This started out as a response to the vote about SCM Championships. As I wrote, it seemed like I had an idea that was at least thought provoking. Here it goes:
There has been a lot of noise about the sheer size of SCY Nationals... Many of the popular suggestions on how to curb this problem revolved around the concept of exclusion (each of which flirt with contradicting USMS all inclusive philosophies). Perhaps instead of restricting who can come/6th event rules/A,B,C, cutoffs etc., we should look into running a second meet (SCM Nationals) at (roughly) the same time, but in a different part of the country.
This would certainly dillute SCY Nats., but people are complaining that they are too big already... It also causes complexity at that national level which could stop this idea in its tracks, and it may make one NC a "psuedo-Championship" b/c the most elite swimmers consitently choose one format. But most of us can agree we need to do something, and most agree excluding less accomplished swimmers is not in USMS's long term interests either.
This idea certainly has its detractions, and is one I am not neccesarily advocating. But I hope it will illicit some thoughtful responses regarding why this is a better/worse idea than 6th rule or ABC cutoff's. I'll start by pointing out its strengths:
1) It may curb SCY overcrowding
2) Provides a SCM championship at the national level
3) May provide a net increase in attendance since many swimmers are more willing to travel for regional meets.
SCM and SCY could be culled from the same bidding procedure, and the sites would need to be geographically distant (not neccessarily east coast/west coast, but you certainly do not want both within the same region).
What do YOU think?
No worries. Re:the mistakes, it looks like my flash-in-the-pan idea did not generate as much talk as I thought. Oh well. For what it is worth, I did understand your reasoning (a shared desire for SCM NC), but I was trying to meld that with the need to alleviate SCY NC congestion. I understand the suggestion has detractions, but I was looking for peoples reactions. But the lack of conversation tells me all I need to know...
No worries. Re:the mistakes, it looks like my flash-in-the-pan idea did not generate as much talk as I thought. Oh well. For what it is worth, I did understand your reasoning (a shared desire for SCM NC), but I was trying to meld that with the need to alleviate SCY NC congestion. I understand the suggestion has detractions, but I was looking for peoples reactions. But the lack of conversation tells me all I need to know...
