team scoring

It seems that now we have a few examples of Regional teams that are not covered under the current definition of a Regional team (VMST and NCMS, and likely others). It may be that we will need to add a provision that gives deference to the Championship Committee for classifying such Regional teams. Continue with the currently proposed definition of a Regional team, but then add, "or when determined by the Championship Committee to be a Regional Team." Seriously. That's all we need to add. There is nothing wrong with adding this language. In fact, most laws are written with similar provisions to allow for exceptions when one would arise. We all know who these Regional Teams are, and there's relatively little (or no) debate that I've heard in determining classifications. The swimmers from VMST and NCMS do not contest their status as a Regional team - they are merely pointing out that under the proposal, their team falls outside the current definition. I can't claim to speak for other VMST swimmers, only myself. I have no idea if they would contest it one way or another. NCMS is a little different since they have their "workout groups" (eg RAM). And I'm not sure...doesn't EVERYONE from the NC LMSC swim under NCMS at nationals? There are other teams from VA that compete at nationals. Anyway, if a committee is empowered to make the decision or hear appeals, that is fine, but the criteria for that decision still need to be articulated in some way and agreed upon, whether codified in the rule book or elsewhere. I don't think "we know who they are" will be enough.

I did see the "small/medium/large" postings, in addition to the regular team scores. At least, they were on the locker room door. Since the web page had the official results, I had assumed that these were "what if" results, to provide more information for the next discussion of team scoring. (But I might be assuming too much.)

"... a “Local Team” consists of a team made up of those swimmers who represent a club at Nationals, and at competitions within their LMSC they compete for the same club, and that club has a single management structure that is responsible for administering the club’s activities (including, for example, acquiring facilities and/or providing coaches)." As an aside: VMST has a single board of officers -- I guess that's our "single management structure" -- and fewer than half the members of our LMSC swim for VMST. Does VMST's board take care of pool rental and coaches for all the workout groups? I think that would be the part that really separates out whether a club is local or not. Although one should never underestimate people's willingness to bend practice to meet the legal requirements when it comes to winning something!

Swim 4 Life --I knew I was pushing my luck on getting you to agree! I think you make excellent points, thank you for bringing them up. I look forward to hearing from other participants. Leianne ^^^^

A couple points: 1) AWARDS I agree with Jerry's idea about the electronic certificates as a cost effectice alternative to the banners. However, assuming the cost of banners is not preventative, I still like the idea of actually receiving a something tangible at the meet, as a team. The awards are presented within 10-15 minutes of the final relay, so waiting around is not a problem. For me, it's not even so much receiving an award as it would be TO SIMPLY BE RECOGNIZED IN THE APPROPRIATE LIGHT. Meaning, if my team finishes 8th in the Men's Local Team division, and that is posted as such in the final team standings, then I'm happy. It's not the awards, or lack thereof, on which I base my argument - it's the method of calculating the final standings. 2) DEFINITIONS It seems that now we have a few examples of Regional teams that are not covered under the current definition of a Regional team (VMST and NCMS, and likely others). It may be that we will need to add a provision that gives deference to the Championship Committee for classifying such Regional teams. Continue with the currently proposed definition of a Regional team, but then add, "or when determined by the Championship Committee to be a Regional Team." Seriously. That's all we need to add. There is nothing wrong with adding this language. In fact, most laws are written with similar provisions to allow for exceptions when one would arise. We all know who these Regional Teams are, and there's relatively little (or no) debate that I've heard in determining classifications. The swimmers from VMST and NCMS do not contest their status as a Regional team - they are merely pointing out that under the proposal, their team falls outside the current definition. The legislation still offers a method of contesting a team's classification in those rare cases, so I do not see why we wouldn't cover our bases and allow for some discretion on the part of the Championship Committee. Unless there is some bias of which I am unaware, I have faith that the Championship Committee would appropriately designate teams. Brian

It would be nice to hear how a new club scoring system could fulfill the USMS strategic objective of developing clubs, or any other objective for that matter. It would’ve been even nicer to start there, but we didn’t. Perhaps that's why the proposal failed in Anaheim. I’m sure some people are happy I wasn’t there because I was planning to either vote “no” or abstain. But all I've heard is “I want, I want, I want.” Sadly, this discussion hasn’t evolved much beyond that. During the strategic planning meeting last year in Chicago, a couple dozen people in USMS were the first group asked by our Executive Director to look at the broad direction of the organization and think in terms of fulfilling specific strategic objectives. I was part of that group. The meeting confirmed certain things we’ve been trying to accomplish with the magazine, and gave us other things to work on. Fostering club development was a biggie, and in response SWIMMER started planning more features showing models for success in club development. Our first was the Woodlands Nationals feature (Sept./Oct., 2007), our second was Walnut Creek (Mar./Apr., 2008), and we are planning others. Just as we have allowed strategic planning guide the magazine, it would be great to see the club scoring discussion guided by strategic objectives (such as club development). Right now, it seems guided by personal interests. :shakeshead:

Jim, I see your point - to a degree - on the fact that some teams have more older or younger swimmers, but that has never been a basis for seperating scoring. I don't believe you are not actually proposing this, since no one wants to define age what age a person in masters swimming becomes "old". LOL. Yet, a gender division is clear, indisputable, and grounded in tradition. I guess I'd ask, "why not?" What are the reasons for dropping Men's and Women's scoring? Is it merely a monetary argument? Paul and Mark, with regard to the SML team scoring, I too assumed it was a "what if" scenario. The sheet actually said on the top of it that it was unofficial. It also denoted Regional team with an *. Brian

Here's some more on the discussion: Splashback Melissa Minetola did a superb job researching the topic, and the timeline from Barry Fasbender is exactly the type of information we need to support an intelligent, informed discussion. Ironically, that information was gathered by our writer for the Splashback column, and not by participants engaging in the discussion for the purpose of shedding light on the subject. That's exactly why we're putting it out there. As I suggested earlier, it would also be useful to have a piece of paper with a list of all the club champions since the beginning of club scoring. Without that, we're essentially making judgements based on what we feel rather than what we know. If we'd had that piece of paper, we would've put that out there, too. :bolt:

Bill, why do we have to fit this in a strategic objective? We did not look at strategic objectives when we passed the change from L/M/S to the current system. It was put in as a means to foster competition. The results have shown that to that the clubs that have won most of the banners are the regional clubs. This has put the non-regional club at a disadvantage, as most single clubs do not have the number of members of a regional club, nor can they get the the class of swimmers to do well in the relays. As to why L2 failed at convention last year, take your choice - a switch of four votes and it would have passed. It could be that we did not lay enough of a foundation or to adequately explain the position of L2. It could be that there are those who truly believe that the best competion would be just going by the results whether it be a regional club or a single club. It could be that some thought that it should only be a Rules section not in the Legislation section. There were also those who did not like the definitions. I congratulate Leianne Crittenden on her ability to work with the Sean Fitzgerald and the Legislation Committee and the Rules Committee to get L2 as far as she did. I thought that the amended L2 was the best proposal out there. Leianne has been trying to promote a way to modify the current rule and wants to hear what changes should be made so that a rule is proposed best addresses the concerns of all groups. It has always been the position of Pacific, that we are here to support the clubs. I think that shows in that we have over 100 clubs, including eight of the ten largest non-regional clubs. I believe that by recognizing clubs that do well at nationals will help them establish their "brand" as one writer has said. I dont think the club development task force, has completed its work, the LMSC task force has not finished it work and the branding task force is just starting its work. I dont think we have to wait for them to do their work before we make a change. Even if we take club development out of the equation, I think there is a question of fundemental fairness when you have a regional club compete against a club that essentially draws from a local area. michael

I don't really agree on the point about Splashback, but nothing personal. Based on what I'm hearing, I'm still planning to either abstain or vote no if it comes up at the convention this year. The only way to change my vote will be to show more signs that this discussion is not driven by personal interests. That'll be hard to do, but I'm still listening. C'mon Bill - so what if it's "personal"? We all have personal interests along with common goals. Your "personal" might be more in the line with the success of the magazine, others have interests that are important to them as well, but possibly not in line with your own. So what? The success of the organization as a whole should be paramount for everyone for without it (the organization), there's absolutely nothing. No meets, no scoring, no magazine. There's only swimming on your own. Bummer if, to some, scoring is an issue? Personally, I think the organization is doing well. Sure it has some shortcomings. What doesn't? If I don't want the small club I workout with to have to compete with the state of Arizona, that happens to be what's important to "me" at the moment. At other moments however, I may feel that there are more pressing issues as well. This particular dialogue happens to be addressing scoring, of which there are many opinions. :soapbox: