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
As Michael indicated, Pacific's proposal last year missed by four votes. Me, I think it was because there were so many additions, changes and deletions (even though these all improved the proposal) that people were confused about what they were being asked to vote on.
Leianne,
You have put a lot of work into this and are to be commended for it.
It is hard to say for sure, but I disagree on the reason the vote failed to pass (I seem to recall it needed more than a simple majority, right?). It is worth going back over the minutes which are quite detailed on this vote.
My impression is that:
-- Despite many assurances to the contrary, some still felt this was an attack on regional clubs. I'm bringing this up so that you are sensitive to the issue. Perhaps a suggestion to offer fewer banners to regional teams wouldn't be good strategy, for example.
-- Many (myself included) were turned off by the attitude of some vocal Pacific delegates ("you wouldn't like it if WE formed a regional club"). The t-shirts, meant as a joke, didn't help. Sorry for being blunt, this is just my impression, and keep in mind that I still voted for the proposal. Again, as strategy, I would tone down such rhetoric. (Keep in mind that some LMSCs are sparsly populated, have few pools and coaches, and that the total number of swimmers in the entire LMSC is still fewer than that of many of the large teams in California.)
Bill, I would disagree with your statement that this doesn't address any strategic objective. I think that motivation is not relevant; the consequences of passage are important. At the convention, I was impressed and convinced by the testimony of some who described how much a high finish helped their team with recruitment, retention and participation. Any workable proposal that does this has my support.
As Michael indicated, Pacific's proposal last year missed by four votes. Me, I think it was because there were so many additions, changes and deletions (even though these all improved the proposal) that people were confused about what they were being asked to vote on.
Leianne,
You have put a lot of work into this and are to be commended for it.
It is hard to say for sure, but I disagree on the reason the vote failed to pass (I seem to recall it needed more than a simple majority, right?). It is worth going back over the minutes which are quite detailed on this vote.
My impression is that:
-- Despite many assurances to the contrary, some still felt this was an attack on regional clubs. I'm bringing this up so that you are sensitive to the issue. Perhaps a suggestion to offer fewer banners to regional teams wouldn't be good strategy, for example.
-- Many (myself included) were turned off by the attitude of some vocal Pacific delegates ("you wouldn't like it if WE formed a regional club"). The t-shirts, meant as a joke, didn't help. Sorry for being blunt, this is just my impression, and keep in mind that I still voted for the proposal. Again, as strategy, I would tone down such rhetoric. (Keep in mind that some LMSCs are sparsly populated, have few pools and coaches, and that the total number of swimmers in the entire LMSC is still fewer than that of many of the large teams in California.)
Bill, I would disagree with your statement that this doesn't address any strategic objective. I think that motivation is not relevant; the consequences of passage are important. At the convention, I was impressed and convinced by the testimony of some who described how much a high finish helped their team with recruitment, retention and participation. Any workable proposal that does this has my support.
