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
My goodness! I come home from convention, up to my eyeballs in minutes I need to produce (and I'm still not finished!!!), so I don't look at the forums for a couple of weeks and all, um, heck breaks loose! Clearly this is an issue dear to many hearts!
Like Rob, I think if it will keep peace in USMS, then fine, go to two divisions for purposes of scoring at national championships. Just please don't call them regional teams and club teams. We're ALL clubs. What came across to me with the terminology used at convention was that the nonregional teams are the REAL teams and the rest of us are second-class teams. Words do matter sometimes. I thought the best terminology I heard was regional and local. I would not be offended by such terminology.
I would also ask you to consider the possibility that the model that works for Pacific might not work as well for Kentucky. We have a concentration of swimmers in Lexington and Louisville, and then a few lone souls scattered throughout the rest of the state. The guy from far western Kentucky who lives in a log cabin in the woods has no hope of having any teammates at Nationals without the regional model. Our membership in Kentucky has actually INCREASED since we went to the regional model, so it doesn't seem to me that we are discouraging club development here.
The legislation presented at convention was definitely improved with all the wordsmithing that went on there, but it was still very awkward and unclear and full of potential pitfalls. I would be happy to work with anyone and everyone from Pacific -- or anywhere else -- to come up with cleaner, clearer language. I think we all have common ground, we just don't know how to say it.
What was clear to me was that nearly everyone (except Jim Matysek, apparently!) was unhappy with the current scoring system. I think many, if not most, wanted to return to the S, M, L categories. Some cared a lot about creating local and regional divisions; a few were violently opposed to this; and some didn't care at all! As I said above, I would be glad to work on a proposal that comes up with a system that recognizes the two models of forming clubs, as long as it doesn't use pejorative language. I personally like the idea of returning to S, M, L scoring, as well, but could be flexible there.
I won't lie and say that I wasn't thrilled with the banners that Swim Kentucky won in Indy in 2004. (I think I scared the daylights out of Mel Goldstein when I ran out onto the bulkhead to claim the women's banner, I was so enthusiastic.) But I can also honestly say that I had a great time at Worlds when there was no team scoring. That's a possibility to consider too. Just do away with the whole thing. But I think I'll be a very old woman before USMS ever goes that route!
My goodness! I come home from convention, up to my eyeballs in minutes I need to produce (and I'm still not finished!!!), so I don't look at the forums for a couple of weeks and all, um, heck breaks loose! Clearly this is an issue dear to many hearts!
Like Rob, I think if it will keep peace in USMS, then fine, go to two divisions for purposes of scoring at national championships. Just please don't call them regional teams and club teams. We're ALL clubs. What came across to me with the terminology used at convention was that the nonregional teams are the REAL teams and the rest of us are second-class teams. Words do matter sometimes. I thought the best terminology I heard was regional and local. I would not be offended by such terminology.
I would also ask you to consider the possibility that the model that works for Pacific might not work as well for Kentucky. We have a concentration of swimmers in Lexington and Louisville, and then a few lone souls scattered throughout the rest of the state. The guy from far western Kentucky who lives in a log cabin in the woods has no hope of having any teammates at Nationals without the regional model. Our membership in Kentucky has actually INCREASED since we went to the regional model, so it doesn't seem to me that we are discouraging club development here.
The legislation presented at convention was definitely improved with all the wordsmithing that went on there, but it was still very awkward and unclear and full of potential pitfalls. I would be happy to work with anyone and everyone from Pacific -- or anywhere else -- to come up with cleaner, clearer language. I think we all have common ground, we just don't know how to say it.
What was clear to me was that nearly everyone (except Jim Matysek, apparently!) was unhappy with the current scoring system. I think many, if not most, wanted to return to the S, M, L categories. Some cared a lot about creating local and regional divisions; a few were violently opposed to this; and some didn't care at all! As I said above, I would be glad to work on a proposal that comes up with a system that recognizes the two models of forming clubs, as long as it doesn't use pejorative language. I personally like the idea of returning to S, M, L scoring, as well, but could be flexible there.
I won't lie and say that I wasn't thrilled with the banners that Swim Kentucky won in Indy in 2004. (I think I scared the daylights out of Mel Goldstein when I ran out onto the bulkhead to claim the women's banner, I was so enthusiastic.) But I can also honestly say that I had a great time at Worlds when there was no team scoring. That's a possibility to consider too. Just do away with the whole thing. But I think I'll be a very old woman before USMS ever goes that route!
