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.
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.
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.
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 $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.
Honestly the $10 fee per swimmer is a brilliant idea. It makes up for losing use of a pool for TWO days. If you were a pool member that would be annoying if you don't have a kid on the team AND swimming in it.
Someone on here suggested that the team that sends the most swimmers should host the following year. I kind of like that as well.
Anonymous wrote:
If it gets any harder to find volunteer pools, they will have to. Hosting is not great for the pool- you lose your facilities for a whole day in the middle of pool season for an event that you may note even have swimmers participating.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?
Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.
Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!
I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?
Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.
Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!
I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ because it is a crazy job. I loved it at Springboard with the huge field and they did such an amazing job(not knocking anyone else, that was the last one I attended). But they should charge each swimmer 10 per event or so and then give all the money to the host pool. They deserve it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was Rutherford a surprise pick for All Star Relays host? Or Pinecrest for All Stars?
Don't know enough about either pool to know if they usually send lots of kids to these events. We are ranked halfway between both pools and it's not every year we have an All Star Relay team.
Hosts for these events are not a function of how many swimmers the host pool sends to the events. They could send zero. Pools do not want to host the all star events. Any concessions revenue aside, it’s a massive and complex undertaking on top of what is already an exhausting summer for the volunteers making it happen. Two years ago, the league implied they were close to canceling all stars due to lack of host pools. They had to beg pools to reconsider and get creative on how to lessen the burden. I’m personally grateful to both of these pools for stepping up and being willing to host. If you’re reading, Rutherford and Pinecrest, thank you! Good luck to your teams this summer!
I think hosting pools should get $$$$$$ 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.
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!
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.