team scoring

Thanks for the information on opting out! Good to hear teams can do that. To what imspoiled said about S/M/L teams, there are a few counter arguments to each of these points: (sorry, I don't know how to se the Quote function that everyone has figured out!!) :) 1) "No team like to see their name at the bottom of the list." Well, if we create S/M/L divisions, then 3 times as many teams will see their name at the bottom of the list. 2) # of swimmers vs. # of splashes. While # of splashes is slightly more fair (if we are to divide into size divisions), it is still directly related to the number of swimmers. I would venture to say that this would only affect maybe 4 teams in determining their size division. As you point out, the cost to attend Nationals is usually quite significant, so it is HIGHLY unlikely that any team woud have a large number of swimmers with only 2-3 events. Those swimmers in large part do not attend Nationals. I would say the vast majority of swimmers who take on the cost of going to Nationals are those who swim 5-6 events. (I could be wrong though!! I'm sure someone on here has that statistic breakdown.) But, at the end of the day, # of splashes IS a SLIGHTLY better method, if we are going to go down that road at all. 3) "Size divisions may encourage participation" I see how this may work for smaller teams who are trying to get a banner, but it also has a chilling effect for so many other teams who are not in that position. So, while this may work for your team, it doesn't work that way for all - for example, teams who are afraid of breaking into the medium or large team divisions (because then they would place lower). I just think it would be a shame to see ANY chilling effect that would discourage any swimmers from attending. Allowing just the Regional/Club team divisions does not discourage anyone, but instead, encourages everyone.

Thanks for the information on opting out! Good to hear teams can do that. To what imspoiled said about S/M/L teams, there are a few counter arguments to each of these points: (sorry, I don't know how to se the Quote function that everyone has figured out!!) :) 1) "No team like to see their name at the bottom of the list." Well, if we create S/M/L divisions, then 3 times as many teams will see their name at the bottom of the list. True, but three times as many would also be at the top. More recognition =more happy participants. 2) # of swimmers vs. # of splashes. While # of splashes is slightly more fair (if we are to divide into size divisions), it is still directly related to the number of swimmers. I would venture to say that this would only affect maybe 4 teams in determining their size division. As you point out, the cost to attend Nationals is usually quite significant, so it is HIGHLY unlikely that any team woud have a large number of swimmers with only 2-3 events. Those swimmers in large part do not attend Nationals. I would say the vast majority of swimmers who take on the cost of going to Nationals are those who swim 5-6 events. (I could be wrong though!! I'm sure someone on here has that statistic breakdown.) But, at the end of the day, # of splashes IS a SLIGHTLY better method, if we are going to go down that road at all. You may not be wrong. It has been my experience (limited as that is) that many people swim less than six. I don't think we need a totally level playing field--just less of a slope. Splashes may not be the best way, but it is something that can be easily computed with meet software. 3) "Size divisions may encourage participation" I see how this may work for smaller teams who are trying to get a banner, but it also has a chilling effect for so many other teams who are not in that position. So, while this may work for your team, it doesn't work that way for all - for example, teams who are afraid of breaking into the medium or large team divisions (because then they would place lower). I just think it would be a shame to see ANY chilling effect that would discourage any swimmers from attending. Allowing just the Regional/Club team divisions does not discourage anyone, but instead, encourages everyone. I completely agree. We want more participation, not less. If I'm not mistaken, you're the one that pointed out that masters like recognition. Here again, we agree. Not to say there should be an award for everyone, but small teams are at a disadvantage under the current system. YES, I swim for a small team, so I feel that effect directly. Mine is not the only team in this situation, or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

I actually agree with what the previous writer said about not making any size divisions(instead, reward the clubs who get lots of people to swim). I am proud of the 8th and 10th place banners my club won at two Nationals. However, you need to realize that Pacific presented both ideas at the last convention--distinction between simple and combined teams only and distinction between simple and combined teams with small, medium and large--only the proposal with the small, medium, and large divisions found support. When the Championship Committee designated small, medium and large in the past, the divisions were done after entries were received (except for the first few years in the late 80's and early 90's). One person suggested counting splashes,rather than people entered, which partly will help those teams who encourage the non-scorers to come to the meet. The reason that I put the geographicial distinction (I am not sure majority is the correct amount, perhaps 2/3 of the swimmers should live near the club location)in the proposal is that a team that puts together a super team from around the country (as TYR did for the world meet), even if they swim all year for that club, probably belongs in the combined or regional team category. Carolyn Boak

Hello, 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. No worries, Leianne. I did not get any negative vibes from you at all! I think you went out of your way to be fair and nonjudgmental. 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. I agree that the geographic radius would be hard to administer. In less densely populated areas, you might have to go far outside 50 miles to even find a pool to swim in. Conversely, in densely populated areas, you could probably find several pools within a 50 mile radius. I like best the idea of whether you always swim for the same team or not (regional club/local workout group). I concede, though, that that would not cover regional clubs that do not split up into workout groups in competitions in their own LMSC. At one time GOLD was the only club in the Florida Gold Coast, and they always competed as GOLD. But they drew members from across the LMSC. I guess the definition for a regional club is sort of like the definition for pornography: we know it when we see it! Meg-- you are on as a participant in this process! I figured if I was going to complain about the language, then I ought to offer what I thought was a better alternative! Meg

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. I would hope the answer to that would be "never." 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. The regional team concept is something that has been with some teams since the dawn of USMS. On the face of it, it would seem that Colorado and New England have enough swimmers that they don't need to use the regional model. But although I would imagine that most of the swimmers in Colorado are concentrated in the Denver area, there are probably swimmers in small, remote towns who are most definitely served by the regional model. I realize this argument could be made for any LMSC. I would imagine there are also swimmers in Pacific who live in remote towns. 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.) 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. Actually, I would not have a problem with Team Pacific. If that's what you want to do, I would be a hypocrite if I objected. It really wouldn't bother me if Team Pacific dominated scoring at Nationals. But good luck to you putting all those relays together! I nearly had a nervous breakdown trying to put together relays for 60-something swimmers in Indy in 2004! Sorry to take more than three sentences. I would fail that test too! Meg

Michael, My point about 3 sentances was to have a "propsal" that was not any longer than that...not an explanation of why. As for Pacific or SPMA coming together and competing as a "team" I really have no problems with that...if USMS/FINA won't support the idea of National Teams formed for World Championships that may be the only way to see what kinds of records can be set when the fastest 4 swimmers in their age group get together for a relay...in other words what I would consider "real" world records. And regarding Colorado having 2000 registered swimmers being able to put together some decent club teams. Maybe...but if you actually lived there you'd undertsand how spread out towns are and how few swimmers from the clubs/workout groups actually have swimmers who want to compete at nationals. Case in point...we lived in Evergreenn for 2 years and before that Vail for over 20. For the first 3-4 years we went to nationals my wife and I swam for Vail as a team of 2...we intially resisited the combined team concept. However as we traveled and visited Boulder (2 hours away), DU (2 hours away), Durango (5 hours away), etc. we became friends with swimmers there who were going to nationals and decided to join them. That lead to more "recruiting" if you will as we found swimmers like John Smith, Kirk Anderson, Susan von der Lippe, etc. etc. that we pulled into the mix and coerced into competing again...which I think is a good thing for USMS. And just to let you know now that were living in Arizona full time I'm on the same mission...tracking down guys like Bill Barrett who are hanging around working out but not competing. And I think getting them on board is also a good thing. Am I sorry if it gets folks in Pacific masters panties in a bunch because we are getting more people together...nope. So to close, as much as you might not beleive it I'm not here to win national titles and break records...those things are part of the journey and only short term enjoyment. I love the sport and want more people to enjoy it as much as I do and want a system that supports growth. By the way...got anymore of the shirts you wore at convention in an XXL? Would love to have one!!

Regarding Carolyn's post - I now see your point on the geographical limitations that might have to be imposed in light of an elite team that merely gathers fast swimmers from across the country for the point of competing. My basic thought is, if people don't train together, they should not be a club team. Of course there will always be exceptions with people who moved away, but for the most part, I would think a club team would have at least 85% of it's members living within its LMSC. Regarding Regional teams - Originally (back in June) I didn't see the point or support them at all. "Train together, Swim Together, Win Together!" BUT, after discussing this for a while I realized that the club team is not really a viable option for many swimmers in more rural areas (for relays, comraderie, etc.). Therefore, I now support the idea. But, in doing so, we truly do need to seperate teams so the club teams will have the motivation to bring a team to Nationals to compete for something - team pride. 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. I know that if SPMA formed a team, my team would most definitely opt out, as we like to see what we can do on our own. Hence, the birth of "Train together, Swim together, Win together!" It's nothing against regional teams, but given the current scoring system, we'd like to distinguish ourselves. To be honest, when we looked at the Nationals results to determine our place, we didn't even count the regional teams that finished ahead of us - it makes not sense to put our 15-20 swimmers against those teams. Again, no scoring system will be absolutely fair to everyone - club in rurals areas will always have a tougher time than city clubs, and smaller LMSCs will always have a tougher time than larger ones (and that's how it is in any sport; someone from Palmdale, CA should not reasonably expect to win Nationals) - but we can definitely make it MUCH "more fair" with a simple change: Regional Team/Club Team (or whatever terminology you want to use).

Leianne, Just because an issue is being hotly debated by about 20 or so people on the forum and maybe an equal number on the floor of the USMS House of Delegates, shouldn’t preclude the people who should “own” the issue from taking ownership. And in my opinion many hotly debates languish for years because they must be decided by the House. For example, if the language in our rule book for 104.5.6—Club Scoring read “Appropriate team scoring and awards as determined by the Championship Committee.” (sorry only 1 sentence not 3) instead of what we have today. The Championship Committee could meet and set up event appropriate scoring, right now. Instead, Pacific has to propose L2, it failed, and we need to wait another entire year for R2 to be proposed and voted upon by the House. NOTE the language in quotes above is just an example, however it closely resembles the language in 104.5.7—Awards “Appropriate awards as determined by the Championship Committee…” NOTE2 – who else out there remembers when the House of Delegates used to pass around samples and voted on the awards presented at nationals? Our House of Delegates meets once a year, while the Championship Committee can and should meet much more frequently. The Championship Committee can spend more time throughout the year and should be much more effective in discussing and providing solutions to this. The committee should be willing, able and effective. Championships are a product/service USMS provides to our members; if the committee responsible for this service can’t find ways to improve product quality then I appointed the wrong people to serve on this committee. (NO offense intended to our current committee members, since our code prohibits you from taking action today on this matter) This issue, while hotly debated, is narrowly focused on how team scoring is conducted at 2 swim meets (USMS SCNC and USMS LCNC). And in reality only effects about a quarter, or less, of the clubs at those national championships. The House of Delegates spent more time discussing this one point then we did on our Strategic Plan, our budget, Club Development, LMSC Development or practically any other item brought before the House. And one final note (in this post) if you think about it our House of Delegates is just another committee, albeit much larger than our standing committees. So if you say “I do not think that ANY committee … should determine the method of scoring” this leaves a vote of the members.

Oh my! OK Leianne here I go... this is the first time I'm getting wet since SCM Champs :) ****If anyone wants to skip the ramblings and ponderings of a sleep deprived, 30 weeks along pregnant woman, please just read the last paragraph :) I think (my first mistake!) that the whole REASONING behind the regional (state teams, mega teams, etc) vs. club (WCM, TOC, etc.) is getting lost with people quibbling over banners (how many, who gets one and why, etc.) and a sense of fairness. (I for one like the idea of team points, however, I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Although the process we're currently using, isn't fair, and needs to be changed.) I'll reiterate what I said a long time ago when this whole topic came up. It is frustrating as a member of a swim team (meaning: we all swim at the same pool, have the same coaches, share practices, and even do activities outside of the pool together) to compete against entire states or LMSCs. They are NOT the same thing. A true club team, regardless of size, shares swimming together on a day to day basis. You know all of the goings-on with your team, you plan activities, parties, practices, etc. You're really more of a family, and I for one am proud of the team Kerry has built. It reminds me of happy age-group days :) Kum-by-ya and all that. A regional team (state or LMSC) is more of a family reunion of people who haven't seen each other in awhile, and usually get together for a party once in awhile (that party being Nationals in this case). And let me be clear on several points: -Club teams should be club teams (regardless of their registered member size) at Nationals. If WCM sends 20 swimmers, oh well. If we take 200 oh well, we'll still be part of a club. And we should be allowed to compete against like clubs. I know full well, as do we all, it's a numbers game. The more swimmers you have, the better you're likely to do. WCM learns this lesson yearly at our Pacific Champs. USF Masters brings more people than we do, we lose. (However, we have beat them despite the numbers occasionally). While I don't like losing, it was a fair competition. Club vs. club. -I have never heard of anyone being told that they can't go to Nationals, period- let alone because it would change the "team size" to another category. That simply can't happen because the teams were broken into SML AFTER the entries were in. -As a member of WCM, the people who represent our team at Nationals happen to be the people who want to go, can afford it, and have it as a swimming goal. After the entries are due Kerry then attempts to make up relays. He is NOT picking and choosing who can go, and he encourages people to go because it is FUN. Heck, if he did pick I don't think I'd be on a "National" team, and my hubby would get to have all the fun :( -While team scores are part of the atmosphere at Nationals I know it has never driven me as a swimmer. I go to do my best against the competition there and hopefully reach my goals. I do love to swim on relays because there's always some electricity in the air. And to be honest, I rarely know how our relays do until after the results are posted- it's pretty chaotic on the deck at relay time. Kerry puts together the best relays he can given who chose to go to the meet. Keep in mind swimming is an individual sport and most people look at their success at a meet based on how they did, not their team. (I am proud of our team though!) -Many people would be upset over a Team Pacific. Nationals would be a foregone conclusion, and the team points would be for 2nd on down. No one in Pacific wants to do this. We have too much pride in our individual clubs. (Although it would be fun to see every USMS National relay record say Team Pacific next to it!) But I digress. I recognize and understand that if someone lives out in the sticks 300 miles from nowhere that they are not likely to have a "team" atmosphere. It would then make sense for them to form a team with whomever was nearby, especially if they wanted to swim on relays. That being said, they should not be in the same category as a club team (like WCM). They are not a team in what I think is the true sense of the word. They came together for a common reason (NO TEAM IN THE AREA!) Again, getting back to my family analogy. There are nuclear families, extended families, and alternative families. They are all different types of families. In USMS, there happens to also exist a nuclear family (club team) and an extended family (state, regional, or LMSC teams). They are not the same and should not be made to compete against each other in the team competition at Nationals. I suggest a 1-10 Club category and a 1-10 Regional Team category.

Rob, As a teacher, I have to listen to my students and educate them based on their current level and understanding. I plan my lessons based on their needs and I adapt regularly. And if you are saying that this discussion took up so much time, that tells me it is important. Perhaps more should be done to address it. And, I agree with Paul, that just because a smaller number of our membership thinks this is important, and only some are discussing it, it IS important. Nationals is the showcase for USMS regardless of how many attend.