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
Hi,
In the Pacific proposal, there are only two divisions (Regional and Local Teams).
This was done in response to concerns raised on this forum about (1) keeping the scoring method simple, and (2) keeping down the number of awards.
If people feel strongly about adding other classifications, please feel free to speak up.
AUSTIN RESULTS
As a reference, here are the scores for each of the Mens/womens/combined classes at this year's short course Nationals at Austin. Teams that would be classed as "Regional Teams" under the Pacific proposal are noted with a "*".
Leianne,
I notice you classified Virginia Masters as a regional team, but the way I read the proposal, we would be considered a local team (eg, all our swimmers register for VMST and always swim for that team, at nationals and elsewhere). Or maybe I'm missing something?
Now, this is a fairly minor point but brings up the difficulties of classification of local vs regional. We are geographically spread out, no question about that, so I can appreciate that we should probably be called a "regional" team. But I don't believe we would be under the proposal as written, and maybe other teams are similar.
As an aside: VMST has a single board of officers -- I guess that's our "single management structure" -- and fewer than half the members of our LMSC swim for VMST. Personally, I don't really care how we are classified -- or about club scoring, really -- for me it is all about relay opportunities with people I know.
Again, my larger point is that defining "local" and "regional" is not easy; maybe the language in your proposal (which I think is the language that was voted on last year at the convention) is the best we can do.
I'm for any uncomplicated, practical proposal that maximizes opportunities for local teams to be recognized. I also agree that more banners should be available for these local teams, that such banners are usually less meaningful for regional teams.
Hi,
In the Pacific proposal, there are only two divisions (Regional and Local Teams).
This was done in response to concerns raised on this forum about (1) keeping the scoring method simple, and (2) keeping down the number of awards.
If people feel strongly about adding other classifications, please feel free to speak up.
AUSTIN RESULTS
As a reference, here are the scores for each of the Mens/womens/combined classes at this year's short course Nationals at Austin. Teams that would be classed as "Regional Teams" under the Pacific proposal are noted with a "*".
Leianne,
I notice you classified Virginia Masters as a regional team, but the way I read the proposal, we would be considered a local team (eg, all our swimmers register for VMST and always swim for that team, at nationals and elsewhere). Or maybe I'm missing something?
Now, this is a fairly minor point but brings up the difficulties of classification of local vs regional. We are geographically spread out, no question about that, so I can appreciate that we should probably be called a "regional" team. But I don't believe we would be under the proposal as written, and maybe other teams are similar.
As an aside: VMST has a single board of officers -- I guess that's our "single management structure" -- and fewer than half the members of our LMSC swim for VMST. Personally, I don't really care how we are classified -- or about club scoring, really -- for me it is all about relay opportunities with people I know.
Again, my larger point is that defining "local" and "regional" is not easy; maybe the language in your proposal (which I think is the language that was voted on last year at the convention) is the best we can do.
I'm for any uncomplicated, practical proposal that maximizes opportunities for local teams to be recognized. I also agree that more banners should be available for these local teams, that such banners are usually less meaningful for regional teams.
