PDA

View Full Version : USMS Virtual National Champion



Paul Smith
November 4th, 2008, 05:53 PM
There was some discussion years back about a virtual national chmpionship for SCM season which never really took off...some suggested pulling ftom the Top 10 list for this rather than the regional meets.

So here's a question, has anyone ever "scored" SCY or LCM based on Top 10? Now that we have a new scoring system in place it would be interesting to see what the results would be...and might draw a few more teams to rally swimmers to attend if they saw how well they placed.

Allen Stark
November 4th, 2008, 11:33 PM
It is not quite the same,but in Oregon we have Outstanding Swimmer awards that go to the swimmers who have the most points from TT(1st place gets 10 points,2nd 9 etc.)

osterber
November 5th, 2008, 10:16 AM
We did this in New England six years ago... we did a "virtual championship" of several of the other LMSC/regional championships across the country. Results are here:

http://www.meetresults.com/meets/2002/scm-challenge/

-Rick

Paul Smith
November 5th, 2008, 10:55 AM
Rick....did it generate any interest at all? Curious because if it had value I'm guessing you would have done it again?

Allen, I think its a cool idea. LMSC's could possibly get more involement if this type of thing were promoted?

I'm guessing it wouldn't be that hard for a person who has the data to put together but it would be interesting to me not only to see how SCY & LCM would have scored with the new scoring system in place as well as if the Top 10 times were used.

Chris Stevenson
November 5th, 2008, 10:57 PM
I had the 2007 Top Ten data already in Excel, it wasn't hard to calculate. I used a 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 point system for the top ten. Here are the top ten teams in each course.

SCY 07
CMS 1569
SDSM 1526
OREG 1396
PNA 1395
IM 1375
NEM 1091
WCM 963
MICH 779
NCMS 739
ISF 675

SCM 07
SDSM 1883
NEM 1667
ARIZ 1231
WCM 1090
OREG 902
VMST 834
MICH 821
NOVA 673
NCMS 643
GSM 642

LCM 07
SDSM 1395
WMST 1151
NEM 1073
ARIZ 1031
FMM 1008
OREG 955
FLAQ 802
FACT 790
WCM 717
MICH 671

Allen Stark
November 6th, 2008, 10:47 AM
Very interesting,especially that we(OREG) beat PNA by a point in SCY:banana:.Let the trash talking begin.
I will be interested how OREG did in LCM in 2008.

Brian Stack
November 6th, 2008, 11:36 AM
I had the 2007 Top Ten data already in Excel, it wasn't hard to calculate. I used a 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 point system for the top ten. Here are the top ten teams in each course.

SCY 07
CMS 1569
SDSM 1526
OREG 1396
PNA 1395
IM 1375
NEM 1091
WCM 963
MICH 779
NCMS 739
ISF 675

SCM 07
SDSM 1883
NEM 1667
ARIZ 1231
WCM 1090
OREG 902
VMST 834
MICH 821
NOVA 673
NCMS 643
GSM 642

LCM 07
SDSM 1395
WMST 1151
NEM 1073
ARIZ 1031
FMM 1008
OREG 955
FLAQ 802
FACT 790
WCM 717
MICH 671

You've still got clubs scored with regions, and some regions are represented by only one club like WCM and NOVA. Where's Pacific, where's SPMA?
Great idea tho'.

Chris Stevenson
November 6th, 2008, 02:01 PM
You've still got clubs scored with regions, and some regions are represented by only one club like WCM and NOVA. Where's Pacific, where's SPMA?
Great idea tho'.

I used the club entries as they are entered in the USMS Top Ten. I don't see SPMA though I do see SPM (eg, 24th in SCY07 with 322 pts). I don't know Pacific's abbreviation.

I should point out that these results do NOT include relays; I only downloaded the individual TT results for a separate project of mine. Since I already had the data all nice and neat, the scoring just took a little fiddling. I didn't do extensive error checking, but I did verify the score independently for my own club (VMST).

The downloading/parsing takes far longer than the scoring itself, so I don't have the time to add the relays anytime soon. I can do it in a month or so if people are really interested.

I anyone really disagrees with the points I used, it is a simple matter to change them and re-score, if you convince me your point-scoring system is better.

Just to make Allen happy, here are the results so far for this year (I do believe OREG's bragging rights are pretty well established in LCM).

SCY 08
CMS 1351
SDSM 1278
ARIZ 1013
NEM 949
IM 920
WCM 790
OREG 784
VMST 778
MICH 712
NCMS 687

LCM 08 (Preliminary)
OREG 2606
ARIZ 1395
SDSM 1232
WCM 992
NEM 906
TOC 847
FACT 729
FLAQ 677
PNA 582
GOLD 575

knelson
November 6th, 2008, 02:10 PM
Just to make Allen happy, here are the results so far for this year (I do believe OREG's bragging rights are pretty well established in LCM).

And PNA's ninth place finish is pretty lame with LC Nats "just down the road."

Brian Stack
November 6th, 2008, 05:39 PM
I used the club entries as they are entered in the USMS Top Ten. I don't see SPMA though I do see SPM (eg, 24th in SCY07 with 322 pts). I don't know Pacific's abbreviation.
Pacific is PC (OK no snarky observations about appropriateness), and Southern Pacific is SP, maybe SPM as you observed.
Those of us who swim on club teams, like Clemmons, register for nationals with their home team and not their LMSC. If you wanted to score Pacific you'd have to know all of our 110 team abbreviations. These are some of the teams that scored in our SCMs in October: WCM, BAY, MAM, RHMS, TCAM, SRM, SMMM, TAM, TOC, STAN, DAM, TVM, USF, MVM, RINC, LVTC, BAM, TEME, MELO, AAM, WACM, SAC, FGST, PCAM, LNM, you get my point.
That's the problem with a mythical National SCM Championship, you can't score a third of the competitors with a top ten scoring system. Why not use the meet results from the zone championships?

Chris Stevenson
November 6th, 2008, 07:27 PM
Pacific is PC (OK no snarky observations about appropriateness), and Southern Pacific is SP, maybe SPM as you observed.
Those of us who swim on club teams, like Clemmons, register for nationals with their home team and not their LMSC. If you wanted to score Pacific you'd have to know all of our 110 team abbreviations. These are some of the teams that scored in our SCMs in October: WCM, BAY, MAM, RHMS, TCAM, SRM, SMMM, TAM, TOC, STAN, DAM, TVM, USF, MVM, RINC, LVTC, BAM, TEME, MELO, AAM, WACM, SAC, FGST, PCAM, LNM, you get my point.
That's the problem with a mythical National SCM Championship, you can't score a third of the competitors with a top ten scoring system. Why not use the meet results from the zone championships?

SPM must be St Pete Masters since they are from Florida. I see a number of the clubs you mention in the results -- WCM, TOC, STAN, TAM, MVN -- they just didn't all crack the top ten teams. I uploaded a PDF file with the complete results for anyone who wants to look up their team. (Note: I didn't remove the "UNAT" team from these results.)

Why not use the zones? I can't speak for others, but for me: simply because it would be more work.

I already had the TT data in Excel (and doing that is a little tedious since you have to download it in 8 "pieces," one for each zone. Adding relays doubles that). It took me maybe 20 minutes to get the scores, and that was the first time, just figuring out the best way to do it. Now that I've done it, once I get the data into Excel, it takes about 2 minutes.

But (a) collecting the MM files (b) checking them for errors (c) importing them into Excel (probably via Team Manager) then (d) sorting the results and scoring them? That would probably take a good chunk of time and all because some people essentially swim for two different clubs.

I am content to treat the TT teams as the "official" team. Anyone who wants to get more detailed, have at it. :)

Brian Stack
November 6th, 2008, 08:15 PM
I am content to treat the TT teams as the "official" team. Anyone who wants to get more detailed, have at it.:)
OK, I just went through the '07 SCM and pulled all of the Pacific Clubs I could identify and added the scores and got . . .3295. There's a good reason not to score us as an LMSC right there!
Thanks for all the compiling Chris. Makes you grateful for all the work that went into the scoring system over the last three conventions, eh? :argue:

Chris Stevenson
November 6th, 2008, 09:48 PM
OK, I just went through the '07 SCM and pulled all of the Pacific Clubs I could identify and added the scores and got . . .3295. There's a good reason not to score us as an LMSC right there!
Thanks for all the compiling Chris. Makes you grateful for all the work that went into the scoring system over the last three conventions, eh? :argue:

Oh I see. Heck, scoring by LMSCs with the data I have is pretty easy too. Results are attached. I throw in zones for extra measure. (What can I say? I like data.)

Paul Smith
November 7th, 2008, 09:14 AM
So how much of a challenge will it be to sort out clubs from regional teams when the new scoring system is implemented next year? Would still love to see the data used in that manner as I'm sure it will help folks better understand who they are competing against.

Ahelee Sue Osborn
January 15th, 2009, 10:09 PM
So how much of a challenge will it be to sort out clubs from regional teams when the new scoring system is implemented next year? Would still love to see the data used in that manner as I'm sure it will help folks better understand who they are competing against.

Being new to the discussion group, I didn't see this thread quoted until it was addressed again today on another thread.

Last year Mike and I were interested in finding out how NOVA stacked up next to the other big teams in the country. We draw 100+ Nova swimmers to our Regional Championship but very few to Nationals and were simply curious.

We had a data guy who swims on the team try to come up with a report for us. But they seemed to loose interest perhaps due to the amount of extra work.
It appears Chris Stevenson already has a functioning worksheet as long as the teams are identified correctly.
Would it help now that meet registration requires club no. and USMS no. in identifying where swimmers belong?

We weren’t and are not interested in a virtual championship which races single teams against giant collections of programs under one team name.
We wanted to see the big powerhouse single teams and the great regions of masters swimming from the results of the season.
Relays had to be a part of the equation since that is part of team competition.

Before anyone gets all excited and starts ranting on who cares about the giant powerhouse teams, consider this:

Those big teams are doing something right in building and promoting masters swimming.

The big powerhouse teams and regions may have something special going on like location or facilities or great year-round weather.
But they can and should be called on to serve as mentors and to offer support in ways the much smaller programs might not be capable of offering.

If your LMSC has 1 or 2 or 3 powerhouse teams, I hope everyone knows the coaches because they are very visible and contributing to the LMSC and USMS.

I hope swimmers consider dropping into a practice at the powerhouse team every now and then for inspiration and ideas for their own clubs. Especially the unattached swimmers, who could find support in setting up their own new masters programs.

And I hope the smaller teams find ways to challenge the powerhouses in relays, highpoint awards, records, and team spirit, etc.

My LMSC is the SPMA in Southern California.
There are some smaller clubs I always love to watch.
Rose Bowl coming on strong with their enthusiastic coach Chad. LAPS and their great swimmers. The sleeping giant SCAQ in Los Angeles. The UCLA women swimmers who always make a show at meets. The Grunions who put on the most stellar of meets and support everyone.
And my good and always present neighbors at UC Irvine, SoCal Aquatics, Fullerton, and Corona.

Now about that “Virtual Championships”…
I agree with Paul that a nationwide competition like this could build fantastic competition at Nationals. And real pride in masters swimming regionally.
Another way to stoke the fire for USMS and then watch it spread like wildfire!

Michael Heather
January 18th, 2009, 02:15 AM
It is very difficult for anyone to follow this thread without a clear understanding of the players. We need to agree on at least keeping the two main reference words clear.

A club pays money to be registered with USMS as a group identity. Swimmers at nationals represent a club (or are unattached) to score points.

A team is any designated part of a club. Workout groups, chapters, and relay teams are all in this category. Teams do not pay money to USMS.

If we can keep these straight, the discussion stays simple. They are not interchangeable terms.

pdjang
January 18th, 2009, 12:53 PM
How about a proportional virtual championship?

Score the LMSC (as before) and divide by the reported membership.

Gives smaller LMSCs a chance to get some credit.

And the same could be done with clubs.


------- secondly,

Kudos to Chris S and his heroic excel efforts (must have been a ton of countif statements) - BUT - how hard would it be for the National Office and Top Ten/competition group to do this work?

They have the data! And furthermore - it's clean and ready for other analyses - Pool All Stars for example - or SCY/LCM/SCM high point, etc.

Writing software should not be a huge task. The national office could ask for volunteer software developers (maybe even sponsor a contest) or put it out to bid. Once the program is written, it should not be too hard to maintain (esp. with clubs and LMSCs table data apart from the TT data).

Chris Stevenson
January 18th, 2009, 03:07 PM
Kudos to Chris S and his heroic excel efforts (must have been a ton of countif statements) - BUT - how hard would it be for the National Office and Top Ten/competition group to do this work?

They have the data! And furthermore - it's clean and ready for other analyses - Pool All Stars for example - or SCY/LCM/SCM high point, etc.

Writing software should not be a huge task. The national office could ask for volunteer software developers (maybe even sponsor a contest) or put it out to bid. Once the program is written, it should not be too hard to maintain (esp. with clubs and LMSCs table data apart from the TT data).

It was not a huge task even for an amateur like me, it took less than 30 minutes to do even the first time when I was putzing about with it. For anyone else who wants to play with something like this, here is what I did:

1. Get the data from the USMS web site into Excel. You can download them as CSV files which Excel reads.

2. Assign points to each swim. I wrote a short function to do this, using the SELECT CASE statement.

3. Get a list of names of unique teams. I cheated here: I own the Power Utility Pack for Excel (written by guru John Walkenbach) and used one of the functions, UNIQUEITEMS. (Hey, why write from scratch what someone else has already done?)

4. Use a logical array function to add up the points for each unique team. Here is the statement:

{=SUM((RC[-1]=R2C9:R4540C9)*R2C2:R4540C2)}

where "RC[-1]" refers to the cell with the team name, the first range (R2C9:R4540C9) is the list of all the teams for each swim, and the second range (R2C2:R4540C2) is the point value assigned to each swim.

Copy that statement down for each team and voila. Sort as needed. It can easily be done by LMSC instead of teams, of course.

There may be better ways to do this, but I don't program for a living. :)

SwimStud
January 18th, 2009, 03:40 PM
Look at Connecticut go! That's pretty good for a 4 or 5 person team!

Ahelee Sue Osborn
January 18th, 2009, 03:52 PM
A club pays money to be registered with USMS as a group identity. Swimmers at nationals represent a club (or are unattached) to score points.

A team is any designated part of a club. Workout groups, chapters, and relay teams are all in this category. Teams do not pay money to USMS.



Thanks Michael - this is my fault.
I confuse these.
Probably in my "rage" of disliking these built up teams.
They do not train together but gather up at championship time to demolish the clubs who do work together as a unit!

Ah well, no one else seems to mind.
:)

Paul Smith
January 18th, 2009, 04:10 PM
Thanks Michael - this is my fault.
I confuse these.
Probably in my "rage" of disliking these built up teams.
They do not train together but gather up at championship time to demolish the clubs who do work together as a unit!

Ah well, no one else seems to mind.
:)

Actually lots of folks mind and I respect the differences in opinion...I've been a part of both sides. Much of the problem for those concerned about scoring should (hopefully) be resolved with the new scoring system in place.

As for relay records thats another issue. I would argue however that it's been around probably as long as masters swimming has existed...I would guess that quite a few "clubs" have from time to time pulled in a ringer or two for relays...KPN has swam for almost every "club" and country in the world...and more power to her because she brings a level of increase interest and participation to our sport in doing so.

One (partial) solution I'd like to see is a complete overall of the FINA rules regarding World Championships which allows folks who would like to swim for their countries a chance to do so. This would then elimiate for the most part debate about "super teams" owning relay records much in the same way it does so for USA Swimming (National teams almost alays will hold world/country records). More importantly however is I think it would raise the visiblity and "respect" of masters swimming...

Heck...I'll even settle for a one on one USA vs. Italy! A few of us have been itching to go up against those guys again ever since Worlds!

Ahelee Sue Osborn
January 18th, 2009, 05:02 PM
Heck...I'll even settle for a one on one USA vs. Italy! A few of us have been itching to go up against those guys again ever since Worlds!

I understand that The World Masters Games (in Australia next Summer) allow these "Country" relay teams.
That would be SO fun!

Last year in Perth there were several of my friends going to World's whose clubs were not sending any swimmers.
They wanted to swim relays but couldn't since they had no club members. 2 of them ended up affiliating with our club just to swim relays!

Let me go on record to say I do not agree with the whole "bring in a ringer" idea... at all.

Those great ringers could use their "swimming greatness" to promote masters swimming in their own hometown or area - support a good coach - and build an awesome club of their own.
But that takes a bit of selflessness.
Period.

Still, I love the idea of a competition where we could showcase our best USA masters swimmers, in head to head competition with other countries.

Maybe it could be an exhibition type of competition - like after The FINA World Masters meet concluded.
All for fun of course!

Paul Smith
January 18th, 2009, 06:00 PM
Let me go on record to say I do not agree with the whole "bring in a ringer" idea... at all.

How about when some former college swimmers reunite? What if you find no one is going from your "club" and want to be on relays and have friends to hang out with so you register with a team of buddies that are going? I know these are not exactly cases of "ringers" but it does show cases where it makes sense. And for the record I personally have never heard of a "clubs" coach organizing/recruiting ringers...I think it is suaully a person making a call to a friend or two saying come play with us next meet.

Michael Heather
January 18th, 2009, 06:40 PM
Heck...I'll even settle for a one on one USA vs. Italy!

In 1973 at Santa Clara, my club (Pasasa) beat the Italian national team in the 400 meter medley relay. I was stoked. Didn't hurt to have 2 Olympians and one Olympic trials swimmer go before me, either.

The Fortress
January 18th, 2009, 07:49 PM
Thanks Michael - this is my fault.
I confuse these.
Probably in my "rage" of disliking these built up teams.
They do not train together but gather up at championship time to demolish the clubs who do work together as a unit!

Ah well, no one else seems to mind.
:)

I'm with you, Ahelee! I've said so many times on this forum.

I do think the non-ringer "exception" Paul posits above makes sense though. I will be rather lonely on relay day if my teammates don't go to Indy and I do ... Since we're a small team, this could happen.

Paul Smith
January 18th, 2009, 08:17 PM
I'm with you, Ahelee! I've said so many times on this forum.

I do think the non-ringer "exception" Paul posits above makes sense though. I will be rather lonely on relay day if my teammates don't go to Indy and I do ... Since we're a small team, this could happen.

With all due respect...(I'll quote John Smith here)...this is "masters swimming". I say this knowing some here take this very seriously and that is wonderful...but the reality is we're adults, with careers, families, etc. and as competitive as this stuff can get it's ultimately (IMHO) about friendships. The day things get to serious to the point that people try and legislate the fun out of things is the day I'll be playing masters water polo full time...granted that would probably make a lot of folks from USMS happy!

Ahelee Sue Osborn
January 18th, 2009, 08:21 PM
How about when some former college swimmers reunite? What if you find no one is going from your "club" and want to be on relays and have friends to hang out with so you register with a team of buddies that are going? I know these are not exactly cases of "ringers" but it does show cases where it makes sense.

And for the record I personally have never heard of a "clubs" coach organizing/recruiting ringers... I think it is usually a person making a call to a friend or two saying come play with us next meet.

This is exactly what happened to some of my girlfriends from SoCal going to The World's in Perth. So they affiliated with NOVA and we all swam on relays together. Pretty sure I wrote that in the message...

As for coaches pulling in ringers? COME ON - GET REAL!
Or maybe you haven't paid much attention :)
As a coach, I'm pretty aware of who is attached to what team and who is unattached or looking.

Anyone is mistaken if they think that USMS is not full of coaches who are competitive and LOVE to win. Its' not just the swimmers.

As an assistant coach, I take alot of pride in winning our championships with our own club's "cruisers" as well as the few fast swimmers who are willing to come out to meets.
We have lost many many championships or not even scored in the top few teams by sending a few fast swimmers. I don't have any power to recruit outside.
But when our "cruisers" show up - we are a force at least here in SoCal.

I'm just not that into ringers.

The Fortress
January 18th, 2009, 08:58 PM
With all due respect...(I'll quote John Smith here)...this is "masters swimming". I say this knowing some here take this very seriously and that is wonderful...but the reality is we're adults, with careers, families, etc. and as competitive as this stuff can get it's ultimately (IMHO) about friendships. The day things get to serious to the point that people try and legislate the fun out of things is the day I'll be playing masters water polo full time...granted that would probably make a lot of folks from USMS happy!

Settle down there, boy! I gave you the friendship, non-ringer exception above. Did you read?

I'm not losing any sleep over this. I'm just not thrilled with the ringer concept either.

Chris Stevenson
January 3rd, 2010, 04:30 PM
I was messing around with the Top Ten data for an LMSC newsletter article and went ahead and scored the swims for SCY09 and LCM09 (of course, 2009 SCM isn't out yet).

I have attached the scores by club and LMSC (only top 20 for both) and by zone. Although SCY and LCM obviously have "real" national championships, travel/time constraints will tend to favor local teams, compared to a "mythical" championship. Make of these what you will.

Details: only individual TT swims are included (ie, relays are not included). All 10 places are scored; points awarded are 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

2009 SCY Champions
Club: WCM
LMSC: Pacific
Zone: Oceana

2009 LCM Champions
Club: ARIZ
LMSC: Pacific
Zone: Dixie

Updated: I figured there might be people interested in clubs outside of the top 20, so I added 2 text files with scores for all of the (almost 200) clubs.