NVSL “Swim Team Only” memberships — are these legal under NVSL Bylaws?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

It only costs a little over $300 to join the pool mentioned in the post with a full associate membership which gives you unlimited access to the pool. It makes no sense for the team to be offering discounted “swim team only” memberships. Someone didn’t realize NVSL rules when they made that decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

It would be pretty obvious if a pool that previously had no trouble filling lanes all of a sudden was appealing to the league to be allowed to use swim team only memberships because of low roster numbers. You can also set a division cut off where this rule only applies to pools in divisions x-y because if you can’t fill lanes the chance that you’re in an upper division is slim to none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Based on the previous summer?

[Anonymous]

There are already pools that allow members to skip the waitlist and join one day a year at midnight specifically if you are going to be on the swim team. This has happened in division 1, so isn't an only division 14 issue. That's already unfair but at least they pay the full price for the summers. Now they are asking people to join the pool but not even pay full price? Why can't they pay full price?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our team bounces between divisions ~12 and 15. This would definitely raise eyebrows.

Quoting myself.
Our club probably wouldn’t do this because we’d lose “full pay” members to this option and we can’t afford to do that.

[Anonymous]

I think NVSL rules should stand as is. There is no need to change the rules and changing the rules would actually cause more harm with the lower divisions.

Those pools desperate for swim team members only need to make sure the families are members. No ruies say how they become members or the cost of the memberships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are already pools that allow members to skip the waitlist and join one day a year at midnight specifically if you are going to be on the swim team. This has happened in division 1, so isn't an only division 14 issue. That's already unfair but at least they pay the full price for the summers. Now they are asking people to join the pool but not even pay full price? Why can't they pay full price?

It doesn’t actually look like they are asking people to join the pool. The posts I’ve seen (from the OP-linked club and a few others, all quite small), they are earnestly trying to give an opportunity to families who may live in apartments or townhomes that have pools and no teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

They are not having trouble filling the 8 and under lanes. They may struggle to find legal 8 and under swimmers or fast 8 and under swimmers but the lanes are not empty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

They are not having trouble filling the 8 and under lanes. They may struggle to find legal 8 and under swimmers or fast 8 and under swimmers but the lanes are not empty.

Not ture. we were at a few meet where there were a lot of empty lanes for 8 and under boys. and no team is going to throw a kid into fly that is not even close to legal. It would just embarrass the kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

They are not having trouble filling the 8 and under lanes. They may struggle to find legal 8 and under swimmers or fast 8 and under swimmers but the lanes are not empty.

Not ture. we were at a few meet where there were a lot of empty lanes for 8 and under boys. and no team is going to throw a kid into fly that is not even close to legal. It would just embarrass the kid.

There is no D1 pool that has fewer than six 8 and under boys. Agree that they may not be legal in fly but that’s not an empty lane space issue and literally proves that these pools would use this as a guise to recruit fast kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

They are not having trouble filling the 8 and under lanes. They may struggle to find legal 8 and under swimmers or fast 8 and under swimmers but the lanes are not empty.

Not ture. we were at a few meet where there were a lot of empty lanes for 8 and under boys. and no team is going to throw a kid into fly that is not even close to legal. It would just embarrass the kid.

There is no D1 pool that has fewer than six 8 and under boys. Agree that they may not be legal in fly but that’s not an empty lane space issue and literally proves that these pools would use this as a guise to recruit fast kids.

I don't know that I have a problem with that - dual meets only matter within divisions. If pools are recruiting to get faster, then they will eventually be seeded with other, comparable teams. For All Stars and the like, there's still a limit on how many each pool can send. So perhaps if you're the 3rd fastest 13-14 year old in whatever event, maybe you don't want to be the 3rd fasters on that pool and might swim elsewhere for a better shot to All Stars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Omg, they probably are trying to fill their team and is this the only way they can.

All fair, and perhaps NVSL should put an equitable process in place for exactly those circumstances.

That sounds complicated and would open up a can of worms.[/quote

It really shouldn’t though. The ability to use swim team only memberships should be limited to those pools who otherwise can’t fill lanes at an A meets. Establish a threshold for roster size and all pools who can’t meet the minimum roster size are able to use swim team only members.

Except that teams that want to cheat will cheat if given any wiggle room. All of a sudden there’s now tryouts and little Larla with her legal but slow 50 free “isn’t ready” for the team. Better fill that spot instead with a year round phenom…

I can think of 3 Division 1 teams that would be all over this! Overlee is always crying about not having 8 and under swimmers on their roster of well over 200 swimmers.

Honestly a LOT of teams could benefit from this. There are many teams, even in the top 1/3 divisions that are struggling with 8 and under swimmers, especially boys.

They are not having trouble filling the 8 and under lanes. They may struggle to find legal 8 and under swimmers or fast 8 and under swimmers but the lanes are not empty.

Not ture. we were at a few meet where there were a lot of empty lanes for 8 and under boys. and no team is going to throw a kid into fly that is not even close to legal. It would just embarrass the kid.

There is no D1 pool that has fewer than six 8 and under boys. Agree that they may not be legal in fly but that’s not an empty lane space issue and literally proves that these pools would use this as a guise to recruit fast kids.

Yeah, this rule would have to be tied specifically to the number of kids on the roster, not the number of kids you think are legal/fast enough for an A meet. It can’t be an excuse to cherry pick swimmers for a certain gender or age group. This should only be available to teams that cannot scrape together enough swimmers on their roster to fill lanes, regardless of ability.

[Anonymous]

MCSL has a similar rule but there are loopholes. People using fake addresses and families signing up kids not even related.