Re-organizing Masters

[Bert Petersen]

How do you feel about copying the kid's swimming method of organizing Masters by time standards??
For example, there would be A, B and C times for all ages and both sexes. Local meets would be either A, A/B, B, B/C, C or OPEN.
There could be Championships for any of these categories at the LMSC level. To go to Regionals would require having made a new category, the Regional time. National entrantrants would come from the Regional pool or perhaps from the "A" pool.
I'm ambivalent on this as it seems too unwieldy at this early stage of our development but does answer the needs of folks who are looking for the mythical level playing field.
Emmett; we could still have the "Mediocre" Champs as an extra event (suggested in your earlier post). Since there are 26 letters in the alphabet, we could go an even larger number of categories with an ever declining number of swimmers. (Avoiding, of course, the politically incorrect "F" time standard.)
Heck, I can see a day when EVERYONE wins something !

[Bert Bergen]

Lord, Bert. Did you do this on purpose? Do you know what Ion's brain is doing right now?!?! We are all going to pay. Let the fun begin with this one...

[Bert Petersen]

It was tough trying to decide if it was worth the total destruction of San Diego just to have Ion's brain explode......
Ion...just kidding !!! :D

[cinc310]

I think it would be good for Ion's age group men 40 to 44 since they have sometimes over 2,00 swimmers in an event in the United States. However, do this to the older age groups and they just not enough people t do it. As a kid, I use to swim A Breaststroke and Butterfly and B freestyle. Now I would be B breastroke and C all the other three strokes. By the way Ion fits his state California where 21 percent of the population is born somewhere else than the States.

[Beards247]

Bert -

I think it is an interesting concept. But I though USMS was happy with the functionality of the existing system? You can swim three if you have not qualified, and 6 if you have...

[Phil Arcuni]

There are some local meets around here that have 'novice' events. These are usually 50's, and a great introduction to racing for those with no experience. They are sort of like USS 'C' events. I think it would be a great idea for most open masters meets to include such events.

[Matt S]

I think A, B & C times could be good thing. For those of us who are not a threat to make the Top Ten list, we have precious few objective measures of how "good" we are. If USMS can come up with some metric or formula that is widely accepted to generate meaningful time standards, and keep it updated (say annually), these times could be used for setting goals. (Or simply bragging points with which we can bore our family and friends.)

I would not be in favor of using them to set entry conditions (excepting, of course, the current system for USMS Nationals). There are simply too few meets, and too few people entering a given event in a given age group, to even think about breaking them up into "A", "B" or "C" events. (Of course, whatever the local organizing committeee and meet director want to do for their meet is none of my business.)

Matt

[Paul Smith]

The one change that I REALLY wish could be made is to add a third (short course meters) championship to the calender. The more meet options we all have the better, plus the traditionl "season" for SCM championship (December) could e much easier for people to travel to a meet than August (for LCM).

I have no understanding of how USMS sets their calenders, however I would think a "logical" process would be to set dates over a 5 year period (for nationals only). This would allow the LMSCs to view the Chmapionship schedule and attempt to set dates for regional/state championships around nationals.

I'm sure I'm going to far in hoping to see some cooperation/communication between LMSCs which would attempt to set their championship meets up in such a way that would allow swimmers to try and make more than one, rather than have them on the same weekends (yes, I understand the challenges, costs, etc. of getting pool space but at least it would be a good goal).

In summary, I hope someone out their on the championship committee will put forth a proposal to have a December SCM nationals!!

[Bert Petersen]

Yes....Yes..........YES !!
A Short Course Nationals....great idea :D

[Paul Smith]

Well Bert, at last count there we're 40,000+ USMS swimmers and based on the responses to my suggestion it looks like you and I will be the only ones going:D How about all fly events?

You can have the 200, 400 & 800, I get the 25, 50 & 100. Hey, it's our championship right? We can do whatever we want and I want "Australian Rules"!

[Fritz Lehman]

Paul

I'll be there. Especially if you continue to swim the 200 back and Sam Perry does the 50. We could compromise and all do the 100.

Maybe you should become a rep of your LMSC and present the idea personally.

[Phil M.]

Here is the 4th vote for SCM Nationals. The timing has got to be better than back-to-school August.

[jim clemmons]

Until USMS officially (if ever) decides on adding a SCM Nat's, perhaps those folks on/near the West Coast will continue to view and participate in SPMA's championships, which I hope will return to Long Beach this year.

[Dennis Tesch]

I vote for SCM Nationals........

[Paul Smith]

Interesting that no one from the USMS championship committee has weighed in with their thoughts?

Maybe someone (who knows how) can set up a poll on this idea which would add some weight to the folks at USMS making these decisions?

[KenChertoff]

The question of SCM Nationals has come up on the forums before and members of the Championship Committee have weighed in then.

What I recall they've said is that 1) there aren't enough potential additional venues available, given that it's already difficult to find facilites willing and able to handle SCY and LC (which would mostly be the same venues that would host an SCM meet), and 2) organizing a three national meets a year would be unduly burdensome and costly. They have raised the possibility of occasionally holding the SC meet in a metric pool. (I hope I haven't misstated their answers.)

I was disappointed when I saw those answers, since I'd also like to see an SCM Nationals. I don't if the issue has ever been formally considered by USMS, though.

[Glenn]

I vote for SCM Nats too!!

BTW Jim, SPMA SCM Regionals/zones will be held at Long Beach again this year. December 12 - 14, '03 yeah!!!

Glenn Gruber

[Glenn]

Just read Ken's post again...Would an SCM Nationals be possible and/or easier to organize every other year?

Glenn Gruber

[KenChertoff]

Originally posted by Glenn
Just read Ken's post again...Would an SCM Nationals be possible and/or easier to organize every other year?


First of all, just to be clear, that post isn't my own opinion and I'm not in any way involved in the process -- I was just recounting what members of the championship committee have said on the forums, in the past. (My only formal involvement in USMS governance was two fun-filled years on my LMSC's board.) But it seems to me we won't know until it's been tried. Maybe USMS could schedule a December SCM Nationals once, as a test, to see what the response is and if the difficulties really are insurmountable. Then, based on that experience, they can decide whether to make annual or biannual -- or never do it again.

[Paul Smith]

Ken, my concern is that in trying a meet like this once and making a decision wouldn't really give it a fair shot. USMS needs to make commitment for several years to see how successful it would work.

Masters is growing, people have expressed concern over championship meets getting to big, seems fairly logical to add a 3rd meet to the calender for a few years and see how it develops. If we tie in regional meets leading up to our three national meets it would give everyone quite a few chances to compete at a pretty high level.

SCM format provides a lot more options for places to hold such a meet (vs. LCM). Stanford is hosting its first major meet this August (IGLA) in SCM format in its new facitlity.

Still waiting to hear from someone at USMS?!

[Rob Copeland]

Paul,
Still waiting to hear from someone at USMS?!

I’m from USMS and I have a membership card to prove it,:D and I think running a SCM Nationals is an excellent idea!

I would suggest that you email or otherwise contact the USMS Rules Committee and Championship Committee chairs and ask them to address this topic at the annual USMS convention in September. You may also want to set up one of those surveys on the forum to find out who is in favor of USMS running a SCM nationals. And, I will personally address the topic with Barry and Leo at convention.

The prospects for getting anything finalized this year are slim. Proposed amendments to the rules (and this required a few rules changes) need to be submitted from the LMSC’s to the Rules Chair by July 10, for consideration this year. In addition, only emergency amendments to Part 1 of the rule book (the part where National Championship events are defined) will be considered this year. Next year, 2004, is a Rules year and any proposals to establish SCM nationals would have a greater opportunity for passage at that time.

[Paul Smith]

OK Rob, now you've done it! Because of my big mouth, I have now been asked (read coerced) by my LMSC to go to the convention (looks like we will, Laura and I were supposed to last year but a family emergency stopped us). My vote is that they'll chase us out of San Diego withing 24 hours!

In additon, our current LMSC President (Go Cindy) is "rushing" to get a proposal to Leo who is the chair of the rules committee. My guess (from what I've heard) is that it most likely won't go to far as Leo has notified us that it has to be deemed an "emergency" to be considered by the committee.

OK gang, I'm stepping up here because I really believe that this has relevance. If anyone else out there on this forum feels the same than you need to do your part and contact your LMSC rep and have them support this. My hope is that we'll get the support and place a SCM Nationals for December of 2004 on the calender.

Rob, I am clueless as to setting up a "poll" on this site. Help me out here buddy and start up a new thread with a poll!

[lucyj]

To Jim Clemmons,

Yes, the 11th Annual Holiday Invitational SCM meet (SPMA championships) will return to Belmont this year. Dates are Dec. 12-14, 2003.

[Bert Petersen]

Local meets LMSC Champs Zones Nationals

Yes Yes Yes Yes SCY
Yes Yes Yes Yes LCM
Yes Yes Yes No SCM

"nuff said.

[mbmg3282]

OK Paul, I am a member of the championship committee and will try to address a few of your questions. These are my opinions and not an official position of the committee.

First, I like the idea of a SCM Nationals. Ken is correct on point number 3 that we currently have the option of hosting our Short Course meet as a meters meet. In fact, 2 years ago at convention, I started to present the bid from Arizona as a SCM meet, but got beat up so badly by USMS members at the meeting that we were forced to switch to SCY or be eliminated.

Ken is also correct that there is a potential problem with getting enough facilities capable of bidding. I suspect if we offered a SCM National championship meet, it would be popular. Given that we currently have several SCM LMSC and Zone meets that are very large, a national championship would require two 25-meter pools plus warm-up space. There is a small list of facilities in the US that could host a meet in 2 25-meter pools. One thing that would be helpful in making an argument in favor of offering a SCM Nationals would be to come up with a list of facilities that are capable of host such a meet. The requirements would be as follows: 2 25-meter tanks with deep water, additional pool space for warm-ups and a large amount of seating (1500 or more). Unless a 50 meter pool has a movable bulkhead, it couldn't qualify.

We also have to get teams and facilities interested. Currently, we don't have a large number of facilities bidding to host our national championships. Going into convention last year, there were 3 bidders for Long Course and no bidders for Short Course. The championship committee approached Indianapolis and asked them to switch their bid from LC to SC so we could have a SC meet.

Paul, your goal of having the first SCM Nationals in 2004 is probably a bit early. At convention this year, we are voting on the bids for 2005 SCY and LCM. Clubs that are going to bid are already working on getting ready for those meets. Having just hosted a national championship meet with Sun Devil Masters, I can assure you, it really takes that long to get ready for a national championship. Not to mention, there will be some added complexity to the fact that USMS has not hosted a national SCM meet before. I have hosted a number of state and zone meets at the ASU facility. I was surprised at how much more difficult everything becomes when you go from a meet of 200 - 300 swimmers to 1900 swimmers.

Rob is correct that bureaucracy will take a hold of this idea and slow it down. Next year's convention is where this idea could actually be brought before the House of Delegates. Assuming it passes on the first go around, the 2005 Convention is where bidding would begin for the 2007 SCM Nationals. While it is not a short road, I do think it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Mark Gill

[lucyj]

Mark,

Speaking as one who runs a SCM meet in a fast pool which does not have a 2nd 25-meter course available, here's a thought...

I know this is heresy to almost all in USMS, but it would be possible to actually have a National Championship meet which is limited in participation, thus negating the 2nd course requirement.

Two ways to limit the participation are :
1) Set time standards for all events, and require proof of times, a la USA Swimming.
2) Set a participant numerical limit - first come, first served.

Bert Peterson's chart makes clear what I have said for many years: Masters is no longer so small that there are only one or two meets per year to choose from (as it was back in the early '70's). USMS members have many meets to choose from each year, starting with the local meets, then including the LMSC championships, and the Zone championships. There should not be a cast-in-concrete right for each and every member of USMS to swim in the "NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS."

Perhaps what is keeping us from truly having National Championships instead of the current National Invitationals is the desire of the national meet hosts to maximize their profits.

(Oh, I can't wait to get blasted for this one. Good thing it's a holiday weekend and some people may be off-line.):rolleyes:

[gull]

Time standards might work, but setting an arbitrary limit on the number of participants would not be consistent with a true national championship.

[lucyj]

True, an arbitrary limit would mean that the meet would not be a "National Championships." However, we don't have a true national championship meet now, and never have had one.

What we call National Championships are open to anyone and everyone, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that there are a number of swimmers in each "National Championship" meet who are competing in a Masters meet for the very first time. Should someone's very first Masters meet be Nationals? In my opinion, NO!

Another factor in keeping what we inappropriately call "National Championships" now from truly being championship meets instead of invitational meets, is that the fastest swimmers in each age group and each event do not all participate in the same "National Championship" meets. Those in attendance are those who a) can afford to go the meet in the locale selected, and/or b) simply want to visit that locale and use the meet as their excuse to be in that city. I have never seen a USMS National Championship meet where every person in the Top 10 for any one event and age group is at the meet.

Therefore, I submit that what we now have is two venues per year chosen by the Championship Committee, with an invitation then sent out to all members of USMS (and the world Masters communities) inviting them to come to the meet and participate. Just because a meet is run under championship-like rules and regulations does not make it a "Championship" meet.

[KenChertoff]

If the issue really is that the National meets aren't appropriately called "Championships," it seems the simplest solution would be to change the name (rather than to reorganize Masters over a matter of semantics).

[laineybug]

and the original questions was:

How do you feel about copying the kid's swimming method of organizing Masters by time standards??

Not whether or not another meet was necessary. Although, reorganizing Masters would probably result in more meets.

Lainey

[lucyj]

To Lainey,

Why would it results in more Masters meets?

To Ken,

No, the issue is NOT semantics, the issue is whether or not the organization wants a championship meet or a national invitational meet. They are two vastly different concepts.

Yes, you can change the name, and have staus quo.

Or, you can reorganize USMS Nationals. What got me started today was Mark's comment that to add SCM Nationals would require a facility with 2 x 25-meter courses plus warm-up area. I believe he made that comment because our "championships" are so large, that only the largest facilities (which are very few in number) in the country could handle a newly added national meet.

My comments were to point out that if we truly have national "championships" we would most likely find additional facilities (such as Belmont Plaza in Long Beach and many other 50-meter pools) which could handle the reduced number of swimmers who would then attend a national meet. However, that is not possible until (if ever ???) USMS changes its stance on what is a national meet.

[laineybug]

to quote Bert in the thread starter

there would be A, B and C times for all ages and both sexes. Local meets would be either A, A/B, B, B/C, C or OPEN.

[KenChertoff]

Originally posted by lucyj


No, the issue is NOT semantics, the issue is whether or not the organization wants a championship meet or a national invitational meet. They are two vastly different concepts.

Yes, they are different concepts, but it always seems to come back to an argument over whether the label is appropriate.

The National meets are what they are, regardless of what they're called. If calling them a "championship" is a problem, call them something else. But it makes no sense to change the nature of the National meet just to conform to a label -- that really would be semantics. What I need to see is some good explanation of how changing the nature of the meet would benefit USMS and its members.

Yes, if the meet were restricted, a smaller meet might get more venues -- but that's not enough. Is that a real benefit to the membership or does it harm the vast majority only to benefit a small fraction? And what would be the long term implications for USMS as an organization?

I'm not convinced by the answers I've seen that the status quo should be changed.

[KenChertoff]

Lainey's probably right that reorganizing Masters would increase the NEED for more more meets but (based on my two fun-filled years as LMSC board member) I doubt that it would increase the NUMBER of meets. Many, if not most, LMSC's have a limited number of venues willing and able to host local meets. (In Metro LMSC in the NYC area, for example, two facilities host the bulk of our local meets.) These facilities must meet competing demands, such as classes, USA Swimming meets and member lap swim hours, and may not be able support more events than they already do. So if attendance at meets is limited by A, B or C times, the net result could be fewer meets for any individual member. If those restrictions reduce entries at any given meet to the point that it's no longer worth the venue's while to support it, the total number meets could actually decrease.

[cinc310]

I doubt that we have to worry about A,B,C meets for now. In Arizona which has as many swimmers in my age as the Spma, there is probably only 10 to 11 women that compete.