The State of Master Swimming.

As a founding member of DC Masters in 1973, I resemble that remark, Chris, in many ways! If you happen to be a pack-rat and have organizational documents from the old days, please email me. Specifically I'm looking for Minutes or Bylaws to start up the LMSC. I realize you said you are a founding member of DCM, but I believe DCM and the PV LMSC were started together. Thanks, Jeff Roddin (jroddin@pvmasters.org)

$40 seems very low to me as well. The USAS fee is much higher at $90 (or at least that's what it was last year when I was a member of both.) You must have a very high LSC fee or you are mistaken. The last I knew, the USAS fee was only half that. Here's an example of a Florida LSC application (www.berkeleyprep.org/.../misc_69483.pdf)...the USAS fee for 2010 was $46. #3 - What did the LMSC gain by funding each of the individual LMSC delegates to convention? Or is convention a bit of an incentive award for a year of volunteer work offered to the LMSC? As a first year delegate, I can say I wish I had been able to attend the full convention (I was only there for one full day). Aside from the obvious need to discuss and vote on regulated matters, they are especially useful for sharing ideas on LMSC management. Sure there are fun aspects of the convention, but the days are by no means short. I don't think eliminating the fee is a viable solution, for many of the reasons that have already been pointed out. But it's good to discuss all options.

I would love to see who has the most members per capita of population. California should have high numbers of members due to their high population of people. :) This would definitely expose us and maybe the reason we shouldn't brag! LOTS of varied fun activities in a state with so much sunshine. USMS participation isn't exactly highest on the popularity charts - yet! But perhaps if USMS registration were FREE... U.S. Masters Swimming Discussion Forums - View Single Post - What Does USMS Needs to do to grow to 100,000+ Members?

The greatest asset USMS, it's clubs and coaches could have for revenue is direct leads to people who like or need to swim. Personally I hope the usms doesn't go this route. The last thing I want is my information to be sold so I can endure even more "direct" marketing.

For those who like numbers, I would love to see who has the most members per capita of population. California should have high numbers of members due to their high population of people. I agree that Potomac Valley is high compared to their (somewhat) state size. I say somewhat since PV also includes part of Northern VA.While population density surely drives participation, pool access has to be an overwhelming factor. As I travel around the country, nowhere (except possibly NorCal) comes close to having the access to workout times that exist in SoCal / Orange County area. And, these aren't just your father's dingy YMCA pools -- these are world class facilities. To be honest, when I struggle to find pools and teams in some parts of the country (New Jersey!), I'm surprised we have any masters' swimmers in some places.

While population density surely drives participation, pool access has to be an overwhelming factor. To be honest, when I struggle to find pools and teams in some parts of the country (New Jersey!), I'm surprised we have any masters' swimmers in some places. Big numbers of swimmers paying for programs would not only keep existing pools open, but would drive communities to approve new pools to be built. But as long as clubs show measly regular participation numbers, it isn't going to happen. I believe USMS and USA-Swimming have the tools to create great programs and benefits for members. But their strength is not signing up new members. Motivated coaches on deck and working out in their communities do it (recruiting) best locally. They have incentive. It's their career. Or it could be if they had the numbers for a substantial sized club. Make registration free. Make swimming huge.

Maybe. But if we offer free membership and get an additional 50,000 members, how many of them will actually compete? My opinion: almost none of them, since $40 annually is apparently a deal-breaker. It is for me, only because I also join usas and pay meet entries there. Granted i'm probably not the typical case. I'd FOR SURE do some masters meets if I didn't have the pay the fee to register for usms as I do for usas.

You must have a very high LSC fee or you are mistaken. Nope, don't think I am mistaken, but I'd have to check to be sure. (Speedo and Jeff Roddin are current USAS members, so they may know the 2010 fee.) I remember thinking the fee was rather high at the time. But I swim in Potomac Valley outside DC where prices are generally extremely elevated and pool space is exceedingly scarce.

Big numbers of swimmers paying for programs would not only keep existing pools open, but would drive communities to approve new pools to be built. Sure, it sounds good in theory - if you could guarantee big numbers of paying swimmers you can indeed solve the pool availability problem. Are you suggesting that offering a free USMS membership (avg annual cost of $40) will bring out people in droves to pay ~$600 to $1200+ (or whatever) annually to swim on a team and therefore keep pools open and build new ones? I have no idea how much it actually costs to operate a private pool (building costs, mortgage, property taxes, staff, insurance, supplies, etc.) but it is rare to find such a facility that can fully support itself from pool use revenue (rec swim, swim team, dive team, etc.). There are plenty of private health clubs with pools and I think the NOVA pool in Richmond, VA is fully private so I'm not saying they don't exist. But the overwhelming majority of us are fortunate to have swim programs at local or state subsidized facilities (county pools, universities, etc.). It's hard enough sometimes to keep a pool open that is government subsidized, let alone one that relies strictly on pool use revenue. I have a feeling if we actually had to pay the true cost per capita to use the pool more people would take up running!

If the goal is to increase meet attendance and $$$ are an issue, how about two options for USMS membership: $20 for basic membership, $120 for the racing membership which includes all the meets you can get to. I'm making these numbers up as an example. A lower basic membership charge will lower the bar for the casual member. Pre-paid racing fees means that people are less likely to just not skip a meet because they've already paid for it. Or it could backfire. Full disclosure, I have no idea how much master's meets cost but my daughter's age group meets are ~$30 per meet. And she goes to 20-25 per year. I would love an all you can eat option on her meet fees. Maybe. But if we offer free membership and get an additional 50,000 members, how many of them will actually compete? My opinion: almost none of them, since $40 annually is apparently a deal-breaker.