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
It is ludicrous that 15 or 16 people, simply because they were placed on the Championship Committee, should decide such an issue.So if it is ludicrous that 15 or 16 people should decide such an issue, then what is the number that it becomes plausible? 20? 50? 100? 200? The US Supreme Court makes decisions almost as weighty as team scoring with a committee of only 9 members. And while some of their decisions, in my opinion , are ludicrous they seem to be, on a whole , an effective decision making committee. This is in part due to the fact that they meet more than once a year and in part due to the fact that qualified people are assigned to this committee.
Based in what is being said here, a number of people are at least mildly interested in changing how we tabulate scores at nationals. What is ludicrous is we only allow ourselves one shot per year to address customer satisfaction.
maybe the delegates felt those ideas were in good hands and trusted they were being taken care of. Shouldn’t we be able to extend this same courtesy to the Championship Committee?
It is ludicrous that 15 or 16 people, simply because they were placed on the Championship Committee, should decide such an issue.So if it is ludicrous that 15 or 16 people should decide such an issue, then what is the number that it becomes plausible? 20? 50? 100? 200? The US Supreme Court makes decisions almost as weighty as team scoring with a committee of only 9 members. And while some of their decisions, in my opinion , are ludicrous they seem to be, on a whole , an effective decision making committee. This is in part due to the fact that they meet more than once a year and in part due to the fact that qualified people are assigned to this committee.
Based in what is being said here, a number of people are at least mildly interested in changing how we tabulate scores at nationals. What is ludicrous is we only allow ourselves one shot per year to address customer satisfaction.
maybe the delegates felt those ideas were in good hands and trusted they were being taken care of. Shouldn’t we be able to extend this same courtesy to the Championship Committee?
