Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
04-29-18 05:22PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
Coincidence?
Your quote
The other Olympic curling result for Canada may bring dramatic changes to the qualification process. Failure to medal will lead those who run Own the Podium to question if Curling Canada should change the process to determine its representative every four years. Canada has been inclusive, with many teams receiving funding and allowing multiple paths to qualify through competition rather than selection.
Gerry's quote
After missing the podium at the Olympics in both men's and women's curling, the people that hold the purse strings for sport funding will be asking why Canada is choosing the limit the development of their best teams.
Things will change and this whole idea of charging for one import player will be the least of your concerns
Seems you both have been provided the same script regarding upcoming changes. Care to share with the rest of the class?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-01-18 12:13PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
It's easy, the "analysts" are going to, once again, forget about the rule of small sample size and make massive changes to the system based on a single failure.
News Flash: just because you are the single best nation in the sport does NOT guarantee you golds, or even medals. The other nations try too, and even if you are enough better to be a 66% favorite, you're going to lose one out of three.
The biggest mistake to make is overreacting. Look at the US, after 2014, they ditched Shuster, threw him to the curb, declared him a failure, and made him persona non grata.
It took them a year to win their way back into the Program (and even then, only half-heartedly). the Analytics guys swore up and down McCormick was better, or Fenson, or any one of the other folks on the inside based on "the numbers"
Look who has a gold now?
Analytics is great, when matched with common sense and an understanding that just because putting your first stone in the house increases your win expectancy 0.03% doesn't mean you should do it every single end.
But, that's Analytics maturity Level 5 (seriously, this is my field, it's what I do for a living, Analytics is serious business for business). Curling is only barely at maturity level 1 (an agreement on what should be tracked).
The rest of the trip involves agreeing on how to track it (our stats system is *almost* there, but relies too much on human judgement), change in organizational behavior as a result of analytic results (some teams are looking at it), and then a focused revision and refinement of the analytics. You gotta go through all of that before you are actually a Mature system.
Then, the final stage is realizing that it's just another input, and is worthless without judgement and thought. That part takes the longest, in my experience.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-01-18 09:05PM |
|
milobloom
Administrator
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: St. Albert
Posts: 839 |
Think there’s some confusion here. The reference to Canada’s Olympic results has zero to do with analytics. I’m pointing out this season had several things that could become turning points. Not medaling could bring changes. Analytics is separately a thing that could be more widely embraced because of Hasselborg and Sinclair’s success.
Regarding Trials changes, the COC has left curling to handle it themselves. That is not common and other sports do not include so many athletes in the process. I support more inclusion, Pre Trials, etc, but we may head in another direction and Curl Canada may not have a choice.
For example, perhaps teams will need to be at a certain world ranking (say top 20 or 30) to be included in the Trials? You could see a competition with only 6 men’s teams and 3 women’s perhaps. I expect everything is being looked at.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
05-02-18 09:19AM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
No confusion at all...from my side at least.
I see Canada possibly doing what the US did a decade ago, and letting the "We Gotta Win GOLD" crew kill the accessibility to competitive curling for the marginally competitive curler in favor of putting all of the eggs in a small number of baskets.
That decision is, likely, based on poor Analytics (probably "Look, that's what European teams do, and look at all their medals", just statsified up)
We did that. And as a result, whereas before we had a vibrant multistage process to determine our best in a given year, we now have an event that's all but sign up and go on one side and has a handful of competitors trying on the other side.
Fortunately, the Recreational game is thriving despite that...but there's no sign of teams making the move from one side to the other, and that's not healthy for the long term competitiveness of the sport.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is . |
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|