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
Bill, why do we have to fit this in a strategic objective? We did not look at strategic objectives when we passed the change from L/M/S to the current system. It was put in as a means to foster competition. The results have shown that to that the clubs that have won most of the banners are the regional clubs. This has put the non-regional club at a disadvantage, as most single clubs do not have the number of members of a regional club, nor can they get the the class of swimmers to do well in the relays.
As to why L2 failed at convention last year, take your choice - a switch of four votes and it would have passed. It could be that we did not lay enough of a foundation or to adequately explain the position of L2. It could be that there are those who truly believe that the best competion would be just going by the results whether it be a regional club or a single club. It could be that some thought that it should only be a Rules section not in the Legislation section. There were also those who did not like the definitions.
I congratulate Leianne Crittenden on her ability to work with the Sean Fitzgerald and the Legislation Committee and the Rules Committee to get L2 as far as she did. I thought that the amended L2 was the best proposal out there. Leianne has been trying to promote a way to modify the current rule and wants to hear what changes should be made so that a rule is proposed best addresses the concerns of all groups.
It has always been the position of Pacific, that we are here to support the clubs. I think that shows in that we have over 100 clubs, including eight of the ten largest non-regional clubs. I believe that by recognizing clubs that do well at nationals will help them establish their "brand" as one writer has said.
I dont think the club development task force, has completed its work, the LMSC task force has not finished it work and the branding task force is just starting its work. I dont think we have to wait for them to do their work before we make a change.
Even if we take club development out of the equation, I think there is a question of fundemental fairness when you have a regional club compete against a club that essentially draws from a local area.
michael
Bill, why do we have to fit this in a strategic objective? We did not look at strategic objectives when we passed the change from L/M/S to the current system. It was put in as a means to foster competition. The results have shown that to that the clubs that have won most of the banners are the regional clubs. This has put the non-regional club at a disadvantage, as most single clubs do not have the number of members of a regional club, nor can they get the the class of swimmers to do well in the relays.
As to why L2 failed at convention last year, take your choice - a switch of four votes and it would have passed. It could be that we did not lay enough of a foundation or to adequately explain the position of L2. It could be that there are those who truly believe that the best competion would be just going by the results whether it be a regional club or a single club. It could be that some thought that it should only be a Rules section not in the Legislation section. There were also those who did not like the definitions.
I congratulate Leianne Crittenden on her ability to work with the Sean Fitzgerald and the Legislation Committee and the Rules Committee to get L2 as far as she did. I thought that the amended L2 was the best proposal out there. Leianne has been trying to promote a way to modify the current rule and wants to hear what changes should be made so that a rule is proposed best addresses the concerns of all groups.
It has always been the position of Pacific, that we are here to support the clubs. I think that shows in that we have over 100 clubs, including eight of the ten largest non-regional clubs. I believe that by recognizing clubs that do well at nationals will help them establish their "brand" as one writer has said.
I dont think the club development task force, has completed its work, the LMSC task force has not finished it work and the branding task force is just starting its work. I dont think we have to wait for them to do their work before we make a change.
Even if we take club development out of the equation, I think there is a question of fundemental fairness when you have a regional club compete against a club that essentially draws from a local area.
michael
