team scoring

As for the 2009 nationals bids....as is being discussed on a couple of other threads we need to find a way to make those meets more fun, in great locations and most importantly a profit maker for the hosts... Paul, you travel more than most in USMS and have GREAT contacts at many of the really wonderful facilities along the way. Why don't you be one of the USMS ambassadors who seeks out these really neat venues and persuade the locals where you are swimming to put in a nationals bid? This is one grass-roots effort where you may really be able to make a difference and get some instant gratification rather than trying to fight through organizational red tape to get changes in rules which, we all appreciate, can raise the blood pressure. I'll lean on you about this at the ASU meet....

so can you give us the "Readers digest" version as to why this failed?Paul, in my opinion this failed for 3 fundamental reasons: 1) currently there are 30 team awards for national, the proposal would bump that to 90 2) The issue being addressed was scoring at nationals, however the proposed solution could have had wide reaching implications into membership and registration for all members, not just those competing at nationals 3) While many stated the current scoring system was broken, few believed that this was the ultimate fix and that that it could make things more broken And as a matter of disclosure, I spoke out in opposition to the proposal, not because our current system isn’t broken, but because: 1) The proposed language in Part 2 is vague and awkward from a USMS code perspective “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.” If I don’t swim at nationals I am not part of the regional club, what does this do to my status in my club? What is a separate entity? A workout group, an individual? From the USMS perspective everyone competing at a sanctioned event represents their USMS registered club or they are unattached (201.3). Meet hosts can implement other creative scoring (workout group, gender, age, etc.) So without changes elsewhere in the rule book the USMS view of separate entities is at the club level. 2) The proposed change only defines 1 category under “Membership of Clubs” which was “regional club” it was mute on what you are if you are not a regional club. The intention was obviously not to only allow regional clubs at nationals but the proposal as written did not define an un-regional club. 3) The proposed change to scoring addressed “Regional Team” and “Club Team”. Neither of these terms were defined in Part 2 or elsewhere. Again the intent was obvious, but the necessary precision of language in code was lacking. I did argue for changing the scoring, but I argued to change it in national scoring, not in how clubs are chartered. And Paul makes an excellent that these is a lack of a clear mission within our House of Delegates, for which I am greatly responsible. To this point, the HOD spend an hour in passionate debate about who takes home a banner from national, yet we blew right by what I feel is a bigger issue, that there was only one bidder for each of our 2009 nationals. God bless Indi and Clovis, but if USMS nationals isn’t viewed as an attractive property (positive cash flow to host, community impact, increased local membership, etc) then, in my opinion, we have bigger problems than who gets a banner. So much for the “Readers Digest” version.

Rob, I have to admit I never knew the details of the proposed rule change and I should have read into it more....based on what you just said I'm glad it was defeated! What annoys me is how complicated this has become....it seems there could/should be a very simple solution that is for the "greater good"....I mean really is it to much to have 2 Divisions; Open & Club? "Club" would apply to any team that swims out of one single location no matter how many members it has. "Open" would apply to any team that is based out of more than one pool location, any state teams, etc. Does it satisfy everyone's personal issues...no. But it is simple, as fair as your going to get and a better system than we have now. As for the 2009 nationals bids....as is being discussed on a couple of other threads we need to find a way to make those meets more fun, in great locations and most importantly a profit maker for the hosts...

My concern with the scoring proposals is the worry about what comes next. Will it be relays? Will the same people think it is unfair to have relay teams from a regional team compete against a club team for a national championship? Think about it. I don't like this approach. I agree with Rob that the scoring system does not work as is. But defining the teams is not the answer. The good think about the proposal and the discussion is that at least we are talking about it an looking for a reasonable solution.

I again ask why is this so difficult for Masters? How does USS score? They have a very situation in may respects. How about High Schools? They seem to make things work with 3A, 4Am etc. Its not that hard folks....yes a few people are going to get upset because it may not suit their needs but this has dragged out for years and we should be able to move on for the greater good! And Betsy...what is the problem with what I proposed have an open vs. a club division...simple, clean...of course there will be a few people who will challenge whether someone like Indy SwimFit should be a club or team because of their multiple locations but that can be dialed in as well.

Bill....if there is a requirement to register in their LSC I was not aware of it...so how does The Race Club operate with swimmers from all over the country? This is part of the reason I suggested a two division system which would allow people who swim alone, or want to swim with friends in other clubs/states a chance to still be part of a team.

From 2007 USA Swimming Rules: 203.2 A swimmer need not reside within the geographical boundaries of the LSC in which the USA Swimming club he/she represents is located, but he/she must be registered in that LSC...

I think defining the two divisions is the sticking point. It would be interesting to hear reaction to the concept of a club defined as swimming out of one pool. I still think the fairest way is dividing teams by how many swimmers show up at the meet. This would be similar to the way we used to do it, but I'd like to see modifications for how many events team members entered. I wouldn't want teams to discourage participation of members who don't make qualifying times and can't swim more than 3 events. Actually, the bottom line for me is that I don't get real worked up about team scores. I like it when my team places, but that isn't the reason I participate. My opposition to the proposal at convention was the way it was presented and defended by the supporters. The mention of high school divisions with A, AA, and AAA isn't a good analogy. High schools and colleges hold championships separately for the divisions. They never compete against the other divisions. Again, I worry that if we divide scoring by divisions, will the club division eventually want to score relays separately??? I don't have a solution, but I love this discussion.

“why is this so difficult for Masters?” It isn’t difficult; we currently score the top 10 in men’s women’s and combines without any problems. Meet Manager does this automatically. “How does USS score?” USA Swimming scores very much like we do. No differentiation between super-teams and one-pool-teams. “How about High Schools?” It depends on the state, since there are no HS nationals. But many that use divisions A, AA, AAA, AAAA run separate meets for each division. NCAA does the same thing. I would be strongly opposed to running separate meets for different divisions or different genders.

I stand corrected, but recall trying to register for a NJ club after I moved to Oregon, and they wouldn't let me. Things must've changed since then. So then there's the qualifying time thing...