team scoring

Rob, Frosty, Paul (& Hugh, at the end) - Rob, thanks for bringing the USMS objectices into this discussion. Sometimes it's easy to get carried away in debate and lose sight of the bigger picture. To recap for everyone (sorry, I haven't learned the quoting function on this yet), a couple objectives are to "promote fitness and health" and "enhance fellowship and camraderie among masters swimmers." Following Frosty's train of thought, I agree that these ends are best served through increased participation. While the fitness and health aspect is covered merely by working out throughout the year, the fellowship and camraderie aspect is achieved, in large part, through competing in meets, as they provide a much different environment that allows bonding on another level (more than the 2 minutes rest between sets). Paul's point demonstrates the importance to him, and hundreds of others, of being able to compete with a group. This post made me realize the benefit of allowing mega teams to compete, especially in more rural areas. (Thanks Paul.) I'm now all for allowing mega teams to continue, but I stand by my initial assertion that by choosing to compete as a mega team, that team opts into a different scoring division (Mega Team/Club Team). As Paul said, this way "at least there is some separation" among these different breeds of teams. Even if it is not perfect, as the Indy example demonstrates, it's still heads above the current system, and heads above the SML team system. Frosty, your example of being the #11 medium team or the #1 small team because of one more person, is the exact reason why SML team scoring is detrimental to masters swimming and the objectives we try to promote through increased participation (not to mention its arbitrary nature). This is why mega team/club team seems the perfect alternative. However, I have a much different take on the effect of team scoring on participation at Nationals. My team had 12 people at our regional meet, but because we emphasized our team - and our goal of breaking into the top 10 - we were able to get 20 people to make the trip to Federal Way. (Crazy, huh!) So, I strongly believe that team scoring goes a long way in encouraging participation, and therefore fostering fellowship and camraderie. ...especially at Nationals, since travel meets are truly (I think) when a team bonds the most and new friendships are formed. Furthermore, Frosty also acknowledges that team scoring fosters "competitive spirit and team pride." I agree. This alone makes me wonder why you would advocate doing away with team scoring. This is a HUGE part of all sports. It would be like playing a football game and not keeping score. It's what rivalries are based on. It's why hundreds of Notre Dame students and alumni travel to USC for their annual game - it's FUN!! Last but not least, Hugh, part of reason scoring is dividng as Men's, Women's, and Combined, is because it's tradition. High schools and colleges have always had separate meets for men and women. I recognize that masters clubs group everyone together, but it also carries an additional benefit in encouraging participation and rewarding teams for their hard work. Suppose a team consists mostly of men (or at least the "competitive" team, that goes to meets), someone on the fence about Nationals would have less of a reason to go knowing that their team wouldn't challenge in the combined team score. At least this way, more teams and people are recognized for their achievements, and that simply makes people feel good - and that's enough reason for me to keep the gender based scoring as well as the combined.

Here's a semi-alternate point of view. As an unattached swimmer, I wasn't listed in my LMSC's results from short course nationals. My LMSC competed as a "super team." Not being listed with the swimmers that I regularly compete against stung a little. It made me wonder: if I had set an LMSC record at Nationals, would it even have counted? If a tree falls in the forest, yada yada yada... :violin: That guy. You should send an email to your LMSC registrar. Seems odd. I swam unattached for a year before I joined my "real club team" last year. My times always showed up in our LMSC listings. Good post Frosty. I think you summed it up. Forget team scoring at nationals and keep scoring at association or zones meets to encourage more people to compete. At our local meets, usually only 5-7 people from my team attend. But at zones, which has been at my home pool the last few years, a LOT more people attend and we have tons of relays. It's much more fun.

The current scoring system is unfair and it needs to be updated. My own humble opinion is you have 2 Divisions; Club & Mega. This in itself we not making everyone happy because you have teams competing as "club" such as Indy & Dam who actually control most of the pools in their city....which I have no problem with in any way and think it supports the mission statement.....but at least their would be some separation. As for breaking up the mega/state teams I think its a mistake. In my own situation I'm a team of 2 (we have no team in Evergreen). Prior to that we had a good group (about 20) in Vail.....but only 2 of us competed.....and we we're passed the 100 mile radius Jeff supports. The simple solution and one that led to my staying involved with this sport was swimming for the combined team for Colorado. We've made hundreds of new friends and being a part of this has led to people such as John Smith and myself going out and harassing old teammates from college/club to get back in the water.....something that is going on in a major way right now behind the scene as we are relentlessly hounding dozens of old farts to step up for Austin next year. I'd really hate to see an regressive or petty actions taken that may serve a few by changing a scoring system used in two meets a year when instead we can make a change that promotes participation and growth.

Here's a semi-alternate point of view. As an unattached swimmer, I wasn't listed in my LMSC's results from short course nationals. My LMSC competed as a "super team." Not being listed with the swimmers that I regularly compete against stung a little. It made me wonder: if I had set an LMSC record at Nationals, would it even have counted? If a tree falls in the forest, yada yada yada... :violin:

One of the barriers to communication in discussing this is mixing two issues: super-teams for relays and definition of team sizes and membership criteria for purposes of team scoring. I put forward the concept of no team scoring as a talking point, one which would not preclude various relay forms winning relay events and garnering records. It is a related topic, but muddies the team scoring issue to assume that no team scoring equals no relays. BTW, my mind was musing on this issue (I fear, perhaps a symptom of encroaching senility) when I fell upon a vision of pure black humour: At Nats all swimmers must declare political affiliation and swim under them- talk about blood in the water. No I am not serious, just extrapolating from the occasional 'spirited' discussion that flares on the forums when partisanship flares.

wow. i really didn't think i would get such a response to my initial post, but honestly it doesn't surprise me. when we had the large medium small team scoring, i had never heard any complaints, and since the scoring system was changed, i've heard lots of grumblings (to put it mildly). after reading all the responses, it's very clear to me that this new scoring version is, by far, the most unbalanced. of course what to change it to is the million dollar question. there have been many suggestions, but the consensus seems to be that we somehow have to separate the super teams from the real clubs, and that's not a bad thing. you really don't have to look much further than your own back yard to figure out why. the reason all high schools and colleges are split into divisions in all sports is because the size of the school definitely has its obvious advantages. and those schools don't change their affiliation when they get to the bigger competitions. ucla and usc don't combine their squads when they go to the ncaas just to have a super team (and nor would they want to). similarly, a real masters club trains together, pays dues to one club, socializes together, etc. therefore i do not think it would be hard to define or recognize a super team. we all know who they are. it is okay to be part of a super team if you wish to. we are only talking in regards to the scoring disadvantage at nationals. so ok. i think i've talked enough. we now have to put the ball in the championship committee's court (or the swim suit in the championship committee's pool) or something like that. thanks again for the replies. it's been interesting and fun. let's keep it that way.

I propose 2 divisions,LMSC and club. If a team is more than 50% of a LMSC it would be an LSMC team. Also I propose a small team relay system where in,if your team does not have enough swimmers to form a relay you could pool with other swimmers in the same situation. Those relays couldn't set records or score points,but would be eligible for medals.

That guy. You should send an email to your LMSC registrar. Seems odd. I swam unattached for a year before I joined my "real club team" last year. My times always showed up in our LMSC listings. Thanks for the suggestion, Fortress. Remember that the LMSC results were published right here on usms.org, not by individual LMSC's. But thinking about it some more, I remembered my LMSC has all time top ten lists. I checked 'em and I appear to have gotten on a couple of those with my times at Federal Way. If my times don't show up when the lists are updated (and if my times weren't superceded by enough Other Guys that I'd not be on the lists anymore) then I'll put on my pestering hat. Edit: Fortress is right, thanks to matysekj for pointing it out in a private message. Unattached swimmers are listed at the bottom of each LMSC's results. It didn't occur to me to look there; I looked in my age group. However my LMSC's web site posted a version of the results that do not include the unattached swimmers so that's where I'll direct the pestering.

Very interesting results indeed. What makes it more interesting is that the calculations are incorrect for teams of more than 1. Your calculation for M&F Points seems to be adding points per swimmer instead of points.:shakeshead:

Plus it doesn't allow for people who scratched the whole meet. But that would be a giant pain, I am sure.