NVSL Athlete Eligibility

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bummer, but I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to do this. ASR is one of my kids' favorite part of the swim season.

I think they probably need to charge fees per relay though, and give that money to the hosts. Then have 2-3 teams work together to get enough volunteers and the host team gets the biggest chunk of money but the other teams get a small cut for helping out.

The smaller teams just don't have the adults to run this kind of thing- and honestly why would they want to?

The teams that send the most swimmers to these events generally lack facilities or they have zero need for the money that could be generated. This year there are no entry fees (that will be next) so all revenue is concessions which is still a LOT of work for a lot of volunteers.

The teams that could benefit from the money (at least next year) generally don't send a lot of swimmers or any swimmers in some case. That would be a hard sell to any Board. Pool dues are getting more expensive (pool management fees and chemicals are expensive) - membership is not going to like closing the pool down. For ASR, I think it is an easier sell. Less closure time, middle of the week, etc. But IAS is a holy mess and on a weekend.

I know more and more pools are catching grief just for swim meets on Saturday mornings. I imagine that when pool memberships were smaller and swim teams madeup a good proportion of membership these events were easier to sell.

I agree about the facilities issue- that's partly why I think they need to have teams work together. I think Chesterbrook could host (using Chesterbrook ES and the church that's adjacent) but otherwise it might need to be a lower division team that could use the parents of an upper division team. Crosspointe would also be pretty ideal (just looking at division 1 & 2).

Besides money (which our pool doesn’t need), why would our higher division team want to close our pool for multiple days for sending 1-2 kids to all stars? It’s still a lot work for the home pool, even if the parents of another pool “worked” the event. It would cause wear and tear on our facility.

That is poor logic, because if you are a high division team you are sending more than 1-2 kids to IAS.
the logic is that teams that send the majority of the kids/teams should put in the work and give up their pool for 2 days to host.
higher division teams also tend to have much higher % or members who are on swim team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don’t we force teams who send the most swimmers, to host??

Those are the D1 pools and they will all swear that just don't have the ability due to blah blah. Chesterbrook could do it, but there is a parking issue there. OKM could probably do it. But I would say D1-D3 pools should all be stepping up. They send the most swimmers.

OKM pool is slightly the wrong length. They can't host this type of meet. It does seem like Chesterbrook could do it, ideally st dunstan's would let them use parking lot, and they could also use chesterbrook elementary school for overflow.

In D2- Crosspointe could host. Wakefield Chapel probably could too. Vienna Aquatic probably could- using ideally Vienna Baptist church and Marshall Road elementary as overflow.

In D3- Little hunting park could host. Hunt Valley probably could too.

I don't really think any of the other D3 pools could host a league wide meet.

I don't really think, however, that any of these pools are particularly strapped for cash.

I thought one of the D1 teams did step up last year (can't remember which one) and provided all the volunteers for the ASR meet at LP.

Maybe the thought that they won't have it will make them finally step up.

Tuckahoe was the co-host so put in a lot of the volunteer work while LP provided the pool.
I also don't see why a pool like Tuckahoe can't host IAS. their parking lot is no smaller than Orange Hunt's who hosted multiple years and there are nearby neighborhoods for parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bummer, but I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to do this. ASR is one of my kids' favorite part of the swim season.

I think they probably need to charge fees per relay though, and give that money to the hosts. Then have 2-3 teams work together to get enough volunteers and the host team gets the biggest chunk of money but the other teams get a small cut for helping out.

The smaller teams just don't have the adults to run this kind of thing- and honestly why would they want to?

The teams that send the most swimmers to these events generally lack facilities or they have zero need for the money that could be generated. This year there are no entry fees (that will be next) so all revenue is concessions which is still a LOT of work for a lot of volunteers.

The teams that could benefit from the money (at least next year) generally don't send a lot of swimmers or any swimmers in some case. That would be a hard sell to any Board. Pool dues are getting more expensive (pool management fees and chemicals are expensive) - membership is not going to like closing the pool down. For ASR, I think it is an easier sell. Less closure time, middle of the week, etc. But IAS is a holy mess and on a weekend.

I know more and more pools are catching grief just for swim meets on Saturday mornings. I imagine that when pool memberships were smaller and swim teams madeup a good proportion of membership these events were easier to sell.

I agree about the facilities issue- that's partly why I think they need to have teams work together. I think Chesterbrook could host (using Chesterbrook ES and the church that's adjacent) but otherwise it might need to be a lower division team that could use the parents of an upper division team. Crosspointe would also be pretty ideal (just looking at division 1 & 2).

Besides money (which our pool doesn’t need), why would our higher division team want to close our pool for multiple days for sending 1-2 kids to all stars? It’s still a lot work for the home pool, even if the parents of another pool “worked” the event. It would cause wear and tear on our facility.

That is poor logic, because if you are a high division team you are sending more than 1-2 kids to IAS.
the logic is that teams that send the majority of the kids/teams should put in the work and give up their pool for 2 days to host.
higher division teams also tend to have much higher % or members who are on swim team.

I think this poster meant high division as in the number of their division is higher, not that they are division 1 or 2.

[Anonymous]

Tuckahoe could most definitely host if they used their parking lot for team tents; the same for Overlee. Chesterbrook would be difficult for team space. Highlands would be a disaster. OKM could do it. I don’t know anything about Oakton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a bummer, but I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to do this. ASR is one of my kids' favorite part of the swim season.

I think they probably need to charge fees per relay though, and give that money to the hosts. Then have 2-3 teams work together to get enough volunteers and the host team gets the biggest chunk of money but the other teams get a small cut for helping out.

The smaller teams just don't have the adults to run this kind of thing- and honestly why would they want to?

The teams that send the most swimmers to these events generally lack facilities or they have zero need for the money that could be generated. This year there are no entry fees (that will be next) so all revenue is concessions which is still a LOT of work for a lot of volunteers.

The teams that could benefit from the money (at least next year) generally don't send a lot of swimmers or any swimmers in some case. That would be a hard sell to any Board. Pool dues are getting more expensive (pool management fees and chemicals are expensive) - membership is not going to like closing the pool down. For ASR, I think it is an easier sell. Less closure time, middle of the week, etc. But IAS is a holy mess and on a weekend.

I know more and more pools are catching grief just for swim meets on Saturday mornings. I imagine that when pool memberships were smaller and swim teams madeup a good proportion of membership these events were easier to sell.

I agree about the facilities issue- that's partly why I think they need to have teams work together. I think Chesterbrook could host (using Chesterbrook ES and the church that's adjacent) but otherwise it might need to be a lower division team that could use the parents of an upper division team. Crosspointe would also be pretty ideal (just looking at division 1 & 2).

Besides money (which our pool doesn’t need), why would our higher division team want to close our pool for multiple days for sending 1-2 kids to all stars? It’s still a lot work for the home pool, even if the parents of another pool “worked” the event. It would cause wear and tear on our facility.

That is poor logic, because if you are a high division team you are sending more than 1-2 kids to IAS.
the logic is that teams that send the majority of the kids/teams should put in the work and give up their pool for 2 days to host.
higher division teams also tend to have much higher % or members who are on swim team.

I think this poster meant high division as in the number of their division is higher, not that they are division 1 or 2.

Yes, but even div 4-5, heck even down to D10, pools send more than 1-2 kids. but yes, no pools send as many as D 1 and 2. yet they somehow "could never host because the pool isn't perfect"

[Anonymous]

No pool is perfect and no pool is doing it for the money. They pools that have stepped up in the past couple years; Hamlet, LP, Orange Hunt, & Pinecrest, did it for the kids and because they believe in the mission of the NVSL enough to inconvenience their own members for the benefit of all.
This is also why it makes sense for LP to decline this year if they are questioning the mission.

Any and all pools could make it work if they really wanted. And yes, this includes the HOA pools. Those by-laws can be amended and updated same as the NVSL rules - someone just has to take ownership and make it happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No pool is perfect and no pool is doing it for the money. They pools that have stepped up in the past couple years; Hamlet, LP, Orange Hunt, & Pinecrest, did it for the kids and because they believe in the mission of the NVSL enough to inconvenience their own members for the benefit of all.
This is also why it makes sense for LP to decline this year if they are questioning the mission.

Any and all pools could make it work if they really wanted. And yes, this includes the HOA pools. Those by-laws can be amended and updated same as the NVSL rules - someone just has to take ownership and make it happen.

I think this is a bit of a generalization. I think the relationship between swim/dive and the general membership is more adversarial at some pools than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe could most definitely host if they used their parking lot for team tents; the same for Overlee. Chesterbrook would be difficult for team space. Highlands would be a disaster. OKM could do it. I don’t know anything about Oakton.

I’ve been to tuckahoe often (not a member there) and I really thought they couldn’t host because the street parking is all across the road. But after seeing how asr went last year with parking all a long walk (and across Braddock, which was scary af to cross), I think it would be fine. Swimmer drop off would be a mess, (if the parking lot is used for tents) but I think that’s solveable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe could most definitely host if they used their parking lot for team tents; the same for Overlee. Chesterbrook would be difficult for team space. Highlands would be a disaster. OKM could do it. I don’t know anything about Oakton.

Oakton would be horrendous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe could most definitely host if they used their parking lot for team tents; the same for Overlee. Chesterbrook would be difficult for team space. Highlands would be a disaster. OKM could do it. I don’t know anything about Oakton.

Oakton would be horrendous.

I think OKM parents would be willing, and there is a tennis court (would be hot as hell, but it’s there). There is no parking, and they would need to contact with a church that is on a busy four-lane road unfortunately known for serious, deathly accidents. I think that’s the issue with OKM. There is limited street parking for B meets even. I guess if there was a shuttle bus it could work, but having kids and others cross 4 lanes of Burke Centre Parkway with no light is a horrible disaster waiting to happen. There is no school nearby either, at least not on that side of the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tuckahoe could most definitely host if they used their parking lot for team tents; the same for Overlee. Chesterbrook would be difficult for team space. Highlands would be a disaster. OKM could do it. I don’t know anything about Oakton.

Oakton would be horrendous.

I think OKM parents would be willing, and there is a tennis court (would be hot as hell, but it’s there). There is no parking, and they would need to contact with a church that is on a busy four-lane road unfortunately known for serious, deathly accidents. I think that’s the issue with OKM. There is limited street parking for B meets even. I guess if there was a shuttle bus it could work, but having kids and others cross 4 lanes of Burke Centre Parkway with no light is a horrible disaster waiting to happen. There is no school nearby either, at least not on that side of the road.

I thought the okm pool was slightly the wrong length.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No pool is perfect and no pool is doing it for the money. They pools that have stepped up in the past couple years; Hamlet, LP, Orange Hunt, & Pinecrest, did it for the kids and because they believe in the mission of the NVSL enough to inconvenience their own members for the benefit of all.
This is also why it makes sense for LP to decline this year if they are questioning the mission.

Any and all pools could make it work if they really wanted. And yes, this includes the HOA pools. Those by-laws can be amended and updated same as the NVSL rules - someone just has to take ownership and make it happen.

I've been following this thread and honestly, while we would of course do it for the kids, a big reason why our club would look into hosting would be for the financial benefit. It sounds like next year there might be more of a "guaranteed" financial benefit with the potential collection of entry fees. If a club has a tight budget, $10k is nothing to sneeze at. If members knew that income from an NVSL meet would help offset future dues increases and special assessments, the members might not balk at being closed a couple of days. They might even have the option of attending other nearby clubs' pools during the closure.

If other club boards are like ours, I'm sure many individual board members don't know what all IAS and ASR entail, nor do they know that the NVSL is seeking hosts. Sure, the swim team rep knows, but probably figures we wouldn't be able to host. I'm keeping a mental list of criteria that we would/would not be able to meet and I go back and forth between, "We could pull that off" and "Nah. What are you thinking". I don't think the board would be unwilling to host. They would just have to be convinced that the club has satisfactory facilities and grounds to be able to do so.

[Anonymous]

If this is where you're at - contact the NVSL and let them know. They will come out and give an honest assessment. They can also walk your board through everything it entails - and this is all before they would give a yes/no vote. May at least be worth a call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is where you're at - contact the NVSL and let them know. They will come out and give an honest assessment. They can also walk your board through everything it entails - and this is all before they would give a yes/no vote. May at least be worth a call.

I think that the issue is incentive. The guaranteed income is enticing but is not on the table for 2026. Next year, will be different.

[Anonymous]

Long time NVSL family. ASR is what many of the league swimmers love most; IAS less so (especially as they age). Honestly, the league should just dump IAS. Everyone is exhausted at that stage of summer and most just want to leave the DMV and it's oppressive heat and humidity and head on fanily vacations (and not have to look at a NVSL pool for a couple of weeks).

The league should find a long term solution for ASR.

They know which faciities physically can (for example Mt. Vernon Park) and cannot (for exampel Dowden Terrace) host such a meet. I suspect they're a few dozen who can and put rotate through the list every year. Your pool will have to host once every 2-3 decades...no big deal.