Recruiting

Paul, This independent balanced Ying and Yang thing an act. Let me give you a test question..... Whos' worse..... Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush? John Smith

Originally posted by knelson ...We have Olympic gold medalists, many large and successful USA Swimming clubs, a Pac Ten University with both men's and women's swimming teams, etc. yet it's still difficult to keep the pools open we already have--let alone think about building new facilities. You have not only several indoor pools but several university pools, and you also have the King County Aquatics Center (2000 Olympic Diving Trials, Goodwill Games). In addition to that, there are a slew of athletic clubs and independantly owned public pools like Ruiz-Costie. There's no trouble keeping pools open from what I can see. Maybe if only competitive masters swimmers were allowed membership (not doable) it would keep your numbers down of people in your lane. I read somewhere that only 20% of masters swimmers actually compete. Please correct me because that sounds too low to believe.

Originally posted by Fishgrrl So then what's the proposed fee hike? I don't think the Championship comittee has made that public yet, or really decided on it. It will probably be hashed out at the convention, since it's something that came up recently. No worries, the fee won't be doubling or tripling. It's likely to be a $10 or $ 20 increase from what it is now. That's my guess. Just a quick clarification, I'm *not* a member of the championship comittee - which is the entity that the fee increase proposal will come from. I'm sharing my personal opinions here about the entry fees and about USMS membership fees. Not to be confused with what championship or finance comittee's are actualy doing.

Peirsol Fan - I think 20% sounds about right. In our club - Davis Aquatic Masters (very large club) only 10-15 people compete every time. Once in a while we'll have 25-30 people compete, but there are very specific reasons for that, and it's usually at the Short Course Yards Championship meet. Otherwise, it's the same 10-15 people.

Originally posted by Conniekat8 I'm sorry, if you can't see reasons for growth, I'm not the right person to explain them to you (in a calm manner). You didn't answer the question. Maybe you should go into politics :) No, I don't think USMS should get "stagnant" or "mediocre," but on the other hand I don't see why there's this huge need for growth. It's clear that any organization needs to market itself, I'm just saying I don't think the current state of affairs is so bad.

originally posted by GoodSmith in response to Evil Smith's ultra-Right Wing Comments Paul, as you have referred to me as a leading left winged bleeding heart liberal and most irritating member of USMS forum (next to Geek), I am all over your undercover pro Republican comments. You are a closet Republican ! Closet??.....I wouldn't call him a closet Republican now (no matter what he claims to be)....I bet he's got his car radio tuned to the Rush Limbaugh Show every second he's in his car burning that $3 plus a gallon gas thanks to W and co....LOL!!....just joking now Paul.....remember that thing Peter said about a little humor every once and a while is o.k.??.... Actually Paul, You have made some good suggestions here IMHO along wih others (Even Evil-GoodSmith included) about recruiting for USMS and swimming in general....even if you are a filthy Jerry Faldwell loving Right Winger. Newmastersswimmer p.s. Mr. Gill....I guess I can handle a 2 - 5% overall increase in expenses to make Nationals run smoother and allow the host some incentive and rewards for hosting the meet....sorry if I came off as a major cheapskate....but I'm a teacher...and despite what some say here.....The one's in power are blowing smoke when they talk about investing in education.....I can make almost as much money flipping burgers I bet....but then again if I worked at Micky D's then I wouldn't be able to enjoy all the wonderful hatred that my students poor over me each semester!

I think the part that doesn't add up is you're neglecting the fact that it's the local government making these decisions and they don't necessarily have to make a lot sense. Obviously they have been subsidizing the pools to some extent if it will save them money to close them. But why shouldn't they? Does a city park make the city any money? Pool is not a ecatly the same as a city park. Sure, some of the facilities may be city owned. It's not the same as a walkway with some benches and greenery or a softball field. Cities have a responsibility to provide recreation options for their residents. This means spending some of our tax dollars on public pools among other things. I don't agree with you at all there. Pool is not a park any more then a gym is a park. If pools should be free, then gyms and personal training and triathlon gear and running shoes and tri-bikes and any other rescreation options should be free. Also, cities don't really have the responsibility to provide the recreation. If you live in a city that is financially healthy enough to offer a fair amount of park and rec facilities, it's a bonus. Not an entitlement. For cities, it's a marketing tool to have parks etc... to attract people willing to pay taxes to live there. If it becomes unfeasible to do that, or too expensive to maintain, it'll go away - or they raise your taxes. Personally I prefer not to have government hands in it. If I like a business, they will get my patronage, and I would expect them to charge enough so they stay in business. Not to drive themselves out of business so I can afford them. If there's something I can't afford, well, guess what, I don't get/buy it. I don't look for government to subsidize it for me. Anyway, you asked if a park makes city money, in an indirect way, it certainly does. You have a nice well kept pleasant to live in city, guess what, you'll be able to charge more property taxes. Also, most parks aren't built at city expenses anyway, the land developers end up having to build them if they want to put in a subdivision, and dedicate them to the city (public) and city just maintains them, and the cost gets passed on the homeowner as a part of the price of the home they just bought, and not in property taxes. Taxes only pay for maintenance. Also I think you're confusing the points different people are making. I never said I'm not willing to pay to swim. No, you didn't, I forget what exactly you said, but it gave me the sense that you think that pools should be very low cost. After you mentioning equating a pool to a public park, you sort of confirmed the impression I was getting. (or maybe I do have you confused with someone else) Well, we aren't in 1930's any more, the times of public baths and pools. You want a sport that will attract quality, sopnsors, be in step with fitness requirements of people that are trying to stay in shape and participate in sports TODAY, yopu can't rely on the government to give it to you. You rely on government, you'll get government-quality service - which is what you're getting now, overcrowded pool, other pools closing.... So, you have a choice there, keep barking up the government to give you a freebie or run pools like businesses, like stadiums, ice rinks, bowling alleys and other sports and recreation facilities are run. My only point is that it isn't axiomatic that if membership in USMS increases that all of a sudden there will be more pool time and/or pools available for our use. I never said it would happen suddenly or immediately, or as a result of sole marketing after new members. What I was trying to explain that growth of membership should be a part of a more comprehensive overall growth plan. Not something as simplistic as getting a bunch more people to join, if there's no pool time or places for them, to swim. I mean, is it not plain common sense to not do that anyways. Why would you even think I would be advocating something so simplistic as just tossing more swimmers into overcrowded pools???

Warning: Nonswimming-related post. I didn't realize how well paid our teachers were during the eight years of the Clinton administration.

Originally posted by Paul Smith John, John, John.....I have never refered to you as you describe, that's how you introduce yourself to new people at parties!!! By the way have youmet Ms. Kitty........5' nothin and more energy than can imagine. PS: Registered Independent for 20 years....even voted for Perot (once). Well, from your perspective it may seem like 5' nuttin, but I'm actually 5'-9"! Or . ... it must have been awfully dark in that hallway in Indy ;) Is the Good Smith really your brother? I haven't been following the story from the beginning.

I totally disagree. I think public pools are absolutely essential to the sport. I'm not saying pools should be totally free, but the fee should be reasonable. Define what's reasonable to you? To me, charging the price that allows a business to stay in business is very reasonable. I fear that if all pools are private you're going to exclude a large segment of the population from swimming. And, yes, I'll admit it, I'm a bleeding heart. Bleeding heart... Then I'm afraid we won't agree on much... *sigh* Bleeding hearts are for debutants and beauty pageants and similar fairytales :p So back to growing the membership of USMS. Let me pose this question: why do you think it is important to grow USMS? And using the fact that it is one of USMS's "core objectives" doesn't count. Oh, let's not grow, let's stagnate and be mediocre instead. While the economy and the rest of the world passes by. Let's freeze the USMS just the way it was in 1973. We got our own little spot, and let's not share it with anyone else, and hide inside our little blue blanket. I'm sorry, if you can't see reasons for growth, I'm not the right person to explain them to you (in a calm manner). Edit: and let me clarify my position. I'm not opposed to growing USMS. I just feel that membership is already at an acceptable level. I don't believe raising my membership fees or meet fees to furhter market USMS is the right thing to do. I don't agree with you, sorry, I really couldn't possibly disagree more. We're diametrically opposed on this. Frankly, this is just the thing that is extremely irritating within parts of USMS, there's a group of people that are afraid of everything, and look at most things half empty and disagree with almost everything. There's just enough of the doomsdayers and nay-sayers to stifle and filibuster every effort, and enough people afraid to stand up to them that a lot of efforts just die off in a fear of confrontation. I really hope that change of governance will suceed in getting past that.