Should USA Swimming recruit?

The times have changed, Paul, and for professionals the borders of a country, as related to who they play for, are as arbitrary as the borders of the city they were born in. Was it here that Seinfeld was quoted as saying that in the pro games what we were really rooting for is laundry? I just can't get that excited about laundry, whatever the color. It is not competition between nations I object to (or nationalism, as you refer to it) but the extremes that countries go through to do well at an event that has no relevence to the quality of the nation. We find countries cheating (I am primarily referring to drugs, here) and going bankrupt trying to show that they can host a sporting event. For what? Does the fact that China can (may) win so many swimming events make you think that that country is a better place to live, or deserves more respect than if it had no swimmers? Is Athens better off with its debt, or if it had spent the money more wisely in things that provided long-term benefits for the city, or never taxed the money at all? I agree with Matt, the more money in the sport the more healthy it will be. And that means professionals and everything that goes with them. Perhaps someday all of the olympic sports will be like Soccer, Baseball, Hockey, Tennis, and Basketball -- with the players mostly too young for prime time, or not quite good enough, because the pros can't be bothered (all of these sports), the sports organizing body is threatened (soccer), or the schedule interferes with the pro league (hockey, baseball, and soccer). Bicycling is another example where the pro sport has mostly left the olympics behind. Those are the *healthy* sports, with lots of participation at all levels of competition. Swimming should want to be more like them, not stuck in some backwater of nostalgic memories for amateurism, where a huge amount of work is spent on the unlikely chance of winning an event every four years, followed by selling insurance for the rest of one's life.

The times have changed, Paul, and for professionals the borders of a country, as related to who they play for, are as arbitrary as the borders of the city they were born in. Was it here that Seinfeld was quoted as saying that in the pro games what we were really rooting for is laundry? I just can't get that excited about laundry, whatever the color. It is not competition between nations I object to (or nationalism, as you refer to it) but the extremes that countries go through to do well at an event that has no relevence to the quality of the nation. We find countries cheating (I am primarily referring to drugs, here) and going bankrupt trying to show that they can host a sporting event. For what? Does the fact that China can (may) win so many swimming events make you think that that country is a better place to live, or deserves more respect than if it had no swimmers? Is Athens better off with its debt, or if it had spent the money more wisely in things that provided long-term benefits for the city, or never taxed the money at all? I agree with Matt, the more money in the sport the more healthy it will be. And that means professionals and everything that goes with them. Perhaps someday all of the olympic sports will be like Soccer, Baseball, Hockey, Tennis, and Basketball -- with the players mostly too young for prime time, or not quite good enough, because the pros can't be bothered (all of these sports), the sports organizing body is threatened (soccer), or the schedule interferes with the pro league (hockey, baseball, and soccer). Bicycling is another example where the pro sport has mostly left the olympics behind. Those are the *healthy* sports, with lots of participation at all levels of competition. Swimming should want to be more like them, not stuck in some backwater of nostalgic memories for amateurism, where a huge amount of work is spent on the unlikely chance of winning an event every four years, followed by selling insurance for the rest of one's life.