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
Blackbeard's Peg: I looked at your attachment and found it very interesting. I have thought about something like that for years for all levels of swimming.
I hace coached numerous teams over the years, and the vast majority of the time, those teams have been small teams will local swimmers who love both the sport and the "team aspect" of our programs.
Yesterday, we finished up at the 2007 LC Masters nationals at The Woodlands. We had 10 swimmers competing, 2 of who had no chance of scoring. All eight other swimmers scores and we finished up in 23rd place out of 132 teams. This was beofre the 1500 and 800 contested today.
There was no way we could compete with the "state teams" or those teams who recruit every swimmer who is unattached or is a member of small teams.
My swimmers were very excited about the finish, as we were a "true" masters team, and not some mega team that recruits their way to a trophy.
I see nothing wrong with eliminating the team scoring. However, teams would continue to score it themselves and proclaim their "success" on the team level.
The sport of swimming is competitive in nature and as a result, people want to win. If they went to the "small, medium, and large" team concept, perhaps USMS could develop a system that uses their membership numbers as a guide and divide each team into a certain division, dividing all the teams into three groups by their registration numbers. USMS could make the decision from the previous year's registration. Anyone who registers or transfers after that COULD swim as a part of the team except at Nationals.
Each team’s membership numbers would be locked at that time and those swimmers that were not a member of the team 90 days before Nationals and must compete at Nationals as unattached.
Another way would be to determine how many swimmers the team had at the previous nationals and divide the teams using thsoe numbers. First year teams would be required to swim in the large team division until their second year of national competition.
Yes, there are flaws in both my proposals, but they could be worked out with more time than I have to post to this forum.
With the same 10-15 teams continuing to dominate the team standings, something has to be done.
Another idea is to do away with top ten awards for each division (male, female, and combined). The combined scoring would be the only one uised and awards could be awards to the top 30 teams with no increase in money. A team that wins a team award in one division is probably going to get one in the other two divisions.
In any case, this is something that they need to fix quickly.
Blackbeard's Peg: I looked at your attachment and found it very interesting. I have thought about something like that for years for all levels of swimming.
I hace coached numerous teams over the years, and the vast majority of the time, those teams have been small teams will local swimmers who love both the sport and the "team aspect" of our programs.
Yesterday, we finished up at the 2007 LC Masters nationals at The Woodlands. We had 10 swimmers competing, 2 of who had no chance of scoring. All eight other swimmers scores and we finished up in 23rd place out of 132 teams. This was beofre the 1500 and 800 contested today.
There was no way we could compete with the "state teams" or those teams who recruit every swimmer who is unattached or is a member of small teams.
My swimmers were very excited about the finish, as we were a "true" masters team, and not some mega team that recruits their way to a trophy.
I see nothing wrong with eliminating the team scoring. However, teams would continue to score it themselves and proclaim their "success" on the team level.
The sport of swimming is competitive in nature and as a result, people want to win. If they went to the "small, medium, and large" team concept, perhaps USMS could develop a system that uses their membership numbers as a guide and divide each team into a certain division, dividing all the teams into three groups by their registration numbers. USMS could make the decision from the previous year's registration. Anyone who registers or transfers after that COULD swim as a part of the team except at Nationals.
Each team’s membership numbers would be locked at that time and those swimmers that were not a member of the team 90 days before Nationals and must compete at Nationals as unattached.
Another way would be to determine how many swimmers the team had at the previous nationals and divide the teams using thsoe numbers. First year teams would be required to swim in the large team division until their second year of national competition.
Yes, there are flaws in both my proposals, but they could be worked out with more time than I have to post to this forum.
With the same 10-15 teams continuing to dominate the team standings, something has to be done.
Another idea is to do away with top ten awards for each division (male, female, and combined). The combined scoring would be the only one uised and awards could be awards to the top 30 teams with no increase in money. A team that wins a team award in one division is probably going to get one in the other two divisions.
In any case, this is something that they need to fix quickly.
