Thanks to everyone involved in the Ft. Lauderdale Nationals. I had a great time and met some exceptional people. I especially want to thank Doug Malcolm for the competition in the adjacent lane. It looks like (from USMS data) you have not competed for quite a while and had a great meet! I had not competed for over 20 years when I entered the 2001 Nat's at Santa Clara and have done pretty well for the past few years. Doug exemplifies what our sport should be all about; a true competitor who brings out the best in someone like me who may not have accomplished the standards acheived in Ft. Lauderdale without someone like him next to me. I never got a chance to thank you so I am doing so now. Keep up the good work!
I would also like to congradulate John Blank for being the first male competitor over 45 to break one minute in the 100 yard breaststroke; a great accomplishment! I have never broken a minute in that event and am full of envy.
Lee Rider
Just to add on to a few of Jim Matysek's comments as to why the championship committee recommended getting rid of the small, medium and large system.
The divisions were arbitrary. A team with 17 swimmers would be small and a team with 18 would be medium. It didn't make much sense as to where we assigned the breakpoints.
The large division could contain a team that had 250 swimmers and some that only had 80.
At many meets, being in the large team guaranteed you a banner event if no one scored. As an example, in Tempe there were only 2 large teams.
There have been examples where the 4th place small team outscores some of the medium teams that earned a banner.
Overall, we felt that 1 - 10 would be a fairer scoring system. You however bring up an excellent point that what we have now encourages your team to merge with others to be big enough to compete against the combined teams. There will be a rule proposal next year that will separate out the independent teams into a category of their own while still having a category for the large combined teams.
The championship committee would be open to new ideas on scoring. We are not close to agreeing on the above proposal yet.
Mike...be careful what you say or you could be my target the next time I get to announce. And those distance events allow so much more to be said.
Just to add on to a few of Jim Matysek's comments as to why the championship committee recommended getting rid of the small, medium and large system.
The divisions were arbitrary. A team with 17 swimmers would be small and a team with 18 would be medium. It didn't make much sense as to where we assigned the breakpoints.
The large division could contain a team that had 250 swimmers and some that only had 80.
At many meets, being in the large team guaranteed you a banner event if no one scored. As an example, in Tempe there were only 2 large teams.
There have been examples where the 4th place small team outscores some of the medium teams that earned a banner.
Overall, we felt that 1 - 10 would be a fairer scoring system. You however bring up an excellent point that what we have now encourages your team to merge with others to be big enough to compete against the combined teams. There will be a rule proposal next year that will separate out the independent teams into a category of their own while still having a category for the large combined teams.
The championship committee would be open to new ideas on scoring. We are not close to agreeing on the above proposal yet.
Mike...be careful what you say or you could be my target the next time I get to announce. And those distance events allow so much more to be said.
