Nov 6, 2006, 7:35 AM
Post #1 of 2
I am curious to hear what others have to say about the change in the approach to building our Olympic Team as reported in the last few issues of Scuttlebutt. It seems we are "doing" better in terms of international results and standings than in the recent past. But I am not sure I understand some of the parts to the approach, and to what extent the changes have helped the cause, or if the "improvements" (in individual results, which I guess is the yeardstick?) are really caused by other factors (like a "blip" of particularly well-prepared sailors coming out at the same time):
Olympic Team Approach - pls discuss
Log-In to Post/Reply
- Money is obviously an important factor and it is reported that this has changed considerably. But is money going to individuals really as good as money going into the "infrastructure" of the system that produces sailors.
- The change to individual support from class support is interesting in this regard. What do other countries do? Certainly one can see the strength in classes, which reflects participation in sailing overall, as much stronger in other countries. One always tends to think that big, strong overall programs yield the best elite as the bigger programs give the elite the most training, experience, competition and social/sponsor recognition.
- No payments nor reimbursements to volunteers? Did I read that right? Is there no professional staff in that org? What do other countries do?
- Are we benchmarking ourselves in several aspects (not just short term results of indovidual sailors) against other programs and understanding how we are doing and how we differ from others?