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
(1) Regional Teams. For competition at National Championship Meets, a “Regional Team” consists of a team made up of those swimmers who represent a club at Nationals, but at competitions within their LMSC, they compete for an entity or subgroup (such as a workout group) that is different than the one they compete with at Nationals.
(2) Local Teams. For competition at National Championship Meets, a “Local Team” consists of a team made up of those swimmers who represent a club at Nationals, and at competitions within their LMSC they compete for the same club, and that club has a single management structure that is responsible for administering the club’s activities (including, for example, acquiring facilities and/or providing coaches).
I make these comments not to be deliberately destructive, but as if I were acting to take advantage of these regulations. Please bear in mind that I have no better ideas myself!
The first problem is that the regional and local team class as written here do not encompass all teams that could be in an LMSC. In this case, what I would be thinking of is an LMSC with one large club, but members compete for the large club inside and outside of their LMSC. For example, in my LMSC, it would be as if you competed for NCMS inside and outside of the LMSC.
Now the issue is that this kind of club is not a regional team because they compete for the same entity intra-LMSC as they do outside of the LMSC, but it isn't a local team either because it lacks the single management structure. So what needs to happen in this proposal is either a third group, or the other class needs to be "all clubs that are not the other type".
This kind of club is also the weak point of this proposal. Based on what happened with last year's proposal, my feeling is that your intent is to classify such a team as a local team, and not a regional team. I don't think every LMSC with a conglomerate team will do this, but I would imagine at least a few would. Or a few current smaller groups within the LMSC would band together and conglomerate as a club (this kind of consolidation is occuring to a certain extent in USA Swimming, even if the groups aren't really nearby!).
I'm also wondering whether or not the ratification in three years part is something that can go in Part 1 of the rulebook. Since something in three years would be in 2011--an odd-numbered legislative year, it would seem to have the effect of a rules change in a non-rules year, which is different than the amendment procedures currently in effect in Part 6 (see 601.4). If this really has the effect of changing the amendment procedures, then this part would be a legislative change in a non-legislative year. There's a high probability that I could be wrong about this, but it seems to add a lot of complexity to the proposal (which is probably why it's optional!). I'd recommend just completely severing it and not even bringing it as an option. If people don't like the scoring system in two or four or 2n years, they can amend it then.
Patrick King
(1) Regional Teams. For competition at National Championship Meets, a “Regional Team” consists of a team made up of those swimmers who represent a club at Nationals, but at competitions within their LMSC, they compete for an entity or subgroup (such as a workout group) that is different than the one they compete with at Nationals.
(2) Local Teams. For competition at National Championship Meets, a “Local Team” consists of a team made up of those swimmers who represent a club at Nationals, and at competitions within their LMSC they compete for the same club, and that club has a single management structure that is responsible for administering the club’s activities (including, for example, acquiring facilities and/or providing coaches).
I make these comments not to be deliberately destructive, but as if I were acting to take advantage of these regulations. Please bear in mind that I have no better ideas myself!
The first problem is that the regional and local team class as written here do not encompass all teams that could be in an LMSC. In this case, what I would be thinking of is an LMSC with one large club, but members compete for the large club inside and outside of their LMSC. For example, in my LMSC, it would be as if you competed for NCMS inside and outside of the LMSC.
Now the issue is that this kind of club is not a regional team because they compete for the same entity intra-LMSC as they do outside of the LMSC, but it isn't a local team either because it lacks the single management structure. So what needs to happen in this proposal is either a third group, or the other class needs to be "all clubs that are not the other type".
This kind of club is also the weak point of this proposal. Based on what happened with last year's proposal, my feeling is that your intent is to classify such a team as a local team, and not a regional team. I don't think every LMSC with a conglomerate team will do this, but I would imagine at least a few would. Or a few current smaller groups within the LMSC would band together and conglomerate as a club (this kind of consolidation is occuring to a certain extent in USA Swimming, even if the groups aren't really nearby!).
I'm also wondering whether or not the ratification in three years part is something that can go in Part 1 of the rulebook. Since something in three years would be in 2011--an odd-numbered legislative year, it would seem to have the effect of a rules change in a non-rules year, which is different than the amendment procedures currently in effect in Part 6 (see 601.4). If this really has the effect of changing the amendment procedures, then this part would be a legislative change in a non-legislative year. There's a high probability that I could be wrong about this, but it seems to add a lot of complexity to the proposal (which is probably why it's optional!). I'd recommend just completely severing it and not even bringing it as an option. If people don't like the scoring system in two or four or 2n years, they can amend it then.
Patrick King
