team scoring

Maybe with virtual scoring, such as being considered for SCM "Nat's", then perhaps a one division size fits all. Everyone is practically swimming "at home" (or at least not having to fly cross country). For a one location Nat's (SCY, LCM) though, I think there should be divisions such as S, M and L. Or like Starbucks - large, larger and largest! Colorado pulling together like they did was an exceptional effort and will probably end up being more of a rarity rather than a common practice.

Scenario: A team of 25 swimmers shows up at nationals and everyone swims all 6 events. Every swimmer wins every event plus sets a national record in every event. They win every relay possible plus set national records in every relay. They are not national champions because a team of 200+ swimmers scored more points without winning one event or setting any records.:joker: There has to be a better solution. I think the regional /club concept is good but, we seem to be stuck on the definitions. This is where we need to keep it simple and I'm not sure that we have. Last 2 cents: We are not USA swimming where a coach can demand that swimmers attend a certain meet. We are masters swimming and people have a choice. If you are on a team that has 1,200 registered swimmers and only 20 go to nationals then that is your national team for that particular meet. Masters swimmers attending national meets do so for the team but, their decission is based on many other factors as stated on previous posts...:) Scott

Hi Jim, I'm not sure the 2 scenarios match up but, thats OK, I understand what you are saying. I guess all the banter is about change. I think it is pretty obvious that most members are not happy with the current scoring system at nationals. It seems from all the postings that a division of the regional teams and club teams might bring a more level playing feild to nationals. It just seems very difficult to define the 2. What do you think? The O Club will be there no matter what...:) Scott

The top 25 teams in terms of registration are: NEM PNA CMS IM METR ARIZ NCMS OREG DAM WMAC MICH SKY GAJA TCAM NIAG GOLD WCM STAN SMS O*H* ISF SDSM VMST CUBU FACT The only club teams are: DAM TCAM WCM STAN ISF CUBU FACT With VMST on the edge. 2/3 of the teams with the largest registration are regional teams. It makes it tough if you are a club team to compete for 1st place. michael

My goodness! I come home from convention, up to my eyeballs in minutes I need to produce (and I'm still not finished!!!), so I don't look at the forums for a couple of weeks and all, um, heck breaks loose! Clearly this is an issue dear to many hearts! Like Rob, I think if it will keep peace in USMS, then fine, go to two divisions for purposes of scoring at national championships. Just please don't call them regional teams and club teams. We're ALL clubs. What came across to me with the terminology used at convention was that the nonregional teams are the REAL teams and the rest of us are second-class teams. Words do matter sometimes. I thought the best terminology I heard was regional and local. I would not be offended by such terminology. I would also ask you to consider the possibility that the model that works for Pacific might not work as well for Kentucky. We have a concentration of swimmers in Lexington and Louisville, and then a few lone souls scattered throughout the rest of the state. The guy from far western Kentucky who lives in a log cabin in the woods has no hope of having any teammates at Nationals without the regional model. Our membership in Kentucky has actually INCREASED since we went to the regional model, so it doesn't seem to me that we are discouraging club development here. The legislation presented at convention was definitely improved with all the wordsmithing that went on there, but it was still very awkward and unclear and full of potential pitfalls. I would be happy to work with anyone and everyone from Pacific -- or anywhere else -- to come up with cleaner, clearer language. I think we all have common ground, we just don't know how to say it. What was clear to me was that nearly everyone (except Jim Matysek, apparently!) was unhappy with the current scoring system. I think many, if not most, wanted to return to the S, M, L categories. Some cared a lot about creating local and regional divisions; a few were violently opposed to this; and some didn't care at all! As I said above, I would be glad to work on a proposal that comes up with a system that recognizes the two models of forming clubs, as long as it doesn't use pejorative language. I personally like the idea of returning to S, M, L scoring, as well, but could be flexible there. I won't lie and say that I wasn't thrilled with the banners that Swim Kentucky won in Indy in 2004. (I think I scared the daylights out of Mel Goldstein when I ran out onto the bulkhead to claim the women's banner, I was so enthusiastic.) But I can also honestly say that I had a great time at Worlds when there was no team scoring. That's a possibility to consider too. Just do away with the whole thing. But I think I'll be a very old woman before USMS ever goes that route!

I agree with Meg that what happened at convention is that members of some of what were being called Regional Clubs felt that was a pejorative name. In reality, there are "regional" clubs that are much smaller than some of the other regional clubs. Many people wanted small, medium and large teams so that all kinds of groups would have a chance to score at Nationals. Having been part of each size club at various times, I can say that it is fun and exciting to have a chance to place as a team. When we only did small, medium and large, it is interesting to note that the "regional clubs" still received almost all the team awards. A possible explanation for that is that a regional club who has 400 swimmers is relatively small for that type team, but is large compared to the vast majority of the other type clubs. Even though it will make for 54 awards (I believe TYR sponsors the awards, so the cost is not prohibitive for the meet), I suggest the following rule proposal as a "restart." although I think that the word "combined" in the third line would be better as another word, so as not to be confused with the combined category of men and women scores together. Note that I also incorporated "splashes," rather than number of entries to denote size, as we do not want to discourage clubs from entering their beginners in 2 or 3 events. 104.5.6 Club Scoring B Club Types-- Clubs competing at Nationals shall be divided into two types: Simple clubs and combined clubs. Simple clubs are those whose majority of members reside within 50 miles of the club’s location and whose members always compete for that club in any USMS competitions. Combined Clubs contain members who compete as separate entities in LMSC competitions or who have a majority of members living more than 50 miles from the club’s location. The Zone Committee shall be responsible for publishing a list of each club’s type no later than February 15 of each year. If a club contests its designation, it may file an appeal with the zone committee at least 60 days prior to the National Championship Meet. C Categories-- Club Scoring will be tabulated in three categories within each club type. (1) Women’s . . . (2) Men’s . . . (3) Combined . . . D. Divisions—Three size divisions, based upon the number of swimmers entered in the meet from each club, shall be recognized within each club type and category. The number of splashes from a club that shall constitute a division I (large), division II (medium), or division III (small) team shall be determined after the meet entry deadline by the Championship committee. E Overall Point Total—The overall . . . 104.5.7--Awards C Team awards—The organization conducting the national championship meet shall provide awards for up to three places in both types, in the three size divisions, and in the women’s, men’s and combined categories. Rationale: Dividing into two types of clubs does not imply one is better than the other, only that they are different. Relays will still be contested as always, but this type of club scoring will encourage coaches of simple clubs to excite their club to compete as a team. Putting the 50 mile radius of a club into the rule is to provide that a person can put together a club from far flung areas, but that club would be in the combined category. (As an example, when Team TYR put together a club at Worlds, it would make more sense for them to be in the combined club, small division category)

Hello, First off I wanted to credit (or maybe, given all of the discussion, blame) Sean Fitzgerald on Legislation with coming up with the simple distinction of when you are on a regional team: if you do not always compete for the same entity that is listed on your USMS card, then you would be on a regional team" (workout groups compete against each other within their LMSC and band together for competitions outside their LMSC). To me, this had the advantage of being easy to understand and to administer. I also wanted to clarify that there was no intention in the L2 legislation to be critical of the way any club is structured --it is what it is. In some cases, like Kentucky or North Carolina, a regional team is the best way to have enough entrants for relays, which increases participation at Nationals. Seeing the size of some of the LMSCs listed on the USMS website, a regional team is a good way for them to go--based on the USMS website, over a dozen LMSCs had less than 250 registered swimmers in 2004-2005. In presenting the L2 legislation, Pacific also did not want to talk about "Superteams" or "Megateams". We called them "regional" teams only to make the distinction between those clubs that drew from a limited geographic area (the "club teams"), and those clubs that drew from the greater part of an LMSC (the "regional teams"). For example, we did not follow a concept that a "club team" drew from less than 4 zip codes or held workouts in a single pool (all of this would get way too cumbersome to administer). Other choices of words may better express these concepts. There is no feeling that any type of organization is better or worse, it just reflects what is the practice in different areas around the country. As also stated before, the L2 proposal was intended to take account of the different practices around the country, without changing how people register, and only for purposes of team scoring at Nationals (not for relay composition or other purposes). Pacific also considered and rejected putting into the L2 proposal any kind of geographic limits on club membership. As noted before, there are often very good reasons to swim with a club from another LMSC (including the fact that you want to be on relays with that club, or swam with them before you moved to a new area) and it would be burdensome to administer a requirement like that (such as "less than 10% of the club's members reside outside the LMSC"). In Carolyn's proposal, the Zone Reps (gulp, that's me for Oceana!) would determine this--I still think that will be hard to administer, but if everyone buys off on that, that is another way to determine the divisions, and may address the concerns expressed earlier about a club recruiting from all across the country. As another alternative, we could also just take the existing USMS clubs assign them to an "Open" division for the "regional teams" (NEM, PNA, Metro, CMS, IM, NCMS, ORE, etc.) and a "District" division for the "club teams" (DAM, WCM, STAN, etc.). New clubs would need to designate their division when registering. However, I am not sure that this alternative would work, without actually defining what these categories are. I think that this is a topic that obviously creates a lot of interest among members, which is why I would not leave it as a policy issue for any of the USMS Committees, but would have it open to the general membership at convention. I still like the regional/non-regional team divisions with s/m/l awards, based on the number of entered competitors. That way like teams compete against like teams, and it is a simple concept, easily administered. I agree that points per swimmer or splash calculations may provide a measure of the winning caliber of a team, but I agree that they are too complicated, and I am open to seeing another, simple way to set it up. If other people have alternative suggestions, this is obviously a good place to make them, as the topic invites commentary! Clearly we need to make sure that the language that is finally submitted does not rub anyone wrong, but we also should decide what is the best way to encourage more participation at Nationals. Meg-- you are on as a participant in this process! Leianne ^^^

:thhbbb: S-M-L divisions...simple...as fair as it can be...promotes participation from all (if a team is caught leaving swimmers home then penalize them)...GITTER DONE! :groovy: Scott

Michael, so what do you suggest (other than the Pacific propsal)? Do we run two completely separate divisions "Club" and "Open" and within each of these have small, medium and large designations..then within those 3 divisions calculate the number of splashes vs. actua team registration numbers...then have an "ugly suit" penalty attached (for John Smith)..then divide by the sum of the whole thing and cut in half if its a full moon that day? We live in a "free market" society correct? So tell me that all club teams....and especially those that are usually in contention don't have swimmers on their rosters that are from other states/cities?....I think KPN might be bringing in a few points for San Diego that Hawaii might like to have...so does that mean SD should not be allowed to compete as a club? Not in my opinion..she should swim with whom she wants to. Here's some news...the real world is NOT "fair"...so lets take the solution that is the simplist and benefits the most while at the same time helping to get more peope interested in competing....? Any ideas..in less than 3 sentances?

Any ideas..in less than 3 sentences? And, to be fair, obviously dots aren't calculated in the "3 sentences" equation...:blah: