Is there really a division between masters swimmers? i.e. one camp allied to a more low key fitness oriented approach with low membership growth vs. a meet oriented competitive (elite) camp?
This sounds ridiculous to me. I don't think I've ever run into anyone that acknowledged this debate on a pool deck.
What spawns this rift in Masters swimming? Is this an old guard vs. younger member phenonmenon?
Are there different motivations that exist that create this conflict in terms of the future of USMS? Why can't both coexist?
I say we poll some people out there and find out what they support.
John Smith
Parents
Former Member
It seems to me that when talking about expansion you have to keep in mind that different clubs are in different circumstances.
If a club has a lot of swimmers per lane and no way to expand its practice hours then growth will be a bad thing unless it helps justify new facilities.
If a club has a lot of swimmers per lane but could justify and get additional pool time if it had more members than growth could be a good thing. It could lead to more available swim times and more revenues to spend on good coaching or equipment or whatever.
If a club is struggling to achieve or maintain critical mass and to pay for the pool time it is using then growth is a great thing.
There is an element of the common service organization dilemma: do you aim to serve your current members or all the potential members within your mandate?
On the championship versus "festival" question, maybe a national masters swimming festival where competition is secondary to location, getting together, etc. would allow nationals to be smaller and more competition focused for those that desire that.
I bet that if USMS really scrounged it could come up with the money to have someone write a hybrid seeding algorithm that put the most elite swimmers in each age group together while seeding those who prefer to be seeded by time together. It's not rocket science, consider it "personalized customer service".
It seems to me that when talking about expansion you have to keep in mind that different clubs are in different circumstances.
If a club has a lot of swimmers per lane and no way to expand its practice hours then growth will be a bad thing unless it helps justify new facilities.
If a club has a lot of swimmers per lane but could justify and get additional pool time if it had more members than growth could be a good thing. It could lead to more available swim times and more revenues to spend on good coaching or equipment or whatever.
If a club is struggling to achieve or maintain critical mass and to pay for the pool time it is using then growth is a great thing.
There is an element of the common service organization dilemma: do you aim to serve your current members or all the potential members within your mandate?
On the championship versus "festival" question, maybe a national masters swimming festival where competition is secondary to location, getting together, etc. would allow nationals to be smaller and more competition focused for those that desire that.
I bet that if USMS really scrounged it could come up with the money to have someone write a hybrid seeding algorithm that put the most elite swimmers in each age group together while seeding those who prefer to be seeded by time together. It's not rocket science, consider it "personalized customer service".
