Clovis in 09??

Michael, This was well written, thank you... Paul, If you are going to insult me, be accurate. I said, "Go, or don't." It is a personal decision and I was pointing out some curious (to me) reasons people were using not to go. You brought up the crime angle, but may risk the trip, anyway. Where did I ever say that I did not care? If I did not care, I would not be volunteering (lots of) my time to help this organization for the last 24 years. The attack mentality will not make friends, and we can use all the friends we can get. This is not war, it is swimming, and we do not own any of the pools. I may be wrong, but I see from some of your posts that you think in primarily the competitive mode. There is nothing wrong with that, I am only establishing a baseline. USMS is made up of over 75% non-competitive swimmers. I do not call them fitness, because I presume that even the highly competitive swimmers derive some fitness benefit from the activity. We cannot ignore them to charge about only looking for competition venues, but have to balance our efforts in order to serve all of the membership. This results some times in no one being happy. The championship committee is in fact trying to implement some of the things you suggest, and the difficult part is that even they are not in complete agreement. Depending on which part of the country you are from, there are a long list of items that have varying priorities, and each member of the committee has his own list. Although it would be nice to make grand strides, it is only with small steps that USMS can comfortably and responsibly keep inching forward. We are a business run by many business people who differ in their outlooks save one, swimming. That commonality keeps USMS afloat despite our many flaws and disagreements. But inch we do. I have not given up on the Rose Bowl pool, but I would hesitate to say, "you're stupid if you don't take this deal." That would ensure that the facility would be lost to us forever. It is tough to take rejection, but with perseverance, we will move ahead. The marketing package is in the works. We simply need to educate the folks with the keys to the pools to think that it is a good business decision to let these annoyingly persistent Masters have their swim meet, and make some money in the bargain. Most, if not all pools that have hosted USMS nationals have found the experience to be highly rewarding on several levels. To the image issue. We are actively working on our brand and how best to update and improve it. Stay tuned. I was one of those HS/College swimmers wondering about the old timers and their swim meets. Way back in 1971, my coach, Burt Kanner, left our AG team at a local meet to participate in Masters nationals when it was held at Santa Monica HS. He did not wear a flowered cap and he did shave down. My first Masters meet was in 1976.

I created threads on both SCY and LCM Nationals for 2010. We should probably move our discussions regarding the LCM bids for this meet to that forum. The SCY 2010 one is a placeholder for now. Not much controvesy over a non-contested bid...right?

Oh, I also created a thread for 2009 SCY Nationals on the Nationals section of the forum.

It didn't look to me as if there is any significant west coast bias in terms of where meets are held. But if there is, it sort of makes sense since the west coast is where the majority of USMS swimmers are located. I think this is superficially appealing, but is it wise? This isn't an electoral college. If we have 2/3 of the meets in central and western locations, doesn't that just entrench the western "monopoly?" West coast swimmers will be more likely to attend nationals, go every year, enjoy the benefits of high level competition, etc. (When I look at my age group, west coast swimmers seem to dominate. If they have easier access to the fastest pools and fastest meets, that's somewhat of an advantage.) I think it makes more sense to move the meet around fairly evenly, to the extent possible. Otherwise, in addition to fostering the west coast monopoly, east coast swimmers will be penalized with a greater travel/expense burden than their west coast peers. Nothing can be perfectly fair, of course, but, since we pay USMS dues and shell out big bucks for our hobby, it would be nice to feel the love too!

I think this is superficially appealing, but is it wise? This isn't an electoral college. If we have 2/3 of the meets in central and western locations, doesn't that just entrench the western "monopoly?" West coast swimmers will be more likely to attend nationals, go every year, enjoy the benefits of high level competition, etc. (When I look at my age group, west coast swimmers seem to dominate. If they have easier access to the fastest pools and fastest meets, that's somewhat of an advantage.) I think it makes more sense to move the meet around fairly evenly, to the extent possible. Otherwise, in addition to fostering the west coast monopoly, east coast swimmers will be penalized with a greater travel/expense burden than their west coast peers. Nothing can be perfectly fair, of course, but, since we pay USMS dues and shell out big bucks for our hobby, it would be nice to feel the love too! Funny you should mention that, I created a post that deals with this subject in the Nationals section of the forum. In order to address the current distribution of Nationals, what locations from the Eastern US deserve consideration? Post away on the new Topic. Enjoy!

Hijacking is an accepted norm. Most people read and post in the General Discussions section. Are you as bossy as that Smith guy?

Are you as bossy as that Smith guy? Which one?

Hijacking is an accepted norm. Most people read and post in the General Discussions section. Are you as bossy as that Smith guy? The purpose was to keep the various Nationals-related topics grouped. That will make it a bit easier to discuss IMHO but ultimately it does not matter to me. Just a thought and an action on my part, no "hijacking" intended :-)

I think this is superficially appealing, but is it wise? This isn't an electoral college. If we have 2/3 of the meets in central and western locations, doesn't that just entrench the western "monopoly?" West coast swimmers will be more likely to attend nationals, go every year, enjoy the benefits of high level competition, etc. (When I look at my age group, west coast swimmers seem to dominate. If they have easier access to the fastest pools and fastest meets, that's somewhat of an advantage.) I think it makes more sense to move the meet around fairly evenly, to the extent possible. Otherwise, in addition to fostering the west coast monopoly, east coast swimmers will be penalized with a greater travel/expense burden than their west coast peers. Nothing can be perfectly fair, of course, but, since we pay USMS dues and shell out big bucks for our hobby, it would be nice to feel the love too! Maybe West Coast folks are more inclined to put out the effort than East Coast folks? Just a thought - not saying East Coasters are lazy or anything like that so don't go off on me. :whiteflag: Maybe WC just bids more often than EC - still haven't seen an answer that delineates bid history to any degree. I think if the EC swimmers want it on the EC more often, they're going to have to come up with the possibilities and just bid more.

Maybe West Coast folks are more inclined to put out the effort than East Coast folks? Just a thought - not saying East Coasters are lazy or anything like that so don't go off on me. :whiteflag: Maybe WC just bids more often than EC - still haven't seen an answer that delineates bid history to any degree. I think if the EC swimmers want it on the EC more often, they're going to have to come up with the possibilities and just bid more. Well, from what I have seen it's a matter of real estate. There have not been many national level aquatic centers built in at least my area (Wash DC). We have two that are close but.