team scoring

Tom: I am going to provide you with some links on the discussions we had about this in the past and I hope this helps explain things better and how people feel about scoring. forums.usms.org/showthread.php forums.usms.org/showthread.php forums.usms.org/showthread.php

Tom, I understand your frustration. I think our current system is in need of some repare. As I was very involved with this change, let me address your first question. The former team scoring method of small, medium and large was eliminated due its arbitrary nature. In theory, the concept was good, but in practice it was flawed. What made a team of 12 small and a team of 13 medium? At the same time what made a team of 300 large and a team of 80 also large? The main challege that existed with the small, medium and large system was that there were not logical break points for the divisions. Teams with one more or less swimmer ended up in separate divisions. I think you hit on the right idea dividing between mega team (state teams) and what you call true clubs. In fact, in my original proposal contained this idea. However, many members on the state teams objected. There were several reasons that caused them to object. One, they didn't feel it was fair for a smaller state team to have to compete against a large one (and yes, under our current system, they do). Two, how do you define a state team. We currently don't have a definition of anything other than a club. State teams and true clubs are all clubs by that definition. The later objection is the more difficult one to overcome. I think we are halfway to a better scoring system. However, until we split the mega clubs from the "true" clubs we have a systems that encourages clubs to join with other clubs to form a mega club. In order to change this, legislation needs to be proposed so this can be discussed at convention. It would be great if your LMCS or some other would get the second part of the debate rolling by proposing a rule change. I personally think it would find support in many areas and equally strong objection in others.

Mark mentioned the arbitrary nature of dividing teams into categories. I can understand how that can be a challenge, as well as the frustration of being on a "small" team that sometimes gets lumped into the "medium" category. I've also heard rumor of teams that prevent swimmers from entering meets so the team can stay in the smaller category and not have the "extra" swimmer push the team over the edge into the next larger division. Perhaps the answer lies not in determining divisions by number of swimmers entered, but rather by total number of events entered. Looking over psych sheet for larger meets, I have seen a breakdown by team that includes number of participants per team and total entries by team. For example, team ABCD has 75 swimmers with 235 event entries, while team WXYZ has 17 swimmers and 85 event entries. In this example, the larger team has more entries, but fewer entries per swimmer (3.1 vs. 5 for team WXYZ); however, the larger team has more opportunities to score points. By looking at the total event entries per team, we are treating every event entry as an equal opportunity to score for the team. Looking solely at number of participants, we overlook the fact that some entries may be relay-only swimmers (no individual events entered), or may have only entered one or two events (while other swimmers entered the maximum allowed). This would be especially effective at a meet like Nationals, since swimmers not meeting NQTs are limited to three swims. It would also prevent coaches/teams from discouraging participation because "one more swimmer" will push them up a size. No, it's not a perfect solution. Relay entries are usually deck entries, so they would need to be factored in, along with a dozen or more things I haven't thought of yet. But I'm sure someone could come up with a formula that allowed adjustments for relay entries. Maybe something that looked at the number of men vs. women entered, or just counted relays as an event? As an example, when my team went to Colonies Zones, we were the smallest team in the medium team category. We had several swimmers who entered the max number of entries, and a few who only entered two or three. We also only had two women at the meet, so we could not score points in the women's relays. The team did well due to some strong individual swims, but not being able to score realy points, we could not compete on the team points level. It was one swimmer that put us over the "small team" cutoff. We did not know that until the meet started, and that was fine. Interestingly, we had one swimmer enter the meet who has not been practicing with the team. We were all glad to see him at the meet. He placed well in his events, scoring individual points in all. It would have been great to think, "More points for us!", but we were also thinking, "Darn him, he put us over the limit!" Just some food for thought, Dana

I just attended my first Nationals in Federal Way and I was thrilled with the level of excitement and competition. But, I guess I wasn't the only one questioning the rationale of the scoring system. It makes sense to me why they did away with the old large/medium/small team scoring system, as the dividing line was COMPLETELY ARBITRARY (and therefore, inherently unfair), and it seems from what I've read that some teams were actually discouraging swimmers from attending the meet in order to stay in a smaller division. I would never want to discourage anyone, no matter what speed, from competing in a meet, so I'm glad that system is gone. However, not having ANY divisions seems just as bad, if not worse. These mega teams obviously have an insurmountable advantage, and the winning team of the meet is most likely a forgone conclusion. If an LMSC, or state, wants to pool its teams to create a mega team for the purpose of scoring more points, then I think, in doing so, they should be opting into another scoring category. *For the record, the argument that a state combines several teams in order to make a relay, or for comradrie sake, does not carry much weight with me - it's to have BETTER relays, and score MORE points. High schools do have divisions based on school size (at least where I'm from in Washington state) in order to make competition more fair. Could you imagine if some high schools combined to compete together for the state championships!? Essentially, that's what we have here. In my ideal world, every club team would compete as itself - a club team. But, since these mega teams have apparently been accepted, there needs to be SOME FORM of division between mega teams and true club teams. MY MAIN POINT: By dividing mega teams and true club teams, the pitfalls of the previous scoring system are still avoided: (1) There is no arbitrary size division; (2) Swimmers will not be discouraged from competing. It is true that some mega teams will be larger than others, and some club teams will be larger than others, but there is nothing anyone can do to avoid that, and that's all part of competing. At least this way it SUBSTANTIALLY LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD WITHOUT PUTTING ANYONE AT A DISADVANTAGE. Has anyone posted an argument as to why this should NOT be the way it's scored? Thanks. I'm looking forward to differing perspectives.

Below is a list of the top ten scoring teams at the last five SCY Nationals. As you can see the LMSC teams have a significant advantage over the non-LMSC teams. As the LMSC teams take eight of the top ten places in the combined teams scores. While I voted to change from the Small, Medium and Large teams, after looking at the results, I would rather see the SML come back rather than the system that we have right now. Yes, there is some arbitrariness to it, but it cannot be helped - in any system we chose there will always be some arbitrary number that will make one team in a division that it does not want to be it. It is not completely arbitrary, if one looks at the team numbers, one can see natural breaks and those breaks are where the dividing lines are. I would suggest that any team that has 40% or more of the total number of the LMSC members is an LMSC team. I could think of other defining issues, does team have central management, how many bank accounts does it have? (more than one operating account - then it should be a super team). Who makes the decision on the hiring and firing of coaches? While some can argue about small LMSC teams competing against large state teams, that pales in obsticles that a true team has competing against an LMSC team. Of course, I keep thinking that if the game is to be played with the LMSC team, I think of Team Pacific going against Colorado Masters or the Florida LMSC teams. There are many Pacific swimmers who think it would be fun to be on a relay team with members from other current clubs. Lets look at the results of the past five years and who is doing well: 2007 - Federal Way, Washington 1 Pacific Northwest Aquatics 2 Oregon Masters 3 Colorado Masters 4 Walnut Creek Masters 5 Arizona Masters 6 Team Illinois Masters 7 Wisconsin Masters 8 San Diego Masters 9 The Olympic Club 10 North Carolina Masters Only two teams were not LMSC Teams: Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club. PNA was hosting the championships. 2006 Coral Springs, Florida 1 Gold Coast Masters 2 Colorado Masters 3 Fort Lauderdale Aquatics 4 Florida Aquatic Combined Team 5 Team Illinois Masters 6 New England Masters 7 Pacific Northwest Aquatics 8 North Carolina Masters 9 Florida Maverick Masters 10 Wisconsin Masters Aquatic Club Only Two teams were not LMSC Teams: Fort Lauderdale Aquatics and Florida Maverick Masters 2005 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 1 Colorada Masters Swimming 2 Gold Coast Masters 3 Florida Aquatic Combined Team 4 The Olympic Club 5 North Carolina Masters Swimming 6 Illinois Masters 7 Walnut Creek Masters 8 New England Masters 9 Virginia Masters Swim Team 10 Pacific Northwest Aquatic Again only two teams were not LMSC Teams: Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club - Not bad for traveling all across the United States. 2004 Indianapolis, Indiana 1 Illinois Mastesr 2 Indy Swim Fit 3 Rocky Mountain Masters (Colorado Masters) 4 Walnut Creek Masters 5 OHIO Masters 6 Michigan Masters 7 Swim Kentucky Masters 8 New England Masters 9 North Carolina Masters 10 Woodland Masters Swim Team Only three teams were not LMSC Teams Indy Swim Team (which was swimming at its home pool), Walnut Creek Masters and Woodland Masters Swim Team 2003 Tempe, Arizona 1 Arizona Masters 2 Rocky Mountain Masters (Colorado Masters) 3 Walnut Creek Masters 4 San Diego Swim Masters 5 The Olympic Club 6 Pacific Northwest Aquatics 7 YMCA Indy Swim Fit 8 Illinois Masters 9 New England Masters 10 Oregon Masters Only three teams were not LMSC Teams Walnut Creek Masters, The Olympic Club, and Indy Swim Fit. Congratulation to Kerry O'Brien of Walnut Creek and Scott Williams of The Olympic, who consistantly get swimmers to travel to compete at the national championships - and they do very well!! Just my $0.02 michael

Um, why have team counts at all?

How about.. Within LMSC compete as Club Team Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team

Hey Michael, Thank you for posting those team results for the last 5 years. It's quite telling. And yes, congrats to Walnut Creek and The Olympic Club for doing so well! Teams like this DESERVE RECOGNITION and under the current scoring system, it takes looking at a list like this to see how well they've actually done since neither of them have ever won Nationals. Michael, you said you voted to change the old scoring system, so I assume you hold a position that may give you additional insight to this issue. I'm confused from your post as to whether you want to go back to SML scoring, or Mega Team/Club Team scoring. (Also, I'm unclear as to what you meant with the 40% idea. ??) I still think the SML scoring system requires an arbitrary division that would GREATLY hinder some teams while GREATLY helping others, who happen to be on the fortunate side of the line. I don't think that dividing Mega Teams and Club Teams would be arbitrary at all. We can tell by simply looking at the name of the team, i.e., Oregon Masters & Colorado Masters vs. Walnut Creek & The Olympic Club. There is no need to look at number of bank accounts or anything so detailed, but if pressed, I think a Club Team would have one board (and a training schedule, to be found on the club's website, should they have one). In the 3 links provided above (a few posts up) there was discussion of how Club Teams in Ohio (or Illinois?) compete as themselves within their LMSC, and they compete together when outside their LMSC. It seems that everyone is aware of what their real Club Team is. I'm still looking for an argument against dividing Mega Teams and Club Teams. Thanks! Brian

I'm confused from your post as to whether you want to go back to SML scoring, or Mega Team/Club Team scoring. IMHO, either is preferable to the current system. But I would prefer the Mega Team/Club Team Scoring. I still think the SML scoring system requires an arbitrary division that would GREATLY hinder some teams while GREATLY helping others, who happen to be on the fortunate side of the line. Any system that we design will have some degree of arbitrariness to it, but lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We may have done that with the current system and what we see is that the large LMSC teams dominate in team scoring. Within LMSC compete as Club Team Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team Sounds good to me. I know a bunch of Pacific swimmers who would love to swim with Pacific swimmers from other clubs on a relay. Actually it would not take much to impliment a or b. In Pacific there are teams that like being their own teams, however, there are those that would like to combine for nationals and worlds. There is a FINA rule about competing as a national team - you compete as a 'non-national' club. michael

How about.. Within LMSC compete as Club Team Outside LMSC or Nationals compete as State Team Outside Country or International meets compete as National Team Please no. I like my club. I am proud of the work that goes into it and its competitive tradition, and I would rather not be part of some "team" that is a group in name only. Honestly, I think LMSC and state teams are bad for competition: If you want to swim relays get four people from your team to go! That way you encourage your teammates to push themselves, both in competition and training. (It is hilarious how many people on my team come in swearing they won't compete, get nagged into going to a team focus meet, and wind up sucked in and ready to go to nationals.) So I would rather superteams didn't exist at all. However, at least with two divisions, you wouldn't be actively promoting a worse option.