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
104.5.6 Club Scoring
D. Divisions—Three size divisions, based upon the number of swimmers entered in the meet from each club, shall be recognized within each club type and category. The number of splashes from a club that shall constitute a division I (large), division II (medium), or division III (small) team shall be determined after the meet entry deadline by the Championship committee.
Like swim4life, I am encouraged by the evolution of this discussion since its inception.
Several people have objected to either S/M/L categories or using "splashes" to divide by size. I understand those arguments, but would also like to explain why what Carolyn has proposed above sounds like a good compromise.
Swimming for a small club (both by registration numbers and by participation at nationals), it is discouraging to see team scores get so much attention at a national meet. It is impossible for a small club to be competitive with the points scored by a large club--be it regonal or local--and seeing your club's name at the bottom of the list is not a lift to team morale.
Why should I (or any small team member) encourage more teammates to attend a national meet when we, as a small team, still would have no chance of placing as a team? There is a significant cost for participants at a national meet, and many will not bring home an individual medal, so what incentive is there for small teams to go to the meet at all?
Carolyn's proposal appears to try to placate all sides. Whether USMS ultimately decides to divide by regional/ local distinctions, I think it should difinately return to S/M/L divisions. The distinction, as outlined above, allows for (and dare I say encourages?) participation--by not penalizing teams for the number of swimmers they bring to the meet, but rather the number of "swims" entered.
For example, a team has several swimmers who do not meet NQT standards, but would like to attend nationals. Each enters a maximum of three swims. Rather than counting as two swimmers, they are counted as six swims (or the equivalent of one swimmer entering 6 events). One could argue, that using this method may actually move some teams with large numbers of swimmers DOWN a category, if many participants swim less than the maximum number of individual events. A team bringing 120 swimmers each swimming 2 events = 240 swims, and would be competing against teams with similar numbers of swims, like a team with 40 participants each swimming 6 events.
These two teams are not equal, they are however, equivalent in potential for scoring points. They can be competitive with one another, and others of similar potential. Preventing swimmers from particiapting would not benefit either team, since "individuals" were not used as the determining factor. It may also mean that PNA, WCM, and CMS are all duking it out in the same division, even though one team brought 150 swimmers and another only brought 50.
104.5.6 Club Scoring
D. Divisions—Three size divisions, based upon the number of swimmers entered in the meet from each club, shall be recognized within each club type and category. The number of splashes from a club that shall constitute a division I (large), division II (medium), or division III (small) team shall be determined after the meet entry deadline by the Championship committee.
Like swim4life, I am encouraged by the evolution of this discussion since its inception.
Several people have objected to either S/M/L categories or using "splashes" to divide by size. I understand those arguments, but would also like to explain why what Carolyn has proposed above sounds like a good compromise.
Swimming for a small club (both by registration numbers and by participation at nationals), it is discouraging to see team scores get so much attention at a national meet. It is impossible for a small club to be competitive with the points scored by a large club--be it regonal or local--and seeing your club's name at the bottom of the list is not a lift to team morale.
Why should I (or any small team member) encourage more teammates to attend a national meet when we, as a small team, still would have no chance of placing as a team? There is a significant cost for participants at a national meet, and many will not bring home an individual medal, so what incentive is there for small teams to go to the meet at all?
Carolyn's proposal appears to try to placate all sides. Whether USMS ultimately decides to divide by regional/ local distinctions, I think it should difinately return to S/M/L divisions. The distinction, as outlined above, allows for (and dare I say encourages?) participation--by not penalizing teams for the number of swimmers they bring to the meet, but rather the number of "swims" entered.
For example, a team has several swimmers who do not meet NQT standards, but would like to attend nationals. Each enters a maximum of three swims. Rather than counting as two swimmers, they are counted as six swims (or the equivalent of one swimmer entering 6 events). One could argue, that using this method may actually move some teams with large numbers of swimmers DOWN a category, if many participants swim less than the maximum number of individual events. A team bringing 120 swimmers each swimming 2 events = 240 swims, and would be competing against teams with similar numbers of swims, like a team with 40 participants each swimming 6 events.
These two teams are not equal, they are however, equivalent in potential for scoring points. They can be competitive with one another, and others of similar potential. Preventing swimmers from particiapting would not benefit either team, since "individuals" were not used as the determining factor. It may also mean that PNA, WCM, and CMS are all duking it out in the same division, even though one team brought 150 swimmers and another only brought 50.
