team scoring

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.Just so I understand; does “S-M-L” stand for “S”mith teams – “M”ega teams – “L”ocal teams? I know Paul will try to win at any cost, but having his very own division seems a bit extreme, even for him.:rolleyes:

Just so I understand; does “S-M-L” stand for “S”mith teams – “M”ega teams – “L”ocal teams? I know Paul will try to win at any cost, but having his very own division seems a bit extreme, even for him.:rolleyes: You are close, Rob. M stands for "Meg's team"!

Hey Rob and everyone, I was mistaken as to the facts I claimed earlier. I just checked the SPMA meet results and I should've done my research more thoroughly before I posted that regarding the TYR swimmer. Although I could've sworn I remembered this correctly, the swimmer actually did swim for TYR in all the meets. I apologize for the confusion. (However I'm glad I'm not getting anyone busted!! Phew.)

I am in favor of this because you may not get alot of people from the same club to travel to nationals. IMHO, if your club does not get a lot of people to go to Nationals, then your club shouldn't receive a banner at Nationals. But, seeing that many or most people seem to be in favor of S/M/L team divisions within the Regional Club/Local Club, let's try to move this discussion forward. Obviously nearly all of us agree on the Regional/Local divisions, and we are struggling with: 1) whether we need to define one or both types of teams; 2) the actual definition of these terms: Regarding S/M/L divisions, we should further discuss: 1) whether those cutoffs should be made known in advance, or determined only after the close of entries. 2) if they are predetermined cutoffs, what should those cutoffs be. ________________________________________________________ (A) Regional/Local definitions: 1) WHICH TERM(S) TO DEFINE: As I've stated before, it seems to me that defining one term leaves less room for confusion. Unless we are able to perfectly define two mutually exclusive groups that encompass every team, then defining two terms is superfluous. However, since many or most people at Convention did not approve L2 for its failure to define both terms, perhaps we do need to define both to satisfy those people and actually get this new rule passed. 2A) ACTUALY DEFINITION: REGIONAL TEAM Elements of this definition include: a) "workout groups" (or smaller clubs) join to compete as one entity for a competition (inside OR outside their LMSC) b) more than 10% of the member live outside the club's LMSC c) Other possible factors: more than one board of directors, different bank accounts, the absence of a "home pool" d) Final consideration: How much room do we leave for a judgment call by the decision maker in the case of unique teams? 2B) ACTUAL DEFINITION: LOCAL TEAM (if needed) a) always competes as itself and does not join other teams or workout groups. b) less than 10% of members outside the LMSC c) a single board, a single bank account, the existence of a "home" pool (although not ALL workouts must take place there). (B) S/M/L Divisions (if needed) 1) Determined in advance? I'd like to hear more on this. I've seen arguments on both sides and am unsure of where I stand. 2) If predetermined, what should they be? I think what Leianne proposed seems fair. a) Small: less than 10 members b) Medium: 11-24 members c) Large: 25 or more members So, let's talk about these points we haven't come to an agreement on.

I want to say first this is a great discussion. I've said before that the issue doesn't really have much pull for me personally. However, I think the basic underlying principle here is that folks are looking for a way to recognize more people for their efforts, and include more people. More awards can potentially open the door for plenty of good things... an increase in competitors due to more small teams looking for a banner is the first thing that comes to mind. Folks have mentioned that increased # awards translates to a financial burden... here's a question: why does everyone need to walk home with a trophy or banner? However things get divided out (s/m/l, or local/regional, m/w/both) - why not just hand out awards for only one set of winners, then list a boatload more online? For example - hand out trophies/banners to the top three combined teams in small, medium and large teams. That's nine awards. Online, list those on the top of a page. Then, break it down some more: top three men small, med and large; women s/m/l, combined s/m/l; top freestyle teams, top teams for each stroke, most 1-10 finishes... we could go on. But it is a way to recognize and include more teams.

It's my opinion, and I'm keeping it until convinced otherwise. I realize that I'm in the minority, but I'm used to that. Good argument Jim. It "moved" me, not all the way, but it does have validity.

Here we are mixing apples and oranges again! How can you categorize teams (Regional, Local Club, or ANY other kind!) at Nationals based on how many people are registered to that team?! That is idiotic (IMHO, and let me say I think the idea is idiotic, not Jim) and that is the least inclusive idea I have heard. How many registered swimmers actually compete in USMS? Are we going to make them compete? Or penalize those swimmers that do? Example: Many of our swimmers at WCM are triathletes, lap swimmers, or just join to be social and splash around. They have absolutely no interest in competing, let alone at Nationals! We would drive them away if we told them they HAD to compete! Or, on the other hand, WCM would seemingly be penalized at Nationals because we didn't bring these people (Kerry would NEVER make anyone go). What is the mission statement of USMS again? The heck we didn't earn that banner! Masters is NOT NCAA, USA-S or anything like that! Masters has adults swimming for a myriad of reasons. All of the other swimming programs you mentioned are strictly there to swim fast and compete at the highest level they can! The way the meet (Nationals in Mich) was set up by SML teams, we did earn it. We swam well and earned the points necessary. (Keep in mind the banner was NOT the goal- we just wanted to swim fast and have fun. I still don't even know what place we got to be honest. I just remember our coach had picked up a banner and we took a picture.) All other competitive swim programs are NOT trying to be inclusive like USMS, they are striving to swim fast, period. The time standards alone for USMS Nationals show that we are trying to be inclusive, or the idea you can swim 3 events without actually qualifying! Maybe I'm off here, but Jim, it seems that you think people have to bring a large team to even be considered for a team banner? We've beaten teams with many more swimmers than us... that Michigan meet is an example. If anything, your argument that having a large group to "earn" banners, makes me think the idea of Team Pacific may have some merit. But wait, how about Team-West-of-the-Rockies, or??? Let's just take what we have, concensus that their should be two divisions, work on that, and move forward. For the record, I think their should be two divisions: Regional and Local Club and they should be scored 1st-10th (combined only; no men, no women). Perhaps here your team might have incentive to bring more men or more women who want to compete and can afford the trip?

For individual events, we don't have medal categories for short, medium, or tall swimmers or for inexperienced, moderately experienced, and elite swimmers. We simply give out medals to those that earned them by swimming the fastest.] We, IMHO, are not trying to "give away awards." To me that doesn't make anything inclusive. (I'm happy bringing home the program from Nationals! It serves as a reminder for how I did.) I do agree that people earn their awards. And they're usually DARN fast too! Which is awesome. What is unique is that those that compete regularly at Nationals, or not, but that same group we always see, are so aware of each other. I love the human interest stories that go with USMS. "So and so just had a heart attack and swam the mile", or "so and so overcame cancer and won Nationals." The true spirit of USMS is not in the individual or even team awards, but how there are so many of us who just love to swim/compete, and find a way to do it because it's a part of our lives. USMS is an awesome organization in that it lets us "be kids again" in a swimming environment. You get to go to workout, enter meets, compete, and do so with like-minded people. Now let's all sing kum-bay-yah and :wine:

Jim....thats more words written by you in one thread than I think I've heard you speak in the last 5 years....here, here!!

Oh man, why did I look? I was just about to leave, and I'm really sick... Jim, I'm not arguing that USMS Nationals shouldn't be treated as the event it is. I was responding to your idea that teams should be entered by their registered numbers. I don't think our team is unique in the regard I mentioned. However, your idea would certainly always put WCM up against Regional Teams as we have over 400 registered, with the current system. That is why I like Regional vs. Local Club. Alas, I agree that we don't need SML. For your reasons or mine- I can't think anymore! Brain fuzzy, need more water, nap needed... Talk to you later :) And Paul, :thhbbb: :smooch: