team scoring

My team has difficulty putting together enough people for relays. It would be nice to join with other metropolitan teams to form relays at a Zone or National meet. I think it should be allowed. It could be fun putting together Ad-Hoc teams. Teams that are either too small, unattached swimmers, or big teams with odd people out. Or, maybe more fair to allow these ad-hoc relays at local meets and make the club only rule at zones and nationals. Am I off on this thinking?

My team has difficulty putting together enough people for relays. It would be nice to join with other metropolitan teams to form relays at a Zone or National meet. I think it should be allowed. It could be fun putting together Ad-Hoc teams. Teams that are either too small, unattached swimmers, or big teams with odd people out. Or, maybe more fair to allow these ad-hoc relays at local meets and make the club only rule at zones and nationals. Am I off on this thinking? We're only talking about Nationals scoring.

(((sigh))) ...the old "Holmes Lumber Jax" argument? again?? Using that club as an example of the evils of recruiting and all that is wrong in the world of USMS Nationals club scoring is just a bit out of context. There's a whole story behind the group's assembly for the 1988 world championships, and their success was staged to boost an effort to build a swimming facility in Jacksonville, Florida. If USMS wanted to do something to change the rules following 1988, we've had almost two decades to do it. The same dozen people who were mad about it in 1988 are still mad about it now, and need to let it go. :dedhorse:

OK, new question: As it stands now can Metropolitan LMSC put together teams constructed from their 30 clubs for nationals? I am in favor of this because you may not get alot of people from the same club to travel to nationals. You can have a "true club" award as well as ad-hoc awards for LMSC teams. Maybe take it a step further and have National-All Star teams with their own award as well.

LOL, I tried to figure out how to quote but I'm afraid I'll mess it up, so... Meg, you said, "I don't want to speak for Paul, but for myself, I do not object to two divisions, as long as within those divisions we have S-M-L." I still don't understand why you wouldn't support 2 divisions WITHOUT S/M/L. The downfalls of S/M/L team scoring have been outlines, and they seem like common sense to me. Can someone please try to convince me why S/M/L offers more advantages than problems? I would like to actually read specific comments - other than "it's the most simple" or "it's the best." And please, whoever decides to take this challenge, please keep in mind we are trying to encourage participation (among other goals). Thanks in advance! Regaridng geographical limits, I agree there should be SOMETHING. I agree that a specific radius would not work for various reasons. But, I believe it was Leianne who mentioned that 90% (for example) of a team's registered members should live within the LMSC. I think that is completely appropriate. As far as Team TYR. Their members can actually switch teams from 1 meet to another. I've always been confused as to how this happens, and what their USMS cards look like (maybe Julie Heather could answer?), but I know that one of their swimmers switched from Team TYR to SCAQ to TYR to SCAQ within 2 months of meets last year. How does that work? Finally, I agree with Meg in that there needs to be some leeway for "reasonable" judgment calls in determining when a team should fall into 1 of the 2 categories. As was evidenced, there are so many kinds of teams and workout groups, we need to allow for someone to employ the "we know it when we see it" perspective, and let the team challenge the ruling if they don't like it. But, I like like the guidelines you are all coming up with, as long as there's that element of freedom for whoever is making that determination. And also, and the end of the day, if Team TYR ends up being a Local/Club team, then like Barry Bonds, everyone will know how to read those final results.*

OK, new question: As it stands now can Metropolitan LMSC put together teams constructed from their 30 clubs for nationals? If you are on one of the teams that is in fact a workout group of Metro, yes. If you are on one of the independent teams, no. Our LMSC offers both varieties.

As it stands now can Metropolitan LMSC put together teams constructed from their 30 clubs for nationals? I am in favor of this because you may not get alot of people from the same club to travel to nationals. You can have a "true club" award as well as ad-hoc awards for LMSC teams. Yep, add that to whether S, M, and L awards are necessary (I think so, some obviously don't) and that's a real basic summary of the discussion (IMO).

Meg, thanks for explaining how to quote - I'm sure I'll use it soon!! :) Karen, if it's really a viable option to impose sanctions, then that seems fine with me. I'm just not sure how realistic that is. And, actually this seems like the perfect example of how S/M/L division create more problems than it solves. Meg, regarding Kentucky, I understand your challenge in competing with a host Regional team like PNA. Similarly, the Local teams competing against the Local Host team face the same challenge - no one is really expected to compete with Woodlands at their own home. It's just part of the sport...any sport. I don't think we should try to even EVERY aspect of the playing field when it involves the creation of more problems. (It actually had never even crossed my mind until you mentioned it that a Men's team and Women's team from the same Club might be scored in different divisions. Yikes!) On a side note, I'msure Team TYR is very nice. But somehow that 60 day rule didn't apply last year when people switched teams so quickly to attempt to break a relay record. (There were 3 meets in 4 weeks, each 2 weeks apart, and there was a lot of switching. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't even effect me, I'm just curious how it's alowed.)

1. Meg, the Championship Committee had this discussion about team scoring over multiple years and did not come up with a proposal that everyone could agree upon. Pacific, because it is a Rule now, could take it upon themselves to propose a rule change. If all the rules governing Nationals were decided by the Championsjip Committee, a person (or LMSC) who had a good idea would have to go through the Ch. Committee, rather than going through Rules. The Championship committee could then get bogged down on discussion of one item, an item which does not matter as much as other items in actually running the meet, or helping hosts run the meet. Keeping Article 104 in the RuleBook allows any LMSC or other committee to feel they have some power to affect that meet. Taking Article 104 out of the Rule Book would give Rules too little to do,I imagine, and, as noted above, tie up the Championship Committee in a discussion in which many people outside the committee would also like to participate. Carolyn, we may just have to agree to disagree here! I think the Rules Committee is quite capable of coming up with a good rule. I did not have a problem with their portion of L02. The problem with Rules handling it is that they can only consider changes every other year--if we don't get it right in Rules in 2008, then we can't tweak it again till 2010. It is unfortunate that Championship has not been able to come to agreement, but I still think that's the proper venue for dealing with this. Maybe they're trying for unanimity, when that isn't possible? Maybe they're overcomplicating it? I don't know, since I haven't been able to attend a Championship meeting, except for the bid meeting, in the last few years. 2. At convention, the Rules Committee seemed to agree that a regional club was one where parts of the club competed under different names in regional meets, so I think we should keep that as part of the definition of the regional club division. Then we need to add some geographic wording so that we do not have a Holmes Lumberjack team (where members were recruited from throughout the US and did stay members of that club) from competing against clubs whose large majority live close enough to the club center to work out with the club at least occasionally. When you have a regional team that breaks up into workout group competition within the LMSC, then that's easy. That's what we do in Kentucky, and I believe New England does that as well. But not all do that (maybe North Carolina, for example?). Clearly the Lumberjack team would have been a regional club, as would Team TYR. I agree that we need a geographic parameter, but am not crazy about defining a specific radius, mainly because it would be cumbersome to administer, but also because a reasonable radius would vary, depending on the part of the country. I think the wording should be flexible enough to allow whoever determines whether a team is regional or local to make a reasonable decision, and not be forced to pigeonhole a team into an inappropriate category. 3. In defenrence to Paul, I do not see him saying we should not have two divisions. I read him as saying both types of clubs are equally good, but they are different and it is fine to divide them for purposes of scoring only. I agree with you here. I don't want to speak for Paul, but for myself, I do not object to two divisions, as long as within those divisions we have S-M-L.

Carolyn, You and Meg are correct I have never had a problem with two divisions as it seems most of the discontent is coming from clubs who feel it is not a level playing field going up against regional teams...and I don't disagree....just don't tell me were any less of a team or shouldn't be allowed to compete wit the people I want to swim with! My goal would be to create the simplest system possible that increases participation and makes the event enjoyable for the most amount of people. Cut out anything that creates paperwork and bureaucracy!