team scoring

My biggest question is why do we continue to score and present awards for three categories: Men's, Women's, and Combined. Why not eliminate gender-based scoring and only keep track of combined?

And mine either. However, since everyone ignored it, I will restate- why keep track at all. Before you recoil in automatic horror, consider that there are evident large flaws in the system and no one (to this point) has come up with a seamless solution that satisfies everyone- so why do it? In Canada (I know, some of you automatically discount this statement) we have not, in my experience, kept track of team standings at nationals. There has been no observable suffering on the deck because of this- so why do it? I wouldn't be bothered by this at all. I guess in an ideal world if you could keep things somewhat "fair," it would be fun for club teams to go head to head or do battle in long standing rivalries, and my team does that sometimes. This year (like last) we finished second at zones in the medium sized team category. Gave it the old college try, everyone cheered like crazy and no one worried more than a nanosecond about coming in second. (The cheering would no doubt have occurred without scoring as well.) I think the team competition may bring out more swimmers, so that is a benefit. But generally, I'm happy to swim my events, do a relay or two with my team and call it a day. I'm not sweating standings and that's not why I show up at meets. I also don't want to be forced to swim 8 events a day just to garner points if I find it to be physically detrimental. Personally, I dislike the concept of superteams. I guess if if we're going to keep score, they should be separated from the true club teams. Although when they win, everyone knows why. I can't get too worked up about team scoring. And if someone wants to join a superteam to swim relays because their club team doesn't have enough swimmers, I don't care, fine. However, I wouldn't join a superteam team to swim with strangers. Now, if we had a forum posters relay for Team Hottub, I would consider that. Otherwise, nah. I'll do relays with my team if and when enough people show up and are sufficiently inspired to do it. I did enjoy my first mixed 200+ year relay at a local meet last December. No thanks to Team Mid-Atlantic or Team Virginia.

Michael, I meant using number of splashes to separate teams into Large, Medium, and Small. I don't know the solution to the team scoring problem. I just know that the top 10 teams doesn't seem to be working, and I like discussing other concepts. Betsy

And mine either. However, since everyone ignored it, I will restate- why keep track at all. Before you recoil in automatic horror, consider that there are evident large flaws in the system and no one (to this point) has come up with a seamless solution that satisfies everyone- so why do it? In Canada (I know, some of you automatically discount this statement) we have not, in my experience, kept track of team standings at nationals. There has been no observable suffering on the deck because of this- so why do it? I dunno. At nationals I don't pay much attention, but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time. Maybe with the right mix, nationals could be like that too.

I just know that the top 10 teams doesn't seem to be working,It is working, the team with the most points is getting first place, the team with the second most points is getting second place, etc to the team with the tenth most points is getting tenth place. And I’m sure that in the event of a tie two teams would receive the same place, although there may be a scramble to get a duplicate banner created. There are obviously many potential solutions to this; leave it alone, Small/Medium/Large, club-team/super-team, splashes/bodies, no team scoring. All solutions have their pros and cons and no solution is fair to all.

It is working, the team with the most points is getting first place, the team with the second most points is getting second place, etc to the team with the tenth most points is getting tenth place. Yes, that is correct the HyTek program totals up the team scores. And if you are part of an LMSC team it works wonderfully well. If you are a club that has a single management, practice at one or two pools, where most people know each other - you have a great chance to get 21st. The rules currently favor those clubs that combine in a given area whether it be New England, Colorado, Virginia or Georgia. It puts those teams that have a single management and pool at a distinct disadvantage. There is no way that a Rolling Hills Mudshark team or Mountain View Masters can bring same number of people who swim for an LMSC team. I would much rather score teams into a SML or LMSC/club teams than the current system. michael

Thanks for confirming my suspicions that Meet Manager can in fact tally points. However the current rule favors the team that can bring the most swimmers who can score points over the club that covers the most geographic area. In Michael’s example, the Georgia “super-club” was 45th at Federal Way; far behind the not so super Walnut Creek and TOC “real clubs”. Georgia however trounced the Mud Sharks! Not that either GAJA or the Mud Sharks paid much attention the team scores. For me the fundamental question is not how we tally scores at nationals, but it is what do we need to do to best align with the USMS mission and objectives? Does scoring the top 10 promote fitness and health in adults better than S/M/L? Does scoring a true club team enhance fellowship and camaraderie among Masters swimmers?

I dunno. At nationals I don't pay much attention, but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time. Maybe with the right mix, nationals could be like that too. You're still competing with your team even if there is no scoring. But I agree that club competition can theoretically build comraderie, encourage more people to swim at meets, and possibly create ongoing fun rivalries. Since this would seem to be a goal for masters swimming, it would be preferable to separate the clubs from the superteams (assuming scoring). But this seems to happen more on a local or zone level than a national level.

State wide teams practice in a million different locations and have no real affinity other than the name. I'd rather swim relays with people I consider my teammates or friends. but at New Englands (where scoring is divided between the NEM superteam and other clubs), competing as a team is half the fun. It encourages some folks to swim 16 events and be silly; it encourages everyone because scoring goes 16 deep, so you can contribute without being "fast." We all cheer like crazy and have a wonderful time. Oregon competed as a state team at Nationals. At our Association champs in April, we competed as local teams. I had a great time slugging it out against the other medium sized teams at Associations with my teammates. But I also really enjoyed the chance to meet to meet and swim relays at Nationals with some of the folks I have been swimming against at local meets but had not had the opportunity to meet. The team scores mattered to me at Associations, but not at all at Nationals. I'm with Peter on this -- why keep team scoring at Nationals at all? And Rob's point is a good one -- what end is served? There appears to be no way to ensure a level playing field without limiting the number of swims and defining team status and eligibility. Although I agree that the true clubs which consistently compete and score at a high level deserve recognition.

Now, this is a good topic of discussion! I concur with a little bit of everyone’s point of view, though Rob expressed it best by saying “…the fundamental question…is what do we need to do to best align with the USMS mission and objectives?” What are these objectives and are these objectives different depending on the location and scope of the event? The good folks in the Pacific Northwest certainly know that they have a LMSC championship with a points competition scored for workout groups (with S/M/L divisions, not divided by sex), a zone championship with no team scoring at all, and a national championship scored for USMS-registered clubs (divided by sex & combined). (Like Peter, I have seen no observable suffering with this arrangement.) I humbly suggest that one of the biggest objectives of having team scoring is to encourage more swimmers to participate in the event. Certainly, team scoring fosters other positive things (e.g. competitive spirit and group pride), but an objective long sought after by many who write here is to provide an incentive to workout swimmers to enter the meet environment. It’s clear from the posts here that there are some swimmers for whom team scoring is the one thing that gets them to swim in a meet (specifically the LMSC championships meets at New England, Pacific, SPMA and PNA…the largest meets in the country outside of nationals/worlds), and perhaps it’s the only meet of they entire year that they do swim. I don’t believe that the having a scoring system encourages large numbers of non-regular meet swimmers to participate, but it does bring in some. At nationals, I think having a team competition has less of an effect, if not a negligible one, in bringing in the infrequent competitor to the meet compared to LMSC & zone championships. The time standards have an impact in this, though I suspect the large PNA contingent at SCY nationals this year was more encouraged to enter the meet because it was close to home, and less because of the high potential to be associated with the likely national championship club. Similarly, I suspect a large majority of swimmers from outside of Washington state who went to nationals would still have gone to Federal Way if there was no team scoring. I do not suggest that competitive spirit and pride in your team/club are not important or valued (clearly many of you value it!), but that it is less important than other factors that bring swimmers to nationals (pool?, location?, time of year?, quality of swimming?, etc?) So then if a team competition at nationals isn’t going to bring in the casual competitor, the only reasons to have one are for club pride and competitive spirit. If that is true, then the discussions about how to foster or concentrate that spirit are going to go on forever. There will be arguments for ages about whether it is more important to, say, recognize Walnut Creek Masters as the #1 medium-sized team rather than the #4 overall team…or why the 11th-place medium-sized team gets less (or no) recognition than the 1st-place small team because the medium team had one more swimmer. In this respect, I lean a little towards the viewpoint of my Canadian friend. Canadian nationals and the NW zone meet have not, and will not, become second-class events because of a lack of team scoring. Is team scoring an essential element of nationals? In the end, this subject does go back to Rob’s fundamental question…as does the issue of defining “clubs” and “teams”. Does team scoring at (particular?) swim meets meet USMS objectives? Do our current definitions or policies regarding clubs meet USMS objectives? (Sounds like the beginning of another thread…)