What are you two talking about? Quit putting words in mouth and trying extrapolate conclusions that are not spoken or implied. I could care less what happened with the Fosters at X. I don't think they cared about swimming for X. If they did, they would have. They did not want to stop training with their club team so they did not swim for X. I am guessing that it wasn't important for them. Their peers knew who the best swimmers were in the city. They went to X but did not swim for X. From my understanding, they liked the school so they stayed until it did not work out for them anymore. I just brought up Sycamore and the Fosters as an example of the fact that even though Sycamore had the best swimmers in the state, the institutional advantages that X has (the best swimmers in the region, the best and most coaches in the state and an Olympic caliber pool at their fingertips) could not be overcome. There is no hypocrisy. If you think through the model I proposed, the swimmers at X would not have to be part of a club program (perhaps saving $1000.00) and they could swim against the best swimmers in the nation every year. What I am also saying is that I can foresee a time where X's swim team will be asked not to be part of the OHSAA. The advantages they enjoy make the meets non-competitive.