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 !
Ken, my concern is that in trying a meet like this once and making a decision wouldn't really give it a fair shot. USMS needs to make commitment for several years to see how successful it would work.
Masters is growing, people have expressed concern over championship meets getting to big, seems fairly logical to add a 3rd meet to the calender for a few years and see how it develops. If we tie in regional meets leading up to our three national meets it would give everyone quite a few chances to compete at a pretty high level.
SCM format provides a lot more options for places to hold such a meet (vs. LCM). Stanford is hosting its first major meet this August (IGLA) in SCM format in its new facitlity.
Still waiting to hear from someone at USMS?!
Paul,
Still waiting to hear from someone at USMS?!
I’m from USMS and I have a membership card to prove it,:D and I think running a SCM Nationals is an excellent idea!
I would suggest that you email or otherwise contact the USMS Rules Committee and Championship Committee chairs and ask them to address this topic at the annual USMS convention in September. You may also want to set up one of those surveys on the forum to find out who is in favor of USMS running a SCM nationals. And, I will personally address the topic with Barry and Leo at convention.
The prospects for getting anything finalized this year are slim. Proposed amendments to the rules (and this required a few rules changes) need to be submitted from the LMSC’s to the Rules Chair by July 10, for consideration this year. In addition, only emergency amendments to Part 1 of the rule book (the part where National Championship events are defined) will be considered this year. Next year, 2004, is a Rules year and any proposals to establish SCM nationals would have a greater opportunity for passage at that time.
OK Paul, I am a member of the championship committee and will try to address a few of your questions. These are my opinions and not an official position of the committee.
First, I like the idea of a SCM Nationals. Ken is correct on point number 3 that we currently have the option of hosting our Short Course meet as a meters meet. In fact, 2 years ago at convention, I started to present the bid from Arizona as a SCM meet, but got beat up so badly by USMS members at the meeting that we were forced to switch to SCY or be eliminated.
Ken is also correct that there is a potential problem with getting enough facilities capable of bidding. I suspect if we offered a SCM National championship meet, it would be popular. Given that we currently have several SCM LMSC and Zone meets that are very large, a national championship would require two 25-meter pools plus warm-up space. There is a small list of facilities in the US that could host a meet in 2 25-meter pools. One thing that would be helpful in making an argument in favor of offering a SCM Nationals would be to come up with a list of facilities that are capable of host such a meet. The requirements would be as follows: 2 25-meter tanks with deep water, additional pool space for warm-ups and a large amount of seating (1500 or more). Unless a 50 meter pool has a movable bulkhead, it couldn't qualify.
We also have to get teams and facilities interested. Currently, we don't have a large number of facilities bidding to host our national championships. Going into convention last year, there were 3 bidders for Long Course and no bidders for Short Course. The championship committee approached Indianapolis and asked them to switch their bid from LC to SC so we could have a SC meet.
Paul, your goal of having the first SCM Nationals in 2004 is probably a bit early. At convention this year, we are voting on the bids for 2005 SCY and LCM. Clubs that are going to bid are already working on getting ready for those meets. Having just hosted a national championship meet with Sun Devil Masters, I can assure you, it really takes that long to get ready for a national championship. Not to mention, there will be some added complexity to the fact that USMS has not hosted a national SCM meet before. I have hosted a number of state and zone meets at the ASU facility. I was surprised at how much more difficult everything becomes when you go from a meet of 200 - 300 swimmers to 1900 swimmers.
Rob is correct that bureaucracy will take a hold of this idea and slow it down. Next year's convention is where this idea could actually be brought before the House of Delegates. Assuming it passes on the first go around, the 2005 Convention is where bidding would begin for the 2007 SCM Nationals. While it is not a short road, I do think it is a worthwhile endeavor.
Mark Gill
Mark,
Speaking as one who runs a SCM meet in a fast pool which does not have a 2nd 25-meter course available, here's a thought...
I know this is heresy to almost all in USMS, but it would be possible to actually have a National Championship meet which is limited in participation, thus negating the 2nd course requirement.
Two ways to limit the participation are :
1) Set time standards for all events, and require proof of times, a la USA Swimming.
2) Set a participant numerical limit - first come, first served.
Bert Peterson's chart makes clear what I have said for many years: Masters is no longer so small that there are only one or two meets per year to choose from (as it was back in the early '70's). USMS members have many meets to choose from each year, starting with the local meets, then including the LMSC championships, and the Zone championships. There should not be a cast-in-concrete right for each and every member of USMS to swim in the "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS."
Perhaps what is keeping us from truly having National Championships instead of the current National Invitationals is the desire of the national meet hosts to maximize their profits.
(Oh, I can't wait to get blasted for this one. Good thing it's a holiday weekend and some people may be off-line.):rolleyes:
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.
To Lainey,
Why would it results in more Masters meets?
To Ken,
No, the issue is NOT semantics, the issue is whether or not the organization wants a championship meet or a national invitational meet. They are two vastly different concepts.
Yes, you can change the name, and have staus quo.
Or, you can reorganize USMS Nationals. What got me started today was Mark's comment that to add SCM Nationals would require a facility with 2 x 25-meter courses plus warm-up area. I believe he made that comment because our "championships" are so large, that only the largest facilities (which are very few in number) in the country could handle a newly added national meet.
My comments were to point out that if we truly have national "championships" we would most likely find additional facilities (such as Belmont Plaza in Long Beach and many other 50-meter pools) which could handle the reduced number of swimmers who would then attend a national meet. However, that is not possible until (if ever ???) USMS changes its stance on what is a national meet.
If the issue really is that the National meets aren't appropriately called "Championships," it seems the simplest solution would be to change the name (rather than to reorganize Masters over a matter of semantics).
and the original questions was:
How do you feel about copying the kid's swimming method of organizing Masters by time standards??
Not whether or not another meet was necessary. Although, reorganizing Masters would probably result in more meets.
Lainey
