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
Or if Column C is designed to be a measure of a team's efficiency, it should result in a figure lying between the numbers in Columns G and J, rather than the sum, at least for teams with entrants in both. By my calculations, it results in a number which is neither the mean nor the average of G & J due to the skewing resulting from disparate numbers of men and women earning points.
Comparing Oregon to PNA, for example, we see that 68 Oregon men earned 1265 points and 48 women earned 829.50 points. So 116 swimmers earned 2,094.50 points for a global point-per-swimmer number of 18.056. The men were slightly more efficient, with 18.60 points per swimmer, with the women contributing 17.28 PPS.
199 PNA men earned a paltry 1532.50 points, while 142 PNA women turned in a stellar 1722. 341 PNA swimmers got a total of 3,254.50 points, for a team PPS of 9.544. PNA men PPS was 7.70; women PPS was 12.127.
And so we see that Oregon handily outperformed our soggy neighbors to the north; and that the PNA men owe their distaff teammates a beer or 7 for dragging them along to victory.
I am reminded of a quote generally attributed to Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Or if Column C is designed to be a measure of a team's efficiency, it should result in a figure lying between the numbers in Columns G and J, rather than the sum, at least for teams with entrants in both. By my calculations, it results in a number which is neither the mean nor the average of G & J due to the skewing resulting from disparate numbers of men and women earning points.
Comparing Oregon to PNA, for example, we see that 68 Oregon men earned 1265 points and 48 women earned 829.50 points. So 116 swimmers earned 2,094.50 points for a global point-per-swimmer number of 18.056. The men were slightly more efficient, with 18.60 points per swimmer, with the women contributing 17.28 PPS.
199 PNA men earned a paltry 1532.50 points, while 142 PNA women turned in a stellar 1722. 341 PNA swimmers got a total of 3,254.50 points, for a team PPS of 9.544. PNA men PPS was 7.70; women PPS was 12.127.
And so we see that Oregon handily outperformed our soggy neighbors to the north; and that the PNA men owe their distaff teammates a beer or 7 for dragging them along to victory.
I am reminded of a quote generally attributed to Mark Twain: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
