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
As I stated before, I do not think that ANY committee (Rules, Legislation or Championship) should determine the method of scoring. This isssue is raises too much debate. Look at this forum and the other ones that are linked to it.
Even before this forum thread, there are three other links from 2004-2005 that extensively discuss this issue (here is the first link, the other links are on the first page of this thread): forums.usms.org/showthread.php
I think that we need to deal with the current landscape as it is now (regional teams and club teams), because we will not be changing them any time soon -- these are already established methods for setting up swim programs.
What we need to do is make the slope of the playing field "less steep", as noted in a previous post-- because no scoring system will be perfect. If that is done by going back to SML, or to regional/club divisions, including number of swims, and geographic limitations, that is great.
Given the comments on all these forum threads, I think that if a smaller team felt that it could actually achieve a win, then the participant that is on the fence (about spending the money or taking the vacation time to attend Nationals) would be more likely to go. If the goal is to increase attendance, then I think that segmenting the scoring divisions would help.
One of the concerns expressed in the prior posts under the other threads is that by scoring only the top ten teams, that would encourage formation of regional teams. I think that has happened. Another statement was that the teams that won the small divisions under the old method would most likely be in the top ten teams.
Here are the teams that won in the Small Team divisions for SCY Nationals 2001-2004 (by women, men and combined scores):
2001:
W Stanford, TAM, El Segundo
M Team Texas, Ventura, San Diego
C San Diego, Tamalpais, El Segundo
2002:
W DC Masters, Multnomah, Pirate Masters
M City of Las Vegas, Ventura, Illinois
C Las Vegas, Ojai Santa Barbara, Multnomah
2003:
W TOC, NEM, Oregon,
M Gold, NC, Ancient Mariners
C Virginia, Gold, UCSB
2004:
W NEM, NC, Dallas
M Las Vegas, TAM, GAJA
C NEM, NC, PNA
Since the scoring change in 2004, of the "small teams" listed above, only North Carolina, NEM, Illinois, Oregon, PNA, San Diego ("regional " clubs) and Virginia have scored in the top ten at SCY Nationals. I do not see any of the other teams (primarily "club" teams) listed in the top ten. The only "club teams" in the top ten for SCY 2005-2007 have been Fort Lauderdale, Florida Maverick, the Olympic Club, the Woodlands, and Walnut Creek.
Given the dissatisfaction with the current scoring system (which has only been in place for a couple years), maybe any change in scoring needs to have a sunset period, where it applies for 3 years after approval by HOD, and then if not confirmed again by HOD, it will expire and you are back to the previous scoring method (the top ten teams). If it is confirmed again by HOD after three years, then that is the scoring method. That way you are not locked in to a scoring system, and can road test it.
Leianne
As I stated before, I do not think that ANY committee (Rules, Legislation or Championship) should determine the method of scoring. This isssue is raises too much debate. Look at this forum and the other ones that are linked to it.
Even before this forum thread, there are three other links from 2004-2005 that extensively discuss this issue (here is the first link, the other links are on the first page of this thread): forums.usms.org/showthread.php
I think that we need to deal with the current landscape as it is now (regional teams and club teams), because we will not be changing them any time soon -- these are already established methods for setting up swim programs.
What we need to do is make the slope of the playing field "less steep", as noted in a previous post-- because no scoring system will be perfect. If that is done by going back to SML, or to regional/club divisions, including number of swims, and geographic limitations, that is great.
Given the comments on all these forum threads, I think that if a smaller team felt that it could actually achieve a win, then the participant that is on the fence (about spending the money or taking the vacation time to attend Nationals) would be more likely to go. If the goal is to increase attendance, then I think that segmenting the scoring divisions would help.
One of the concerns expressed in the prior posts under the other threads is that by scoring only the top ten teams, that would encourage formation of regional teams. I think that has happened. Another statement was that the teams that won the small divisions under the old method would most likely be in the top ten teams.
Here are the teams that won in the Small Team divisions for SCY Nationals 2001-2004 (by women, men and combined scores):
2001:
W Stanford, TAM, El Segundo
M Team Texas, Ventura, San Diego
C San Diego, Tamalpais, El Segundo
2002:
W DC Masters, Multnomah, Pirate Masters
M City of Las Vegas, Ventura, Illinois
C Las Vegas, Ojai Santa Barbara, Multnomah
2003:
W TOC, NEM, Oregon,
M Gold, NC, Ancient Mariners
C Virginia, Gold, UCSB
2004:
W NEM, NC, Dallas
M Las Vegas, TAM, GAJA
C NEM, NC, PNA
Since the scoring change in 2004, of the "small teams" listed above, only North Carolina, NEM, Illinois, Oregon, PNA, San Diego ("regional " clubs) and Virginia have scored in the top ten at SCY Nationals. I do not see any of the other teams (primarily "club" teams) listed in the top ten. The only "club teams" in the top ten for SCY 2005-2007 have been Fort Lauderdale, Florida Maverick, the Olympic Club, the Woodlands, and Walnut Creek.
Given the dissatisfaction with the current scoring system (which has only been in place for a couple years), maybe any change in scoring needs to have a sunset period, where it applies for 3 years after approval by HOD, and then if not confirmed again by HOD, it will expire and you are back to the previous scoring method (the top ten teams). If it is confirmed again by HOD after three years, then that is the scoring method. That way you are not locked in to a scoring system, and can road test it.
Leianne
