How do you feel about copying the kid's swimming method of organizing Masters by time standards??
For example, there would be A, B and C times for all ages and both sexes. Local meets would be either A, A/B, B, B/C, C or OPEN.
There could be Championships for any of these categories at the LMSC level. To go to Regionals would require having made a new category, the Regional time. National entrantrants would come from the Regional pool or perhaps from the "A" pool.
I'm ambivalent on this as it seems too unwieldy at this early stage of our development but does answer the needs of folks who are looking for the mythical level playing field.
Emmett; we could still have the "Mediocre" Champs as an extra event (suggested in your earlier post). Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet, we could go an even larger number of categories with an ever declining number of swimmers. (Avoiding, of course, the politically incorrect "F" time standard.)
Heck, I can see a day when EVERYONE wins something !
True, an arbitrary limit would mean that the meet would not be a "National Championships." However, we don't have a true national championship meet now, and never have had one.
What we call National Championships are open to anyone and everyone, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are a number of swimmers in each "National Championship" meet who are competing in a Masters meet for the very first time. Should someone's very first Masters meet be Nationals? In my opinion, NO!
Another factor in keeping what we inappropriately call "National Championships" now from truly being championship meets instead of invitational meets, is that the fastest swimmers in each age group and each event do not all participate in the same "National Championship" meets. Those in attendance are those who a) can afford to go the meet in the locale selected, and/or b) simply want to visit that locale and use the meet as their excuse to be in that city. I have never seen a USMS National Championship meet where every person in the Top 10 for any one event and age group is at the meet.
Therefore, I submit that what we now have is two venues per year chosen by the Championship Committee, with an invitation then sent out to all members of USMS (and the world Masters communities) inviting them to come to the meet and participate. Just because a meet is run under championship-like rules and regulations does not make it a "Championship" meet.
True, an arbitrary limit would mean that the meet would not be a "National Championships." However, we don't have a true national championship meet now, and never have had one.
What we call National Championships are open to anyone and everyone, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are a number of swimmers in each "National Championship" meet who are competing in a Masters meet for the very first time. Should someone's very first Masters meet be Nationals? In my opinion, NO!
Another factor in keeping what we inappropriately call "National Championships" now from truly being championship meets instead of invitational meets, is that the fastest swimmers in each age group and each event do not all participate in the same "National Championship" meets. Those in attendance are those who a) can afford to go the meet in the locale selected, and/or b) simply want to visit that locale and use the meet as their excuse to be in that city. I have never seen a USMS National Championship meet where every person in the Top 10 for any one event and age group is at the meet.
Therefore, I submit that what we now have is two venues per year chosen by the Championship Committee, with an invitation then sent out to all members of USMS (and the world Masters communities) inviting them to come to the meet and participate. Just because a meet is run under championship-like rules and regulations does not make it a "Championship" meet.
