Hey Karen, I was just looking at the medium team results from Arizona.
1 Walnut Creek Masters
2 San Diego Swim Masters
3 The Olympic Club
4 Pacific Northwest Aquatics
5 YMCA Indy Swim Fit
6 Illinois Masters
7 New England Masters
8 Oregon Masters
Do you notice anything different between the top four teams, and the next four? I don't see that "Superteams" have any advantage over a "regular" team, it all depends on who shows up.
I don't see "Superteam" and "regular" team as good divisions. Even if you came up with a clear definition (ie. no teams that could go either way). I agree with SwimFreak's earlier post, where I could argue that WCM should not compete against other club teams with more limited resources. (I'm not, but I'm hoping you see the point.)
Originally posted by Swim Freak
Is it fair for my dinky little club team (that swims at the dinky little pool with 6 dinky little hours per WEEK for the masters team) that has say 6 to 8 swimmers at nat'ls to compete in the same division with a club team that brings 50 swimmers (and has the blessings of 5 workouts per DAY)?
Mark (Gill), I've re-read where you mentioned that small teams will probably place. I'm looking at Arizona again, where the 1st place small team (Virginia Masters) would have placed 12th (out of the standings) if all teams were lumped together. I'm just thinking that under the current system, there are (small) teams that will have zero chance to get a 1st place banner (if that was important to them). Even if there is a good chance they'll get the 9th place banner. (Yes, there are problems with the old system. But I think the new system is not an improvement. Maybe I'll feel differently after Florida.)
Tom, if you check the other thread (the poll), you'll see my reason why Moose teams would have to be in a different category than any other team. ;)
Hey Karen, I was just looking at the medium team results from Arizona.
1 Walnut Creek Masters
2 San Diego Swim Masters
3 The Olympic Club
4 Pacific Northwest Aquatics
5 YMCA Indy Swim Fit
6 Illinois Masters
7 New England Masters
8 Oregon Masters
Do you notice anything different between the top four teams, and the next four? I don't see that "Superteams" have any advantage over a "regular" team, it all depends on who shows up.
I don't see "Superteam" and "regular" team as good divisions. Even if you came up with a clear definition (ie. no teams that could go either way). I agree with SwimFreak's earlier post, where I could argue that WCM should not compete against other club teams with more limited resources. (I'm not, but I'm hoping you see the point.)
Originally posted by Swim Freak
Is it fair for my dinky little club team (that swims at the dinky little pool with 6 dinky little hours per WEEK for the masters team) that has say 6 to 8 swimmers at nat'ls to compete in the same division with a club team that brings 50 swimmers (and has the blessings of 5 workouts per DAY)?
Mark (Gill), I've re-read where you mentioned that small teams will probably place. I'm looking at Arizona again, where the 1st place small team (Virginia Masters) would have placed 12th (out of the standings) if all teams were lumped together. I'm just thinking that under the current system, there are (small) teams that will have zero chance to get a 1st place banner (if that was important to them). Even if there is a good chance they'll get the 9th place banner. (Yes, there are problems with the old system. But I think the new system is not an improvement. Maybe I'll feel differently after Florida.)
Tom, if you check the other thread (the poll), you'll see my reason why Moose teams would have to be in a different category than any other team. ;)
