Super teams

I think Meg and CJ bring up great reasons why USMS would want to continue to allow and encourage clubs that wish to be able to form super teams. I have belonged to two such clubs and it is fun when we go to nationals. Yet at the same time, it allows us to have some rivalaries within our LSMC competitions. In cases where your club isn't large enough or doesn't have much participation at the national meets, a superclub can be lts of fun. However, if you are on a independent club that wishes to stay independent, having all teams grouped in the same division may lead these clubs to feel like they have to bond together with others to be competitive. There are examples of clubs that have broken away from superclubs because they had reached enough critical mass to have fun at nationals on their own. This has been good for membership growth in USMS. I think we are making a mistake if we maintain a system that encourages one type of club setup over another. If we did have two division at nationals, one for independent clubs and one for superclubs, we could avoid this. Superclubs would not be encourage to break up nor would independent clubs feel the pressure to have to join up with others to be competitive. Keep in mind, since the House of Delegates voted to eleminate the large, medium and small divisions, we all compete against one another now at nationals. To answer Fritz's question of how would we determine what type of team you are on. I would look at the way the club registers within the LMSC. If within the state, you compete for Raleigh Masters, but at nationals you join together with other groups to form North Carolina Masters, I would call that a superclub. However, if Raleigh Masters also competed at nationals as Raleigh Masters, I would consider that to be an independent club. Both types of team should be able to exist within USMS. Is there a reason why we shouldn't have two categories of competition for them?

I think Meg and CJ bring up great reasons why USMS would want to continue to allow and encourage clubs that wish to be able to form super teams. I have belonged to two such clubs and it is fun when we go to nationals. Yet at the same time, it allows us to have some rivalaries within our LSMC competitions. In cases where your club isn't large enough or doesn't have much participation at the national meets, a superclub can be lts of fun. However, if you are on a independent club that wishes to stay independent, having all teams grouped in the same division may lead these clubs to feel like they have to bond together with others to be competitive. There are examples of clubs that have broken away from superclubs because they had reached enough critical mass to have fun at nationals on their own. This has been good for membership growth in USMS. I think we are making a mistake if we maintain a system that encourages one type of club setup over another. If we did have two division at nationals, one for independent clubs and one for superclubs, we could avoid this. Superclubs would not be encourage to break up nor would independent clubs feel the pressure to have to join up with others to be competitive. Keep in mind, since the House of Delegates voted to eleminate the large, medium and small divisions, we all compete against one another now at nationals. To answer Fritz's question of how would we determine what type of team you are on. I would look at the way the club registers within the LMSC. If within the state, you compete for Raleigh Masters, but at nationals you join together with other groups to form North Carolina Masters, I would call that a superclub. However, if Raleigh Masters also competed at nationals as Raleigh Masters, I would consider that to be an independent club. Both types of team should be able to exist within USMS. Is there a reason why we shouldn't have two categories of competition for them?