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
While I’m still not clear how the 12 swimmers from Georgia (regional team) had an advantage over the 12 swimmers from Pennypack Aquatic & Fitness Club (local club) at the recent LCN at The Wooldands, if scoring regional and local clubs separately will bring world peace, then make it so. Note – the Fitness club crushed the mighty GAJA super-team, just goes to show you that on any given weekend…
Rob,
As a member of PAFC, I was going to argue that the advantage GAJA had over our little tiny club was YOU; however, given the results...:thhbbb:
Taking the case of PAFC into account, one of the reasons we scored well is due to our coach's method of encouraging participation within the team--the team pays to send the swimmers that qualify for LCM, therefore, just about everyone who qualifies tries to make the time to go. Non-qualifiers can also go, but they must pay their own way.
That said, I don't think a change to "open" and "club" designations helps a team like PAFC (roughly 60 members year-to-year, maybe 30 compete regularly (locally), less than that at nationals). No matter what you call us, we will not be able to match up against teams with large participation at meets because we're hindered by the number of relays we can enter.
That doesn't mean I don't want to see change. Presently, it's not a level playing field when a team/club/unit (whatever) of 100+ is ranked against a team of 12 (or 40, or 3). It's one of the reasons I suggested a method of scoring by splashes (very early in this thread). Maybe, "strength of swim" would be a better way to put it. Something that doesn't penalize teams for encouraging swimmers not making NQTs to come to the meet, but that levels the field a bit for teams that only have a few members wanting to participate.
Another thought:
Would it make sense to exclude the host team/region from team scoring at Nationals? Given the push to encourage particiaption and the ease of attendance to what amounts to a "local" meet, the host teams will likely out-number the traveling teams. Host participants can earn individual & relay medals and set records, but at the end of the meet they wouldn't get a banner for beating up on their "guests".
my :2cents:,
Dana
While I’m still not clear how the 12 swimmers from Georgia (regional team) had an advantage over the 12 swimmers from Pennypack Aquatic & Fitness Club (local club) at the recent LCN at The Wooldands, if scoring regional and local clubs separately will bring world peace, then make it so. Note – the Fitness club crushed the mighty GAJA super-team, just goes to show you that on any given weekend…
Rob,
As a member of PAFC, I was going to argue that the advantage GAJA had over our little tiny club was YOU; however, given the results...:thhbbb:
Taking the case of PAFC into account, one of the reasons we scored well is due to our coach's method of encouraging participation within the team--the team pays to send the swimmers that qualify for LCM, therefore, just about everyone who qualifies tries to make the time to go. Non-qualifiers can also go, but they must pay their own way.
That said, I don't think a change to "open" and "club" designations helps a team like PAFC (roughly 60 members year-to-year, maybe 30 compete regularly (locally), less than that at nationals). No matter what you call us, we will not be able to match up against teams with large participation at meets because we're hindered by the number of relays we can enter.
That doesn't mean I don't want to see change. Presently, it's not a level playing field when a team/club/unit (whatever) of 100+ is ranked against a team of 12 (or 40, or 3). It's one of the reasons I suggested a method of scoring by splashes (very early in this thread). Maybe, "strength of swim" would be a better way to put it. Something that doesn't penalize teams for encouraging swimmers not making NQTs to come to the meet, but that levels the field a bit for teams that only have a few members wanting to participate.
Another thought:
Would it make sense to exclude the host team/region from team scoring at Nationals? Given the push to encourage particiaption and the ease of attendance to what amounts to a "local" meet, the host teams will likely out-number the traveling teams. Host participants can earn individual & relay medals and set records, but at the end of the meet they wouldn't get a banner for beating up on their "guests".
my :2cents:,
Dana
