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,
I hope you understand that when I engage in these "debates" I'm not in any way attacking or belittling the people involved in our organization...but like any good "coach" I feel compelled to challenge and not accept status quo.
So I would counter your point by referencing much of the debate over on the thread "Is this the face of masters swimming". I think its fair to say that having 43,000 members in the #1 participation sport in this country is pretty small....and I would argue that the vast majority of non-competing members are signed up almost exclusively because it is a requirement of the club or facility they belong to....
I'm in no way saying that all the non-competing members are unimportant and should not be catered to....but I would tell you my years swimming all over this country with probably over 75 different teams now that the "heart and soul" if you will of USMS is this paltry .05% who compete. Yes lap/fitness swimmers are just as dedicated to their workouts...but I would suggest that most of them really don't know much about or really care about USMS...other than reading the magazine each month.
The fiery ones are debating and posting here, showing up at meets, looking for ways to make the meets more enjoyable and competitive and grow membership by recruiting old teammates to get their butts back in the pool.
I know this will be viewed as a very controversial statement...but would argue that the vast majority of the management of USMS are competitors not simply lap swimmers.
So what's my point? I'm hoping that when folks like Bill (who i consider a friend and like immensely) who really doesn't care about team(s), scoring, competition recognize that those 2000+ of us who do care about these things a great deal. We also want to see the organization grow and evolve...on multiple levels. But I cannot be the voice for the silent majority, I'm biased and admit it freely!
Rob,
I hope you understand that when I engage in these "debates" I'm not in any way attacking or belittling the people involved in our organization...but like any good "coach" I feel compelled to challenge and not accept status quo.
So I would counter your point by referencing much of the debate over on the thread "Is this the face of masters swimming". I think its fair to say that having 43,000 members in the #1 participation sport in this country is pretty small....and I would argue that the vast majority of non-competing members are signed up almost exclusively because it is a requirement of the club or facility they belong to....
I'm in no way saying that all the non-competing members are unimportant and should not be catered to....but I would tell you my years swimming all over this country with probably over 75 different teams now that the "heart and soul" if you will of USMS is this paltry .05% who compete. Yes lap/fitness swimmers are just as dedicated to their workouts...but I would suggest that most of them really don't know much about or really care about USMS...other than reading the magazine each month.
The fiery ones are debating and posting here, showing up at meets, looking for ways to make the meets more enjoyable and competitive and grow membership by recruiting old teammates to get their butts back in the pool.
I know this will be viewed as a very controversial statement...but would argue that the vast majority of the management of USMS are competitors not simply lap swimmers.
So what's my point? I'm hoping that when folks like Bill (who i consider a friend and like immensely) who really doesn't care about team(s), scoring, competition recognize that those 2000+ of us who do care about these things a great deal. We also want to see the organization grow and evolve...on multiple levels. But I cannot be the voice for the silent majority, I'm biased and admit it freely!
