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
Rob, Frosty, Paul (& Hugh, at the end) -
Rob, thanks for bringing the USMS objectices into this discussion. Sometimes it's easy to get carried away in debate and lose sight of the bigger picture. To recap for everyone (sorry, I haven't learned the quoting function on this yet), a couple objectives are to "promote fitness and health" and "enhance fellowship and camraderie among masters swimmers."
Following Frosty's train of thought, I agree that these ends are best served through increased participation. While the fitness and health aspect is covered merely by working out throughout the year, the fellowship and camraderie aspect is achieved, in large part, through competing in meets, as they provide a much different environment that allows bonding on another level (more than the 2 minutes rest between sets).
Paul's point demonstrates the importance to him, and hundreds of others, of being able to compete with a group. This post made me realize the benefit of allowing mega teams to compete, especially in more rural areas. (Thanks Paul.) I'm now all for allowing mega teams to continue, but I stand by my initial assertion that by choosing to compete as a mega team, that team opts into a different scoring division (Mega Team/Club Team). As Paul said, this way "at least there is some separation" among these different breeds of teams. Even if it is not perfect, as the Indy example demonstrates, it's still heads above the current system, and heads above the SML team system.
Frosty, your example of being the #11 medium team or the #1 small team because of one more person, is the exact reason why SML team scoring is detrimental to masters swimming and the objectives we try to promote through increased participation (not to mention its arbitrary nature). This is why mega team/club team seems the perfect alternative.
However, I have a much different take on the effect of team scoring on participation at Nationals. My team had 12 people at our regional meet, but because we emphasized our team - and our goal of breaking into the top 10 - we were able to get 20 people to make the trip to Federal Way. (Crazy, huh!) So, I strongly believe that team scoring goes a long way in encouraging participation, and therefore fostering fellowship and camraderie. ...especially at Nationals, since travel meets are truly (I think) when a team bonds the most and new friendships are formed.
Furthermore, Frosty also acknowledges that team scoring fosters "competitive spirit and team pride." I agree. This alone makes me wonder why you would advocate doing away with team scoring. This is a HUGE part of all sports. It would be like playing a football game and not keeping score. It's what rivalries are based on. It's why hundreds of Notre Dame students and alumni travel to USC for their annual game - it's FUN!!
Last but not least, Hugh, part of reason scoring is dividng as Men's, Women's, and Combined, is because it's tradition. High schools and colleges have always had separate meets for men and women. I recognize that masters clubs group everyone together, but it also carries an additional benefit in encouraging participation and rewarding teams for their hard work. Suppose a team consists mostly of men (or at least the "competitive" team, that goes to meets), someone on the fence about Nationals would have less of a reason to go knowing that their team wouldn't challenge in the combined team score. At least this way, more teams and people are recognized for their achievements, and that simply makes people feel good - and that's enough reason for me to keep the gender based scoring as well as the combined.
Rob, Frosty, Paul (& Hugh, at the end) -
Rob, thanks for bringing the USMS objectices into this discussion. Sometimes it's easy to get carried away in debate and lose sight of the bigger picture. To recap for everyone (sorry, I haven't learned the quoting function on this yet), a couple objectives are to "promote fitness and health" and "enhance fellowship and camraderie among masters swimmers."
Following Frosty's train of thought, I agree that these ends are best served through increased participation. While the fitness and health aspect is covered merely by working out throughout the year, the fellowship and camraderie aspect is achieved, in large part, through competing in meets, as they provide a much different environment that allows bonding on another level (more than the 2 minutes rest between sets).
Paul's point demonstrates the importance to him, and hundreds of others, of being able to compete with a group. This post made me realize the benefit of allowing mega teams to compete, especially in more rural areas. (Thanks Paul.) I'm now all for allowing mega teams to continue, but I stand by my initial assertion that by choosing to compete as a mega team, that team opts into a different scoring division (Mega Team/Club Team). As Paul said, this way "at least there is some separation" among these different breeds of teams. Even if it is not perfect, as the Indy example demonstrates, it's still heads above the current system, and heads above the SML team system.
Frosty, your example of being the #11 medium team or the #1 small team because of one more person, is the exact reason why SML team scoring is detrimental to masters swimming and the objectives we try to promote through increased participation (not to mention its arbitrary nature). This is why mega team/club team seems the perfect alternative.
However, I have a much different take on the effect of team scoring on participation at Nationals. My team had 12 people at our regional meet, but because we emphasized our team - and our goal of breaking into the top 10 - we were able to get 20 people to make the trip to Federal Way. (Crazy, huh!) So, I strongly believe that team scoring goes a long way in encouraging participation, and therefore fostering fellowship and camraderie. ...especially at Nationals, since travel meets are truly (I think) when a team bonds the most and new friendships are formed.
Furthermore, Frosty also acknowledges that team scoring fosters "competitive spirit and team pride." I agree. This alone makes me wonder why you would advocate doing away with team scoring. This is a HUGE part of all sports. It would be like playing a football game and not keeping score. It's what rivalries are based on. It's why hundreds of Notre Dame students and alumni travel to USC for their annual game - it's FUN!!
Last but not least, Hugh, part of reason scoring is dividng as Men's, Women's, and Combined, is because it's tradition. High schools and colleges have always had separate meets for men and women. I recognize that masters clubs group everyone together, but it also carries an additional benefit in encouraging participation and rewarding teams for their hard work. Suppose a team consists mostly of men (or at least the "competitive" team, that goes to meets), someone on the fence about Nationals would have less of a reason to go knowing that their team wouldn't challenge in the combined team score. At least this way, more teams and people are recognized for their achievements, and that simply makes people feel good - and that's enough reason for me to keep the gender based scoring as well as the combined.
