first of all, congrats to the meet directors and all the volunteers on a job well done. so organized and efficient!! very impressive. the only thing i wish someone could explain to me is why the usms champ. committee changed the team scoring from large, medium and small team to clumping everyone in the same category. seems extremely unfair to have what i call "real teams" competing against state mega teams. there is no possibility for "real teams" to ever come close to competing against them. if you are going to give team awards at the end of the meet, is there any way you can do it fairly? our team is extremely proud to have gotten as many team members as we did to go to natls. (most of them for the first time), but unfortunately they were very disillusioned (as was i) with the idea that we would be competing against state teams. as one of the coaches i didn't have an explanation. even though we were very proud of our 7th place finish in men's division, and our 12th place in combined, we were only one of a few "real teams" in the top ten. would appreciate responses. maybe even someone from the champ.committee could explain how they felt this scoring system would be more fair to the majority of swimmers. then i can pass it along to my teammates.. i don't want them to be so disillusioned that they lose interest in attending any future natls. thanks
State wide teams practice in a million different locations and have no real affinity other than the name. I'd rather swim relays with people I consider my teammates or friends.
but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time.
Oregon competed as a state team at Nationals. At our Association champs in April, we competed as local teams. I had a great time slugging it out against the other medium sized teams at Associations with my teammates. But I also really enjoyed the chance to meet to meet and swim relays at Nationals with some of the folks I have been swimming against at local meets but had not had the opportunity to meet. The team scores mattered to me at Associations, but not at all at Nationals.
I'm with Peter on this -- why keep team scoring at Nationals at all? And Rob's point is a good one -- what end is served? There appears to be no way to ensure a level playing field without limiting the number of swims and defining team status and eligibility.
Although I agree that the true clubs which consistently compete and score at a high level deserve recognition.
State wide teams practice in a million different locations and have no real affinity other than the name. I'd rather swim relays with people I consider my teammates or friends.
but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time.
Oregon competed as a state team at Nationals. At our Association champs in April, we competed as local teams. I had a great time slugging it out against the other medium sized teams at Associations with my teammates. But I also really enjoyed the chance to meet to meet and swim relays at Nationals with some of the folks I have been swimming against at local meets but had not had the opportunity to meet. The team scores mattered to me at Associations, but not at all at Nationals.
I'm with Peter on this -- why keep team scoring at Nationals at all? And Rob's point is a good one -- what end is served? There appears to be no way to ensure a level playing field without limiting the number of swims and defining team status and eligibility.
Although I agree that the true clubs which consistently compete and score at a high level deserve recognition.
