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
I am in favor of this because you may not get alot of people from the same club to travel to nationals.
IMHO, if your club does not get a lot of people to go to Nationals, then your club shouldn't receive a banner at Nationals.
But, seeing that many or most people seem to be in favor of S/M/L team divisions within the Regional Club/Local Club, let's try to move this discussion forward.
Obviously nearly all of us agree on the Regional/Local divisions, and we are struggling with:
1) whether we need to define one or both types of teams;
2) the actual definition of these terms:
Regarding S/M/L divisions, we should further discuss:
1) whether those cutoffs should be made known in advance, or determined only after the close of entries.
2) if they are predetermined cutoffs, what should those cutoffs be.
________________________________________________________
(A) Regional/Local definitions:
1) WHICH TERM(S) TO DEFINE: As I've stated before, it seems to me that defining one term leaves less room for confusion. Unless we are able to perfectly define two mutually exclusive groups that encompass every team, then defining two terms is superfluous. However, since many or most people at Convention did not approve L2 for its failure to define both terms, perhaps we do need to define both to satisfy those people and actually get this new rule passed.
2A) ACTUALY DEFINITION: REGIONAL TEAM
Elements of this definition include:
a) "workout groups" (or smaller clubs) join to compete as one entity for a competition (inside OR outside their LMSC)
b) more than 10% of the member live outside the club's LMSC
c) Other possible factors: more than one board of directors, different bank accounts, the absence of a "home pool"
d) Final consideration: How much room do we leave for a judgment call by the decision maker in the case of unique teams?
2B) ACTUAL DEFINITION: LOCAL TEAM (if needed)
a) always competes as itself and does not join other teams or workout groups.
b) less than 10% of members outside the LMSC
c) a single board, a single bank account, the existence of a "home" pool (although not ALL workouts must take place there).
(B) S/M/L Divisions (if needed)
1) Determined in advance? I'd like to hear more on this. I've seen arguments on both sides and am unsure of where I stand.
2) If predetermined, what should they be? I think what Leianne proposed seems fair.
a) Small: less than 10 members
b) Medium: 11-24 members
c) Large: 25 or more members
So, let's talk about these points we haven't come to an agreement on.
I am in favor of this because you may not get alot of people from the same club to travel to nationals.
IMHO, if your club does not get a lot of people to go to Nationals, then your club shouldn't receive a banner at Nationals.
But, seeing that many or most people seem to be in favor of S/M/L team divisions within the Regional Club/Local Club, let's try to move this discussion forward.
Obviously nearly all of us agree on the Regional/Local divisions, and we are struggling with:
1) whether we need to define one or both types of teams;
2) the actual definition of these terms:
Regarding S/M/L divisions, we should further discuss:
1) whether those cutoffs should be made known in advance, or determined only after the close of entries.
2) if they are predetermined cutoffs, what should those cutoffs be.
________________________________________________________
(A) Regional/Local definitions:
1) WHICH TERM(S) TO DEFINE: As I've stated before, it seems to me that defining one term leaves less room for confusion. Unless we are able to perfectly define two mutually exclusive groups that encompass every team, then defining two terms is superfluous. However, since many or most people at Convention did not approve L2 for its failure to define both terms, perhaps we do need to define both to satisfy those people and actually get this new rule passed.
2A) ACTUALY DEFINITION: REGIONAL TEAM
Elements of this definition include:
a) "workout groups" (or smaller clubs) join to compete as one entity for a competition (inside OR outside their LMSC)
b) more than 10% of the member live outside the club's LMSC
c) Other possible factors: more than one board of directors, different bank accounts, the absence of a "home pool"
d) Final consideration: How much room do we leave for a judgment call by the decision maker in the case of unique teams?
2B) ACTUAL DEFINITION: LOCAL TEAM (if needed)
a) always competes as itself and does not join other teams or workout groups.
b) less than 10% of members outside the LMSC
c) a single board, a single bank account, the existence of a "home" pool (although not ALL workouts must take place there).
(B) S/M/L Divisions (if needed)
1) Determined in advance? I'd like to hear more on this. I've seen arguments on both sides and am unsure of where I stand.
2) If predetermined, what should they be? I think what Leianne proposed seems fair.
a) Small: less than 10 members
b) Medium: 11-24 members
c) Large: 25 or more members
So, let's talk about these points we haven't come to an agreement on.
