team scoring

Wow, I thought this discussion was resolved a few months ago but I see it's been brought back to life. I was one of the original posters in this thread and I've just spent the last 2+ hours reading all of the new posts made since August (yes, I'm a slow reader). It appears that the same arguments are being put forth as they were back in June when this thing started, however, the level of thought and discussion has been greatly elevated. I tried to take some notes as I read so I wouldn't simply be repeating what others have already said, although that's probably impossible at this point. ha! I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I had some catching up to do and I organized my writing inthe order of which I took my notes - point by point. So, to start, I want to say that at times reading this thread I got the impression that some people wanted to level the playing field to a point where every possible variable was accounted for and every team would finish with the same number of points regardless of speed or size. That is not the point of competing. Some teams will be "better" than others, and no scoring system will be 100% "fair" to all teams. But, I'm glad most everyone agrees that the scoring system needs improvement. So, a few random points I think needed reiteration: (BTW, I appear to agree with Jim Matysek (w/the exception of the NFL analogy!), Paul Smith, and Rob Copeland - even if you guys didn't think you agreed yourselves, you do for the most part on major issues.) 1) Any method of achieving a point total that requires the points scored to be divided by anything (i.e., # of swimmers or # of splashes) will have a negative impact on participation, which is against the USMS mission statement. This seems like common sense to me = slower swimmers will be discouraged from attending, and those slower swimmers who do attend will be discouraged from swimming many events. Case closed. 2) In the same vein, any size divisions (S/M/L) will have a similar negative impact. Fortunately, only a couple people have voiced their opinion in favor of this S/M/L division. One point made was that now, as opposed to earlier (I guess), we will make those size designations AFTER the close of entries. I assume this is intended to prohibit teams from discouraging slower swimmers from attending, so as to not boost their team into the next size category, but the practical effect remains the same - we will be able to determine APPROXIMATELY where each size cutoff will be, and swimmers will STILL be discouraged from participating. (The cutoff numbers will be +/- 1-2 swimmers from year to year.) Again, as pointed out before, this was the downfall of the previous system, so I'm not sure why it is even being considered again with this new legislation. As Matysek said, I despise S/M/L team scoring. Furthermore, it really detracts from any teams achievement (except the Large team winner). The Medium team winner will still know, "Well, it's a good thing we didn't have 2 more swimmers because then we just would've been average in the Large team division." Same with the Small team. And finally, this really upsets the last place team in the Medium division who can then say, "Well sh*t, if we brought one less person we would've finished 2nd in the small team division." (And next year they WILL bring 1 less person!) Bottom line = S/M/L is arbitrary, unfair, and discourages participation. 3) If we only divide into Regional Team/Club Team, then we are rewarding those clubs who manage to encourage as many of their swimmers to participate as possible. If a team of 80 gets 20 swimmers to Nationals that's great! They shouldn't be "penalized" by being placed in the Medium team division when a team of 200 only gets 15 swimmers to go to Nationals and is thus in the Small team division. We should REWARD PARTICIPATION by all teams, and all swimmers (not just fast swimmers either). 4) There was a comparion made to USA Swimming scoring. It was pointed out that there is no distinction between the size or type of club. However, USA Swimming is a much different landscape and there is no such thing as "Colorado Swimming" or "Oregon Swimming" in Senior Nationals. 5) KISS - Keep It Simple. I agree with this philosophy to a degree - there is a line that needs to be crossed, and another that shouldn't be crossed. For example, to limit Club Teams to those teams who swim in one pool is overly simplistic. My team does not have our own pool but instead rents it from the city, as do most teams I presume. On the weekends, we train at another pool because our "home pool" is taken the by city. However, we a still very much a Club Team. Until I read the above posts, I was unaware that there was a designation on some USMS Cards for a "workout group" and a "club team." This does truly seem like the simplest way to designate what a Regional Team would be. Additionally, I don't think there should be any geographical limitation for the reasons covered in prior posts. (Hopefully this leniency won't be abused.) For all practical purposes, the designation between Regional and Club is very straight forward for 96% of teams (a third grader can look at the name of the team competing at Nationals and tell you, right?). So, I echo Paul Smith and am advocating 2 division (Regional/Club), with Men, Women, and Combined Awards. I would differ in that I think with the new division, awards 1-10 is too many, but 1-3 too few. I'd say 1-5 would be a great compromise, but I am really more concerned with the structure of divisions. However, another point to award through 5th (rather than 3rd) is that Masters swimmers, and Masters teams, enjoy being recognized for their efforts and accomplishments, so, I would err on the side of award too many, rather than too few. 6) Someone brought up "what next? relay scoring?" in arguing that no change should be made to the current system. I don't feel it's necessary to go down that slippery slope. We can play the "what if" game forever. Relays should continued to be scored the same way - if a Regional team gets 1st and a Club team gets 2nd, the Club team gets points for 2nd, but ultimately is not competing against that Regional team in team scoring. (I am not advocating awarding the Club team first places points and medals.) Well, that's it for now. I'm curious to keep reading what people have to say. Obviously this is an important subject and I'm glad that it received the attention it did at the National Convention this year.

Wow, I thought this discussion was resolved a few months ago but I see it's been brought back to life. I was one of the original posters in this thread and I've just spent the last 2+ hours reading all of the new posts made since August (yes, I'm a slow reader). It appears that the same arguments are being put forth as they were back in June when this thing started, however, the level of thought and discussion has been greatly elevated. I tried to take some notes as I read so I wouldn't simply be repeating what others have already said, although that's probably impossible at this point. ha! I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I had some catching up to do and I organized my writing inthe order of which I took my notes - point by point. So, to start, I want to say that at times reading this thread I got the impression that some people wanted to level the playing field to a point where every possible variable was accounted for and every team would finish with the same number of points regardless of speed or size. That is not the point of competing. Some teams will be "better" than others, and no scoring system will be 100% "fair" to all teams. But, I'm glad most everyone agrees that the scoring system needs improvement. So, a few random points I think needed reiteration: (BTW, I appear to agree with Jim Matysek (w/the exception of the NFL analogy!), Paul Smith, and Rob Copeland - even if you guys didn't think you agreed yourselves, you do for the most part on major issues.) 1) Any method of achieving a point total that requires the points scored to be divided by anything (i.e., # of swimmers or # of splashes) will have a negative impact on participation, which is against the USMS mission statement. This seems like common sense to me = slower swimmers will be discouraged from attending, and those slower swimmers who do attend will be discouraged from swimming many events. Case closed. 2) In the same vein, any size divisions (S/M/L) will have a similar negative impact. Fortunately, only a couple people have voiced their opinion in favor of this S/M/L division. One point made was that now, as opposed to earlier (I guess), we will make those size designations AFTER the close of entries. I assume this is intended to prohibit teams from discouraging slower swimmers from attending, so as to not boost their team into the next size category, but the practical effect remains the same - we will be able to determine APPROXIMATELY where each size cutoff will be, and swimmers will STILL be discouraged from participating. (The cutoff numbers will be +/- 1-2 swimmers from year to year.) Again, as pointed out before, this was the downfall of the previous system, so I'm not sure why it is even being considered again with this new legislation. As Matysek said, I despise S/M/L team scoring. Furthermore, it really detracts from any teams achievement (except the Large team winner). The Medium team winner will still know, "Well, it's a good thing we didn't have 2 more swimmers because then we just would've been average in the Large team division." Same with the Small team. And finally, this really upsets the last place team in the Medium division who can then say, "Well sh*t, if we brought one less person we would've finished 2nd in the small team division." (And next year they WILL bring 1 less person!) Bottom line = S/M/L is arbitrary, unfair, and discourages participation. 3) If we only divide into Regional Team/Club Team, then we are rewarding those clubs who manage to encourage as many of their swimmers to participate as possible. If a team of 80 gets 20 swimmers to Nationals that's great! They shouldn't be "penalized" by being placed in the Medium team division when a team of 200 only gets 15 swimmers to go to Nationals and is thus in the Small team division. We should REWARD PARTICIPATION by all teams, and all swimmers (not just fast swimmers either). 4) There was a comparion made to USA Swimming scoring. It was pointed out that there is no distinction between the size or type of club. However, USA Swimming is a much different landscape and there is no such thing as "Colorado Swimming" or "Oregon Swimming" in Senior Nationals. 5) KISS - Keep It Simple. I agree with this philosophy to a degree - there is a line that needs to be crossed, and another that shouldn't be crossed. For example, to limit Club Teams to those teams who swim in one pool is overly simplistic. My team does not have our own pool but instead rents it from the city, as do most teams I presume. On the weekends, we train at another pool because our "home pool" is taken the by city. However, we a still very much a Club Team. Until I read the above posts, I was unaware that there was a designation on some USMS Cards for a "workout group" and a "club team." This does truly seem like the simplest way to designate what a Regional Team would be. Additionally, I don't think there should be any geographical limitation for the reasons covered in prior posts. (Hopefully this leniency won't be abused.) For all practical purposes, the designation between Regional and Club is very straight forward for 96% of teams (a third grader can look at the name of the team competing at Nationals and tell you, right?). So, I echo Paul Smith and am advocating 2 division (Regional/Club), with Men, Women, and Combined Awards. I would differ in that I think with the new division, awards 1-10 is too many, but 1-3 too few. I'd say 1-5 would be a great compromise, but I am really more concerned with the structure of divisions. However, another point to award through 5th (rather than 3rd) is that Masters swimmers, and Masters teams, enjoy being recognized for their efforts and accomplishments, so, I would err on the side of award too many, rather than too few. 6) Someone brought up "what next? relay scoring?" in arguing that no change should be made to the current system. I don't feel it's necessary to go down that slippery slope. We can play the "what if" game forever. Relays should continued to be scored the same way - if a Regional team gets 1st and a Club team gets 2nd, the Club team gets points for 2nd, but ultimately is not competing against that Regional team in team scoring. (I am not advocating awarding the Club team first places points and medals.) Well, that's it for now. I'm curious to keep reading what people have to say. Obviously this is an important subject and I'm glad that it received the attention it did at the National Convention this year.