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
Personally, I would still like to see USMS spend more time with projects and discussions that have greater consequences, such as the professional management guidelines.
In the marketing report that Tom Boyd chaired, he said that 28% (about 12,000 swimmers) of the membership were serious competitive swimmers and it could be assumed that they have a rooting interest how the results of the team banners are awarded.
While the professional management guidelines are important, I would assume that only a minority of the House of Delegates (200 members) have an much of an interest in them. Those who do get worked up about the PMG would tend to join the American Management Association or the Association Management Services for Professional Associations, Trade Associations, and Non Profit Associations. :-)
Since ~5% of USMS swimmers actually attend one or both National Championship Meets in a given year, I think too much time is being spent on this topic. I hear discussions to this topic are lengthy and animated at convention. Perhaps USMS would be better served addressing the needs of the large portion of its membership who do not compete in Nationals (or meets, for that matter), and figure out how to keep those swimmers interested and how to bring in new members.
Is there any reason that we cannot do both?
Personally, I would still like to see USMS spend more time with projects and discussions that have greater consequences, such as the professional management guidelines.
In the marketing report that Tom Boyd chaired, he said that 28% (about 12,000 swimmers) of the membership were serious competitive swimmers and it could be assumed that they have a rooting interest how the results of the team banners are awarded.
While the professional management guidelines are important, I would assume that only a minority of the House of Delegates (200 members) have an much of an interest in them. Those who do get worked up about the PMG would tend to join the American Management Association or the Association Management Services for Professional Associations, Trade Associations, and Non Profit Associations. :-)
Since ~5% of USMS swimmers actually attend one or both National Championship Meets in a given year, I think too much time is being spent on this topic. I hear discussions to this topic are lengthy and animated at convention. Perhaps USMS would be better served addressing the needs of the large portion of its membership who do not compete in Nationals (or meets, for that matter), and figure out how to keep those swimmers interested and how to bring in new members.
Is there any reason that we cannot do both?
