There is a proposal pendiing to require Nationals be held "at venues located within the boundaries of USMS." If adopted, it would preclude Puerto Rico's bid.
How do we feel about it?
I think this is over-legislation and unnecessary. Mark Gill took the initiative to do something about a dearth of LCM Nationals bids. This is commendable and a great example to others at ALL levels (yes, including swimmers) of USMS. The PR bid for Nationals should be considered on its merits, not by legislative maneuvering.
If nothing else, this should spur other prospective Nationals hosts to submit bids. This would be a good long-term outcome since not many have come in over the past few years. Let's see what this bid looks like at Convention and vote accordingly. I at least want the option of voting against it if it does not measure-up to the other bidder.
I am a bit confused as to why there would be a Nationals meet not in the boundaries of USMS - would that not make it an international meet? Nationals seem to get somewhat well spread out over the country (I do not see Austin, TX as west, more like central US).
As far as the destination itself being a "vacation" destination, that is a matter of opinion on the individual spot. A big city generally can qualify as a vacation spot, but most people would not consider Fresno/Clovis a vacation destination - though Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks are both within 1 1/2 hours away. I think that in the end, a high quality pool is what USMS should be looking for - so whomever can provide that should have a fair shot at hosting.
I do wonder if a meet held in Puerto Rico (or other Federation territories) would have more of an international rather than national feel to the meet. In conversations with swimmers from the islands, there would be a lot of attendees from other countries in Central and South America.
Holding the meet outside the boundaries of USMS LMSC territories implies that there is no "local" USMS host team. NOTE: there was no “local” LMSC host club for nationals at Austin and unless I’m mistaken (which I frequently am) there isno “local” LMSC host club for nationals at Fresno.
I don't think we need to legislate to limit bids to USMS boundaries, but I do wonder if a meet held in Puerto Rico (or other Federation territories) would have more of an international rather than national feel to the meet.
At the four national meets I've attended, there has been tremendous turn out from the local LMSC clubs. Swimmers who may not normally travel to nationals enter the meet because it's in their own backyard. This is great for the meet hosts, and also for participants who may be new to competiton, or reluctant to travel for a meet for which they don't make qualifying times. It also helps the local clubs put together lots of relays and earn lots of points--hopefully garnering them a "win" for all the hard work put into the meet. If this helps to boost USMS membership in the area for a few years, that's even better.
Holding the meet outside the boundaries of USMS LMSC territories implies that there is no "local" USMS host team. Currently, international entries in USMS national meets are pretty low, but my assumption is that hosting the meet in PR would significantly increase international participation at the meet (I'm guessing PR would have a shot at the title of USMS National Champion?), but would it do anything to help USMS participation--i.e. increase membership, encourage members to compete at a meet like nationals, etc.?
I'm all for having nationals at first class facilities, and based on comments from one of my teammates who attended PanAms in PR, the facility is fantastic. That said, I would hate for nationals to take on the persona of an international meet like PanAms or Worlds.
The debate over "local club" vs. "umbrella club" scoring has been hotly debated. How would having "Team Puerto Rico" win the coveted National Champion banner effect the scoring debate in 2011?
I realize I'm arguing both sides here, but if the location for the national meet sounds intriguing it does make me more excited to attend (read, more likely to make attendance a priority). For that reason, traveling outside the natural USMS boarders could be fun. However, it's been my experience that there's little time to enjoy the local sights when swimming multiple events per day.
My :2cents:.
In conversations with swimmers from the islands, there would be a lot of attendees from other countries in Central and South America.
And thus, my point. Is it really USMS Nationals, or is it an international meet hosted by USMS? I'm not opposed to international meets. I just think we should call it what it is. I also voted "no" to limiting the meet to USMS boundaries.
The focus should be on having an annual championship meet at a qualty facility. However, I think it's important to be sure that hosting the meet outside USMS boundaries will promote the goals of USMS. Maybe having the meet in PR gets more members to participate--maybe not. The only way to know for sure is to run the meet and compare participation from prior years.
NOTE: there was no “local” LMSC host club for nationals at Austin and unless I’m mistaken (which I frequently am) there isno “local” LMSC host club for nationals at Fresno.
True. When referring to the "local" host, I should have been more clear. It would make sense for clubs to encourage participation for members who may not normally travel to a meet. So for Austin, I would expect Longhorn Aquatics and other clubs within commuting distance to the meet to encourage members to enter three (or more) events since the meet is local. If we're lucky, some of those folks will have enjoyed it enough to attend nationals again in another city.
Must be part of a larger conspiracy to keep Nationals on the west coast ...
I believe the limit proposal was submitted by a group from the west coast.
Regardless,
The last several years, fewer and fewer facilities/LMSCs have bid for national meets. It seems suspicious to me that folks are only now coming out of the woodwork to bid for the 2010 meet when they've known for over a year about it. If we can't get our own LMSC's to put together worthy bids in a timely fashion, why not farm out our biggest meet once and see what happens for bids down the road? If people really don't want non-USMS bodies bidding for our meets, then they'll need to step up to the plate and put together a bid themselves.
Aside from not having a USMS sanction, is there really any good, unselfish reason not to have the meet there?
The focus should be on having an annual championship meet at a qualty facility. However, I think it's important to be sure that hosting the meet outside USMS boundaries will promote the goals of USMS. Maybe having the meet in PR gets more members to participate--maybe not. The only way to know for sure is to run the meet and compare participation from prior years.
This is well said, and I think is the primary argument being made by proponents of keep the meet withing USMS boundaries. I voted in favor of keeping the meet within boundaries for this very reason, but I now think we should at least try to hold a meet in an exotic, but not too distant locale and see what it does to attendance before banning such meets altogether. I'm OK with a bias against such meets, especially if they're proposed to beheld very far away. But we probably don't need an absolute rule against them...
Just thought of something here -
2010 Fina Masters World's are in Sweeden (tentative dates 7/28 - 8/7).
It would be hard to do both meets - especially financially - but if our meet were after Worlds, we'd know the times we need to beat to make it into the Fina Top 10 rankings... for those of us who are fast enough to have a shot at that distinction.
I am a bit confused as to why there would be a Nationals meet not in the boundaries of USMS - would that not make it an international meet? Nationals seem to get somewhat well spread out over the country (I do not see Austin, TX as west, more like central US).
As far as the destination itself being a "vacation" destination, that is a matter of opinion on the individual spot. A big city generally can qualify as a vacation spot, but most people would not consider Fresno/Clovis a vacation destination - though Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks are both within 1 1/2 hours away. I think that in the end, a high quality pool is what USMS should be looking for - so whomever can provide that should have a fair shot at hosting.
I sure as heck don't consider Indianapolis a vacation destination.
