team scoring

And, to be fair, obviously dots aren't calculated in the "3 sentences" equation...:blah: You got smething against .....s? By the way how's Mandy, is she ever going to enter any masters meets?

You got smething against .....s? By the way how's Mandy, is she ever going to enter any masters meets? I have nothing against anything for the most part, especially ...'s. 'cept maybe whiners. Not :wine:ers. Mandy most have been traumatized by ASU, or maybe this whole scoring deal. I don't know...eventually we'll get her to a meet. It may just take a few years.

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. actual team registration numbers.. 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 people interested in competing....? Any ideas..in less than 3 sentences? Lets see you want me to respond to your three paragraphs in three sentences when what has been going on here might be worth three chapters. What I think many in Pacific are interested in is a way to compete on a reasonable way. There is no way that individual local clubs can compete with swimmers from an entire state. One thing that you missed at convention was the entire Pacific delegation wearing a bright yellow shirt that said on the front "Bigger pond, bigger fish" and on the back "Pacific Masters Swim team coming to a nationals near you." There has to be a way to correct this imbalance between the regional clubs and the single clubs. It should also be said that L2 while proposed by Pacific, was supported by HOD members from throughout the Federation. With over 60% of the HOD support change, I believe that there will be change at the next convention. There are two elephants in the middle of the room that no one wants to talk about. What would happen if many of the clubs in Pacific (or Southern Pacific) decided to join together to form a consolidated team. It would not have to be all of Pacific, just imagine Walnut Creek, The Olympic Club, USF, Stanford, Sierra Nevada Masters, Tualomne County Aquatic Masters and Tamalpias forming a consolidated club for competing at nationals. Where the rubber hits the road, is what happens with relays that makes an impact on the scoring. People talk about going to nationals and then comment that it is only how they swim at the meet that counts, but it is the relays were more excitement is generated and more points scored. If you are going to earn a banner at nationals, the club will have to get swimmers to compete in relays and score points. In my fun April first memo, I listed one relay that would have a chance of taking first place in a relay (Laura Val, Leianne Crittenden, Suzanne Heim-Bowen and Debbie Meyer Webber). I could create "B" relay that could give them problems. I think we could create at least four Pacific relays in most of the age divisions that could be competitive. And it would not just be Pacific, Southern Pacific if they consolidated a bunch of teams would field very strong teams. Think of Paul Carter and Jim McConica on the same relay. Awesome! How competitive would Pacific be? If you totaled up all the points that Pacific scored in Federal Way, Pacific would have beaten the host PNA by over 500 points and bested Colorado by 2000 points at the recent Short Course Nationals. Pacific would have finished second to Woodland Masters in Houston at the Long Course Nationals I am not saying that with a sense of braggadocio, you can total up the points. It is what it is. Teams rightfully take pride in their accomplishments. To break a national record is something that teams will work hard for. Pacific has about 23% of the USMS national membership and has had that for quite a while. With our very competitive swimmers we should have about 23% of the relay records, Pacific has about 17% of the relay records (if I counted correctly); New England Masters with 3.7% of the membership has 7% of the relay records. I dont know exactly why, but I would hypothesize that the more swimmers one can draw from, it would increase your ability create a fast team. The other elephant that no one is talking about, is when do you force LMSCs to form local teams. At over 2000, there should be enough clubs in Colorado to form competitive teams - the same for New England. If we believe that clubs are the way to grow the organization, then at some point we are going to have to be sure that local clubs have the ability to do well at Nationals. If we do not have a way for local clubs to do well at nationals, then we are saying that regional clubs are the way to go. At this point having swimmers from others states is not an issue. If Team Tyr and KPN and other groups start forming clubs to compete and break records it may have to be addressed, but now if Team Tyr finished 89th, it sounds like some friends got together and had a good time (which to me is a good thing). (BTW San Diego is a regional club.) My big concern is breaking the scoring into two divisions. If the HOD believes that SML in each division is the best way to go, that is fine with me. If it is just two Division - no subcategories - I have no problem with that at this time. If I just put on my Pacific hat, it would be fun to watch team Pacific. How many records could we break. I put on my USMS hat, and I dont think it would be a good thing. I will agree with you life in not fair, but we do have a problem that we will have to address. I am quite sure the HOD will address this issue in a way that gives the single clubs a way to do well at nationals. Sorry to take more than three sentences. :-) michael

Regarding However, I think there should be an opt out provision for club teams in a regional team LMSC. Say for instance, if "Denver Masters" wanted to compete in the Club Team division, then they should be able to do so. People should not be forced to swim for their LMSC. You can do that already. For instance, Metro Masters is the regional team in the NYC area, but Red Tide and the Hydras and Dutchess County and a handful of other teams are clubs that compete separately all the time.

Mark Gill and others are working to get a bid from San Juan PR for LCN. They recently held the Pan American Masters there; it is a phenomenal pool (very similar to the Atlanta Olympic design), San Juan is great vacation destination, and the local hosts know how to run a FUN meet! Having swum at the UANA meet in Puerto Rico, I can assure everyone that the pool is very fast - I had my best times there, the people are friendly, the food is good and the wine is... Interesting idea, take the USMS Championships. Why go all the way out to San Juan, Montreal has great facilities and they are closer, it takes only 5 hours to get to Montreal, but it takes 10 hours to get to San Juan (From San Francisco). We might be on something, Sheffield, England has good facilities - very nice one 50 meter pool and a diving tank. For all the beer drinking swimmers, they have great pubs near the pool. Of course this is also Riccione, Italy. Very good Italian food, fine wine. There are thousands of hotel rooms near by. And Riccione is on the Adriatic, so you can have an open water championship. The Italians also know how to run a fun meet and you can drink wine there. While all those pools are great pools, if you expect to hold championships out side the federation, I would expect to see at the next convention a rules proposal " 104.4.3.1 National Championships will be held in the federation" which is really too bad. Santiago, Chili has a nice facility- they have great food and really good wine and it takes only 18 hours to get there. michael

Like swim4life, I am encouraged by the evolution of this discussion since its inception. Why should I (or any small team member) encourage more teammates to attend a national meet when we, as a small team, still would have no chance of placing as a team? There is a significant cost for participants at a national meet, and many will not bring home an individual medal, so what incentive is there for small teams to go to the meet at all? There are many reasons for going to nationals. All the nationals will have great competitive facilities and high standards for the swim meet. Any swimmer there will have a chance to do his best. You can watch great swims from the oldest age groups to watching Olympians battle it out in the younger age groups. You will generally compete against swimmers of your own speed and age group. That will bring out the juices to swim harder. You can meet other swimmers and make friends as we all share a common interest. Most of the Championship Committee is there, so you can tell them in person what makes a good meet and what should be changed. (also most of the executive committee attends so when you are through battering the championship committee you can hit up the executive committee members - be sure to be a gold medal sponsor). For example, a team has several swimmers who do not meet NQT standards, but would like to attend nationals. Each enters a maximum of three swims. Rather than counting as two swimmers, they are counted as six swims (or the equivalent of one swimmer entering 6 events). One could argue, that using this method may actually move some teams with large numbers of swimmers DOWN a category, if many participants swim less than the maximum number of individual events. A team bringing 120 swimmers each swimming 2 events = 240 swims, and would be competing against teams with similar numbers of swims, like a team with 40 participants each swimming 6 events. These two teams are not equal, they are however, equivalent in potential for scoring points. They can be competitive with one another, and others of similar potential. Preventing swimmers from particiapting would not benefit either team, since "individuals" were not used as the determining factor. It may also mean that PNA, WCM, and CMS are all duking it out in the same division, even though one team brought 150 swimmers and another only brought 50. In the example that you just gave, the team with 120 swimmers will get squashed like a bug by the team that brought 40 swimmers. A team does not score points unless a member finished 10th or higher. If none of your swimmers make NQTs (which is generally the 10 ten time plus 10%) they are not going to make a tenth place finish hence no points (yes you can find events that generally do not have 10 swimmers - the 200 fly comes to mind - and you can recruit swimmers from the 70+ age groups) but in the main groups your 120 swimmers will not score. Championship committee did a survey a bunch of years ago among the top ten swimmers. The biggest reason of why a top ten swimmer will compete at nationals is location. The closer it is to their home the more likely the swimmer will compete. Thus PNA could get its more elite swimmers to swim and have a good time. michael

There are many reasons for going to nationals. All the nationals will have great competitive facilities and high standards for the swim meet. Any swimmer there will have a chance to do his best. You can watch great swims from the oldest age groups to watching Olympians battle it out in the younger age groups. You will generally compete against swimmers of your own speed and age group. That will bring out the juices to swim harder. You can meet other swimmers and make friends as we all share a common interest. Most of the Championship Committee is there, so you can tell them in person what makes a good meet and what should be changed. (also most of the executive committee attends so when you are through battering the championship committee you can hit up the executive committee members - be sure to be a gold medal sponsor). You are absolutely right, Michael. I have been to 14 Nationals since 1991, and at only one of them did my team have a remote chance of bringing home a banner. And as a matter of fact, the one time we did win anything, I didn't personally contribute a single point! And I had a blast at Worlds last year (thanks again, Michael, for such a good time!) and they didn't even keep team scores. I have never had a bad time at Nationals, and I have nearly always gone faster than I expected, for just the reasons Michael points out. This is an important point: it really is NOT all about winning. It's about COMPETING. Meg

I don't believe it is in the best interest of USMS to force something on LMSCs when it is so clearly against their wishes. If we do not have divisions (Whether it be regional/club or SML) we are letting the tail wag the dog. It should be Championships Committee's mission to provide the best competitive conditions for the athletes. I believe that this current system fails that test. Here's another elephant in the room for you: at what point does USMS "force" large LMSCs to split up into smaller LMSCs? (Not advocating this in the slightest, Michael -- just pointing out the other side of the coin.) The same time it should consolidate smaller LMSCs, when the LMSC does not or cannot service it members. michael

104.5.6 Club Scoring 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. Like swim4life, I am encouraged by the evolution of this discussion since its inception. Several people have objected to either S/M/L categories or using "splashes" to divide by size. I understand those arguments, but would also like to explain why what Carolyn has proposed above sounds like a good compromise. Swimming for a small club (both by registration numbers and by participation at nationals), it is discouraging to see team scores get so much attention at a national meet. It is impossible for a small club to be competitive with the points scored by a large club--be it regonal or local--and seeing your club's name at the bottom of the list is not a lift to team morale. Why should I (or any small team member) encourage more teammates to attend a national meet when we, as a small team, still would have no chance of placing as a team? There is a significant cost for participants at a national meet, and many will not bring home an individual medal, so what incentive is there for small teams to go to the meet at all? Carolyn's proposal appears to try to placate all sides. Whether USMS ultimately decides to divide by regional/ local distinctions, I think it should difinately return to S/M/L divisions. The distinction, as outlined above, allows for (and dare I say encourages?) participation--by not penalizing teams for the number of swimmers they bring to the meet, but rather the number of "swims" entered. For example, a team has several swimmers who do not meet NQT standards, but would like to attend nationals. Each enters a maximum of three swims. Rather than counting as two swimmers, they are counted as six swims (or the equivalent of one swimmer entering 6 events). One could argue, that using this method may actually move some teams with large numbers of swimmers DOWN a category, if many participants swim less than the maximum number of individual events. A team bringing 120 swimmers each swimming 2 events = 240 swims, and would be competing against teams with similar numbers of swims, like a team with 40 participants each swimming 6 events. These two teams are not equal, they are however, equivalent in potential for scoring points. They can be competitive with one another, and others of similar potential. Preventing swimmers from particiapting would not benefit either team, since "individuals" were not used as the determining factor. It may also mean that PNA, WCM, and CMS are all duking it out in the same division, even though one team brought 150 swimmers and another only brought 50.

Wow, I thought this discussion was resolved a few months ago but I see it's been brought back to life. I was one of the original posters in this thread and I've just spent the last 2+ hours reading all of the new posts made since August (yes, I'm a slow reader). It appears that the same arguments are being put forth as they were back in June when this thing started, however, the level of thought and discussion has been greatly elevated. I tried to take some notes as I read so I wouldn't simply be repeating what others have already said, although that's probably impossible at this point. ha! I'll apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I had some catching up to do and I organized my writing inthe order of which I took my notes - point by point. So, to start, I want to say that at times reading this thread I got the impression that some people wanted to level the playing field to a point where every possible variable was accounted for and every team would finish with the same number of points regardless of speed or size. That is not the point of competing. Some teams will be "better" than others, and no scoring system will be 100% "fair" to all teams. But, I'm glad most everyone agrees that the scoring system needs improvement. So, a few random points I think needed reiteration: (BTW, I appear to agree with Jim Matysek (w/the exception of the NFL analogy!), Paul Smith, and Rob Copeland - even if you guys didn't think you agreed yourselves, you do for the most part on major issues.) 1) Any method of achieving a point total that requires the points scored to be divided by anything (i.e., # of swimmers or # of splashes) will have a negative impact on participation, which is against the USMS mission statement. This seems like common sense to me = slower swimmers will be discouraged from attending, and those slower swimmers who do attend will be discouraged from swimming many events. Case closed. 2) In the same vein, any size divisions (S/M/L) will have a similar negative impact. Fortunately, only a couple people have voiced their opinion in favor of this S/M/L division. One point made was that now, as opposed to earlier (I guess), we will make those size designations AFTER the close of entries. I assume this is intended to prohibit teams from discouraging slower swimmers from attending, so as to not boost their team into the next size category, but the practical effect remains the same - we will be able to determine APPROXIMATELY where each size cutoff will be, and swimmers will STILL be discouraged from participating. (The cutoff numbers will be +/- 1-2 swimmers from year to year.) Again, as pointed out before, this was the downfall of the previous system, so I'm not sure why it is even being considered again with this new legislation. As Matysek said, I despise S/M/L team scoring. Furthermore, it really detracts from any teams achievement (except the Large team winner). The Medium team winner will still know, "Well, it's a good thing we didn't have 2 more swimmers because then we just would've been average in the Large team division." Same with the Small team. And finally, this really upsets the last place team in the Medium division who can then say, "Well sh*t, if we brought one less person we would've finished 2nd in the small team division." (And next year they WILL bring 1 less person!) Bottom line = S/M/L is arbitrary, unfair, and discourages participation. 3) If we only divide into Regional Team/Club Team, then we are rewarding those clubs who manage to encourage as many of their swimmers to participate as possible. If a team of 80 gets 20 swimmers to Nationals that's great! They shouldn't be "penalized" by being placed in the Medium team division when a team of 200 only gets 15 swimmers to go to Nationals and is thus in the Small team division. We should REWARD PARTICIPATION by all teams, and all swimmers (not just fast swimmers either). 4) There was a comparion made to USA Swimming scoring. It was pointed out that there is no distinction between the size or type of club. However, USA Swimming is a much different landscape and there is no such thing as "Colorado Swimming" or "Oregon Swimming" in Senior Nationals. 5) KISS - Keep It Simple. I agree with this philosophy to a degree - there is a line that needs to be crossed, and another that shouldn't be crossed. For example, to limit Club Teams to those teams who swim in one pool is overly simplistic. My team does not have our own pool but instead rents it from the city, as do most teams I presume. On the weekends, we train at another pool because our "home pool" is taken the by city. However, we a still very much a Club Team. Until I read the above posts, I was unaware that there was a designation on some USMS Cards for a "workout group" and a "club team." This does truly seem like the simplest way to designate what a Regional Team would be. Additionally, I don't think there should be any geographical limitation for the reasons covered in prior posts. (Hopefully this leniency won't be abused.) For all practical purposes, the designation between Regional and Club is very straight forward for 96% of teams (a third grader can look at the name of the team competing at Nationals and tell you, right?). So, I echo Paul Smith and am advocating 2 division (Regional/Club), with Men, Women, and Combined Awards. I would differ in that I think with the new division, awards 1-10 is too many, but 1-3 too few. I'd say 1-5 would be a great compromise, but I am really more concerned with the structure of divisions. However, another point to award through 5th (rather than 3rd) is that Masters swimmers, and Masters teams, enjoy being recognized for their efforts and accomplishments, so, I would err on the side of award too many, rather than too few. 6) Someone brought up "what next? relay scoring?" in arguing that no change should be made to the current system. I don't feel it's necessary to go down that slippery slope. We can play the "what if" game forever. Relays should continued to be scored the same way - if a Regional team gets 1st and a Club team gets 2nd, the Club team gets points for 2nd, but ultimately is not competing against that Regional team in team scoring. (I am not advocating awarding the Club team first places points and medals.) Well, that's it for now. I'm curious to keep reading what people have to say. Obviously this is an important subject and I'm glad that it received the attention it did at the National Convention this year.