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
Leianne,
This issue, while hotly debated, is narrowly focused on how team scoring is conducted at 2 swim meets (USMS SCNC and USMS LCNC). And in reality only effects about a quarter, or less, of the clubs at those national championships.
You chose an interesting number - 25% of the clubs. In choosing that number it appears to me that you are trying to minimize or trivalize the importance of this debate. But lets look at what 25% of the clubs competing at nationals really are.
There were 158 clubs represented at 2007 Short Course Nationals at Federal way. 25% is about 39 Clubs. IMHO in order for a club to be at least competitive at nationals they have to have 8 swimmers - so they can field two relays. If one sorts the clubs by number of entries, the top 39 have 8 or more swimmers entered. Those swimmers total to about 1118 or 77% of the number entered athletes. In reality, 25% of the clubs represent the vast majority of swimmers who have at least a rooting interest in the award banners.
Leianne,
The House of Delegates spent more time discussing this one point then we did on our Strategic Plan, our budget, Club Development, LMSC Development or practically any other item brought before the House.
In the Worlds organizing committee, logo design and mascot took up more time that I think it should have. But we are working with volunteers, and the volunteers get excited about what interests them. Strategic Plan, budget (unless it affects these budget), Club Development, and LMSC Development are ethereal to most of the HOD members (I guess). It appears to me that for those who attend Nationals, bringing home a banner is concrete and a real subject.
michael
Leianne,
This issue, while hotly debated, is narrowly focused on how team scoring is conducted at 2 swim meets (USMS SCNC and USMS LCNC). And in reality only effects about a quarter, or less, of the clubs at those national championships.
You chose an interesting number - 25% of the clubs. In choosing that number it appears to me that you are trying to minimize or trivalize the importance of this debate. But lets look at what 25% of the clubs competing at nationals really are.
There were 158 clubs represented at 2007 Short Course Nationals at Federal way. 25% is about 39 Clubs. IMHO in order for a club to be at least competitive at nationals they have to have 8 swimmers - so they can field two relays. If one sorts the clubs by number of entries, the top 39 have 8 or more swimmers entered. Those swimmers total to about 1118 or 77% of the number entered athletes. In reality, 25% of the clubs represent the vast majority of swimmers who have at least a rooting interest in the award banners.
Leianne,
The House of Delegates spent more time discussing this one point then we did on our Strategic Plan, our budget, Club Development, LMSC Development or practically any other item brought before the House.
In the Worlds organizing committee, logo design and mascot took up more time that I think it should have. But we are working with volunteers, and the volunteers get excited about what interests them. Strategic Plan, budget (unless it affects these budget), Club Development, and LMSC Development are ethereal to most of the HOD members (I guess). It appears to me that for those who attend Nationals, bringing home a banner is concrete and a real subject.
michael
