Before discussing this further I feel I need to explain that Swimwatch hold the ASCA in the highest regard. It is respected and important. Its qualifications and services are without peer in the swimming world. But this article is nonsense.
The case it puts is not helped by some awful writing. For example, the over use of capitals to convey emphasis. If you write well, words offer their own stress. A sentence that has capitals and an exclamation mark diminishes the quality of the entire piece. In the second paragraph we are told, “The cynic might quote the famous line, “Now we are clear, we have found the identity of the enemy and he is us.” This could well be a famous quote. It’s just that I’ve never heard of it. I’ve certainly heard of, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Leonard’s entire proposal is based on the hypothesis that clubs of a similar size have more interests in common than clubs located in the same area.
There is no evidence to support that view. For example, a club not far from us has a similar size and structure. But that’s about all we have in common. Their emphasis is on local high school swimming and local USS meets. Our focus is on national and international events. We have almost nothing in common. While we are structured on the basis of geography we can seek out other local clubs irrespective of size who have interests similar to ours and influence our LSC’s affairs accordingly.
Philosophy and purpose are not determined by size any more than they are by geography. By constructing some sort of apartheid barrier based on size, Leonard’s proposal would reduce our club’s ability to communicate with others with similar interests to our own.
The proposal is shockingly undemocratic. Inevitably the “mega-program” LSC would be seen as the best and most powerful; the medium and smaller LSCs as less important. The ability of the small and weak, no matter how just their cause, to influence national affairs would be reduced into oblivion.
South Florida high school swimming is based on the apartheid of size and it’s a shambles. In every event, Florida produces three state champions. There is no logic or reason for this. A central purpose of a championship series is to find a champion. We’d be far better finding the best regional champions, culminating in one state final; and all based on geography. I imagine the idea originally was that 3000+ schools should not compete with smaller schools; an idea somewhat similar to Leonard’s. But it hasn’t worked. Smaller schools frequently have programs that are the same or better than larger schools. The pity is they never get to meet in the same pool or at the same conference table.
To take Leonard’s proposal to its illogical conclusion, imagine the Olympics being structured according to size. Kenya would never get a seat at the big boy’s table. And yet what are their interests? Their runners can beat the hell out of anything we can offer. Because they are small does not mean their interests and aspirations are not just as large as ours. It’s a bit tough to expect their population or structure of government to reflect ours before they can sit at the same table.
Leonard’s proposal is the beginning of a slippery slope towards a three class society. It is a clear play aimed at making sure the haves keep what they’ve got and get more and making sure the have nots are kept in their place. The good thing about geography is it’s not man made and its devoid of social status; both good qualities to have in your organization.
It is not necessary to put forward the arguments in favor of maintaining a structure based on geography. All the arguments against the apartheid of size support a management structure based on geography. Geography seems to suit most of the elite sports played in this country; NBA and NFL to name two. If it’s good enough for Bill Parcells, it’s good enough for me.
Leonard may not have realized this, but because something’s old does not make it wrong. Elsewhere in this blog and in another context, Rhi Jeffrey is quote as saying, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” That pretty well summarizes our opinion of this proposal as well.
