team scoring

As Michael indicated, Pacific's proposal last year missed by four votes. Me, I think it was because there were so many additions, changes and deletions (even though these all improved the proposal) that people were confused about what they were being asked to vote on. Leianne, You have put a lot of work into this and are to be commended for it. It is hard to say for sure, but I disagree on the reason the vote failed to pass (I seem to recall it needed more than a simple majority, right?). It is worth going back over the minutes which are quite detailed on this vote. My impression is that: -- Despite many assurances to the contrary, some still felt this was an attack on regional clubs. I'm bringing this up so that you are sensitive to the issue. Perhaps a suggestion to offer fewer banners to regional teams wouldn't be good strategy, for example. -- Many (myself included) were turned off by the attitude of some vocal Pacific delegates ("you wouldn't like it if WE formed a regional club"). The t-shirts, meant as a joke, didn't help. Sorry for being blunt, this is just my impression, and keep in mind that I still voted for the proposal. Again, as strategy, I would tone down such rhetoric. (Keep in mind that some LMSCs are sparsly populated, have few pools and coaches, and that the total number of swimmers in the entire LMSC is still fewer than that of many of the large teams in California.) Bill, I would disagree with your statement that this doesn't address any strategic objective. I think that motivation is not relevant; the consequences of passage are important. At the convention, I was impressed and convinced by the testimony of some who described how much a high finish helped their team with recruitment, retention and participation. Any workable proposal that does this has my support.

Chris, Thanks for your comments. I understand people's reactions, and have tried on this forum discussion to acknowledge that any proposed rule change needs broad support and also needs to address the already existing forms of club structures, as they are implemented all across the country, and in all the LMSCs. As I have previously stated on this forum, there are legitimate reasons for the ways that the club structures have developed in each of the LMSCs -- and none of them are wrong for those environments. Here is the excerpt from last year's Convention minutes of the Legislation Committee. (web post on USMS site is www.usms.org/.../leg-2007-9-28-4.pdf) The proposal submitted last year by Pacific was slightly different than what will be submitted this year (the 2007 proposal is pasted in below). The 2007 proposal was not favorably recommended by that Committee, and so required a 2/3 vote. It failed by 4 votes after several rounds of amendments form the floor of the HOD. This year is a "Rules" year, and I believe that a simple majority is required (but am not sure on this). I think the 2007 version is a little garbled (as a result of succeeding amendments from the floor it was probably hard to track) and the one posted earlier in this forum thread is a better proposal. Leianne ^^^^ Excerpt from 2007 Convention records: III. The following proposals were NOT reported out favorably by the Legislation Committee. They require a 2/3 majority of the HOD to pass. L02 Article 201.2. MEMBERSHIP OF CLUBS Approve Approve as Amended Fail Withdrawn Article 201.2. MEMBERSHIP OF CLUBS 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. For competition at National Championship Meets, a regional club shall consist of those meet entrants who are registered with a USMS club that includes separate entities that compete within its own LMSC. The Zone Championship Committee is responsible for publishing shall publish the list of regional clubs on the USMS National Championship Meet Information webpage no later than February 15 of each year. A USMS club choosing to challenge its designation must file an appeal with the Chair of the Championship Committee at least 60 days prior to the first day of competition at the National Championship Meet. Article 104: NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP MEETS Article 104.5.7—Awards C Team awards—The organization conducting the national championship meet shall provide awards. Based on meet entries, the Championship Committee may provide awards in up to five places in each of the following men’s, women’s and combined categories for both Regional Team and Club Team Divisions: Large, medium and small, with a team’s placement in one of these categories determined by the number of swimmers that are entered in the meet. The number of entrants for a large, medium and small team will be determined by the Championship Committee after the close of entries.

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.

Bill, why do we have to fit this in a strategic objective? :shakeshead: I want...you to review the extensive history of this bulletin. USMS objectives were raised in the first week of this thread, nearly a year ago. See post #23 by Rob Copeland on June 4th, 2007 and the discussion following. Thanks. Saw that. Those thoughts would've been a great way to guide this discussion!

Your "personal" might be more in the line with the success of the magazine... The magazine is definitely not about what I want personally. If it was, it would look quite different. Not voting on things I feel are personally driven is nothing new. I've been doing it that way ever since I walked on the job in 1999. I also abstain from voting on anything that relates to my job, and that includes the vote on SWIM vs. SWIMMER back in 2004. At first, Phil Whitten was very upset with me for abstaining, but fortunately, we preserved our friendship through a very difficult, awkward situation. Following that vote, I had to work for several months with both SWIM and SWIMMER. That was extremely difficult, but also enlightening. Now that we have done strategic planning, it's given me a lot more reason to comment when I feel items are personally driven. Doesn't always make me the most popular person, but I really don't care too much about that. I'm just doing what I feel I've been asked to do.

At the convention, I was impressed and convinced by the testimony of some who described how much a high finish helped their team with recruitment, retention and participation. Even though I'm not the least bit convinced that recruitment and retention was the true motivation behind the discussion, it's exactly the type of point I'd like to hear.

Two points: I am not sure one can draw a clear distinction between personal motivations and strategic goals when those goals involve motivating swimmers. If you want to test whether the definition is adequate why don't you classify the teams now, and see if any of the classifications are contentious. If not the rule is probably adequate, if so you know the attributes that are in contention and what changes are needed.

Hi, Michael, thanks for the vote of confidence. We really are trying to come up with something that many people can support. As Michael indicated, Pacific's proposal last year missed by four votes. Me, I think it was because there were so many additions, changes and deletions (even though these all improved the proposal) that people were confused about what they were being asked to vote on. That is why I have tried to lay out the proposal again on this forum, and think there has been a lot of constructive discussion. While there has also been criticism that this forum represents only a minority of swimmers, as previously noted on this thread, these participants are the ones who are speaking up to provide the thoughtful comments for change. With regard to the "Splashback" historical perspective, I think that it is helpful but not determinative -- yes I recognize that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", but I also think that we need to address the issues that are current. We need to see if we can come up with a solution that fits current club structures and encourages increased participation in the National Championships. Various participants have already indicated in this very long thread that Nationals are the showcase meet, and it is discouraging for the smaller teams to compete against regional teams with over a thousand registered swimmers (and not just from Pacific). They have commented on this and have also indicated earlier in the thread, that the chance of placing at Nationals allows them to get more people to come and participate to support their club's efforts. So, while this may not have the same kind of impact as other topics, I do think that this topic does affect club development (see the recent posts from the New York coach-- why they broke off from the Regional team Metro Club) and participation at Nationals (earlier posts about increased participation when there was a chance at placing at Nationals). Again, I am looking forward to more constructive comments and discussion. So far the possible changes that I am hearing to the Pacific Proposal would be: (1) to include Mens/Womens/Combined scoring (even though it means more awards), (2) to allow Championship Committee some type of discretion to detemrine who is a "regional Team" (need more info on this, as the proposal already has a requirement of a published list to be posted before Nationals, and a means of disputing a team's designation) and (3) only defining a "Regional Team" and all other teams would compete in the "Local Team" division. Leianne ^^^

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. I want...you to review the extensive history of this bulletin. USMS objectives were raised in the first week of this thread, nearly a year ago. See post #23 by Rob Copeland on June 4th, 2007 and the discussion following. Thanks. Patrick, thanks for the clarification on how NCMS is structured. I misunderstood initially. If it's possible to create a definition that encompasses all of the Regional teams, then that's great - let's do it. However, if there is no such definition available due to varying team structures, then we need to allow for discretion (for some Committee) to cover the exceptions. If the proposed definition captures 95% of Regional teams, then there is sufficient "notice" to all teams as to what constitutes a Regional team. This scenario, Chris, is far from "we know who they are" with no other guidelines. Brian

(I just realized how long this post is. Sorry! But it's very important!!! Please read.) Hi again everyone! I was just looking at the calendar and I realized that Convention had to be coming up SOON. I just looked and I guess it's next week! I just wanted to wish the best of luck to those presenting the proposal, and thank everyone who has played a role in helping get the proposal to where it is today. Hopefully we've managed to work out the kinks in the language and definitions, and put the required thought into accommodating as many teams as possible in terms of leveling the playing field to foster a more healthy, competitive environment. I'm not sure of the exact state of the proposal today, or if any changes have been made since the last post on this thread on May 8th, but any change along the lines of this discussion would be good for Masters Swimming (in my opinion). I do have one final plea, however, for those people going to the Convention. I know the last draft of the proposal did not include team scoring for Men and Women, but rather only one Combined Team score. Well, I was sitting next to Tom Reudy when he created this thread about a year and a half ago. In fact, I'm the one who questioned him on why the scoring system is what it is, and why they wouldn't just seperate the teams into Local and Regional teams. Of course, our terminology was different back then. I've been truly enlightened through this entire process, and I now completely understand the necessity of having, and promoting, Regional Teams. Sometimes it's difficult to relate to more rural areas when you live in such a populated place as Los Angeles. I've also been intrigued hearing from Committee members themselves and reading about how these different committees operate and what their respective responsibilities are, and what they are not. So I thank you for that. As I make this plea, you deserve to know a little bit of my history (if you care) since I've been along this entire ride of a discussion forum. I think it will tell you where I'm coming from with regard to this topic, and I apologize for not sharing it sooner (for those of you who have been following this thread). When I started swimming for West Hollywood (WH2O) after 8 years out of the water, we didn't even take a team to Nationals. Gay Games 2006 was my first meet, and my entire team was content on having IGLA (or Gay Games every 4 years) as our only real team meet all year. I quickly became more involved with the team, and shortly thereafter became a coach and board member. In 2007, I wanted more competition, and IGLA was being held in Paris, which was a little to rich for me, so I started rallying people to go to Nationals in Federal Way with me. By the time it was all said and done we had 20 people (16 men, 4 women) go to Nationals where our men's team finished 7th. We were THRILLED. It steamrolled from there and we took 25 people (23 men, 2 women) to Austin, where our Men's team finished 9th (behind some very strong Local Team from Texas, as well as some Regionals Teams of course). Older swimmers who have been on WH2O for 10 or 20 years have told me that our team has experienced an awakening in the last 2 years as a result of this new breath of life that competing at Nationals has given us. That makes me feel soooooo good to hear, and know that I'm making a difference. My point is, and this clearly IS personal for me, as a predominantly gay team, our men outnumber our women 10 to 1 (at best). I would feel almost slighted if this discussion, which I in part started, resulted in a scoring system in which WH2O would not be recognized AT ALL because there is no scoring for Men and Women. Even if there are only awards given to the Combined Team, please just allow us to be recognized for our accomplishments. This is what has given us a new breath of life! Please do not take it away. Yours truly, Brian Olver