team scoring

I liked the idea of having 60 awards because the number 60 is closer to the actual number of people who are passionate about the issue. Am I passionate about it? Nah... Why not? It would affect maybe 0.05% of our 43,000 members, and a majority of the 0.05% probably wouldn't notice any difference. :dedhorse: And Bill I would respectfully argue that us .05% may be the most passionate...and vocal...of that entire membership. I don't see/hear very many of the other 40,850 engaging in the "process", asking for things, trying to promote growth and improvement. The silent majority if you will is pretty much just that....silent.... Which brings us to the question of who should USMS focus on building more support/growth from? In my (always humble) opinion....it would be from current and past competitors who want things like fair/simple scoring, more open water events and coordination with the Tri world, etc. etc.

And Bill I would respectfully argue that us .05% may be the most passionate...and vocal...of that entire membership. I don't see/hear very many of the other 40,850 engaging in the "process", asking for things, trying to promote growth and improvement. The silent majority if you will is pretty much just that....silent...Paul,I would respectfully argue that you not seeing or hearing very many of the other 40,850 engaging in the "process” does not mean that they are not trying to promote growth and improvement. Throughout USMS we have many many volunteers and staff actively and passionately involved in growth and improvement. We have people engaged in making USMS Swimmer the best of breed, in improving the products and services we make available to our clubs, the improve the leadership of our LMSC’s and national organization, working to improve the quality and quantity of Masters coaches; the list goes on and on. You not seeing/hearing about these could be because what we have here is a failure to communicate. If you would see the results to date of the club development task force you will see that many of our members are engaged in this process and if you will hear our local and national volunteers talk about Masters you will hear people trying to promote growth and improvement.

Rob, I hope you understand that when I engage in these "debates" I'm not in any way attacking or belittling the people involved in our organization...but like any good "coach" I feel compelled to challenge and not accept status quo. So I would counter your point by referencing much of the debate over on the thread "Is this the face of masters swimming". I think its fair to say that having 43,000 members in the #1 participation sport in this country is pretty small....and I would argue that the vast majority of non-competing members are signed up almost exclusively because it is a requirement of the club or facility they belong to.... I'm in no way saying that all the non-competing members are unimportant and should not be catered to....but I would tell you my years swimming all over this country with probably over 75 different teams now that the "heart and soul" if you will of USMS is this paltry .05% who compete. Yes lap/fitness swimmers are just as dedicated to their workouts...but I would suggest that most of them really don't know much about or really care about USMS...other than reading the magazine each month. The fiery ones are debating and posting here, showing up at meets, looking for ways to make the meets more enjoyable and competitive and grow membership by recruiting old teammates to get their butts back in the pool. I know this will be viewed as a very controversial statement...but would argue that the vast majority of the management of USMS are competitors not simply lap swimmers. So what's my point? I'm hoping that when folks like Bill (who i consider a friend and like immensely) who really doesn't care about team(s), scoring, competition recognize that those 2000+ of us who do care about these things a great deal. We also want to see the organization grow and evolve...on multiple levels. But I cannot be the voice for the silent majority, I'm biased and admit it freely!

Being the resident masters team whore that jumps from team to team each year to benefit my own friendships across the country, I am inclined to agree with the Evil Smith. In addition, it does appear that the majority of the USMS members who "care" about USMS diretion are the ones that do compete more regularly and make attempts to attend USMS Nationals. 40K members or so is not that impressive considering the amount of people in this country and the amount that swam competitively in a prior life. John Smith

I agree with Jim...and will go back...again...to the point of KEEP IT SIMPLE! Open & Club Divisions 1st thru 3rd places for M's, W's & Combined Done! Now I would consider a provision that would allow Club's to compete in the open Division. Say for example WC is going to nationals and have over 100 swimmers committed, if they wanted to move into the Open Divivion and challange the regional teams I think that should be allowed...

While I’m still not clear how the 12 swimmers from Georgia (regional team) had an advantage over the 12 swimmers from Pennypack Aquatic & Fitness Club (local club) at the recent LCN at The Wooldands, if scoring regional and local clubs separately will bring world peace, then make it so. Note – the Fitness club crushed the mighty GAJA super-team, just goes to show you that on any given weekend… Rob, As a member of PAFC, I was going to argue that the advantage GAJA had over our little tiny club was YOU; however, given the results...:thhbbb: Taking the case of PAFC into account, one of the reasons we scored well is due to our coach's method of encouraging participation within the team--the team pays to send the swimmers that qualify for LCM, therefore, just about everyone who qualifies tries to make the time to go. Non-qualifiers can also go, but they must pay their own way. That said, I don't think a change to "open" and "club" designations helps a team like PAFC (roughly 60 members year-to-year, maybe 30 compete regularly (locally), less than that at nationals). No matter what you call us, we will not be able to match up against teams with large participation at meets because we're hindered by the number of relays we can enter. That doesn't mean I don't want to see change. Presently, it's not a level playing field when a team/club/unit (whatever) of 100+ is ranked against a team of 12 (or 40, or 3). It's one of the reasons I suggested a method of scoring by splashes (very early in this thread). Maybe, "strength of swim" would be a better way to put it. Something that doesn't penalize teams for encouraging swimmers not making NQTs to come to the meet, but that levels the field a bit for teams that only have a few members wanting to participate. Another thought: Would it make sense to exclude the host team/region from team scoring at Nationals? Given the push to encourage particiaption and the ease of attendance to what amounts to a "local" meet, the host teams will likely out-number the traveling teams. Host participants can earn individual & relay medals and set records, but at the end of the meet they wouldn't get a banner for beating up on their "guests". my :2cents:, Dana

While I’m still not clear how the 12 swimmers from Georgia (regional team) had an advantage over the 12 swimmers from Pennypack Aquatic & Fitness Club (local club) at the recent LCN at The Wooldands, if scoring regional and local clubs separately will bring world peace, then make it so. Note – the Fitness club crushed the mighty GAJA super-team, just goes to show you that on any given weekend… Why s/m/l? Like Paul, Let’s keep it simple for now. Looking at 2007 LCN, arguably there was only 1 large team (Woodlands – 128 swimmers), 4 medium teams (25 – 44 swimmers) and 141 small teams (1 – 22 swimmers). So to Jim Matysek not seeing the point of s/m/l; the point is to pad you roster with people who won’t be attending to get into the large division and get a guaranteed large division banner, even if only 1 person actually shows up. A real win-win! The club wins the banner and the host gets lots of additional revenue without additional splashes to slow down the meet.

Betsy Thanks; I am glad this is clearer, we had help at convention from members of both the Rules and Legislative Committees, who made good suggestions to clarify this proposal. The proposal also included a process so that a club that thought it was in the wrong category could protest, and some other details, but this is the general concept. I know it was confusing to hear all the discussion on the floor of HOD without a clear picture of what was being proposed. Jim, I agree with your concerns about small, medium and large divisions, and heard a lot at convention about how arbitrary those divisons were, and how we may be encouraging clubs to tell people not to come to Nationals. On the other hand, I also heard that most coaches want everyone possible to attend Nationals, and that under the old s/m/l scoring system, the cutoffs for divisions were determined after entries closed -- so I do not have any insight on which point of view is closer to what really happens. I was just trying to address the views that have shown up on this forum. I do know that a trip to Nationals is expensive, so it is difficult for coaches to encourage more people to go (particularly younger swimmers just out of school when the meet is across the country) and many people may decide not to go at all, particularly if their local programs provide meets with good competition and pools. The Top Ten listings reflect this, as they always have people in the Top Ten that did not go to Nationals. On the point about having divisions based on numbers of USMS registered swimmers -- I like that idea, too, but I also realize that there are many Masters swimmers that do not compete. At all, ever. Or they do open water swims or triathlons, but not Nationals, so I think that while while using registered swmmers on a club is an easy measure, it may skew the way the divisions are made up. For example, you could be on a team like Davis Aquatic Masters (Pacific's largest, with over 700 members) and they do not send more than 6 or 7 swimmers to Nationals that are held outside California (and sometimes no swimmers) -- should they really be in the "large club team" division? Or you could have elite recruiting teams (I don't think there is anything in the rules that says they cannot recruit from across the country), and they might limit their registered USMS swimmers to a small number, say 25, so that they will always be classed as a "small club team". I am not sure there is an answer that will satisfy everyone.....but I do think, given the interest the topic has generated, that we ought to try something else. Leianne ^^^

Ok folks...this will be my first ever reply to a forum. I am a very active member of USMS (head coach of the Olympic Club) and was stunned at the confussion that the rules change for Nationals scoring created. Point of clarification; The Olympic Club should not be used as any model for a club team. We are a private athletic club and "nobody" can swim for us without being a member first...period. We cannot and do not allow swimmers to join our team for a nationals or worlds. We are a team! Having said that, I want to echo the KISS method...keep it simple. Going back to Small, Medium, Large divisions keeps it simple. Whether you are a regional or club team dosen't matter, therefore no need for team definitions. Regarding coaches "telling" there swimmers to stay home and only bring the elite swimmers is not in our mission statement and should be grounds for expulsion from USMS. Trying to get your team to any nationals is a year round project with goals set and participation encouraged. As Lieanne said: work, family, relatioinships, etc. are the determing factor whether people go to participate..."not" the coach telling them they can or cannot. If it is that important to any coach to win and leave swimmers home then **** em. The best way to divide the teams in the S- M- L is by the number of entered swimmers in that particular nationals, not by the number of swimmers registered on the team (the majority of masters swimmers do not compete). It is not perfect but, certainly better than what we have now. The perfect scoring system (percentages) is too complicated for such a large meet but, would determine the "true" national champions. Keep it simple! My 2 cents,:applaud: Scott

OMG, are you guys still talking about this? I'm bouncin'... :bouncing: