Attendees -- Greg York, Chair; Janet Auger, PVS; Jim Garner, PVS; John Hirschmann, PVS; Don Riedlinger, PVS, Bill Stephens, PVS; Greg York, PVS; Evan Stiles, AAC; Cheryl Bauman, CUBU; Pete Morgan, CUBU; Elvin Foreman, ERSC; Deidra Hungerferd, ERSC; Mike Kraeuter, FISH; Jenn Verser, HACC; Dan Jacobs, MACH: Paris Jacobs, MACH; Chris Houtt, MSSC; Joel R Cyganicwicz, OCCS, Bill Marlin, PM; Peter Karl, SDS,
Call to Order -- The meeting was called to order by Competition Committee Chairman, Greg York at10:07am at River Falls
Administrative Assistant -- Janet Auger was introduced to the Competition Committee as the new Administrative Assistant for the LSC. She had assumed her role for PVS during the prior week.
Agenda -- Greg York provided an agenda for use at the meeting. The agenda was accepted as proposed after adding additional agenda items pertaining to (1) the financing fo the PVS Zone teams (both SC and LC) and (2) discussion of clarifying the eligibility rules for PVS Distance meets..
Approval of Minutes: --- The minutes of the September 25, 2005 Competition Committee meeting were unanimously approved as submitted. They had been posted on the pvswim.org website and copies were available at the meeting for review.
PVS Board action on items from September Competition Committee Meeting -- Riedlinger reported to Competition on two matters. First the Board had endorsed Competition's recommendation that the 2006 PVS LC team be conducted on the same basis as the 2005 team. This means that the team concept will be continued for this coming summer, swimmers participating on the team will travel together to and from Buffalo and be housed and eat together, and PVS swimmers who qualify for the meet will be eligible to participate on the team.
Second, for the 2007 SC season, Competition had recommended that PVS hold its SC Senior Champs on March 1-4, 2007 and its SC Age Group Champs on March 8-11, 2007. This was based on a 3-1 vote - since 14 clubs were present, this implies 11 clubs did not take a position. After further discussion with coaches, the Board accepted as an alternative that its SC Age Group Champs be on March 1-4, 2007 and its SC Senior Champs be on March 8-11, 2007. It was noted this will still allow swimmers at the Age Group Championships to make the Sectional meet, and allow more rest following Metro's for the Senior swimmers. It will retain the PVS Senior SC Championships one week prior the EZ Southern Sectional.
Change in Date of 2006 Mini Championships -- Sandy Cohen as Meet Director for this meet has requested that the date for this meet be made one week earlier so that the meet would now be March 11-12, 2006 rather than March 18-19, 2006. This request was made to avoid having it on the same weekend as PVS Age Group Championships as Sandy felt it should make it easier to staff her meet. Competition was advised the only meet on the PVS calendar for the weekend of March 11-12 was PVS Senior Champs. Competition voted to endorse this change in schedule to the Competition Committee.
Review of 2006 Long Course Schedule - Club Sponsored Meets -- Competition was provided with a list of meets already approved, requested for endorsement of sanction and meets not requested that had been held in the prior season. It was also provided with a calendar of the overall competition program for this time period. Two meets had already been approved as a result of Competition's recommendation in September. These meets are; ·
Hirschmann identified the 4 meets for which a sanction is now being requested as:
Hirschmann indicated the PM and FISH requests are for meets that were not previously on the PVS schedule. The PM meet would be a prelim/finals meet for 13/Over swimmers with 9-10 and 11-12 having a timed final sessions in late morning. Timed final events in the 400 IM and Distance events would be offered Friday evening. There would also be Open events for well qualified younger swimmers. The meet would be open to the entire LSC and some out of LSC teams - a QT would probably need to be established for at least the older age brackets.
There was a request to pull the FISH request for a sanction of an Age Group LC meet on June 17-18, 2006. Competition voted to recommend to the Board that the remaining three meets be sanctioned by the Board.
There was then discussion whether Competition wished to endorse the Age Group LC meet requested by FISH for June 17-18. It was noted that this meet was requested for the same weekend as the already scheduled PVS LC Distance Meet. PVS P&P prohibits being scheduled on such a weekend, unless a specific exception is granted by the Board. Mike also indicated he planned to offer 1500M Freestyle within his meet format on Saturday evening. The meet would be by invitation and he expected that only about 9 PVS clubs would receive invitations to the meet. 12/U events would be in the AM and older age group event in the PM.
There was also discussion about the impact that this meet might have on attendance at the PVS Sen/Age I the prior weekend and PVS Sen/Age II the following weekend. Specific impacts were difficult to judge since which teams would receive invitations was not known. It was also suggested that this impact might be offset by making a greater effort to invite non-PVS teams to these two PVS sponsored meets.
The possibility of coordinating this with PVS's Distance Meet and having it both at GMU was mentioned. Hirschmann stated the new DCPR Takoma pool had been reserved for this meet - though arrangements had not been finalized.
It was also indicated that it was important that PVS continue to offer a LC Distance Meet that would be open to all PVS teams and would not be run on a closed or invitational basis. Sufficient time would need to be available to assure all eligible swimmers could compete.
Competition was advised that the PVS Distance Meet was moved to June 17/18 this year in response to a request at the May 2005 Competition Committee meeting to no longer have the meet on Memorial Day weekend. Some stated they had no problems with the Distance Meet being on Memorial Day weekend. It was indicated it was no longer appropriate to change the date for 2006; however, when the PVS 2007 LC schedule was set in May 2006, such a suggestion could be made.
Competition then voted to recommend sanctioning of the FISH meet to the Board with the provision that details be worked out to provide an acceptable agreement with the PVS sponsored meet hosts..
FISH was also encouraged to explore other possibilities regarding the date and/or format of their meet.
It was also noted that the Bunkey Lewis Mini Meet had not been bid. This meet had been held last year on May 21-22, 2005. Competition was advised that while CUBU and RMSC normally jointly host this meet -- CUBU had normally taken the lead in submitting the bid. CUBU indicated it would be submitting a bid. Competition agreed to endorse placing this meet on the May 2006 schedule in anticipation CUBU will be submitting a formal bid.
Review of 2006-07 Short Course Schedule - Club Sponsored Meets -- Competition was provided with a list of meets already approved, requested for endorsement of sanction and meets not requested that had been held in the prior season. It was also provided with a calendar of the overall competition program for this time period.
Hirschmann advised that sanctions for the following meets had been requested prior to the latest deadline for submitting them (January 11th.)
CUBU explained that the location for the two mini meets they bid could not be finalized until the American University basketball schedule was known.
Hirschmann noted that since this list was prepared, FAST had requested the FAST Qualifier for November 18-19, 2006 at Fairland. This is one week earlier than it has been held the previous few years. It was pointed out to Competition and separately to FAST that if the November Open has to be rescheduled at PGS&LC due to the Redskins schedule (once it becomes known in early April) the PVS November Open might be rescheduled for this weekend.
A list of meets sanctioned for the 2005-06, but for which bids had not been submitted for 2006-07 SC season was also provided. As result of reviewing this list, it was requested that the following meets be added to the list of meets for which a sanction is now being requested.
Nobody indicated they planned to change the format of their meet from the prior year.
OCCS indicated it believed it would be able to hold the President's Day Classic at GMU/Fairfax in 2007 since the VA HS Championship will be held elsewhere in the state.
Competition agreed to add these additional meets to the list of meets that would be considered in its recommendation to the Board.
There was request to pull the FAST Qualifier from the list of meets to be endorsed. Competition endorsed the remaining meets with a recommendation to the Board that they be given a sanction as a club sponsored meet.
Competition separately discussed the FAST Qualifier Meet. Concern was expressed that if the PVS November Open (at PGS&LC) has to be moved to the weekend of November 17-19 due to the Redskins schedule, then that move would put 5 meet sites on the calendar for that weekend. Staffing that many meets with sufficient officials etc. might prove difficult. Therefore action on that request for endorsement of the sanction request was deferred.
It was noted that as a result of the above action, the following meets that are the 2005-06 PVS schedule have not yet been bid for the 2006-07 SC season. (2005-06 meet dates are shown for reference.)
2006 PVS Long Course Head Zone Coach and Assistant Head Zone Coach -- Greg reported that requests to be placed on the ballot for this position had been sent out on the prior Friday and this was later than was desirable. He reported that Mark Faherty had requested to be placed on the ballot for Head Zone Coach and Mike Kraeuter for Assistant Head Zone Coach. There was no request from those present to defer voting to allow more time to receive nominations. Mark Faherty was elected as Head Zone Coach and Mike Kraeuter as Assistant Head Zone Coach by acclimation.
Competition was advised that elections for two assistant PVS SC Zone Coaches would be held at PVS Senior SC Championships March 9-12, 2006 and for two additional assistant PVS SC Zone Coaches at PVS JO 14/U Age Group Championships March 16-19, 2006. Nominations will be due to Greg prior to the respective elections. Bill Marlin and Greg York will consult regarding who will assume responsibility for conducting the respective elections.
Proposal for Clubs to be in Good Standing -- Manga had submitted to Competition in September a proposal for new PVS clubs to satisfy and for existing clubs to remain in good standings. Riedlinger suggested that members of Competition review it again and that he felt there are some good ideas in the proposal. PVS needs to decide whether to make it policy vs recommended practice in the LSC. Don further suggested that people make any specific recommendations they may have to Manga.
It also noted the USA Club portal site has recommendations for new clubs including the need for clubs to have a certain number of officials by a certain point in their club's development.
There was also discussion of a proposal by Manga to prohibit clubs from entering swimmers in meets if they do not come to Competition Committee meetings at least once a year.
Suggestion for Improving Selection Process for Age Group Athletes of the Year - Requests have been made to improve the selection process for age group athlete of the year - some have expressed the view given how the selection process currently occurs - the most deserving athlete is not always selected. Suggestions have also been made that the selection process should be expanded so it not only considers athletic accomplishment, but also other aspects such as academic performance and/or community service.
Other have suggested assigning points for various accomplishments and using that information to make the selections. The fact that the coaches normally have limited time at the Fall Competition meeting to review the nomination forms was also mentioned. This can lead to name recognition carrying a lot of weight. Expanding the nomination form to ask more specific questions so as to make information about the athlete more complete and presenting it a standardized format was also mentioned.
New Policy Resident/Open Record -- Don Riedlinger provided Competition with a proposal (copy attached) to revise PVS's criteria for being eligible to be recognized for a PVS Open or Resident record. He indicated this review was initiated by a desire to clarify what "competition open to all PVS athletes" meant in terms of who could obtain an Open Record. The intent of the provision in the rule had been to preclude swimmers at observed high school or collegiate meets being swum within PVS's territory being eligible for such recognition. However, while it has not been implemented this way in practice, it could also be interpreted to preclude records being set at sanctioned PVS invitational meets that are not open to all PVS clubs. The rule change being proposed was designed to remove this ambiguity.
A second change was also made so that college swimmers who temporarily change their LSC of record from PVS in order to represent their collegiate team would still be eligible to establish a PVS record. Conversely, swimmers who temporarily change their registration to PVS would not be eligible to set a PVS resident record.
During discussion, it was agreed that the PVS could establish whatever criteria it wished for setting its records. It was, however, pointed out that if additional criteria were added - this would be more difficult to maintain since most records are now determined by a review of times maintained in either the PVS searchable data of USA-S's SWIMS database. It was clarified the definitions would apply to all age categories including Senior or Open events.
Competition agreed to recommend to the Board the revisions to PVS's open and resident records policy as Don had submitted it.
Coaches Continuing Education Grants (CCE) -- The Board discussed the fact at its December meeting that very few applications have been received and in some cases multiple applications are being submitted by the same coach without waiting two years as required by PVS's P&P. The Board indicated it would be desirable to give this program greater publicity and this is why is being highlighted at this meeting. It was agreed that providing training to improve our coaches' skills was in the LSC's interest and ought to be encourage. It was suggested the existence of this program could be highlighted on our website. The program anticipated more applications would be received than there would be slots available (4.) This has not happened in several years nor has the application form been updated to reflect possible changes in what should be the selection criteria.
Bill Marlin indicated he is likely to run for Age Group Chair when Greg York's term ends this August 31. He asked whether he thought the LSC should plan to hold a clinic for our coaches in September/October 2007 - similar to what was offered to the coaches as part of the Swimposium PVS sponsored in September 2005. The coaches present thought this was a good idea and welcomed providing this opportunity close to home --rather than having to pay to have coaches go out of town or not receive the training.
Bill also noted he had also inserted in the PVS LC Age Group Championship program - parent education information. He indicated he felt it was important for the LSC to also provide educational material to the parents of our swimmers.
PVS Athlete Membership -- Bill Stephens reported on athlete membership - he stated athlete membership had been up 15% for the 2005 registration year relative to 2004 He also said 2006 registration is up 3% from 2005 based on data for comparable dates.
He noted that the bulk of the increase has been amongst 8/Under swimmers and PVS now has 1300 8/U swimmers. He suggested that this makes it important for PVS to provide competitive opportunities for these athletes - assuming the coaches feel it is important for athletes at that age to have such opportunities.
PVS Financial Support of Zone Teams - Paris Jacobs provided a proposal to the Competition Committee pertaining to the finances of the PVS zone teams. A copy of her proposal is attached.
She noted that PVS had charged its athletes in 2005 -- $350 to be on the SC team and $500 to be on the LC team. Actual LSC support to the SC team while planned to be $15,000, was actually about $11,500 when final revenue and expenses were determined after the meet. Based on this information, the House in May directed that support for the LC team be reduced to $11,500, so it would be equal to the financial support actually provided the SC team. Budgeting for the LC team was done on this basis, which resulted in an initial charge of $590/athlete being planned. This was done on the basis 140 athletes would be participating. Because only 61 athletes actually signed up, a subsequent decision to reduce the charge to $500, and an inability to cancel all reservations made on the assumption of a larger team, actual financial support from the LSC for this team approximated $23,000. Some of the smallness of the 2005 LC team was attributed to the fact it became general knowledge very late in the process that athletes had to commit to travel as a team and learning what the cost would be.
The House also approved as part of the 2006 budget, $15,000 in support for both the 2006 SC and 2006 LC PVS zone teams.
Paris reported that based on surveying other LSC's in the EZ, the amount PVS charged for its LC team was well above what the other LSC's in the zone charge their swimmers. Many LSC's provide considerably more financial support to their teams than does PVS. She also reported that costs for the SC team will be higher this spring since because of the distance, it will not be possible to come back Saturday night and costs in the metropolitan New York area are considerably higher than they were last year.
Hirschmann explained the budget process for changing the amount of financial support that the LSC would plan to provide to the meet. The House of Delegates had approved budgeting $15,000 in LSC financial support for both the SC and LC teams in 2006. Given provisions in PVS's by-laws, if the Board wishes to change this amount, it must give notice to the House of its plan to do so and any change must pass the Board by a 2/3rd majority.
It was noted that is more challenging to budget for the LC team since the number of swimmers going can vary significantly - in contrast the SC team is an All-Star team and therefore the number of swimmers going each year does not vary very much. One challenge in budgeting for the LC team is whether 2 or 3 buses will be needed, and the fact the cost of the third bus will be the same whether we need it just to take one more swimmer or completely fill it.
Paris stated the primary purpose of her presentation was to ask Competition to support a request to the Board to adjust the financial support provided the SC and LC zone teams so that the LSC would charge each participating swimmer no more than $350/trip. Some suggested that the maximum be more for the LC trip (eg $400) since that trip will normally be one day longer. Another suggestion was that athletes always be expected to contribute at least 25% of the expected cost so that they would not get a free ride if the meet were in or close to PV and thus the costs were substantially less. It was also recommended that this practice be reviewed annually and not made a permanent policy and put into P&P,
Paris stated her goal was to have the cost/swimmer for both the SC and LC team decided and publicized by February so that parents would know how much to budget for their swimmers to be a member of the team.
Competition agreed to recommend to the Board that they endorse a policy of having the LSC's hold the cost to the swimmer at $350 for SC and $400 for LC - with the added proviso the swimmer's contribution should always be at least 25% of the total expected cost/swimmer.
DQ's at Observed Meets -- Hirschmann indicated that he expected rules would be shortly issued regarding how HS DQ's at observed meets would be handled for the purpose of recognizing such swims as Official Times for USA-S purposes. The specific situation has to do with downward dolphin kicks which are now legal immediately following the start and each turn in breaststroke under USA-S rules, but not HS federation rules. If this is the only violation that occurs at a HS meet, the swim may still be a legal time for USA-S purposes. However, for this to happen, the swimmer must request credit for this time for USA-S purposes during that session of the meet to the senior USA-S observer present. Hirschmann indicated the PVS coaches should decide how/if they want to share this information with their athletes so they would know what to do if such a situation were to occur.
Distance Meet Entry Times - - Dan Jacobs informed Competition that questions have been raised about the use of Coaches Times to enter PVS Distance Meets. Concerns were raised about coaches using such times when the athletes had an Official Time in the event and were using such a time to get into a faster heat; and that other swimmers were not coming close to achieving the minimum time of say 25:00.00 for 1650Y Freestyle. It was suggested for consideration that swimmers with Official Times be required to use them as their entry time, and that swimmers only having coaches times not be able to swim in the fastest heats.
Hirschmann explained that formerly coach's times were not permitted. It was added to the meet announcement to avoid a "Catch 22 situation" where a swimmer could not legally enter a distance meet until they had an official time, but could not enter the event for the first time without an official time. It was suggested that as an alternative to the use of Coaches Times would be to require that swimmers with a 1000Y freestyle time have a 500Y freestyle time of at least "x"; and to swim 1650Y freestyle, they have an official time in 1000Y freestyle of at least "y."
A committee of Dan Jacobs and Bill Marlin agreed to look into the matter further and develop a more specific recommendation. It was agreed no change would be made before the PVS LC Distance Meet in June.
Separately, since the PV distance coordinator is desiring to retire, Bill Marlin volunteered to start serving in this capacity.
Accuracy of Meet Entry Times -- It was mentioned that some coaches feel there have been situations of swimmers entering meets with times they may not have achieved and VSI has posted on its website that clubs will be fined for falsifying entries. (It was not pointed out that PVS has always had similar language in its MA's - but has not been asked to assess a fine in a long period of time.)
Hirschmann noted that people were now familiar with the fact USA Swimming's SWIMS database was routinely being used to verify athlete registrations. Hirschmann reported that development was now underway to allow entry times for meets to also be verified - at least for meets with NFT entry times.
Swimmers Aging up -- A question was raised about how PVS handles swimmers swimming in meets for which they are too young for the event. It was explained that exceptions can only be granted by the Age Group Chairman. Greg explained that he only grants exception when a swimmer will not have another opportunity to do so at their current age and is intended to avoid placing a swimmer in a "Catch-22 Situation" where they will have no meet for which they are eligible to compete in during the month.
Next Meeting Date -- The date of the next meeting was discussed. Competition was advised that the Eastern Zone would be meeting Saturday, May 13th. The Spring Competition meeting is normally held after this date, so news and decisions from this meeting can be reported back. It was agreed it would be not be practical to have it he following weekend due to the large number of meets planned for that weekend. The possibility of having it Wednesday, May 17th at River Falls or Tuesday, May 16th at ANCC - it was tentatively agreed to have it Tuesday May 16th at ANCC subject to Peter Karl confirming ANCC's availability. [Note; Peter Karl subsequently confirmed availability and the meeting will be held that day at 6:30pm]
Adjournment -- The meeting adjourned at approximately 12:10 pm