changes in swimming

Simple; money We are now a sport that athletes can continue on post college/high school......ala track & field. With more swimmers staying in the sport for longer periods we are seeing a transformation beyond anything a single swimmer or coach has contributed in the last 20 years.

There are pros in swimming, as in all sports. That's why Phelps can't compete in the NCAAs.

Well, I agree with Paul on that one. On the other hand, swimmers can become top swimmers at younger ages than track and field men or women. Not too many 19 year olds in track and field or no 15 year olds. So, a women swmmer like Jenny Thompson can be at the top of the sport from age 14 to 31.

Wouldn't it be great for the sport if there was a 'professional circuit' like golf? Our athletes could turn professional and win purses. That might do more for our sport than any Michael Phelps or Jenny Thompson. Any philanthropist out there wanna offer the first prize????????????

There are actually quite a few "circuits" the primary one being the Fina World Cup races (check out www.fina.org/swimming), which also includes open water races. The most recent "money meet" here in the US was the Kerr McGee elite meet (www.kmsc.org). At least one masters swimmer was in attendence as well (Karlyn). The problem isn't that we don't have money, pro's or circuits, it's that we can;t get interest from the media to cover it. The exception being the Indy meet this fall.

I dare say the money isn't anything like golf. If the prizes were big enough the media would cover it because of the size of the prize.

Well, money is money. Its hard if you are not in Tennis or Golf or Boxing. Our sister sport water polo has some pro- leagues in Europe. Actually, Amanda Beard wasn't doing too bad but not great she earn about a year a go around 75,000. Granted, a lot of master swimmers are in professionals where they make a 100,000 a year, so swimmers making between 75,000 to 200,000 isn't that appealing to people that can entered professionals at 6 figures. Only Michael has made the million mark a year.

Originally posted by laineybug I dare say the money isn't anything like golf. If the prizes were big enough the media would cover it because of the size of the prize. Bug - you have it backwards, money follows a sport that is interesting and can attract advertisers, not vice versa. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind spending a full Thursday - Saturday watching a swim meet for 4-8 hours a day, like we do in golf. You could make a swimming meet grand prize a million dollars and folks aren't going to watch 32 hours of coverage of it. Let's face it, swim meets are BORING.

People are going to watch sports that they find interesting. I think they would broadcast swim meets if the market was big enough, regardless of whether are boring or not. Golf, in my opinion, is the most boring sport to watch ever, but since there are a lot of people in the US that play golf, then you can get away with showing it for hours a day. Unfortunatly, most advertisers and market buyers don't see broadcasting swimming as a good way to spend money. It's all about the cost per thousand and if that number is too high, then it's not worth buying the media time to show it because you're never gonna get your money back. ~Kyra

Originally posted by Seagurl51 Golf, in my opinion, is the most boring sport to watch ever, but since there are a lot of people in the US that play golf, then you can get away with showing it for hours a day. I, for one, would be very upset if they stopped televising golf. There is nothing more relaxing than turning on a golf tournament, stretching out on the sofa, and taking a long nap. After a swim workout, of course.