team scoring

But 18.056 to 9.544 sounded pretty "handily" to me, Kirk, even if the numbers are totally meaningless. :thhbbb: I do agree the numbers are meaningless :) The hosting team would always be at a disadvantage in points per swimmer. Since the meet is local there will be a lot more swimmers who haven't met the NQTs and probably wouldn't have swum if the meet were held elsewhere. Also there are probably a lot more people from the hosting team who only show up for a day or two rather than the whole meet. As you mentioned, about the only way to avoid this would be to discourage swimmers who don't have a chance of placing from entering the meet. Despite all that, I will concede that Oregon had a fantastic showing! I think it's pretty impressive you guys were anywhere close to PNA in the final points total.

I think some valid points are being made here about scoring teams at USMS nationals, including: Does have team scoring at nationals benefit USMS & its mission ? I think the concensus is YES; it does benefit and promote fitness & friendly competition. What system provide some fair and equitable team scoring system ? These discussions are helpful. I think the recent changes to the system provided by the Championship committee need to continue to be evaluated and discussed. At least one person has pointed toward the questions, is swimming an individual or team sport which focus on the question surround relay teams. Since USMS is part of the USAS governing national body, which is in turn the member of FINA, I think we need to first look at what FINA does. Does FINA formally score team at Olympic or World Championships ? I'll have to consult my FINA Rule book. Should we parellal USA Swimming scoring system (or NCAA, high school, YMCA, etc) at nationals for continuity within the sport ? Should we look at other masters sport to see how they handle scoring at national events ? FINA does require individuals be representing a "club" at FINA event, so no unattached swimmers or relays. FINA leave it to the governing bodies to determine how to define "club". USMS has not had a geographic restriction on registering with a club. The fixability built into the USMS system allows for difference within the population distribution with USA. In large metropolitain areas, "club" are sometimes individual workout groups or "teams". In less populated area or regions, multiple workout groups or perhaps entire LMSC are registered with USMS as a single "club". USMS could create one "National Club" called "USMS" and anyone from across USA, which was discussed with the FINA World Masters in 2006. Question: Should USMS have a geographic restriction for "clubs" ? The proposal of within 100miles - is that sufficient or fair for large geographic areas with low population density ? Should "workout" groups be built into "club" defitions like many LMSC use at local or regional or zone meets ? Also, each solution has advantages and disadvantage. Large, Medium, and Small teams has the disadvantage for "arbitary" dividing teams into these 3 subcatagories. Another proposal is "LMSC Club" (with 50% or more registered swimming within LMSC in a single club) and "Club", which again will have a disadvantage to LMSC with small popluation to draw upon and a club from a rural vs metropolitain area. Yet another would be a high bread of catagories based on numbers of registered swimmers in an LMSC, instead of number who actually come to USMS nationals to determine for a season/year which catagory a "club" would represent (large, medium, small - LMSC vs workout/club) ! An interesting solution is number of swims/splashes divided by number of swimmers, which would "normalize" the difference between larger and smaller clubs. Alternatively, at a recent event in Paris France, I learned they use a scoring system that awards points based on swim relative to national/region records. I don't completely understand it, but a swimmer gets about 1000 points for matching the national/champoinship record - and performance relative scaled to the record performances. I think a bigger question comes back to LMSC and registration. Should swimmers be required to register in the LMSC they live ? Should we re-evaluate the LMSC structure so the population distribution is reflective in the size of the LMSC ? We have a LMSC structure that is historically based on AAU, and may not serve masters swimming anymore. USA Swimming has continue to modify and update from the historical AAU, like they only have 4 Zone and USMS continues to have 8. Does this serve the mission and goes of USMS ? Lots of good discussion... and hopefully, some of these may make it to the Championship Committe, Rules Committee, & HOD at 2007 USAS/USMS Convention, as we evaluate the mission, goals, administration, and rules/policies/legislation for our organization. 2007 is a legislation year, so this many not qualify as "emergence" rules need at convention ? Anthony Thompson USMS Breadbasket Zone Rep & Missouri Valley LMSC Chair

I propose a formula by which we can even out the large teams and the small teams, the near teams and the distant teams, in the scoring at nationals. The formula would reward teams for bringing a larger PERCENTAGE of their team to the meet and it would also reward teams coming from a greater DISTANCE. Here is the formula: Total points scored x x = Adjusted points. The distance component of the formula is 1 for the host team and any team less than 100 miles from the meet. Looking at the meet in Federal Way, PNA would have 3440 x x = 917. NCMS would have 538 x x = 359. Walnut Creek would have 907 x x = 614. Very Small Team X from 1000 miles away with only 2 swimmers registered with USMS and both coming to the meet with a combined score of 40 points would have 40 x x = 400. Using this system we get rid of useless terms like super or mega teams and simply acknowledge that folks swim on different teams based on local availability along with a whole host of other factors. We also acknowledge the efforts of teams to a) encourage a large number of members to go to nationals, b) get a large PERCENTAGE of members to go to nationals, and c) travel distances to come to nationals.

USMS could create one "National Club" called "USMS" and anyone from across USA, which was discussed with the FINA World Masters in 2006. Interesting proposal, do you really think the FINA Masters Committee would allow the swimmers to swim as a nation? I had a modest proposal on 1 April and there was one letter to the EC that practically called for the break up of Pacific LMSC, what do you think would happen if USMS went to worlds as one team. It is one thing if Costa Rica comes as one team, it would be entirely another if US came as one team. Should swimmers be required to register in the LMSC they live ? Why should we? In Pacific, the last time I looked 1.3% of its membership lived outside the LMSC bounderies. There has been no arguement made to advocate that this would even the competition, Many times the people who live outside the zone have historic reasons for staying with the LMSC that is not where they currently reside. Should we re-evaluate the LMSC structure so the population distribution is reflective in the size of the LMSC ? While one could look at this question to see that it may be advocating breaking up Pacific, one should look at South Dakota, and North Dakota. We should do something to help those LMSCs become more successful. michael

Jon: You have an interesting forumla. The problem with your forumla is that it gives too much weight to the number of swimmers participating over the number in a team. I would like to see more top ten swimmers participating at the national championships. To get more average swimmers, while it is great for a meet host (and does pay for the meet) is not what I think you want to see. In 1987, there were over 2300 swimmers at the short course yards championships, after that meet, time standards were instituted. Lets just look what I could do if I wanted to game the system. If I were Kerry, I might form the Walnut Creek National Team. Now lets say that only 45 swimmers are part of the National Team. Now Walnut Creek has 907 x x = or 4236. If North Carolina were to game the system and only have 42 members of the national team then NCMS would have 538 x = 6321. Congratulations on the NCMS great win!! Now, of course, we are only talking theoretically, we know that no one would game the system. :-) michael

Michael, Top 10 swimmers score more points than average swimmers. If the meet were to grow due to teams wanting to have more swimmers collecting relay points and a greater percentage of their registered swimmers at the meet, USMS would then respond by lowering NQTs thereby making the meet faster and keeping it manageable. It is very unlikely that teams will divide and have a portion of the team register as a new team with USMS for the sole purpose of placing higher at the national meets. My opinion of USMS nationals is that the meets are generally very fast (many records are set), they offer the top swimmers excellent competition, and they allow all masters swimmers the chance to participate and enjoy the excitement of the big meet. So I don't think USMS nationals are broken. My proposal would just level the scoring playing field a bit while understanding that those teams with more fast swimmers will always win the meet. That seems fair to me. Jon

The formula would reward teams for bringing a larger PERCENTAGE of their team to the meet and it would also reward teams coming from a greater DISTANCE. Not that any of us would “game the system”, but… “Team Rob” registered in Key West with 100% attendance at Federal Way (1 of 1) would have scored 980 points to crush PNA. I like it!:banana:

Blackbeard's Peg: I looked at your attachment and found it very interesting. I have thought about something like that for years for all levels of swimming. I hace coached numerous teams over the years, and the vast majority of the time, those teams have been small teams will local swimmers who love both the sport and the "team aspect" of our programs. Yesterday, we finished up at the 2007 LC Masters nationals at The Woodlands. We had 10 swimmers competing, 2 of who had no chance of scoring. All eight other swimmers scores and we finished up in 23rd place out of 132 teams. This was beofre the 1500 and 800 contested today. There was no way we could compete with the "state teams" or those teams who recruit every swimmer who is unattached or is a member of small teams. My swimmers were very excited about the finish, as we were a "true" masters team, and not some mega team that recruits their way to a trophy. I see nothing wrong with eliminating the team scoring. However, teams would continue to score it themselves and proclaim their "success" on the team level. The sport of swimming is competitive in nature and as a result, people want to win. If they went to the "small, medium, and large" team concept, perhaps USMS could develop a system that uses their membership numbers as a guide and divide each team into a certain division, dividing all the teams into three groups by their registration numbers. USMS could make the decision from the previous year's registration. Anyone who registers or transfers after that COULD swim as a part of the team except at Nationals. Each team’s membership numbers would be locked at that time and those swimmers that were not a member of the team 90 days before Nationals and must compete at Nationals as unattached. Another way would be to determine how many swimmers the team had at the previous nationals and divide the teams using thsoe numbers. First year teams would be required to swim in the large team division until their second year of national competition. Yes, there are flaws in both my proposals, but they could be worked out with more time than I have to post to this forum. With the same 10-15 teams continuing to dominate the team standings, something has to be done. Another idea is to do away with top ten awards for each division (male, female, and combined). The combined scoring would be the only one uised and awards could be awards to the top 30 teams with no increase in money. A team that wins a team award in one division is probably going to get one in the other two divisions. In any case, this is something that they need to fix quickly.

What is unfair about dividing the total number of points scored by a team by the number of swimmers that actually attended the meet on that team? It could discourage swimmers from competing who won't score points. After all they will be "bringing down the team" in this scenario. With the current total points system they aren't helping their team's score, but they aren't hurting it either.

Karen, If a team wanted to win, what would keep them from asking their slow swimmers to declare themselves as unattached? The system you propose, provides an incentive for a coach or swimmer to do this. As a swimmer who doesn't score points at SC Nationals, it would be better for my team if I didn't swim with them. If we are going to have team scoring, I think it needs to be a system that encourages participation of team all members. Personally, I am a fan of having two divisions, one for super teams (defined as clubs that register as a club and then have to declare a sub group you train with) and regular clubs (you register just with that club and swim as that club at all meets). Get rid of women and men awards and just present awards in those two divisions.