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
Swimming will probably not gain any poplularity with in the next 10 years. One major reason is that NCaa is too poweerful and it makes too much money from basketball. does anyone remember when the NCAA basketball tornament was sold to markets? Then in the late 80s, NCAA sold it to networks. In DC there was a very small UHF chanel that got the local broadcastiing rights for many years. Most people couldn't get the station. Then DC started to get cable. Still few could get the tournament. Then it was sold to networks and everyone was happy.
NCAA will never get behind swimming and promote it. Even if Ntionals were shown in every market, it woudl never make money. Swimming is almost unwatchable to the American public. Wide World of Sports used to show swimming recorded and heavily edited. Now with all of hte heats and concilation (sp) heats, few coudl maintain interest through the program.
As for golf. It has had brief flurries of popularity. those flurries almost always echoe Tiger Woods succes. Though, golf sales haven't reached the area they were when big Bertha was introduced. It is still not as popular as it was up to 1972. Its promise lies inthe fact that you can easily show what is happening. I reeally think that is hte most important facet for television showing of a sport. So little of swimming is "seeable."
Swimming will probably not gain any poplularity with in the next 10 years. One major reason is that NCaa is too poweerful and it makes too much money from basketball. does anyone remember when the NCAA basketball tornament was sold to markets? Then in the late 80s, NCAA sold it to networks. In DC there was a very small UHF chanel that got the local broadcastiing rights for many years. Most people couldn't get the station. Then DC started to get cable. Still few could get the tournament. Then it was sold to networks and everyone was happy.
NCAA will never get behind swimming and promote it. Even if Ntionals were shown in every market, it woudl never make money. Swimming is almost unwatchable to the American public. Wide World of Sports used to show swimming recorded and heavily edited. Now with all of hte heats and concilation (sp) heats, few coudl maintain interest through the program.
As for golf. It has had brief flurries of popularity. those flurries almost always echoe Tiger Woods succes. Though, golf sales haven't reached the area they were when big Bertha was introduced. It is still not as popular as it was up to 1972. Its promise lies inthe fact that you can easily show what is happening. I reeally think that is hte most important facet for television showing of a sport. So little of swimming is "seeable."
