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
It would be nice to hear how a new club scoring system could fulfill the USMS strategic objective of developing clubs, or any other objective for that matter.
It would’ve been even nicer to start there, but we didn’t. Perhaps that's why the proposal failed in Anaheim. I’m sure some people are happy I wasn’t there because I was planning to either vote “no” or abstain. But all I've heard is “I want, I want, I want.” Sadly, this discussion hasn’t evolved much beyond that.
During the strategic planning meeting last year in Chicago, a couple dozen people in USMS were the first group asked by our Executive Director to look at the broad direction of the organization and think in terms of fulfilling specific strategic objectives. I was part of that group. The meeting confirmed certain things we’ve been trying to accomplish with the magazine, and gave us other things to work on. Fostering club development was a biggie, and in response SWIMMER started planning more features showing models for success in club development. Our first was the Woodlands Nationals feature (Sept./Oct., 2007), our second was Walnut Creek (Mar./Apr., 2008), and we are planning others.
Just as we have allowed strategic planning guide the magazine, it would be great to see the club scoring discussion guided by strategic objectives (such as club development). Right now, it seems guided by personal interests.
:shakeshead:
It would be nice to hear how a new club scoring system could fulfill the USMS strategic objective of developing clubs, or any other objective for that matter.
It would’ve been even nicer to start there, but we didn’t. Perhaps that's why the proposal failed in Anaheim. I’m sure some people are happy I wasn’t there because I was planning to either vote “no” or abstain. But all I've heard is “I want, I want, I want.” Sadly, this discussion hasn’t evolved much beyond that.
During the strategic planning meeting last year in Chicago, a couple dozen people in USMS were the first group asked by our Executive Director to look at the broad direction of the organization and think in terms of fulfilling specific strategic objectives. I was part of that group. The meeting confirmed certain things we’ve been trying to accomplish with the magazine, and gave us other things to work on. Fostering club development was a biggie, and in response SWIMMER started planning more features showing models for success in club development. Our first was the Woodlands Nationals feature (Sept./Oct., 2007), our second was Walnut Creek (Mar./Apr., 2008), and we are planning others.
Just as we have allowed strategic planning guide the magazine, it would be great to see the club scoring discussion guided by strategic objectives (such as club development). Right now, it seems guided by personal interests.
:shakeshead:
