team scoring

Good job of pulling everyone back in to what we need to do, Leianne! Given the discussions on this forum, maybe we should see if we can define what is a "local" team as opposed to deciding what is a "regional" team. Let's try to see beyond the words that are used in this discussion, because if we get the principles down, then we can decide on what terms to use in presenting a proposal to the Rules Committee. I agree, and thank you for indulging my preference for local team rather than club team. We do need to define both local and regional teams. That was one of the big holes in the legislative part of L02 that prevented me from voting for it. Assuming a local and regional team division, then maybe a definition of a local team could be as follows: "LOCAL CLUB DIVISION. A club will compete at a National Championship meet in the local club division if it meets the following conditions: (i) its members live in a limited geographic area (with no more than 10% of its members residing outside the LMSC where the club's address is located); and (ii) it has a single board of directors or other management structure that is responsible for acquiring facilities and paying coaching staff from the club's operating budget." I think (i) is OK. The problem is (ii). A lot of clubs don't have any paid coaching staff. Maybe it would be better to just say "it has a single management structure that is responsible for acquiring facilities and/or providing coaching." I do not know how the regional teams with workout groups do their operations, and whether each workout group operates and budgets money separately for their pools and coaches. I can only speak for Kentucky, but yes, our separate workout groups do gave separate operatons and budgets. I'm with Wildcat Masters at the University of Kentucky, and our team is an auxiliary program of UK Athletics. They provide us with pool time and pay our coaches. We have separate officers too. Some of the other groups have much less formality. They just show up and swim together at the local Y, most likely with no coach on deck. And of course some of our swimmers have no group to swim with at all, like the famous guy in the cabin in western Kentucky. His name is actually Keith Shepherd, and he usually works out with the closest USA team (and he is also a member of USA Swimming too). Thanks for getting the ball rolling again, Leianne.

Hi Meg, your point about how informal many of the workout groups are (in some of them, people just show up and swim), and Jerry Clark's point about how many of the groups in North Carolina don't even have coaches is what makes me think that it may be really hard to define a "local" club. It may wind up being easier to define a regional club, and say that if you are not a regional club then you must, by default, be in a "local club".....but I am more than happy to try defining a local club. Leianne ^^^

I actually completely understand the purpose of regional teams and am very supportive of their existence, as I believe everyone participating in this discussion is. Let's not get too caught up in the semantics and terminology of it all. I know one person (maybe Meg?) previously said that at the convention a lot of the people belonging to regional teams felt as Paul seems too, that the club teams are snubbing them. I don't really see that, but perhaps that's because I'm on a club team. I don't know. We all, the club teams, are saying is that we don't want to compete against the regional teams. Drawing from the college swim team analogy (that I used 4 months ago in this thread), it would be similar to colleges competing against each other throughout the season, and then at NCAAs, Cal, Stanford, USC, etc. combine to form Team Pac-10. If this were the case, it's simply not fair to expect even the best colleges, UT, Auburn, etc. to compete against Team Pac-10. The reason Pac-10 formed is really irrelevent at this point. Karen, regarding your definition of a club team - I see some problems with it, and this is (I believe) where the HOD got stuck: Yes a club team has registered members under its name (and its name only), and competes together year round, but I believe there are some regional teams that fit this definition too. Right? Someone mentioned that San Diego Masters is a regional team (Michael Moore, I beieve), but do its members compete under SDM all year? I think so??? Regarding the qualification of having one facility, I've already mentioned the problem with this. Most teams, such as mine, use public pools that are unavailable during certain times. Therefore, we have to go across the city to train at another pool on the weekends because the city insists on having lap swim at our "home" pool during weekend mornings. (We have a 6 lane, 25 yard pool so unfortunately it can't accomodate both a swim team and lap swim simultaneously.) So, by your definition, my team would be a regional team, which clearly is not the case. Perhaps if a team had 2 workouts at different pools at the same time they could be considered a regional team, but I see some potential problems with this too. And BTW, I was thinking about that quote referred to earlier in regards to regional team, "I know it when I see it." There could always be provision in the language of the definition that allows some leeway to the Championship Committee (or some committee) to make a ruling on unique team formats. I'm not sure how Team TYR is formed, but it's definitely not a traditional team. Perhaps at the end of the proposal it should say, "(definition)...or when deemed by the (blank) Committee." There would be the same ability to contest the determintion, of course. Just thinking out loud...

In response to Rob wanting to extend a courtesy to the Championship Committee and let them decide this issue: Multiple old rules have been taken out of the Rule Book and put under the purview of the Championship Committee (appropriately so), such as figuring out NQT's, setting surcharges, etc. I believe that, philosophically,this issue (partly because it was already brought to the House, debated there, and one proposal about it garnered over 60% of the vote) needs to be brought back to the House to be changed. Furthermore, right now club scoring is a Rule, and any "Rule" cannot be changed unless and until it goes through the Rules Committee on a "Rules" year. In addition, a subcommittee of the Championship Committee, asked to review the rules governing national championship meets, did that review, and decided that section (Article 104) needs to remain in the RuleBook. So again, let's decide about definitions and whether we want size divisions also.

In response to Rob wanting to extend a courtesy to the Championship Committee and let them decide this issue: Multiple old rules have been taken out of the Rule Book and put under the purview of the Championship Committee (appropriately so), such as figuring out NQT's, setting surcharges, etc. I believe that, philosophically,this issue (partly because it was already brought to the House, debated there, and one proposal about it garnered over 60% of the vote) needs to be brought back to the House to be changed. Furthermore, right now club scoring is a Rule, and any "Rule" cannot be changed unless and until it goes through the Rules Committee on a "Rules" year. In addition, a subcommittee of the Championship Committee, asked to review the rules governing national championship meets, did that review, and decided that section (Article 104) needs to remain in the RuleBook. So again, let's decide about definitions and whether we want size divisions also. Carolyn, it's not often that I disagree with you but I don't understand why we have a Championship Committee if we don't charge them with running the championships. Yes, it is currently in the rule book that the HOD decides on team scoring. I think what should happen next year is that we change that rule to say that it's up to the Championship Committee, the same way that we changed it a few years ago that we leave it up to Championship to determine NQTs. Championship could be busy from now until next convention coming up with a plan for changing team scoring. It would be finalized (hopefully) at convention. I bet that would be one of the best attended Championship meetings ever! People not on the committee would have the opportunity to provide input at that meeting. Then whatever resolution Championship comes up with would be included in the committee minutes, which the HOD has to vote to approve. If there was still disagreement over Championship's decision, I have no doubt that that would be pulled for discussion and hotly debated. To Karen: I appreciate that you conceded a few posts back that the regional model works well for more rural states. It's clear to me that the regional teams have agreed to separate scoring. I thought we had all agreed that (or at least were paying lip service to) neither model is better, they're just different. I am happy for you that you have such a wonderful relationship with your Walnut Creek teammates. I think I have a pretty wonderful relationship with my Swim Kentucky teammates too. I see them quite a bit more often than just once a year at nationals. I have been to weddings and birthday parties of teammates in Louisville and elsewhere (thankfully, no funerals yet!). I am also in frequent email and phone contact. So it sounds like we're both blessed with great teammates!

Good Morning, Swim4: I missed that college analogy before, sorry to rehash... I don't think that my definition is "the" definition for a club team, that's just how I perceive it. And I don't want anyone to think that I speak for Pacific. I am only giving my opinion. While I am the Pacific secretary, all I do is take notes :) Michael can speak for Pacific, and he usually does :wine: As far as the one facility goes... There have been many times in the past 14years, since I started Masters, that WCM has had to go to different pools to workout (local college, local rec team, other city pool) because our pool was shut down for whatever reason; that being said we don't have workout groups at these different pools. We all went "together". I don't think because we had to find other facilities that we are suddenly a regional team, and in fact, all of the other pools were in Walnut Creek. Meg: Thanks for your thoughtful response. I hope I am not coming across to anyone that my team is the way things should be done. Far from it. I will admit that we are extremely lucky to live where we do, in that swimming is a very popular sport around here (mostly during the summer though). Kerry is an A1 coach, and our assistants are great too. Because we do all work out at one facility it easily forges that day to day camraderie, etc. I am not saying that there isn't camraderie, long time friendships, etc. with Regional Teams. In general, swimmers are social aquatic animals, we would make friends swimming in swamps! I consider Karlyn a friend although I see her only at meets, and when she's visiting Eric's home nearby. Another girl Carrie, who used to live in WC, now swims for Almaden (near San Jose) and I only see her at meets... anyway. It seems to me at this point that the most forward direction would be to define a club team. If it's not a club team then it's a regional team. Whether there is SML I really don't care, but I do think that the club and regional need to be separated. One more thought I had last night while trying to fall asleep: Why are the Regional teams "against" two separate divisions at Nationals? Why do they care? If anything, taking out WCM and TOC, and whatever other club team places in the TT at Nationals, would leave room for two more Regional teams to be in the Top Ten. And conversely, having a club team division would get at least 5 more club teams into a Top 10. Just more ramblings. And Paul thanks for the PM :smooch: (I know Laura doesn't check this site so I feel comfortable giving you a virtual smooch :)

Scott & Karen....I understand that there are many clubs that are very close-nit...I've also seen LOTS of clubs that have a very large and diverse group of swimmers and many don't even know folks beyond the practice they attend and more specifically the lane or two they train in...my argument comes from the folks judging regional teams as not have very similar types of relationships and in many cases far more so. As for the argument that a group that gets in the pool day in and day out having more of a relationship than a regional team preparing for nationals that wold depend on the club. For example Sun Devil masters has 200+ swimmers, I train with them 2-3x a week...there will be maybe 6 from that team going to nationals...for more interest in that club to train for La Jolla and other open water events...however when you look at myself, Liz Hobbs, Brad Herring, Greg Rhodenbaugh, Sam Perry, Henry Clark, Rowdy Gaines, Scott Shake, Monica Bailey, Laura Winslow, etc. etc. we all have the same goals, mindset and focus and although we don't train together often we are a "club". So...bottom line is lets not judge to much in this our different approaches to training, clubs, competing and focus on what this thread is hopefully about finding a simple solution that creates a competitive situation for all of us with as much fairness as we can. PS: Karen....I'm actually fine with having 2 divisions if thats what the majority of folks would consider the best approach....never said I was "against" it but do think if we went the most "simpe" route it would be one division w/ S,M, L....but I love a good debate regardless!

I agree with Leianne on this. It is only necessary to define one term, and if a team does not fall with that category, then they are automatically in the other category. This is how many laws are written - trust me I know. The problem with offering 2 definitions is that there will be some clubs who meet both or neither definition. By offering one definition, we avoid this. I'm not clear why this was an issue for people at convention???

Paul, I love ya big guy but, you have not swam with us in any of "our" workouts. If you have, than you would see the closeness and comraderie (smack talk, encouragements, etc.). Those of you who have joined in our workouts...go ahead and speak up...:) Go OC! Scott

Article 201.2: Member clubs are organizations or groups of permanent character currently registered with USMS through its LMSCs and that actively promote and participate in Masters swimming. So currently there is one and only one type of club in USMS. If we say we have two types of clubs, and then define only one type, to me that is incomplete. I think the hangup is trying to make an ironclad definition, going wild with the percentages, geographic radius, etc. We should just say that a regional club is composed of swimmers from throughout an LMSC, training in different pools in the LMSC, but all competing for the same club. Then a local club is composed primarily of swimmers who train in the same pool, or in several pools in close geographic proximity, and who always compete for the same club. Is it iron clad? No. Will it satisfy most situations? Yes. And as long as we have an avenue for appeal, then I think we'll have few problems. I doubt many clubs will contest their designation.