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
Go work Jim. Now this is good information. It appears that there only a handful of regional teams and some do not have a lot of members. There are a lot of Club teams and most with less than 10 members would probably not compete at nationals. This is where we get stuck on how to define these teams at nationals. A simple you are regional and you are club isn't really much different than the S-M-L debate about arbitrary. Also defining a club gets pretty sticky as well, thus...our dilemma. How do we keep it simple and fair? Nothing is going to be perfect...percentages, keep it the same, S-M-L? Who has the best solution? Come on, you know you're out there...:):doh:
Cheers,
Scott:applaud:
Seeing the data Jim put together is making me rethink the issue a bit....basically I'm back into thinking forget trying to categorize Club vs. Regonal (or Open) and go back the the S,M,L...if increasing particpation is to be one of the primary goals and if a team has less than 25 members at least those 25 have a reasonable chance of winning a M's, W's and/or combined cahmpionship...
Go work Jim. Now this is good information. It appears that there only a handful of regional teams and some do not have a lot of members. There are a lot of Club teams and most with less than 10 members would probably not compete at nationals. This is where we get stuck on how to define these teams at nationals. A simple you are regional and you are club isn't really much different than the S-M-L debate about arbitrary. Also defining a club gets pretty sticky as well, thus...our dilemma. How do we keep it simple and fair? Nothing is going to be perfect...percentages, keep it the same, S-M-L? Who has the best solution? Come on, you know you're out there...:):doh:
Cheers,
Scott:applaud:
Seeing the data Jim put together is making me rethink the issue a bit....basically I'm back into thinking forget trying to categorize Club vs. Regonal (or Open) and go back the the S,M,L...if increasing particpation is to be one of the primary goals and if a team has less than 25 members at least those 25 have a reasonable chance of winning a M's, W's and/or combined cahmpionship...
