PDA

View Full Version : Limit Nationals to Within USMS Boundaries?



BillS
August 30th, 2008, 10:29 AM
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?

tjrpatt
August 30th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Puerto Rico is still American territory so that is fine by me. Also, what about the US Virgin Islands. Please, no Nationals in Alaska. Guam is way too far away.

Peter Cruise
August 30th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Seeing as USMS will accept members living anywhere in the world, why limit the choice?

poolraat
August 30th, 2008, 06:09 PM
Note to whomever proposed this nonsense:

Why not take it 1 step further and limit it to your favorite state?

The Fortress
August 30th, 2008, 06:15 PM
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?

Screw that. Must be part of a larger conspiracy to keep Nationals on the west coast ...

How is PR different that Hawaii (where LC Nats were a few years back), except easier to get to? I agree with Paul Smith, have Nationals, to the extent possible, at a fun accessible vacation destination. Not Clovis.

pwolf66
August 30th, 2008, 06:39 PM
8 People have voted 'Yes' but none of them has commented as to why.


While I think having a USMS Nationals in Japan is signicantly less than desirable, I do not see a reason why having those events in the States or other locales that are under United States control is such a bad thing. Why not Guam? Other than the fact that almost no one can afford to go there which would in itself probably prevent a bid from there.

Why is there even a proposal to limit and/or otherwise state where a Nationals can be held? Isn't that what the Championship Committee is for? To determine suitability of bids? If a facility/organization has the required size, infrastructure, support and interest, then why not let them bid? If folks don't like the idea of Nationals being held in PR, then those folks need to put together a bid that is better than PR's. Beat them head to head, don't resort to setting an arbitrary 'rule'

ced357
August 30th, 2008, 07:31 PM
I use Nats as a mini vacation and would love to see it held in new exciting places. PR sounds great to me.

Paul Smith
August 30th, 2008, 07:34 PM
8 People have voted 'Yes' but none of them has commented as to why.

There are politics and ego at play here and they don't have the courage to step up....go to the convention and see it first hand.

mbmg3282
August 30th, 2008, 09:25 PM
To shed a little light on this subject - Puerto Rico did not submit a bid to host our nationals, I did. Last summer I swam at a Masters meet in Puerto Rico and had a great time. It is a wonderful facility (http://www.natacionmasterpr.com/Photos%20Natatorium.htm) in a great location. By the end of the meet, I found myself thinking it was a shame more of my USMS friends hadn't come to the meet and had the experience I had just had. Someone suggested and I followed up on the idea of nationals being hosted there. I floated the idea to several leaders in Puerto Rico and they thought it sounded like fun. So did I.

In the year since, I have met with folks in the Department of Tourism in PR as well as their swimming federation to lay the groundwork for this bid. At convention last year, I informed the championship committee that this bid was coming so they would have time to react and have their questions and concerns addressed. We have formed an organizing committee to run the event should our bid be successful.

While I am very much in favor of our hosting nationals in PR, I don't think this will be a regular occurring thing. In the history of USMS, we have never had our championship take place outside our boundaries. It is only because I have approached another federation (PR) that we are now facing this situation. It is not my intention to continue to approach foreign federations to host our national events. However, I think folks would really enjoy this meet and hope we have the opportunity to swim there.

If you have any questions that I can answer about the bid or why I think we should make an exception to our normal practice and try a meet outside our federation please let me know.

Thanks,

knelson
August 31st, 2008, 12:14 AM
How is PR different that Hawaii (where LC Nats were a few years back), except easier to get to?

East Coast bias! East Coast bias!

Hawaii isn't difficult to get to for people in the West Coast.

michaelmoore
August 31st, 2008, 01:25 AM
I wrote about limiting nationals to within USMS Boundaries on

http://forums.usms.org/showpost.php?p=150757&postcount=54


I use Nats as a mini vacation and would love to see it held in new exciting places. PR sounds great to me.


There are quite a few swimming competition you can attend outside the United States. Some are mentioned in the other thread. USMS has an duty to promote swimming in the United States.

There are politics and ego at play here and they don't have the courage to step up....go to the convention and see it first hand.

Paul, would you let me know beforehand which politics and who ego I should watch out for? Any time you have more than two people there will always be politics. And who does not have the "courage" to step up. Not all the people who are interested in USMS have the time to read what goes on in the forums let alone take the time to reply to all that is said. Brian Stack wrote me an email saying I should look at the forums, I would imagine there are many others who just dont have time to read and write on the forums. Not that people do not have "courage."

Just a note, Puerto Rico has its own swimming federation "Federacion Puertorriquena de Natacion"; Guam has its own swimming federation, Guam Swim Federation; so does the Virgin Islands "Virgin Island Swimming Federation"; Alaska is a member of USMS.

michael

swimshark
August 31st, 2008, 06:52 AM
I voted yes before I read. Bad me. I would have thought that the US boundaries would include places like PR. I think having it there is a great idea. The poll won't let me change my answer, though.

Noodles Romanoff
August 31st, 2008, 11:11 AM
I understand you only have one timely bid for long course, PR. I would think you would rather have the meet in PR than not have the mmet at all or have it in a place that can’t even submit a timely bid.:doh:

Your rules say “Prior to the annual meeting, the Championship Committee shall certify each bid for compliance with its policies and procedures” Are these policies and procedures published anywhere?

The Fortress
August 31st, 2008, 12:05 PM
East Coast bias! East Coast bias!

Hahaha. Yes. And I actually swim better at non-travel meets, for the most part.

Seriously, though, I understand that sometimes Nationals have to be in far flung places. As long as it's spread reasonably evenly in geographic terms, there shouldn't be too many complaints. But, then, unlike some, I don't plan to go to every Nationals every season. If I do, I'd prefer to go to a fun spot.

Since Austin and Portland were very well attended, you'd think that would prompt some more bidders ...

What is the USMS goal for Nationals? As many swimmers as possible? As many top ten swimmers as possible?

SwimStud
August 31st, 2008, 12:12 PM
Maybe we should have a central location for Nats, same place every year.

Then meet fees could be on a scale depending on your distance from the pool, and paid into a travel reimbursement fund.

Those nearest could pay the most to the fund and those further away would be able to receive some sort of reimbursement for their expense to help level the playing field.

haroldbuck
August 31st, 2008, 12:26 PM
A PR meet sounds great on paper. The big problem would be ensuring that all of the swimmers actually swam PRs. I mean, how do you do that? If just one person swims worse than their lifetime best, it's not a PR meet anymore! :)

Paul Smith
August 31st, 2008, 06:47 PM
I wrote about limiting nationals to within USMS Boundaries on

http://forums.usms.org/showpost.php?p=150757&postcount=54


I use Nats as a mini vacation and would love to see it held in new exciting places. PR sounds great to me.


There are quite a few swimming competition you can attend outside the United States. Some are mentioned in the other thread. USMS has an duty to promote swimming in the United States.

There are politics and ego at play here and they don't have the courage to step up....go to the convention and see it first hand.

Paul, would you let me know beforehand which politics and who ego I should watch out for? Any time you have more than two people there will always be politics. And who does not have the "courage" to step up. Not all the people who are interested in USMS have the time to read what goes on in the forums let alone take the time to reply to all that is said. Brian Stack wrote me an email saying I should look at the forums, I would imagine there are many others who just dont have time to read and write on the forums. Not that people do not have "courage."

Just a note, Puerto Rico has its own swimming federation "Federacion Puertorriquena de Natacion"; Guam has its own swimming federation, Guam Swim Federation; so does the Virgin Islands "Virgin Island Swimming Federation"; Alaska is a member of USMS.

michael

Michael, first and foremost I say "mission accomplished"...it takes a lot to pull you into these forums and it looks like we hit the right nerve(s). Now if I can only snag Mel but he's a tough one.

Having said that, USMS has thousands of members represented by a handful of folks that once a year attend the convention....and slip rules thru such as this without using this forum as one very good resource to get a few peoples thoughts who may not be tied into their LMSC or the convention. I consider that kind of stuff "ego and politics", ego because whomever proposed this legislation assumes its for the greater good without in my opinion having any real feedback from the larger group and politics...which for anyone who's been to a convention no explanation needs to be given. I do say this however with a lot of thanks and respect for a large percentage of all the volunteers that make things happen at USMS....I just like to see the committee's cut down to 5 members in each and the executive director actually given "real" power.

Rykno
September 1st, 2008, 07:06 AM
Puerto Rico is still American territory so that is fine by me. Also, what about the US Virgin Islands. Please, no Nationals in Alaska. Guam is way too far away.

Oh, but Guam has such a nice 50m out door pool. (or atleast it did in the 80's.....when I was living there.

talne621
September 1st, 2008, 10:19 AM
I don't think we can afford to ignore the bid for Puerto Rico. We are not getting alot of bids. If we had alot more you could give preference to ones in the boundaries of USMS. It is still close to USMS territory, so alot of people will probably go. Also, it is a vacation spot, and alot of people choose where to go based on that. Furthermore, it is a US territory and you do not need a passport to travel there.

SwimStud
September 1st, 2008, 10:35 AM
As someone who probably won't be getting NQT's Nats is preactically just a big swim party for me if I go. Hence why I didn't go to Austin. Can't justify the expense to basically swim 3 times, come DFL and get drunk.

Putting the trip in PR makes it easy(er) to sell as a vacation trip where there is something /somewhere else the family can go for the first few days--my wife has scant interest in watching her peer-group squeezed into form fitting bodysuits thrashing in the pool. She has less interest in listening to us "talk swim" over dinner and/or beer.

I'm just sharing this as a non-qualifier/swim-cation perspective.

mattson
September 1st, 2008, 01:11 PM
I voted no. But wouldn't have a problem if preference was given by the committee for USMS bids over external bids. I'd want to see a more compelling argument about the need to prohibit certain bids. (I have not looked over the rule book. If there is only one bid for a given nationals, is the committee required to accept it, or just encouraged to accept it?)

Blackbeard's Peg
September 2nd, 2008, 09:46 AM
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?

Doug Adamavich
September 2nd, 2008, 01:15 PM
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.

Doug Adamavich
September 2nd, 2008, 01:47 PM
I created a topic in the Nationals section of the forum regarding 2010 LCM Nationals.

SLOmmafan
September 2nd, 2008, 02:08 PM
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.

imspoiled
September 2nd, 2008, 02:12 PM
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:.

Rob Copeland
September 2nd, 2008, 02:49 PM
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.

imspoiled
September 2nd, 2008, 04:23 PM
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.

Blackbeard's Peg
September 3rd, 2008, 11:16 AM
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.

mctrusty
September 3rd, 2008, 11:19 AM
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.

Midas
September 3rd, 2008, 01:35 PM
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...

breastroker
September 9th, 2008, 09:13 PM
I second this motion "I sure as heck don't consider Indianapolis a vacation destination":joker:

I just don't like himmacanes and huricanes and PR does get blasted at times.

Most are in September but many are in August, Long Course meters Champ time.

"Puerto Rico is located in the path of hurricanes and other tropical systems. It is estimated that a major hurricane may affect Puerto Rico about once every thirty years. Weather people expect that the 2007 hurricane season is going to be an active one, with an estimated seventeen tropical storms.

In recent years, Puerto Rico was affected most by Hurricane Hugo in September, 1989. Winds estimated at up to 140 miles per hour tore trees, roofs and electrical power lines in the island-municipalities of Vieques and Culebra and along the northeastern sectors of the main island. In some areas, entire weeks passed before electrical services and water were restored. Damages were estimated in billions of dollars.

Hurricane Georges, in September 1998, also left a trail of destruction on its path.

On September 14, 2004, Tropical Storm Jeanne made a very slow path across Puerto Rico. It hit land near Yabucoa in the east, along the southern coast of Puerto Rico and exiting near Isabela in the North. according to the National Weather Service Forecast Office. It left behind considerable rainfall which has been responsible for flooding, mudslides, fallen trees and branches, power and water outages. At least five deaths were reported.

Peter Cruise
September 9th, 2008, 09:47 PM
And in Los Angeles, in a future Nats, the Stud would be just taking the lead in the fastest heat of the 200 breast when the Big One strikes...

Doug Adamavich
September 9th, 2008, 10:43 PM
And in Los Angeles, in a future Nats, the Stud would be just taking the lead in the fastest heat of the 200 breast when the Big One strikes...

There are no hurricanes or earthquakes in Arizona at any time during the year...

jaegermeister
September 9th, 2008, 11:11 PM
I think its silly to put constraints on possible locations. As each meet approaches, the merits of any potential site can be considered. If a good meet could be put on in P.R., and many of us could get there, it should be in the running.

To never even consider such a possibility seems arbitrary. If there were several quality bids to choose from, maybe P.R. wouldn't win out. That hardly seems to be the case for recent nationals meets.

As for the issue of an expanding international flavor, what are we afraid of? That we might get beat? That we don't want to hear Spanish spoken pool side?

Brian Stack
September 9th, 2008, 11:38 PM
There are no hurricanes or earthquakes in Arizona at any time during the year...

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/last_event_states/states_arizona.html

Ain't this web thing amazing?
And that's only the most recent one. :bolt:

breastroker
September 10th, 2008, 12:29 AM
I grew up in Arizona. The number of times a long course meet was cancelled due to lightening was very high.

People thought Phoenix was HOT during the short course nationals there. That was cool compared to summer. I remember taking oven mits to open car doors!

Not everyone considers nationals a glorified vacation. Many train hard to do well. And to have the meet delayed due to weather is not a good thing.

Like politics, many times the vote on national placement is the lesser of two evils.

Many of the best facilites have been used many times, such as Indy and Tacoma. But these facilities never let the swimmers down, great organization, great pools.

Also many masters swimmers are not rich. To me, flying to PR has to cost double what Florida costs, or oregon, or Indy. Anyone in the airline industry?

Chris Stevenson
September 10th, 2008, 05:34 AM
Also many masters swimmers are not rich. To me, flying to PR has to cost double what Florida costs, or oregon, or Indy. Anyone in the airline industry?

I just did a quick comparison using Travelocity: Las Vegas to San Juan vs Las Vegas to Miami in early November. Cheapest fare (roundtrip) to PR was $386, cheapest to Miami was $272. So the difference is significant, though not double.

Of course, the question here is not about the PR bid itself but whether to discount out of hand all such bids in the future. Personally, I believe that any such bid -- whether to PR or the VI or Canada or whatever -- should be considered on its own merits. I very much doubt there will be many of them and I daresay the natural tendency would be to vote for competing bids within the continental US unless there are compelling reasons (such as the lack of a competing bid!).

The move to ban them seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.

jim clemmons
September 10th, 2008, 12:19 PM
For myself, I go to compete, to swim. If it happens to be in an area to consider "sightseeing", then I consider it but the main purpose of attending is swimming, where ever the event is held.

At least when it was held in Hawaii, some USMS members could drive to the meet. If held in PR, I don't believe any USMS (maybe a couple or few "dual reg" type) members can drive - even from south Florida.

Allen Stark
September 13th, 2008, 10:38 AM
If a meet is in a sightseeing area I may spend an extra couple of days there if I can afford the time off work,but during the meet I am going to be either at the pool or in my room.I have never been in PR,but based on my Mexico experiences I have to ask"can you drink the water?"

Rob Copeland
September 13th, 2008, 09:13 PM
Also many masters swimmers are not rich. To me, flying to PR has to cost double what Florida costs, or oregon, or Indy.For me travel to Fresno next year will cost around $400 and take over 7 hours. Travel to San Juan costs $270 and takes 4 hours.

With that said, I will vote for the site that I believe will put on the best event and be a site that our members would like to visit. Regardless of my personal convenience.

Paul Smith
September 13th, 2008, 11:40 PM
For me travel to Fresno next year will cost around $400 and take over 7 hours. Travel to San Juan costs $270 and takes 4 hours.

With that said, I will vote for the site that I believe will put on the best event and be a site that our members would like to visit. Regardless of my personal convenience.

Rob....hard to vote for a site if its ruled ineligable to host a USMS nationals because its outside the physical boundries of the US. So the question is...do you think USMS needs this rule that Michael is proposing?