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
I actually agree with what the previous writer said about not making any size divisions(instead, reward the clubs who get lots of people to swim). I am proud of the 8th and 10th place banners my club won at two Nationals. However, you need to realize that Pacific presented both ideas at the last convention--distinction between simple and combined teams only and distinction between simple and combined teams with small, medium and large--only the proposal with the small, medium, and large divisions found support. When the Championship Committee designated small, medium and large in the past, the divisions were done after entries were received (except for the first few years in the late 80's and early 90's). One person suggested counting splashes,rather than people entered, which partly will help those teams who encourage the non-scorers to come to the meet. The reason that I put the geographicial distinction (I am not sure majority is the correct amount, perhaps 2/3 of the swimmers should live near the club location)in the proposal is that a team that puts together a super team from around the country (as TYR did for the world meet), even if they swim all year for that club, probably belongs in the combined or regional team category.
Carolyn Boak
I actually agree with what the previous writer said about not making any size divisions(instead, reward the clubs who get lots of people to swim). I am proud of the 8th and 10th place banners my club won at two Nationals. However, you need to realize that Pacific presented both ideas at the last convention--distinction between simple and combined teams only and distinction between simple and combined teams with small, medium and large--only the proposal with the small, medium, and large divisions found support. When the Championship Committee designated small, medium and large in the past, the divisions were done after entries were received (except for the first few years in the late 80's and early 90's). One person suggested counting splashes,rather than people entered, which partly will help those teams who encourage the non-scorers to come to the meet. The reason that I put the geographicial distinction (I am not sure majority is the correct amount, perhaps 2/3 of the swimmers should live near the club location)in the proposal is that a team that puts together a super team from around the country (as TYR did for the world meet), even if they swim all year for that club, probably belongs in the combined or regional team category.
Carolyn Boak
