team scoring

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.Karen, That’s exactly part of my point; more should be done to address this. And a legislative body that meets one a year is not the most effective way of addressing it. And to follow on with your teaching analogy, you as a committee of one determine the lesson plan of the class, based on your expert judgment and you adapt it to meet the needs of your customers (students). Hopefully you don’t walk into class each day and say “Some of you like reading more than math so let’s discuss which one I will teach.” Knowing the strengths and weakness of lesson plan alternatives and the needs of your students are keys to successful teaching; just as knowing the strengths and weakness of team scoring alternatives and the wants (not needs) of our members are keys to customer satisfaction at Nationals.

Leianne, 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. You chose an interesting number - 25% of the clubs. In choosing that number it appears to me that you are trying to minimize or trivalize the importance of this debate. But lets look at what 25% of the clubs competing at nationals really are. There were 158 clubs represented at 2007 Short Course Nationals at Federal way. 25% is about 39 Clubs. IMHO in order for a club to be at least competitive at nationals they have to have 8 swimmers - so they can field two relays. If one sorts the clubs by number of entries, the top 39 have 8 or more swimmers entered. Those swimmers total to about 1118 or 77% of the number entered athletes. In reality, 25% of the clubs represent the vast majority of swimmers who have at least a rooting interest in the award banners. Leianne, 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. In the Worlds organizing committee, logo design and mascot took up more time that I think it should have. But we are working with volunteers, and the volunteers get excited about what interests them. Strategic Plan, budget (unless it affects these budget), Club Development, and LMSC Development are ethereal to most of the HOD members (I guess). It appears to me that for those who attend Nationals, bringing home a banner is concrete and a real subject. michael

In choosing that number it appears to me that you are trying to minimize or trivalize the importance of this debate.No, I’m not trying to minimize or trivialize the importance of this debate. It’s just me living the old Andrew Lang adage, "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination.":wine:

Swim4Life- Currently, there is no way to determine how many swimmers would fall into the small team category, until after the entries are closed. If you had a concrete number that said "X" would put you in a small team category, would you really prevent people from swimming for your team? The others would be unattached? Or? I'm hoping I read the end of your post wrong... I know that whatever division we're in, we're all trying to do our best. Usually, about half way through the meet, we see what teams are near us (for fun, really) and try to beat them. But that's just something to do really to make the meet a little more interesting! Out of curiosity (because I'm thinking I'm naive regarding this)- does it happen often, or is it prevalent, that teams will not permit swimmers to race at Nationals because they may not score? I can tell you that Kerry, head coach of WCM, would never prevent anyone from swimming at Nationals. Even if "X" would put us into one category, he would not exclude anyone. Our team mission statement purports "to have the individual leave the pool with a heightened sense of fulfillment."

Swim4Life- Thanks for clarifying, and I'm glad you took my question the right way. I feared it might seem accusatory, and it wasn't meant to. I hadn't heard that the reason for doing away with the SML was due to people trying to "beat the system". And it's probably doubtful, one, that anyone who has done that is on this forum to discuss it; and 2, would admit it!!! So, to prevent this kind of thing from happening, it would make sense to go to a straight 1-10 placement with two categories: club vs. regional. Those are the two types of teams competing at Nationals. If you (the collective us) fall into one of those categories and you want to win, you will motivate others to join in. Just my :2cents: (although I'm probably up near a dollar by now!)

It seems to make sense that the Championship Committee should responsible for, and able to, determine the appropriate scoring method. This debate is quite complicated with details and by keeping open to the entire HOD it's likely that nothing will get accomplished. And, while I'm optimistic about next year's convention resulting in a change for SCY Nationals 2009, what happens if the wording isn't quite perfect and fails again? We wait another year and try again? I'm rather new to all of this lingo, and I'm unsure about what exactly each committee is responsible for, but there has to be a better way than a once a year shot at changing this. (Or twice if you count voting on an amendment a day later.) My final point (on this post) about my opposition to S/M/L team scoring is an honest one, and it draws from real experience. I'm competitive, obviously, and I'm also spearheading my team's participation at Nationals - a meet that traditionally we would have 1-2 people attend. I come from what I consider a small(er) team with about 80 active members (perhaps that's medium) and I'd like to see as many of them go to Nationals as possible, regardless of speed. It's fun to travel with friends and it's truly a team bonding experience!! Right now we have about 20 people committed to going to Austin to see how high we can finish. But, if you give me the option of possibly winning a Small Team title if I take the fastest 12 people to Nationals 2009, then I'd find myself in a predicament. Right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation.

I think Karen stated brilliantly the argument for Regional/Club teams divisions. Thank you!! :) WCM clearly has a lot of team pride and it would be great if other clubs could achieve that too by making it a goal every year to finish in the top 10 at Nationals. Right now only WCM and TOC have such a tradition. And yes, I see the argument for then allowing S/M/L divisions to recognize even MORE teams, but for the reasons I've previously stated I'm against that, as there's more to lose than gain in that scenario. I think , actually I KNOW, even small teams can challenge for top 10 at Nationals if they encourage enough people to go. Isn't that the point? Let's keep in mind this is a competition - we don't need to be awarding every team a banner if they have even 2 good swimmers.

Rob stated that the Championship committee should determine awards. Why? Any issue that brought this much passion at convention should be decided by a rules proposal next year, discussed in committees, but decided by the whole House. It is ludicrous that 15 or 16 people, simply because they were placed on the Championship Committee, should decide such an issue. As for delegates paying more attention to this than the Strategic Plan, Finances, Club Development, etc., maybe the delegates felt those ideas were in good hands and trusted they were being taken care of, or maybe delegates felt they did not have enough input in those big idea issues. As a member of the Championship Committee over the past 14 years, I have seen many Championship meet issues appropriately put in the hands of the Championship Committee, but it is not appropriate to put all issues about those meets in that committee. Too many other people really care about those issues; because they care, they participate at Nationals and at convention. Everyone seems to agree we need a distinction between simple clubs and combined or regional clubs, but we need to agree on how to make the distinction. The issue of whether to delineate small, medium and large within the two types of clubs has able proponents on both sides.

Uh, Scott, we're nuclear families. The behemoths are extended families, but I like your enthusiasm :drink: PS I must've accidentally erased the message from my machine (you know like the one you left for Paul Smith?) :lmao: Karen

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. Now you're talking. Really, the best solution would be to simply state in the rule book that the Championship Committee is in charge of team scoring, and let them implement a better solution. Then it wouldn't take a fruitless debate by the entire HOD. The same time it should consolidate smaller LMSCs, when the LMSC does not or cannot service it members. And that has already happened a few times, most recently at this past convention, when the Wyoming LMSC was absorbed by Colorado. But clearly our large LMSCs, Pacific of course being the largest, are doing a good job of serving their members' needs. Meg