US Rowing Governance Proposal

[rowingpun]

There aren't enough skilled coaches at the grassroots levels, for many reasons. I think Title IX is starting to really boost juniors participation. USRowing may have to look to other sporting federations' coaching models to see how coaching development can happen. (There's just not enough money in rowing coaching, bottom line.)

Silly comment. There are lots of fantastic coaches at the youth levels. Go to youth nationals and you will witness a broad base of well trained youth rowers.

Go to Stotesbury and you'll see what he's talking about. There are tons of great junior/HS coaches, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who haven't a damn clue what they are doing.

[fullmetal]

There aren't enough skilled coaches at the grassroots levels, for many reasons. I think Title IX is starting to really boost juniors participation. USRowing may have to look to other sporting federations' coaching models to see how coaching development can happen. (There's just not enough money in rowing coaching, bottom line.)

Silly comment. There are lots of fantastic coaches at the youth levels. Go to youth nationals and you will witness a broad base of well trained youth rowers.

good enough to dominate the junior worlds podiums? and if what you're saying is true, then why isn't the coaching talent translating into better collegiate coaching, and by far extension, national team coaching?

[bloomp]

“A lot” of juniors coaches at convention does not make a majority.

A lot of the coaches that do attend, end up learning from coaches who have no formal training or education in relative areas. A lot of the coaches that are fortunate enough to lecture are not responsible for the level of bottom-up athlete development that the average juniors/scholastic coach is engaging in. Many coaches that are fortunate to be successful at the juniors level have resources that are not available to all programs - and their paradigm may lead to inadequate instruction or simply impractical suggestions.

And if the notion of “fast crews across the board” at youth nationals is to be believed, I’d expect a lot more parity than what is currently exhibited if indeed coaching is on point. Even across A finals this year we see margins from first to last of 10, 20, or even 40 seconds. That is not indicative of good coaching across the board.

[fullmetal]

Let me clarify that I think a good junior coach can't be measured by speed alone. But from a NT performance standpoint, I think it's clear that US juniors coaching hasn't produced the talent needed to do well at jr worlds or sr worlds (once those juniors develop).

[crewu]

And if the notion of “fast crews across the board” at youth nationals is to be believed, I’d expect a lot more parity than what is currently exhibited if indeed coaching is on point. Even across A finals this year we see margins from first to last of 10, 20, or even 40 seconds. That is not indicative of good coaching across the board.

Parity = good coaching? Parity = equal resources, equal athletic talent, equal funding, equal equipment, and equal coaching.

The big focus for junior programs is the eight and the finals results (1-6) in these events were 10 seconds for both men and women.

Show me parity in the finals across the board for even just one other country's junior national championships. Just one! Britain? Australia? New Zealand? Germany? Canada? Please, just show me one example of this year's junior championships for any of these countries where all the results in all the finals are close and I'll concede you may have a point.

We have great rowers and great coaches. The challenge to be met is 1.) the expense of trying out for/making the national team and 2.) the distance athletes must cover to get there and 3.) the overwhelming focus on erg scores, that leads to invitations to camps to athletes that have no place being there because of their limited boat moving skills.

[crewu]

Not only that, Crewu, but 6 seats/votes will be provided to "non-domestic" priorities.

If there are 1000 clubs, maybe over 80k members of usrowing (guessing on numbers ) this is a pathetic representation ratio on the board.

Support provided to (non-domestic) national team:
Men 8,4
Women 8,4,4x
56 (triple it for good measure and u23) 168 athletes, add in coaches and staff
200

(1000:4 seats or 80000:4 seats} to 200:6 seats

We already complain that membership gets "nothing" in return for dues or raising the costs of entry at regattas.

What will happen when the people that spend the vast majority of the money get the majority of votes?

I do understand that the NRF raises money for the NT already, but this gives them the membership's purse as well.

I do wish I could be a fly on the wall at some of these meetings.

Voting has commenced and I think there has been a massive swing in sentiment against the Board's proposal based on emails from the heads of large junior scholastic and club state and regional associations.

One thing I learned (if true) from these emails is that a recent national team rower's vote equals the same voting power as one rowing club that may have 300 members. This is fascinating to me.

[lt.wolf]

8 an vote majority on a 15 person board are how the numbers could possibly line up with this proposal. It sways the votes to an National team "flavor" with the possibility of leaving the domestic ( Juniors and Masters ) at the door. Any shortfall in raising funds for the National Team could easily be turned around by a simple increase in dues, etc etc.

US rowing membership is about 85,000 strong , I am struggling to see how there is equal representation.

It could be tough to pass considering how the " lightweight junior" weight ruling is playing out.


***edit

We do have to think of how we want change to take place on the BOD, this is an effort to make a change to involve a different type of presence on the board. More to come on this

[lt.wolf]

"One thing I learned (if true) from these emails is that a recent national team rower's vote equals the same voting power as one rowing club that may have 300 members. This is fascinating to me."

This is due to the Ted Stevens Act.

Master and junior membership can form their own governing body to represent their needs if they felt inclined to step out on their own.

[crewu]

Makes more sense to just vote this down and work together.

[lt.wolf]

I feel more information is needed before a decision is made .

[fullmetal]

Absolutely. And it'd be nice to know (concretely) what items/proposals any hypothetical new board would be prioritizing this quadrennium. (Not that it justifies NT program overreach.)

[lt.wolf]

By law did not pass

[ROWBOTTOM]

1680 eligible voters and a 15% turnout. The positive here was that was about 6x higher than the last ByLaws revision, re outdated Carver Model "update", which got 35 votes. The negative is that the BoD (and their advisors?) showed some real naivete about what a super-majority approval means, re approaching the vote.

Suggestion #1 to leadership: if you can see an opposing block of votes and need 2/3 approval, postpone the vote and do some politicking until you know you can count on the "yes" votes showing up. Suggestion #2: go do that now, & try again next year, otherwise the proposal didn't merit consideration in the first place.

Reality check: Between this and the pulled Jr 150/160 discussion (both of which I would agree with personally) step back, think about how you are trying to get things done, and do more grassroots political work identifying key people/allies in clubs/constituencies who can help you, re inevitable public debates.

[fullmetal]

All true. Most of the eligible votes are organizations and not people, correct?

If this Board has good ideas, it may want to start by doing their due diligence before attempting to make their own way through the process (and not succeeding). C'mon, just ask some folks in the know how it should be done...

[crewu]

And start by getting the board and the CEO on the same page. He's coming off as a passive observer instead of a staunch advocate of what they are trying to do.