Originally posted by Karen Duggan
2) We all compete for the same team ALL THE TIME- we're not WCM for some meets and then Pacific Masters for others.
Are you saying, with 400 members, that Walnut Creek has never held an inter-squad meet? :D
Just to back up point #10...
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
1) We all work out at Heather Farm Pool in Walnut Creek at any one of five different practice times. (I, myself, make use of many different times with three kids at home, etc...)
2) We all share the same three coaches who are present at any of the said workouts.
OK, so if you ended up with pool time crunch, and were told that the team could only have half as many workouts, so then the team got some time at another pool in the area, so you had the same people, but swam in two pools.... would you then be a Superteam?
-Rick
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Meg,
The following is a friendly tone as the computer doesn't always convey tone well :)
My tone is intended to be friendly too! I think you and I just have an honest difference of opinion. All I was trying to get across is that we are more alike than we are different.
There is that basic fundamental difference between the club team and the SUPERTEAM. It's not good or bad, it just is. I have to agree with Mark Gill that having the club team and SUPERTEAM divisions at Nationals doesn't take away from any group.
I just don't think it's that simple to define a superteam. I think there's a big difference between having one team for the entire Kentucky LMSC and a team like New England Masters. For Kentucky, it's a population equalizer. We only have 500 Masters swimmers in the entire LMSC. New England covers several high-population-density states, and they have their own reasons for banding together to form one club (I don't want to speak for them and make assumptions about why they chose the superteam route). Using the rule of thumb that 10% of a team/club's swimmers actually compete, then would it be fair to put Kentucky's 50 swimmers up against New England's 170 swimmers at Nationals? It just isn't black and white, that's all I'm saying.
Just FYI, there is a much larger club team than WCM, USF (University of San Francisco) who regularly kicks our butt at the Pacific Masters Championships. It's sheer numbers. We never complain because they are just bigger (although if you divided the total points by the swimmers, we'd win :) ). But they all swim at the same pool, same coaches, etc. It's swimming apples with apples, not apples with oranges.
In local meets, the team that puts the most swimmers in the water ALWAYS wins because almost every swimmer scores. When we have the Kentucky Short Course Championships, also known as the Wildcat Masters Invitational, at my home pool, my subteam clobbers all the other subteams on sheer numbers too. That's why the home team doesn't compete for the trophies. It's only at Nationals that numbers alone doesn't get it done. Consider this: in Indianapolis SKY had 32 women and Rocky Mountain Masters had 18 women (and I guess this is apples to apples since we are both superteams!). That put us both in the medium team division. In spite of having nearly twice as many swimmers as RMM, we finished only half a point ahead of them!
I guess I'm just saying I respect your opinion, but I like things the way they are and don't want to change the system. It isn't perfect, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.
Gee, thanks a lot Mark! Some help you are:p
I am not saying my team has been "wronged". I am just saying that it gets a little old being pitted against entire regions, LMSC's and entire states (no matter what their size).
It sounds to me like people are holding our size and cohesiveness against us (WCM). We are what we are, good or bad. I'm not asking anyone else to change their setups. Obviously, you are all quite happy with the way things are. Fine.
I am not happy and have made several good arguments as to why there could easily be a "club" team category and SUPERTEAM category at Nationals. Again, this would take some doing and I am more than willing to work out the details, even if it means people in NC cannot be affiliated with us.
If you do not wish to support the idea of a postive change, for a large group of USMS, that's fine too. I guess I just thought people would be open to supporting a new idea, that benefits club teams while not changing the way things are currently set up for these SUPERTEAMS. Again, I have learned a lot about other LMSCs and I appreciate your enthusiasm.
Can somebody please tell me though why they would be opposed to a club division and a SUPERTEAM division at Nationals?
Besides "if it ain't broke don't fix it" because to many of us it is broken.
PS. Mark, if you all swim at different pools then you don't meet "my" definition. And no, since I started in 1993, we haven't had an inter-squad meet.
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
I am just saying that it gets a little old being pitted against entire regions, LMSC's and entire states (no matter what their size).
2003 population of California: 35,484,453
2003 population of Kentucky: 4,117,827
It is not the geographic area that matters, but the population!
Jim,
Phew! I thought I was in trouble when I saw your reply!! :)
I e-mailed Dr. Miller and asked how I could get involved to look at changing this, if it's even possible.
It's my understanding that the small, medium, and large divisions have been done away with. I thought that they were just having combined 1st-10th from now on. I thought, if that were the case, now would be a good time to look at club vs. superteam (when it does get a definition!)
You asked a lot of the questions that I've been thinking about too. I kind of see it as a puzzle and I think it would be fun to see if there's a way to solve it.
How do I view that attachment? :)
Meg,
It's the population of swimmers that matters. ;)
Actually then our teams are probably proportionate to total population, so I'm not sure your point (our team is probably really small then given the total population!)
Fritz,
I don't, and I'm sure my team doesn't either, want to be the poster child for anything. I don't think it's that simple. I mention the size and cohesiveness because that seems to be one of the things that people debating this have latched onto. We are a large club team, not a SUPERTEAM by my defintion (that no one agrees with :) )
Fritz,
I'm computer-challenged I think! I went to edit options and didn't see anything like that. Besides the paperclip next to the SUPERTEAMS thread, is it in the thread? Maybe I could click on it there.
Thanks for your help :)
Maybe you could pick up a brain along the way?
Sorry, totally just kidding. I was just meeting sarcasm with sarcasm :p
Seriously, though, does anybody have any ideas about how to go about defining SUPERTEAMs? It is a huge, cumbersome issue...
Does anybody even want to try? I do.
