Is this the face of Masters Swimming?

Dan...glad to hear it...that means you have your own specific ideas on what needs to be done so please share more of them. The only way we are ever going to b able to define what USMS is will be through debate! Now to your point about insurance, goggles, suits, etc having no appeal to you but paying for Eddie Reese to give a talk thats all great. But you are missing many years of a very clear "mission" if you will from USMS....and that has been a very inclusive, fitness based organization that is not primarily interested in meets....remember that I think less than 10% of registered members compete. So...if we stay that course and decide we do want to grow than its logical to assume that growth would come from primarily fitness/lap swimmers not competition focused swimmers...I would argue than that any "trinkets" or give backs would probably mean quite a bit to these folks. If however we want to try and build on your primary interest which is racing than we will need to focus on a smaller organization and that would mean less funding which means higher dues...but you still need to get the interest of those folks as well...I would suggest a very focused campaign to try and tap into high school kids graduating who maybe are not attending college but would like to continue training/competing, or recent college grads.....both groups have little if any money and I again argue that give backs, goodies, etc. are a lure. For us old farts maybe those things are not such a good draw.....who knows? "Subvert the Dominant Paradigm" I think you understand my comments are not personal to you. My primary interest is actually fitness, but racing keeps me motivated and is how I measure my achievement. Like many here said - the 10-15 people I swim with generally do not compete much. I swim at a private club with a "Masters program" with a very good coach. If we lose swimmers, I worry about losing the coach. USMS membership is not required (but club membership or a per-swim card is). We are not lane constrained so overcrowding is not a problem. We have fun, whether we compete or not. Because SCY Nationals are in Austin in 08 - we're shooting for 6-8 to race next spring. So I am generally in the camp that increasing USMS membership is better than the opposite. To me a smaller more focused organization is ultimately a losing proposition because less participation means fewer swimmers, less access to pools, coaching, etc. I do think USMS may be missing something by not offering more to the committed competition swimmer. That's why I suggested a VIP level with more benefits instead of an across the board increase in dues. USS probably couldn't do a VIP program because of the likely complaint about elitism and economic status of some children. One dislaimer - my history with USMS is about 3 years - so I have no idea what it has been. In spite of my belief that USMS membership growth is a good idea - it wouldn't bother me if fewer 45-49 people swam my events!

Dan...glad to hear it...that means you have your own specific ideas on what needs to be done so please share more of them. The only way we are ever going to b able to define what USMS is will be through debate! Now to your point about insurance, goggles, suits, etc having no appeal to you but paying for Eddie Reese to give a talk thats all great. But you are missing many years of a very clear "mission" if you will from USMS....and that has been a very inclusive, fitness based organization that is not primarily interested in meets....remember that I think less than 10% of registered members compete. So...if we stay that course and decide we do want to grow than its logical to assume that growth would come from primarily fitness/lap swimmers not competition focused swimmers...I would argue than that any "trinkets" or give backs would probably mean quite a bit to these folks. If however we want to try and build on your primary interest which is racing than we will need to focus on a smaller organization and that would mean less funding which means higher dues...but you still need to get the interest of those folks as well...I would suggest a very focused campaign to try and tap into high school kids graduating who maybe are not attending college but would like to continue training/competing, or recent college grads.....both groups have little if any money and I again argue that give backs, goodies, etc. are a lure. For us old farts maybe those things are not such a good draw.....who knows? "Subvert the Dominant Paradigm" I think you understand my comments are not personal to you. My primary interest is actually fitness, but racing keeps me motivated and is how I measure my achievement. Like many here said - the 10-15 people I swim with generally do not compete much. I swim at a private club with a "Masters program" with a very good coach. If we lose swimmers, I worry about losing the coach. USMS membership is not required (but club membership or a per-swim card is). We are not lane constrained so overcrowding is not a problem. We have fun, whether we compete or not. Because SCY Nationals are in Austin in 08 - we're shooting for 6-8 to race next spring. So I am generally in the camp that increasing USMS membership is better than the opposite. To me a smaller more focused organization is ultimately a losing proposition because less participation means fewer swimmers, less access to pools, coaching, etc. I do think USMS may be missing something by not offering more to the committed competition swimmer. That's why I suggested a VIP level with more benefits instead of an across the board increase in dues. USS probably couldn't do a VIP program because of the likely complaint about elitism and economic status of some children. One dislaimer - my history with USMS is about 3 years - so I have no idea what it has been. In spite of my belief that USMS membership growth is a good idea - it wouldn't bother me if fewer 45-49 people swam my events!