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
Article 201.2: Member clubs are organizations or groups of permanent character currently registered with USMS through its LMSCs and that actively promote and participate in Masters swimming.
So currently there is one and only one type of club in USMS. If we say we have two types of clubs, and then define only one type, to me that is incomplete. I think the hangup is trying to make an ironclad definition, going wild with the percentages, geographic radius, etc. We should just say that a regional club is composed of swimmers from throughout an LMSC, training in different pools in the LMSC, but all competing for the same club. Then a local club is composed primarily of swimmers who train in the same pool, or in several pools in close geographic proximity, and who always compete for the same club. Is it iron clad? No. Will it satisfy most situations? Yes. And as long as we have an avenue for appeal, then I think we'll have few problems. I doubt many clubs will contest their designation.
Article 201.2: Member clubs are organizations or groups of permanent character currently registered with USMS through its LMSCs and that actively promote and participate in Masters swimming.
So currently there is one and only one type of club in USMS. If we say we have two types of clubs, and then define only one type, to me that is incomplete. I think the hangup is trying to make an ironclad definition, going wild with the percentages, geographic radius, etc. We should just say that a regional club is composed of swimmers from throughout an LMSC, training in different pools in the LMSC, but all competing for the same club. Then a local club is composed primarily of swimmers who train in the same pool, or in several pools in close geographic proximity, and who always compete for the same club. Is it iron clad? No. Will it satisfy most situations? Yes. And as long as we have an avenue for appeal, then I think we'll have few problems. I doubt many clubs will contest their designation.
