2008 Convention

Maybe I'm missing something here....but has anyone published and agenda and when can we get people on this forum who are attending to actually share with us their opinions/likely votes on the key issues? Doug, your the President of my LMSC so I'd very much like to hear your thoughts/likely vote on: 1) Holding nationals outside of US boundaries 2) Scoring at nationals (club vs. regional team) 3) How best to market/grow USMS Go to: www.usms.org/.../ and scroll down to the bottom. Click on any link or report you wish to see; you might be interested in "Proposed changes to USMS Rules and Legislation." As far as my vote/opinion so far (may change as I think about things), and forgive my bluntness in places: 1. I have no problem with it, I think such bids should be considered on their own merits not shot down out of hand. A silly proposal IMO. 2. Not the burning issue with me as it seems to be out west. I tend to vote to spread the wealth and recognition. I prefer the old size-based scoring, irregardless of club/regional; I would rather help small/medium clubs grow by whatever means necessary, if a banner helps them (and some testified to this last year) that's great. I have to admit I got a little tired of PM posturing on this issue last year. Whatever we decide would be fine by me, I just hope we don't spend a lot of time & energy on it and hear more threats along the lines of "you'd be sorry if PM decided to be a super team" (I really wouldn't). 3. Is growth for its own sake a good thing? Increasing championship and zone bids is a bigger issue for me than growth. Getting USMS members more interested in competition/meets -- making meets more enticing to the occasional competitor -- is also a bigger issue for me. But if I had to answer, I'd pretty much go with using OW swimming as a hook for triathletes and former competitive swimmers. I have a number of tri-friends and, even though swimming is the least important discipline, they all TALK a lot about improving in the water. Some former competitive swimmers prefer OW races a lot compared to pool races. My wife is one of these. She does not train very often and gets depressed by her pool times, but doesn't care about OW times (which are often meaningless b/c of the strong dependence on conditions) and feels a sense of accomplishment just in finishing a 1- or 2-mile race (or whatever). I wish cable swims were more common because they represent a good transition between pool swimming and "true" open water swims. Swimmers and triathletes who have trouble swimming straight, or get a little nervous in the open water, draw some comfort from the cable. I could live without the elitism of the "true" OW swimmers, the channel-swimmers and the like, who clearly hold triathletes wetsuit-wearers with contempt even while grudgingly allowing them to compete. Read the the OW Committee report to see what I'm talking about. Not exactly a welcoming attitude conducive to growth, IMO.

Maybe I'm missing something here....but has anyone published and agenda and when can we get people on this forum who are attending to actually share with us their opinions/likely votes on the key issues? Doug, your the President of my LMSC so I'd very much like to hear your thoughts/likely vote on: 1) Holding nationals outside of US boundaries 2) Scoring at nationals (club vs. regional team) 3) How best to market/grow USMS Go to: www.usms.org/.../ and scroll down to the bottom. Click on any link or report you wish to see; you might be interested in "Proposed changes to USMS Rules and Legislation." As far as my vote/opinion so far (may change as I think about things), and forgive my bluntness in places: 1. I have no problem with it, I think such bids should be considered on their own merits not shot down out of hand. A silly proposal IMO. 2. Not the burning issue with me as it seems to be out west. I tend to vote to spread the wealth and recognition. I prefer the old size-based scoring, irregardless of club/regional; I would rather help small/medium clubs grow by whatever means necessary, if a banner helps them (and some testified to this last year) that's great. I have to admit I got a little tired of PM posturing on this issue last year. Whatever we decide would be fine by me, I just hope we don't spend a lot of time & energy on it and hear more threats along the lines of "you'd be sorry if PM decided to be a super team" (I really wouldn't). 3. Is growth for its own sake a good thing? Increasing championship and zone bids is a bigger issue for me than growth. Getting USMS members more interested in competition/meets -- making meets more enticing to the occasional competitor -- is also a bigger issue for me. But if I had to answer, I'd pretty much go with using OW swimming as a hook for triathletes and former competitive swimmers. I have a number of tri-friends and, even though swimming is the least important discipline, they all TALK a lot about improving in the water. Some former competitive swimmers prefer OW races a lot compared to pool races. My wife is one of these. She does not train very often and gets depressed by her pool times, but doesn't care about OW times (which are often meaningless b/c of the strong dependence on conditions) and feels a sense of accomplishment just in finishing a 1- or 2-mile race (or whatever). I wish cable swims were more common because they represent a good transition between pool swimming and "true" open water swims. Swimmers and triathletes who have trouble swimming straight, or get a little nervous in the open water, draw some comfort from the cable. I could live without the elitism of the "true" OW swimmers, the channel-swimmers and the like, who clearly hold triathletes wetsuit-wearers with contempt even while grudgingly allowing them to compete. Read the the OW Committee report to see what I'm talking about. Not exactly a welcoming attitude conducive to growth, IMO.