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
I think defining the two divisions is the sticking point. It would be interesting to hear reaction to the concept of a club defined as swimming out of one pool.
I still think the fairest way is dividing teams by how many swimmers show up at the meet. This would be similar to the way we used to do it, but I'd like to see modifications for how many events team members entered. I wouldn't want teams to discourage participation of members who don't make qualifying times and can't swim more than 3 events.
Actually, the bottom line for me is that I don't get real worked up about team scores. I like it when my team places, but that isn't the reason I participate. My opposition to the proposal at convention was the way it was presented and defended by the supporters.
The mention of high school divisions with A, AA, and AAA isn't a good analogy. High schools and colleges hold championships separately for the divisions. They never compete against the other divisions.
Again, I worry that if we divide scoring by divisions, will the club division eventually want to score relays separately???
I don't have a solution, but I love this discussion.
I think defining the two divisions is the sticking point. It would be interesting to hear reaction to the concept of a club defined as swimming out of one pool.
I still think the fairest way is dividing teams by how many swimmers show up at the meet. This would be similar to the way we used to do it, but I'd like to see modifications for how many events team members entered. I wouldn't want teams to discourage participation of members who don't make qualifying times and can't swim more than 3 events.
Actually, the bottom line for me is that I don't get real worked up about team scores. I like it when my team places, but that isn't the reason I participate. My opposition to the proposal at convention was the way it was presented and defended by the supporters.
The mention of high school divisions with A, AA, and AAA isn't a good analogy. High schools and colleges hold championships separately for the divisions. They never compete against the other divisions.
Again, I worry that if we divide scoring by divisions, will the club division eventually want to score relays separately???
I don't have a solution, but I love this discussion.
