 2002 05:00:40 GMT

I should say that Pacific also hosts a three-day SCM meet, this year at Walnut Creek. Maybe it should be called a four-day meet, since the 1500 is held somewhere else. It's a good meet, my memory is that several national records are broken every year.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Former Member — Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:04:21 GMT

Did anyone else bid for the long course championships or just the pool in Savannah? Also, any information about that facility?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Paul Smith — Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:12:36 GMT

Gail, I think its unlikely we'd get to much interest in changing the SCY nationals in April/May switched to meters (far two few meters pools to train in in this country). I propose a SCM championship to give us three national championship meets a year vs. just two. Late fall is the "traditional" season when Eurpoeans host SCM meets (many attend our SCY nationals in spring and their own LCM nationals in summer). It would also allow training "windows" of about 3 months between each major meet. I brought this up in the last forum because so many of us shave and taper for a SCM meet this time of year anyway (NEM and Long beach both host 3 day meets). Rumor has it that Long Beach may not be happening this year?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Rob Copeland — Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:51:10 GMT

Chris, For information regarding the facilities in Savannah, contact Scott Rabalais at scottrabalais@compuserve.com. And, a second bid from New Orleans was presented for the 2004 Long Course meet. Savannah won the vote and was selected.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Paul Smith — Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:28:51 GMT

I'm really glad to see SC Nationals moved into April, one of the problems with having it in May is you have very little time to prepare for LC in August. I'd still like to see USMS host a SCM nationals in December! 3 majot championships a year held in the same "windows" as USS scheduling would make a lot of sense.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Mon, 23 Sep 2002 01:42:56 GMT

I disagree with having any sc meters championships in December. At one time, the December meet made sense because that was an "open" season. When the rules changed that gave everyone a birthday in January, it now makes sense to have meters meets early in the year. Why should US swimmers wait almost a year when the rest of the World is swimming?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

MPohlmann — Thu, 19 Sep 2002 11:31:40 GMT

April is correct for 2004 in Indianapolis. Many conflicts in May, largely due to the Indy 500, which occurs over several weeks in May.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Thu, 19 Sep 2002 10:40:56 GMT

April for Indy? Do you mean May? This meet is always held about the second weekend in May.

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

sarah tyler — Thu, 19 Sep 2002 08:38:24 GMT

are there dates for the 2004 national meets?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

michaelmoore — Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:35:02 GMT

R-3 the Rule proposal was voted down by the House. I would guess it lost 40% to 60% I would have liked to have won on that vote, but in real terms I thought we would have gotten only a third of the vote, so we did a little better than I thought we would. In the Sunday morning review, the delegates said that they did not have enough time in their committees to do the work that needed to be done. Championship Committee had two extra meeting over their scheduled meetings - the two meeting went on to after 11pm. The House decided that it wants to schedule an HOD meeting to listen to the different venues bidding for the Championships. This year's HOD meeting was one and a half hours long. If the House is looking for extra time, one place is the HOD meeting for Championship bids. michael

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

Gail Roper — Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:18:23 GMT

What happened to the proposal that the Championship committee was going to vote on where the Nationals were going to be held?

RE: Locations of 2004 Nationals

michaelmoore — Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:11:38 GMT

Indianapolis made a bid for a short course yards meet. The House of Delegates voted on a short course yards meet. It would require a vote of the House to change it from a yards to a meters meet. michael