I think I'm going to have to disagree a bit with my Longhorn teamates Mr. Commings and The Raz on this subject. It's not good to rely on someone coming out of the woodwork in years to come or simply counting on cycles of ebb and flow over years in the sport.
I have been to many age group meets with my kids the last 4 years. In Georgia, Colorado.... and my home the Great state of Ohio, and enrollment of young boys (ages 8-14) is down further than at any time I can remember in the sport. Gone are the days when I grew up and boys ALWAYS outnumber girls in the sport, and its not merely because more girls are swimming now. It's because boys are interested in other sports..... many of which are easier training sports in my opinion.
This is NOT good for the future of men's swimming. I have a bad feeling the next Michael Phelps will be lured into Soccer or some other sport over the coming years... if not already. Swimming.... particularly the governing body USS.... does NOT do an adequate job marketing the sport to the general public during non Olympic years. We ride too heavily on the success of our Olympic performances in hopes of expanding enrollment, and then every 4 years it dies out quickly. With the added cuts of men's swimming programs in the NCAA Div. I level the growth and continued success of US mens swimming in my opinion is in jeopardy over the next 8-12 years. Michael Phelps is a lucky find for the US. I strongly suggest you take a look at some heat sheets for age group meets in your area. You will likely find that there are about 1/2 to 2/3rds the number of boys heats compared to girls heats in the younger age groups. It's shocking. You're looking at the future of our Olympic team in these reduced heats. You can't rely on a Rowdy Gaines to come into the sport late (like age 13) and dominate especially when the numbers are down so much.
USS needs to find money for a larger national campaign with TV time. Why is it I have NEVER been contacted by USS swimming to donate money?! Why is there NO marketing campaign to solicit funds from ex US swimmers from the past 40 years ?!
In my opinion, this is an all out war against soccer and the evil Big 3 sports. For example...... Australia is hurtin' if you take away their 2 big guns Hacket and Thorpe, there is virtually no one in the pipeline that will take over. The US is in a similar but lessor position. It was truly embarassing that the US had absolutely NO ONE in the 100 free at the Olympics. Let me say it again....
IT WAS TRULY EMBARASSING THAT THE US HAD ABSOLUTELY NO ONE IN THE 100 FREE IN THE FINALS AT THE OLYMPICS !
We should OWN that event ! The 100 free IS United States Swimming. It is our history! Our 400m free relay should NEVER lose at the Olympics or World Games as it is a reflection of depth and speed in our programs.
Face it, our volume of great sprinters are pretty bad right now and thats a reflection of basic athleticism and talent by taking (stealing) "athletes" from other sports with raw speed. Gary Hall saved his butt and the US in the 50 free at Greece, but let's face it, he's an archeology find and not a reflection of up an coming talent. We're relying on someone that probably peaked 2 Olympics ago in the sprints.
The picture is not good for the growth of US men's swimming, and we definitely need to do something about it.
John Smith
Parents
Former Member
I am down with a lot of the comments here. Yes, we could do a lot more to market this sport and make it more fan friendly, but we have done a number of good things already. Here are some more specific comments, in no particular order:
- You clearly can make TV coverage of a swim meet compelling viewing, with good editing and production. We do it every four years at the Olympics. Yes, an all day marathon of a YMCA age group meet is a snoozer for vitually everyone, BUT for an important national or international meet, you don't have to show every minute of every heat on TV.
- You can pump up interest in swimming competition by using non-standard formats, like head to head duels, focusing on short sprint races, etc. etc. I wholeheartedly endorse adding these kind of events to the mix. However, realize that some of this will come at the expense of running a "pure" competition that gives every swimmer an equal chance of swimming well and winning their events. I hear lots of shouting about making swim meets less boring. Well, the chance that a front runner might crack up and be eliminated from competition, through no fault of his or her own, is part of what generates interest in some sports. Think about the Tour de France, or the NCAA Basketball Tournament's "one & done" format (as compared to the NBA's endless, utterly predictable and unwatchable playoff system). Any time there is a suggestion that some swimmer got some infinitessimal advantage over another, an illegal dolphin kick at the turn, a pool 1 inch short of regulation length, the howls of protest are deafening. Are we prepared to accept a little random unfairness to make things more interesting? I am, but I have noticed others in this sport have turned fairness into a fetish.
- You can make big money payouts for professionals a priority, and drum up publicity by showing more skin. How far do you want to go down that road? I am in favor of some movement in this direction, but before we start, we should talk about what parts of our sport we want to preserve, even if we lose sponsor dollars and TV ratings by sticking to them. I don't want swimming to turn into fear factor (or figure skating), where the contestants are selected more because they are physically attractive, and less because of their athletic ability. I don't want our very best swimmers to begin behaving like the worst examples of professional athletes in the big three. I don't want club level swimming to turn into the sleazy, child-eating monster that summer club league basketball has become.
- Comparing swimming to golf, and suggesting we can do what golf did, is preposterous. Golf has ALWAYS been one of the most absurdly over-televised sports in the history of broadcast TV. Even in the 70s, when golf allegedly was smaller, what other sport would have events on TV, every weekend, for men's professional (PGA), women's professional (LPGA), and MASTERS (?!) profession (Senior PGA, for the love of Pete!) tours? Saying swimming should immitate golf is a bit like those methods for getting rich that tell you first you should inherit a million bucks.
- There is no money in swimming compared to the major team sports. But, compared to swimming in the 70s, there is a ton of money. Now, you can count on two hands the number of wealthy professional swimmers. Back then, you could count them on one finger--Mark Spitz, maybe.
- We have clearly lost participation rate and talent compared to earlier years. One reason why? The attenuation of the Mark Spitz effect, i.e. the age of swimmers old enough to have watched him compete in Munich and be inspired to try the sport. Look at the most populace age groups in any masters meets, esp. Nationals, and the presence of the Mark Spitz generation leaps out at you.
- My personal two bits on the unpopularity of age group swimming: I think it boils down to time demands on the parents. Yes, it is not cheap, but other sports are more expensive. Yes, your chances of turning pro, or even getting a college scholarship, and miniscule, but I haven't heard many parents, and darn few sane parents, consider that as a major factor. The aforementioned endless meets, travel, and having to get the little munchskins to an ungodly number of workouts, often at inconvient hours, and often with the parents having to hang out for a couple of hours at the pool during practice, is simply a lot more of an imposition than even a heavy bill for club dues.
- In a related point, I am not convinced that subjecting young age group swimmers to heavy workloads is the best way to make them faster swimmers in their late teens and early twenties. We like to assume that your chances of being nationally ranked at 18 are better if you are nationally ranked at 8, but does the latter cause or contribute to the former? How many nationally ranked 8 year olds are still there 10 years later? If my doubts are correct, we could do a lot more for the kids by making early age group swimming more about fun and participation, and less about beating everyone else. Fewer injuries, less cause for mental burn-out at in the teen years, more of a reason to want to stick with the sport.
- Therefore, I like the idea of radically reformatting early age group swimming and meets. Why do we have all the age groups swim one event, then the next, etc. etc., and keep hundreds of people twiddling their thumbs for hours in between swims that last 1-10 minutes? Hell, why do we have all age groups at every meet, or so many meets? My ideas are not well formed on this subject; I don't have concrete proposals. But, I think if we challenged assumptions, we could reduce the thumb-twiddling factor, and the resulting boredom problem.
- I do think we can turn swimming into a popular spectator sport. The Aussies do it in the face of competition from crickett and rugby. So can we.
Matt
I am down with a lot of the comments here. Yes, we could do a lot more to market this sport and make it more fan friendly, but we have done a number of good things already. Here are some more specific comments, in no particular order:
- You clearly can make TV coverage of a swim meet compelling viewing, with good editing and production. We do it every four years at the Olympics. Yes, an all day marathon of a YMCA age group meet is a snoozer for vitually everyone, BUT for an important national or international meet, you don't have to show every minute of every heat on TV.
- You can pump up interest in swimming competition by using non-standard formats, like head to head duels, focusing on short sprint races, etc. etc. I wholeheartedly endorse adding these kind of events to the mix. However, realize that some of this will come at the expense of running a "pure" competition that gives every swimmer an equal chance of swimming well and winning their events. I hear lots of shouting about making swim meets less boring. Well, the chance that a front runner might crack up and be eliminated from competition, through no fault of his or her own, is part of what generates interest in some sports. Think about the Tour de France, or the NCAA Basketball Tournament's "one & done" format (as compared to the NBA's endless, utterly predictable and unwatchable playoff system). Any time there is a suggestion that some swimmer got some infinitessimal advantage over another, an illegal dolphin kick at the turn, a pool 1 inch short of regulation length, the howls of protest are deafening. Are we prepared to accept a little random unfairness to make things more interesting? I am, but I have noticed others in this sport have turned fairness into a fetish.
- You can make big money payouts for professionals a priority, and drum up publicity by showing more skin. How far do you want to go down that road? I am in favor of some movement in this direction, but before we start, we should talk about what parts of our sport we want to preserve, even if we lose sponsor dollars and TV ratings by sticking to them. I don't want swimming to turn into fear factor (or figure skating), where the contestants are selected more because they are physically attractive, and less because of their athletic ability. I don't want our very best swimmers to begin behaving like the worst examples of professional athletes in the big three. I don't want club level swimming to turn into the sleazy, child-eating monster that summer club league basketball has become.
- Comparing swimming to golf, and suggesting we can do what golf did, is preposterous. Golf has ALWAYS been one of the most absurdly over-televised sports in the history of broadcast TV. Even in the 70s, when golf allegedly was smaller, what other sport would have events on TV, every weekend, for men's professional (PGA), women's professional (LPGA), and MASTERS (?!) profession (Senior PGA, for the love of Pete!) tours? Saying swimming should immitate golf is a bit like those methods for getting rich that tell you first you should inherit a million bucks.
- There is no money in swimming compared to the major team sports. But, compared to swimming in the 70s, there is a ton of money. Now, you can count on two hands the number of wealthy professional swimmers. Back then, you could count them on one finger--Mark Spitz, maybe.
- We have clearly lost participation rate and talent compared to earlier years. One reason why? The attenuation of the Mark Spitz effect, i.e. the age of swimmers old enough to have watched him compete in Munich and be inspired to try the sport. Look at the most populace age groups in any masters meets, esp. Nationals, and the presence of the Mark Spitz generation leaps out at you.
- My personal two bits on the unpopularity of age group swimming: I think it boils down to time demands on the parents. Yes, it is not cheap, but other sports are more expensive. Yes, your chances of turning pro, or even getting a college scholarship, and miniscule, but I haven't heard many parents, and darn few sane parents, consider that as a major factor. The aforementioned endless meets, travel, and having to get the little munchskins to an ungodly number of workouts, often at inconvient hours, and often with the parents having to hang out for a couple of hours at the pool during practice, is simply a lot more of an imposition than even a heavy bill for club dues.
- In a related point, I am not convinced that subjecting young age group swimmers to heavy workloads is the best way to make them faster swimmers in their late teens and early twenties. We like to assume that your chances of being nationally ranked at 18 are better if you are nationally ranked at 8, but does the latter cause or contribute to the former? How many nationally ranked 8 year olds are still there 10 years later? If my doubts are correct, we could do a lot more for the kids by making early age group swimming more about fun and participation, and less about beating everyone else. Fewer injuries, less cause for mental burn-out at in the teen years, more of a reason to want to stick with the sport.
- Therefore, I like the idea of radically reformatting early age group swimming and meets. Why do we have all the age groups swim one event, then the next, etc. etc., and keep hundreds of people twiddling their thumbs for hours in between swims that last 1-10 minutes? Hell, why do we have all age groups at every meet, or so many meets? My ideas are not well formed on this subject; I don't have concrete proposals. But, I think if we challenged assumptions, we could reduce the thumb-twiddling factor, and the resulting boredom problem.
- I do think we can turn swimming into a popular spectator sport. The Aussies do it in the face of competition from crickett and rugby. So can we.
Matt
