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 !
Former Member
to quote Bert in the thread starter
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.
I doubt that we have to worry about A,B,C meets for now. In Arizona which has as many swimmers in my age as the Spma, there is probably only 10 to 11 women that compete.
Originally posted by lucyj
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, they are different concepts, but it always seems to come back to an argument over whether the label is appropriate.
The National meets are what they are, regardless of what they're called. If calling them a "championship" is a problem, call them something else. But it makes no sense to change the nature of the National meet just to conform to a label -- that really would be semantics. What I need to see is some good explanation of how changing the nature of the meet would benefit USMS and its members.
Yes, if the meet were restricted, a smaller meet might get more venues -- but that's not enough. Is that a real benefit to the membership or does it harm the vast majority only to benefit a small fraction? And what would be the long term implications for USMS as an organization?
I'm not convinced by the answers I've seen that the status quo should be changed.
Lainey's probably right that reorganizing Masters would increase the NEED for more more meets but (based on my two fun-filled years as LMSC board member) I doubt that it would increase the NUMBER of meets. Many, if not most, LMSC's have a limited number of venues willing and able to host local meets. (In Metro LMSC in the NYC area, for example, two facilities host the bulk of our local meets.) These facilities must meet competing demands, such as classes, USA Swimming meets and member lap swim hours, and may not be able support more events than they already do. So if attendance at meets is limited by A, B or C times, the net result could be fewer meets for any individual member. If those restrictions reduce entries at any given meet to the point that it's no longer worth the venue's while to support it, the total number meets could actually decrease.
