NVSL Seeding Surprises?

[Anonymous]

Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

[IncognitoNoVA]

Huh. I am rooting for OKM so that there is new blood in D1, but we also competed against them last year and did NOT experience any sort of good sportsmanship. In fact, a few of our families commented how they would fit right in with the other D1 teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.

If it gets any harder to find volunteer pools, they will have to. Hosting is not great for the pool- you lose your facilities for a whole day in the middle of pool season for an event that you may note even have swimmers participating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.

Honestly the $10 fee per swimmer is a brilliant idea. It makes up for losing use of a pool for TWO days. If you were a pool member that would be annoying if you don't have a kid on the team AND swimming in it.

Someone on here suggested that the team that sends the most swimmers should host the following year. I kind of like that as well.

[Anonymous]

Good idea. Entry fees would lessen the burden. Also having pools with a lot of swimmers provide the volunteers. I think Orange Hunt did that.
ASR always seems like a bigger burden to me. Plus the risk of storms in the evening is tough to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.

The league does provide the host pools with some funds in support, but it’s still a large undertaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If it gets any harder to find volunteer pools, they will have to. Hosting is not great for the pool- you lose your facilities for a whole day in the middle of pool season for an event that you may note even have swimmers participating.

PC here: You lose your pool for more than a day. Two days for set up (per NVSL request) plus day of. We are fortunate to have an agreement with Fox Mill Estates for our members to use the other when either of us are closed but it’s still a huge burden and inconvenience for the membership.
The NVSL does give some money, but it’s understood it’s just enough to cover port-a-potties, traffic cops, and other expenses incurred by the host pool. The only hope for a profit is concessions if done well.

[Anonymous]

PC again: we are also fully aware that we are not an ideal pool for a meet like this. They were desperate, we offered. If you have an all-star caliber swimmer, have them start practicing their shallow dives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?

Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.

Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!

I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.

Honestly the $10 fee per swimmer is a brilliant idea. It makes up for losing use of a pool for TWO days. If you were a pool member that would be annoying if you don't have a kid on the team AND swimming in it.

Someone on here suggested that the team that sends the most swimmers should host the following year. I kind of like that as well.

I'd do $100 per for D1 swimmers, $50 for D2, 25 for D3 and $10 for the rest. Let the pools with crazy fans pay the most

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PC again: we are also fully aware that we are not an ideal pool for a meet like this. They were desperate, we offered. If you have an all-star caliber swimmer, have them start practicing their shallow dives.

You guys are awesome for making it work. I’m sure it will be a great meet.

[Anonymous]

Prepare for traffic/parking issues at Rutherford. Our pool has had B meets against them. There is only one dead end road to the pool, and it gets crowded for even normal meets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PC again: we are also fully aware that we are not an ideal pool for a meet like this. They were desperate, we offered. If you have an all-star caliber swimmer, have them start practicing their shallow dives.

You guys are awesome for making it work. I’m sure it will be a great meet.

Very grateful to Pinterest and Rutherford. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PC again: we are also fully aware that we are not an ideal pool for a meet like this. They were desperate, we offered. If you have an all-star caliber swimmer, have them start practicing their shallow dives.

You guys are awesome for making it work. I’m sure it will be a great meet.

Which pool does the above commenter come from? Why not have pools do a rotation schedule?