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
Former Member
Originally posted by knelson
I guess most of my experience is from my own age group experience and it was fairly cheap in those days. Perhaps things have changed. However, kids certainly don't need to wear the expensive suits and parents who are concerned about the price shouldn't buy them.
I agree, Kirk!
It's actually rather strange for a thread that began lamenting a decline in boys' swimming to have come around to this issue, because boys' suits are a lot cheaper than girls' suits (at least, if parents don't let themselves be taken to the cleaners, which some do).
High tech suits are pretty much worthless unless a kid is going to a state championship or something. What's the point in spending lots of money on a suit that saves fractions of a second when most heats are being won or lost by seconds (or even minutes)?
What I recommend to parents who have a boy who's a competitive swimmer is to buy briefs that sell for $20-$25. I mention that they can also pay about $5 more and get a suit called a jammer that's a little slower than a brief. If you compare that to the cost of a baseball, baseball bat, and glove, or the gear needed to play football or hockey, I think you'll find that swimming comes out ahead. Basketball is probably cheaper.
The primary cost of swimming is the cost of pool time. But football and baseball fields also cost something to maintain, as do gyms with basketball courts.
Bob
Former Member
I think more parents and kids are influenced by the financial rewards than some have suggested. This may not be the factor that decides whether the kid ever tries swimming, but it may help to decide whether they stay in it. Given relatively equal talent in two sports, the greater possibility of earning a college scholarship in one over the other may decide it. People probably aren't so unrealistic to think their kid will earn a living playing a sport, but many of them hope it will pay for their education. There are so many scholarships out there in some sports, say football, that you don't even have to be particularly good--just big (or fat)--to get one. Many football players sit on the sideline for 4 or 5 years and never play a down, yet get a full ride. Please pardon the small rant on a pet peeve.
Former Member
Originally posted by SwiminONandON
There aren't many sports that require getting out of bed at 5am to practice then going to practice again after school ... you have to love it ... and the kids that are talented swimmers are probably talented at other sports, too ... I had a friend in high school that played football, basketball, and water polo ... he could have jumped into the pool at any point and qualified for the high school state meet, too ... he went to Michigan and played football there ... he probably could have swum there if he wanted to ... he was that talented ...
You raise some interesting points here.
In 2003, high school swimming coach Art Aungst wrote a book called Long Strokes in a Short Season, in which he chronicled the effects of shifting from conditioning-based coaching to technique-based coaching. In his book, he noted that "Because of our significant improvements over the past four seasons, other high school coaches often inquire what our 'secret' is. When I tell them that a 'big' training day for us might be 4500 yards - most of it done slowly and precisely - they usually seem skeptical."
He adds that "The unusual degree to which we have been able to create success based on significant contributions from athletes who don't consider themselves 'swimmers' has been exciting for me to witness. Swimming misses out on a great deal of potential because it typically holds little appeal for the person who has multiple athletic talents. The good athletes often look at swimming as mainly about 'how much pain and tedium can you endure?' They ask, 'Why should I endure that when I could be playing a game instead?'
"By changing our program from how-far-and-how-hard to a constantly evolving set of challenges involving balance, self-awareness, and exploration of efficiency, we have greatly increased its appeal to a person's general athleticism.
"The 'buzz' this has generated around the school has translated into more good athletes from other sports who view swimming as a favorable choice for off-season.
"Many kids who play volleyball, football, or soccer also play baseball, run track, and play lacrosse in other seasons. Many have outstanding athleticism that could be applied to swimming during a 12-week high school season if they were given the maximum opportunity to apply their athletic talents in the water. By making swimming more appealing through teaching, we have attracted many more of these kids to swim with us. By focusing on teaching and practice, rather than generic training, we have also given them the opportunity to swim quite fast in a brief season, and they have been instrumental to our success."
Bob
Former Member
Originally posted by justforfun
I'm sure others are thinking it, so I'll say it. I think a big factor is that age group (USA swimming) swim meets are boring. They are boring for the parents and also for the kids, who sit around most of the day only to swim once every hour or so. There's got to be a way to make these things more exciting and fun for the kids. I think more of them would be willing to put in the work at practice if the reward (meets) were better.
I thought you might have a point until I started thinking about baseball. Last summer, I went to a baseball game in which a boy I know was playing. The coach only put him in for half of the 7-inning game, and during that time he was up at bat exactly twice. He was playing outfield, and the ball only came to him a few times. All in all, he saw less action than a typical swimmer does at a swim meet. Yet baseball remains a popular sport for kids.
Bob
Former Member
Bob:
But, how long did the game last?
Former Member
Well said, Ande. It's no secret that swimming requires a real commitment, much greater than what is needed to participate in Little League baseball, YMCA basketball, or Pop Warner football. Aside from the fact that none of our society's sports icons are swimmers, there is the issue of delayed gratification, swimming five or six days a week in the hopes of lowering your times after several months of hard work. Contrast that with some of these other sports, where the time commitment is much less and the "results" are more tangible and more immediate--getting a hit, scoring a basket, catching a pass. And for some reason, sitting on the bench doesn't completely overshadow the thrill of dressing (and acting) like your favorite major leaguer. That having been said, if they can make NASCAR appeal to the masses...
Former Member
Ande you're right, but if enrollment continues to drop you have less and less chance of realizing the all things that you've said.
It's a numbers game in the end. The more kids that partake, the more likely you will find another Phelps. You can't rely on a few great talents carrying the National team every year if the sport is in decline. You've got to MAKE it happen and turn it around.
US Swimming needs a wake up call to increase enrollment, and now.
John Smith
Former Member
Originally posted by aquageek
Second, and to you gull80, easy on the NASCAR bashing. I do live in Charlotte, after all. When you come here next January for the meet, I'm enrolling you in the Richard Petty Driving Experience.
Clearly you've never seen me drive.
BTW, I was born in California but grew up in Houston--so I am definitely not a Yankee and will report you to a moderator for that personal attack.
Originally posted by justforfun
I have to tell you, we've had a minor swimming miracle here in Omaha, having won the Olympic Trials bid. Lots of media coverage when it happened. Also, there was some actual coverage of the World Champs in the local paper. In the past, we were lucky to get a few results in the "scoreboard" section. I sure hope the momentum carries for 3 more years and beyond the actual Trials dates. I also hope the attention translates into increased participation on local swim clubs. I will certainly do what I can to help it happen.
The sad thing is, though, is that it took non-swimming people to make the Olympic Trials bid happen. If you would have asked any long-time swimming person around here, they would have said, "no way, we can't have Trials here...we don't have the right facility, we don't have enough support, and on and on." But the Omaha Sports Commission, which doesn't really care about swimming, was able to think big, get creative, and figure out a way to make it happen. They are event promotions people. They know how to market events and get a community behind something. All they really cared about was getting a high-profile national competition booked in the Quest Center. It didn't really matter what the event was. But, now people are excited about it. And, they're curious how the arena will look with a 50m pool inside, how they build it, etc. I sure hope we can capitalize on it.
Very cool!
What a great thread.... I think we need to develop and provide tools to our age group coaches and aquatic directors on how to promote and educate all the young kids that are taking swim lessons right now. That is were our base is.... I don't know about other LSC or states, but in Utah it seems that we have forgotten how to funnel our swim lesson programs into our swim teams. I don't know a single parent who doesn't want the their kid to learn how to swim. Everyone puts their children into swim lessons, but that is were is usually stops. There is no information on what being apart of swim team is about or what it can do for you. In almost every other sport, your introduction to that sport is being apart of the team. You start off being apart of a league and you compete from day one. With swimming you start off with lessons and then it ends, there is no experience of being on team. You don't even get to determine if you like it or not.
I am sure, from talking with fellow coaches, that the most successful program know how to do this. We should learn from them. I would bet that 90% off all the teams across our great country struggle with how to market and promote their swim team with the lesson program in their community.
