OK, last ideas...
Instead of number of swimmers, why don't we divide by actual number of swims (splashes). This would be beneficial for a few reasons:
1) There is no division before the meet, so nobody is stressing before the meet even starts. There are a lot more swims than swimmers...
2) Scratches and no shows will not be counted, as they weren't swum. This works well because I know we, for example, have had many swimmers not swim for whatever reason and their scratches would have put us in the smaller team category.
3) Every swim counts. The more swims you have the more opportunities to place, obviously. This would be more inclusive because the people who enter would probably enter as many events as they could.
4) Lots of relays get scratched. People would probably make more of an effort to swim them.
OR?
it happens, plus I know of a few instances where swimmers have recruited a few "ringers" for relays for Nationals.
Ande
Originally posted by swimmore
What are your thoughts about teams combining for out of LMSC meets (not nationals) and not competing as the same team within the LMSC.
I don't think the more swims the more chance to score. For Nationals last spring, Illinois had 200 + swimmers. I am thinking a lot of those were non-scoring and just going to have fun. I know I contributed absolutely nothing to the team as I am not fast enough and just wanted the experience of swimming on a relay since I had never swum on a team before.
But I also know that by putting all the Illinois swimmers together, it brought people with tremendous scoring abilities. Nadine comes from an area(like me) that has few swimmers, think if she could not have swum on a relay. That is a lot of points!
I don't know what the answers to this is. I thought it was a little odd to score it the way it was scored, but did take advantage of having the system to get more swims and make it worth my while to drive over to Indy. I got to meet some fun people, so was glad there was a team to be a part of.
I missed reading some of the posts here, so may have to go back and read. Good luck finding a solution! :cool:
Originally posted by Paul Smith
Have two divisions;
* Club Teams (Walnut Creek, DAM, etc.)
* State Teams (Arizona Masters, Colorado, etc.)
Done
Sorry, Paul--that's still going to leave us with apples swimming against oranges. We need small, medium, and large (and perhaps maxi/ultra/super?) club and state team divisions. If we give team awards for 1-10, men's/women's/combined, that's only 180 awards.
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. ;)
What are you trying to accomplish with this? I'm always suspicious of the intentions of those attempting to level the playing field, or the pool in this case.
Tom,
I knew you'd pipe up eventually. I hope all is well with you. :)
I'd love to discuss fruit, mooses, and the new improved VO2Max shampoo (for club use only, of course) at Nationals. Going?
Remember, I'm not going Ionic on this thread...
Mark M.,
This new system definitely sucks (that's an adjective used by the highly educated such as myself! :) ) for the small teams.
I think those club teams did well because it was an hour flight for us. That gets back to the geographical issue again...
Karen asked how NCAA determines Divisions I, II and III? And can USMC use something similar? Answer to question 1, see below. Answer to question 2, sure we could base our divisions on number of scholarships and average attendance at home meets.
Division I member institutions have to sponsor at least seven sports for men and seven for women (or six for men and eight for women) with two team sports for each gender. Each playing season has to be represented by each gender as well. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria. For sports other than football and basketball, Div. I schools must play 100% of the minimum number of contests against Div. I opponents -- anything over the minimum number of games has to be 50% Div. I. Men's and women's basketball teams have to play all but two games against Div. I teams, for men, they must play 1/3 of all their contests in the home arena. Schools that have football are classified as Div. I-A or I-AA. I-A football schools are usually fairly elaborate programs. Div. I-A teams have to meet minimum attendance requirements (17,000 people in attendance per home game, OR 20,000 average of all football games in the last four years or, 30,000 permanent seats in their stadium and average 17,000 per home game or 20,000 average of all football games in the last four years OR, be in a member conference in which at least six conference members sponsor football or more than half of football schools meet attendance criterion. Div. I-AA teams do not need to meet minimum attendance requirements. Div. I schools must meet minimum financial aid awards for their athletics program, and there are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a Div. I school cannot exceed.
Division II institutions have to sponsor at least four sports for men and four for women, with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender. There are contest and participant minimums for each sport, as well as scheduling criteria -- football and men's and women's basketball teams must play at least 50% of their games against Div. II or I-A or I-AA opponents. For sports other than football and basketball there are no scheduling requirements. There are not attendance requirements for football, or arena game requirements for basketball. There are maximum financial aid awards for each sport that a Div. II school must not exceed. Division II teams usually feature a number of local or in-state student-athletes. Many Division II student-athletes pay for school through a combination of scholarship money, grants, student loans and employment earnings. Division II athletics programs are financed in the institution's budget like other academic departments on campus. Traditional rivalries with regional institutions dominate schedules of many Division II athletics programs.
Division III institutions have to sponsor at least five sports for men and five for women, with two team sports for each gender, and each playing season represented by each gender. There are minimum contest and participant minimums for each sport. Division III athletics features student-athletes who receive no financial aid related to their athletic ability and athletic departments are staffed and funded like any other department in the university. Division III athletics departments place special importance on the impact of athletics on the participants rather than on the spectators. The student-athlete's experience is of paramount concern. Division III athletics encourages participation by maximizing the number and variety of athletics opportunities available to students, placing primary emphasis on regional in-season and conference competition
And at the risk of jumping back into the fray, Karen, I don’t follow your logic when you stated:
I also pointed out that there are inherent differences in swimming:
1) females don't swim against males (mixed relays excepted)
2) 19 year olds don't swim against 85 year olds
3) club teams are different than SUPERTEAMS (for reasons above and shouldn't be made to compete against them- no matter how good or bad either is)
Are you saying we should have separate events for superteams? Will I be swimming the Men’s 45-49 SuperTeam 1650 and not have to compete against the club team milers?
To me your points 1 and 2 deal with it issue of defining categories for individuals to compete and have little to do with the accumulation of points for team awards. Point 3 appears to deal with a group’s ability to accumulate points for team awards or possibly in forming relays. If it is about tallying points how does it relate to 1 or 2? Are an 85 year olds’ point more or less fair than a 19 year olds’?
But for me the real question, for which I have no answer, is, do super-teams and clubs both support the USMS mission and objectives?
