Super teams

Jack, I think we were typing at the same time :) We have lots of people who swim on our team for the social aspect, who wanted something more than lap swimming, that never compete. Even though they don't compete they are still part of our team "in every sense of the word." I hope I'm not coming across with a certain tone. I am just trying to present my opinion in a way that makes sense. I am learning a ton about what goes on in the rest of the country, and to me that's exciting. Off to practice :) I think I'll try the 20 x 200 (IM and free tonight) Wish me luck

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?

Since we have done away with team divisions, here is another look at the results of the recent nationals for Walnut Creek Masters Short Course Nationals 2003 WCM Women #3 WCM men #4 WCM Combined #3 Long Course Nationals 2003 WCM Women #18 WCM men #18 WCM Combined #20 Short Course Nationals 2004 WCM Women #4 WCM men #7 WCM Combined #4 Long Course Nationals 2004 WCM Women #10 WCM men #8 WCM Combined #8 Walnut Creek is a very good team. Even with our new scoring system of no divisions, but giving awards 10 deep, they did well. Consider this though. I just looked at the combined scores for these numbers. Short Course Nationals 2003 7 of the top 10 are superclubs 3rd was the highest finish of a regular club the 5th best regular club was 12th overall Long Course Nationals 2003 7 of the top 10 teams are superclubs 7th was the highest finish of a regular club the 5th best regular club was 18th overall Short Course Nationals 2004 6 of the top 10 are superclubs 2nd is the highest finish of a regular club (meet host) 4th was the higest finish if you don't count the host The 5th best regular club was 14th overall Long Course Nationals 2004 6 of the top 10 are superclubs 5th was the highest finish of a regular club The 5th best regular club was 17th overall A few observations about nationals that tend to hold true. The home team definietly has an advantage. When the meet is in your backyard, it is easiest for you to get the most swimmers there. The top few spots in most meets will be occupied by the teams in the immediate area. 2004 was unique because the host team was second in both cases. However, looking over the results, it does seem that the majority of the top spots are dominated by superclubs. There are some regular teams that place well, especially when the meet is geographically located near them. But when looking only at the 5th place regular club in no case were they good enough to place. A system of regular and superclubs competing separately would be more fair I think. At the same time, it would not take away from either group.

Karen, I understand your objection to the superteam concept. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. We had separate clubs in Kentucky for many years, and only in the last few years have we changed to the superteam concept. Why, you ask? Because those of us from Kentucky who went to Nationals regularly realized that we knew the people from the other Kentucky clubs who also went to Nationals better than we knew people on our own clubs who swam at a different time than we did. We were all sitting together at Nationals, going to dinner together, sharing rooms together, and cheering each other on, yet we were supposedly not teammates. This just seemed ridiculous. In Hawaii, I think there were 12 of us from Kentucky there, and we represented five different clubs. None of us had enough people to put together a relay. By the next year in Tempe, we had formed Swim Kentucky, and we still had about 12 people attend, but this time we were all one club and we did form relays, and we had a great time hanging out together and cheering each other on. We scored a lot more points together than we would have as separate clubs, but that really wasn't the biggest motivation. As a matter of fact, I don't think any of our relays scored any points. What mattered to us was a team identity, and we had that in Tempe, when we had not had it in Hawaii. The Kentucky superteam didn't get its first real test, as far as improved point scoring, until Indianapolis. Our men and women each managed to place third in their divisions. But more important than being a superteam was the fact that Indianapolis was close enough to Kentucky that we could get a large contingent to turn out. We're probably only going to be able to be competitive for team championships in cases where Nationals is within driving distance for us. Remember too that in many parts of the country the population of an entire state is less than in a few square miles in California! We had around 500 registered Masters swimmers in all of Kentucky last year, which is in the same ballpark as your "true" club. I don't know what percentage of WCM's members actually compete, but for us, it's relatively low. Just because we have 500 members of SKY doesn't mean we're going to send that many people to Nationals. We only had about 50 swimmers come to Indianapolis. If you ask me, Walnut Creek is a superteam too (and I mean that as a compliment). You have a large, well-organized team made up of very good swimmers. You seem to do well at every Nationals you attend. In fact, Walnut Creek, the so-called non-superteam, kicked our superteam butts in Tempe! You outscored Swim Kentucky 1744 to 141!

Thank you cjr, the more information the better, for me, to understand this "thing". I think it's great that LMSC's are trying to build better programs, host more meets, etc. After all, that is the goal of Masters, to promote a healthy lifestyle... However, while I understand the reasoning and need for SUPERTEAMs (and that's dandy :) ), I still think the club team, like mine, should not be made to compete against a whole region, state, etc. It's not fair. If we have divisions by age and gender and size of team why would it be such a stretch to have a club division and a SUPERTEAM division? Or should we do away with the whole team competition then? If individuals from "anywhere" can pick and choose who they swim with, to me it's not really a "team" competition (except if you are on a club where you workout with your teammates at the same pool, etc). Why have "team" awards? Let's just stick with the individual awards. I can't hang the team banner on my wall anyway! :p

Don't forget about the one in Savannah(2004) and Tempe(2003) and it was me that pointed it out. Maybe you need to define what "club in every sense of the word" means and that'll help us figure out how the rest of us aren't.

My club team has members that live all over the state of North Carolina. I'm the president of the club and can honestly say I couldn't pick half of them out of a lineup and if they came to a meet and were on my relay I wouldn't know them. Are we a superteam?

The following is an attempt to alter the tone.... I hereby propose the "MAXIMUM FUN" rule for deciding team membership... Swim with whatever group you are going to have the most FUN with. Masters is about "swimming for life" - goals are longevity and fitness ....and having fun does all those thing.... We truely are competing against ourselves and the last time we swam. Anything else is gravy. I would almost argue against team awards at Nationals - as a concept that is a holdover from our younger days in USS (or used to be AAU for some of us). But goals are good for team unity too....won't argue against that, but if you focus too much on the team goal - you lose sight of the many individual ones out there (and each has a story to tell). We had a team that was ex-Dennison swimmers (I think they are still around), we have a team organized by the Gay/*** group (their practices are wonderful and they travel well to meets they hand pick), why not more of these concept teams - along with the other workout group teams. The 10% rule - about 10% of USMS members compete....( and I am leary of letting the tail wag the dog) IMHO if we make the concept of teams MAXIMUM FUN (which some have spoken to) ...maybe more people would come out. The above is just my personal opinion, Jack Columbus Ohio

Fritz, I agree with you. That's why I mentioned in an earlier post that we do have swimmers in Utah, and that residency was a can of worms I didn't want to tackle because I didn't have the answer. I also mentioned that the issue of residency needs to be defined, perhaps to the 100 square miles nearby (or whatever USMS defined)- you should go back and read that post, I thought I explained that, but perhaps not clearly. FYI, looking at my TEAM roster with peoples addresses, home and work phone numbers and birthdays, I can say that I only see 3 people not living in our area. I send birthday cards to many people on our team and have been doing so for quite awhile. I do not recall ever seeing someone's address from North Carolina. Perhaps if you tell me there name, I can answer your question. Ya' know Fritz, I gave you the answers you asked for as defined by me. And you're right you can't dispute my opinion of a club team. I have something to ask you though. What is your objection to a club team vs. a SUPERTEAM at Nationals?

Hey Karen, :) I've tried to stay out of this thread, but you wanted me to pipe up. But you forget which side I'm on. ;) I understand where you are coming from: when the competition starts, you'd like apples compared to apples, and oranges to oranges. But what some people are pointing out (and which I agree) is that the current system, although with its problems, is better than anything else that has been suggested so far. Or that any modifications would generate a huge headache, not worth the effort. If you can think of a simple method (as simple as team size) that would generate "fair" team competition, by all means mention it. I just can't think of anything right now. Consider the Racing Club, when they showed up at Indy. They were a small group (less than a dozen) who practice (and socialize?) together, so they fit your description of a "normal" club. They also recruited some of the best swimmers, from around the world, so that would also seem to fit the "SuperClub" description. Lemme think about IM... 1) I've swam with the people that go to Nationals, more than I have with half of my "local" team (who are morning-practice triathletes) 2) Coaches (and referees :) ) from other teams have and will advise me at swim meets. I'll greet and cheer people I recognize, even if they are on opposing (local) teams. 3) I don't travel with anyone, local or otherwise. :p But if I do find out where most people are staying, I try to stay there too. 4) Every National so far, there has been a team dinner, with awards and talks 5) See #2 6) Sorry, I moved from the East Coast, so I wouldn't have age-group experience with anyone out here. But there was another thread recently, where a new (ex-Notre Dame) was encouraged to swim with teams in the Chicago area. 7) Team t-shirts and caps 8) When we are not talking trash (*cough* Evanston *cough*), most IM members get along well 9) I think relays are fun. Without Illinois Masters, I go to maybe 2 Nationals, instead of 4. 10) My master's card lists Illinois Masters Seems like I could justify IM as fitting your requirements for a "regular" club. Let me give you a more practical example, from my high school days. My school district was large enough to have 3 high schools, but swimming was on the decline. The year before I joined, the decision was to combine the 3 schools for one swim team. I'm sure other schools felt this was an unfair advantage, but the alternative would have been to have *no* swim teams for the entire town of Greece. (The Athletic Directors were not very supportive of the minor sports, despite winning records.) And even combined, we were about the same size as Fairport HS. So would you have considered my high school team a "superclub", just because my school district decided to build 3 medium-size buildings instead of one large one?