Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Two items caught me eye while thinking about the USCA elite or high performance programs. First, page 4 in Bob Weeks' book "Curling Etcetera":

"For five years two cities[Montreal and Toronto] were given entry into the Brier.... from 1927 to 1931 before being dropped in favour provincial entries only. In 43 games, the Montreal team won just 10 matchea. Toronto's team played 46 games ..... and came out on top in 28 of those."

In today's Wall Street Journal interview of Bill Rodgers who won the Boston Marathon four times and has been a vital cog in the growth of amateur and professional running, he remarked how fun that Marthon is with all sorts of runners running together at the same time on the same course.... "[He] loved the inclusiveness of a marathon, how anyone could line up with the trained professionals. (Rodgers doesn't like the term "elite," considering it too standoffish.)"

I put those two writings together and ask why is the USCA not supporting all our curlers in all states instead of cherrypicking elites only? For anone in our "provinces" to travel to nationals, it is a daunting costs if only for travel expenses.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2011
Location:
Posts: 31

While I don't necessarily disagree with your overall point, the parallels between marathon and curling (or most other sports, really) just don't hold up well. Everyone can enter the marathon (well, not really everyone for those like Boston, you still have to post a qualifying time) and the elite runners are in no significant way affected by mass participation. They run their race, they finish, it doesn't matter if 2000 people take an extra few hours to finish.

Imagine a marathon scenario where over period of weeks, the elite runners would have to have individual races against 4:00 hour runners. They'd get a lot less inclusive in a hurry.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613

Inclusiveness vs. elite programs:

Foremost, we need to remember that there are two programs with two budgets. The inclusive programs are run by the USCA with our dues...and precious little money beyond that. The elite program is run through the USCA, but it is funded by the USOC within their rules and guidelines. The USOC has access to TV money and sponsorship money and other monies.

I am proud that curling is an inclusive sport. You want to play against the best of the best...just sign up. Some of the largest cash spiels get to pick their teams, but most events take in all comers.

So if there is a difference between being elitist and inclusive, it stems from the Elite program using USOC money that is directed towards the elite players.

Do you want to play against Brady Clark? He was in Seattle's closing spiel last weekend. I'm sure Sean Beighton was there as well. They were, most likely, both sociably drunk. Want to play against Pete Fenson? He was winning the Last Chance in Hibbing last week. Before that, he was winning the House Of Hearts Charity Spiel...you could have played on his team.

You want to play against Debbie McCormick or Jessica Schultz? They aren't hard to find and they are very nice people. They would play against you and then offer advice if asked.

If you are under the impression that coaches swarm our top players 10 months out of the year, most of them rarely see a USCA coach. Most of the First Time winners have never spoken to a USCA coach for much time at all. Ask Heater or Brady.

Inclusive? How many sports can you enter the Olympic Trials by just signing up? If you think our elite curlers are making a living at this, think again. The vast majority of them paid hundreds of dollars out of their own pockets...most of them over a thousand.

I understand how curling is becoming segregated into Competitive vs. Social. I get it. Still, there is no barrier stopping a player from switching sides. Still, there is significant overlap and interaction here in the United States. Just ask the curlers in Hibbing or Seattle last weekend.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Tuck, But not "all" can be in the US Olympic Playdowns under the current rules! Automatic berths from last year and this year fill virtually all the slots. And we still do not know who will be cherrypicked to fill the remaining playoff slot for womens... No regional playdowns for that slot....

Yes, "professionals" have different "access" in the Boston Marathon to start outside the general scrum just like seeding at many curling tournaments and all must have "playdowned" at another timed race somewhere ahead of time to get the entry ticket -- but *all* can try to qualify and enter it every year unlike this year's US Olympic playdowns.

True, USOC money comes with USOC priorities, choices, biases, and other often non-negotiable strings. But did USOC or USCA set our 2013 Olymlic Playdown entry rules? I just see too much emphasis in USCA in recent years on international medals at the expense of encouraging equally all seriously competitive curlers -- the competitive side grassroots we need in the US to truly grow and maintain the sport plus the more social side. Cherry picking and putting bars on the door to Olympic playdowns is just not reflective of the Spirit of curling nor the altus, fortus motto of the Olympics. Not by a long shot.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613

I agree with your spirit, Alice...just not your conclusions.

Team Brady Clark started this year with the same path as any four of us to The Trials. They entered the National playdowns. The top two teams got guaranteed spots.

Team Erika Brown-Tetley entered the playdowns this year on the same path available to all of us. True, their superb cashspiel results allowed them to skip the Qualifier in Seattle...but that was available to all of us as well.

There exists a perception that elite players and social players have a widening gap growing between them. There is a perception that the High Performance Program looks to exclude up-and-coming teams. I have some problems with the HPP, but that is not one of their sins. Courtney George went to Seattle...and everyone who signed up could go...and now she looks good to be that last team selected for Fargo.

So I contend that we are more inclusive that marathons or any other Olympic sport. We can play against the best Olympians most every winter month should we choose.

The competitive side gets all of the attention and all of the USOC money. There is not much we can do about that...except to look through the perception and see that there are people working to keep our game as inclusive as possible.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

In spite of his long success in mixed and doubles, I suspect that a year ago not many would have placed Brady in Alice's group of elites getting USCA support. But look who won nationals this year and will be in Fargo for the Oly Trials. Probably same applies to Heater. Pretty good evidence, I think, of the inclusiveness of our game.
Now I understand that USCA may cherrypick, to use Alice's term, another team for the Trials. But, depending on how that selection is made, that team or those players will have earned that opportunity by their play on the ice.
This is not to say that curling's inclusiveness is what it once was. In spite of the chance to play against Brady in Seattle or against Pete in Hibbing, those opportunities are not nearly as frequent as they once were. I am old enough to remember when just about every bonspiel you went to included our top curlers and club curlers really did have the chance to play against world class curlers. With few exceptions, that no longer happens -- the elite curlers want to play against top competition all the time. While that is not good for bonspiels -- very few bonspiels attract as many teams as they used to -- one can hardly blame the competitive curlers for wanting to focus their time and money on finding the best competition and that now means cash spiels. Yes, anyone can enter those spiels, but they are not cheap so most curlers no longer get to play against our top curlers like they once could.
Like it or not, USOC money is going to go to our elite curlers. It seems to me that USCA/USOC support is much more an issue for elite curlers than for those striving to that level. How those dollars are allocated remains a mystery to most, so I think the elite curlers that do not get much support have much more of an argument about exclusivity than do curlers who have not yet reached that level.
The bigger issue, I think, is whether the USCA/USOC focus on medals has become so overwhelming as to bring into question whether local curling clubs and their members are getting value for the dues that they send to USCA year after year. Those are getting to be significant dollars and my guess is that many curlers do not know how much of their dues goes to USCA or can identify any benefits they get from that. But that is another issue and I have already gone on too long here.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

quote:

---

...putting bars on the door to Olympic playdowns...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 180

sean
well said.
in the east, we say win or shut up.
you won't lose that moving

__________________
JL

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 22

The conundrum facing the USCA is the fact that a lot of their own funding comes from the USOC. Poor performances by the men's and ladies teams at the Olympics makes it difficult for the USCA to balance the books; cause funding will be cut. Kind of a catch 22 scenario.
Here in turn lies the issue. If the quality of USA men's and ladies teams cannot either medal or place in the upper echelon of international curling, then funding is cut. So if Alice is looking for equality to have an opportunity, you better get in line and work your tail off for a number of years so that you get recognized like Brady or Heater to get a chance. Even that may not be enough. Each of those teams, even though they are good teams, may not be able to compete at the upper levels of international curling and show winning records. With that being said, does the USCA take on a hockey approach and a panel of coaches chooses the team? Then Alice you may have a lesser chance unless you have proven a top player in your respective position.
With the overhead building on the infrastructure side, ie. Derek Brown, Al Hackner, John Benton, Phil Drobnick, Scott Baird, I am thinking that the all-star team is not that far away. Especially now that the USA has to come through the relegation round to qualify for the Olympics.

__________________
Hasbin curler who has been around awhile.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

I think curling is an official high school sport only in Wisconsin. Junior curling is generally sponsored by curling clubs rather than schools. So that often limits the audience to kids whose parents curl. Maybe USCA should look at curling in the schools program that I think is making progress in Manitoba?
Junior programs are getting stronger and USA juniors have won medals at world level, but we do not seem to be seeing similar progress for men and women. It seems pretty clear from watching Brier and World curling that USA is not in that class. Perhaps USA will medal once in awhile [see Fenson Olympics] but I fear that USA will more often be in relegation pool than in medal pool.
I too suspect that all-star approach is not far off in US. But at same time I am not sure what that does for USA curling, besides keep $$ coming to USCA. Finding a competitve all-star team is different than building competitive curling in the US. Many curlers already question the value of their USCA membership - what happens when USCA $$ are focused on even fewer curlers?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613

Pushed for time, so I'll be uncharactoristicly brief:

Legend...only 60 miles apart, we might as well be on opposite sides of the globe. The Junior programs are growing, but we need to establish a Coaching Program along with it. Always remember that American views on sports are measured in minutes...not decades. Win now or go away. Mortgage the future for wins today. Foresight is a mortal sin, not a gift.

To Chubb and others:

Do not underestimate those making the decisions. They are a bright lot. It is easy to see nations pick teams and pay them to play...only to realize zero growth in the sport at home. DerekTheScot will need to bring up the possibility of a hand picked team, because getting us onto the medal stand is his only role. That, however, will be as far as it gets. Growth will trump medals when it is time for the decision. Growth will win out because, in the long run, Growth means medals.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431

Not an official High School sport in CT but we do have a High School league. Runs two afternoons, think there are 4 or 5 schools involved. Almost all the kids were NOT aware of curling when it started. Now we a few that have been to Junior playdowns or nationals. One of the parents, again not a curler, started a curling supply company (brooms up).

I think some of the other GNCC clubs have high school leagues possibly.

__________________
JH
Go Phils, got my WS bet on you

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

Tuck, nearly all curlers I talk with hope you are right, that we will not be represented by an all-star team and that growth will be the prime focus for USCA. But the old adage says that money talks... and in USA curling money comes from the USOC. It may be that in the long run growth will bring medals but that is the also the problem -- USOC wants medals now, not in the long run. And usually USCA wants what the USOC wants.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbsdbs
Tuck, nearly all curlers I talk with hope you are right, that we will not be represented by an all-star team and that growth will be the prime focus for USCA. But the old adage says that money talks... and in USA curling money comes from the USOC. It may be that in the long run growth will bring medals but that is the also the problem -- USOC wants medals now, not in the long run. And usually USCA wants what the USOC wants.

---

__________________
JH
Go Phils, got my WS bet on you

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by jhcurl


I would urge you to let your USCA rep know that you don't think an all-star team is the way to go. It is the feeling of some of us on the board as well. I think it will probably be a combination for the trials, maybe just for the men. The "HPP picked team" might be some type of "all-star" team. Obviously, more info will come out this weekend.

JH

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431

You can always email someone at the USCA. There are contacts on the website although I agree the website is difficult to navigate at times. The Media Guide also has a list of all the contacts at the USCA and the directors (even me). On the website at http://www.usacurl.org/usacurl//ima..._final92012.pdf

The next meeting is starting this Friday. Goes through Sunday. The minutes from the last meeting were just released today for approval by the members at the meeting. So, I would hope they would be published soon. The meetings are held in Minneapolis right now. there is hope that in the future they will move around the country.

Jeff Hannon
GNCC Director to the USCA

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location:
Posts: 59

Your USCA reps are appointed by your State or Region Asscociation. You could contact them or even your club officers to find out who reps are. Even though USCA site might not be easiest, with some simple sleuthing, information can be found.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

My point is that if USCA really wants to serve members, it should be more proactive. If they really want input from members, they should let them know about meetings and their reps If they really want members to be interested, they should publish minutes on line. [I can understand why no minutes from last meeting but why no minutes from last YEAR?] If they really want members to use their website, it needs to be more user-friendly -- sleuthing should not be necessary.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 22

Tuck, I am not critical of the USCA. They are in a tough predicament.
Run a democratic Olympic Trials and let the best team win and take our chances at the Olympics VS. hand selected, eat, sleep, train curling 24/7 and then see what happens at the Olympics.
The real issue is what Alice has been eluding to. The Olympics is SUPPOSED to be about AMATEUR sport. But our audiences/countries/broadcasters/IOC have lost site of this because of the dollars involved and the command for our best to be playing the sport. Hockey is a perfect example. All NHL players do it for a living and audiences kind of want to watch those guys battle it out for their respective countries.
In Canada, the most competitive curlers have travelled/moved to be near their teammates. IE. Ryan Fry, Mark Nichols, Ben Hebert, John Morris to name a few. I have not seen this level of commitment yet from any team in the USA. Once again, my point is not to be critical, it is only to ask the question to what level do you really want to commit.
Historically, curling has been kind of a blue collar sport where people got together to compete and have a good time. Along came the Olympics and some seriousness developed. Teams got together to compete and would have a good time after the competition was over. Some of the fun and character of the game has been lost here.
Teams were formed and massaged to find someone who would fit in and they could enjoy each others company. Problem is friendships develop and when someone is not towing the line, or making enough shots, the quandary becomes friendship vs competitiveness. IMHO some of the USA teams could become great teams if they would make that leap/commitment from playing with friends to playing with the best players in their respective positions.
Tuck you are also correct in saying that as soon as the sport of curling grows to a particular level in the USA, that the depth will more than aid in the development of world class teams.

__________________
Hasbin curler who has been around awhile.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

Well said Ian: "The Olympics is SUPPOSED to be about AMATEUR sports. But our audiences/countries/broadcasters/IOC have lost site of this because of the dollars involved." The game of curling that so many of us grew up in and loved was a perfect match for the Olympics -- before money and nationalism stole the old Olympic ideal. Curling today in the US is not such a good match.
Canadian curlers have moved across country to be eligible to curl on great teams. USA curlers do not need to move because we have no residency requirements [many US teams would not be eligible for playdowns without open residency]. But even that open territory has not been enough to make US competitive at the world level.
Perhaps Ian is correct in saying the US teams need to move from friendship to commitment. Given the jhcurl's comments about having an all-star team at the trials, perhaps we are close to seeing if that works better.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

The handpicked all-star team process is coming. I'm just about certain of it. All the USCA and USOC see is how it worked this year for Scotland (Eve Muirhead) and most definitely Sweden (Niklas Edin). Ergo, it must also work for the USA.

Here's my point of view: it seems to me that we have lots of curlers in the USA who are content to simply be the best (or almost the best) in the United States, and don't really have too much interest in excelling internationally. How many US teams play in Canada...I mean, REALLY play in Canada? Are we interested in being the best in the world...or do we just want to win easier local cashspiels that are full of people we know? We take our Olympic spot for granted, and now look at what has happened: there's the very real chance that we might not even get to Sochi now.

In my opinion, if the teams we have winning our Nationals cannot perform good enough at Worlds to earn the Olympic berth, then we do not deserve to be there.

Sorry if I miff some people with my above comments, but this is simply my honest perspective on things. It's high time we either get SERIOUS about excelling internationally, or accept that we don't really care. Do we?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

Interesting comments from SPM... and probably pretty accurate.

However, I don't know if US curlers do not excel at world level because they are happy to just be best in US or because it now takes too much $$ to win internationally. Not many US curlers can afford to REALLY play in Canada. For example, Edin rink just returned to Sweden after spending 6 weeks in Canada. How many US curlers can afford to do that? Jacobs rink spent most of the past 2 months curling in Brier, Worlds and then Players Championship. How many US curlers can afford to do that?

The elephant in the room here is $$$. Maybe that means US has to find an all-star team with curlers willing to devote ALL of their time to curling. I'm guessing US has some good curlers who would be willing to do this if we throw enough money at them. It will not happen over night but perhaps this could get US curlng to the next level

To answer SPM's big question, though, I'm pretty that most US curlers do NOT care if USA excels internationally. But that may be the case in European countries as well. It only takes a few curlers who do care. So is it really worth it?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613

SPM, you need to clarify your question for me. Is it:

Do we really care about medals?

Or is it:

Do we really care about curling?

True, the questions can interplay...but the distinction is important to the debate.

In reply to your question: Two dozen rinks played in Canada this year...most of them on their own dime. All of the funded teams played significantly in Canada (at least three times). Their schedule is reviewed by the HP coaches.

In reply to your prediction that the USCA and the USOC will note the golds won by Sweden (Mens with a paid team) and Scotland (Womens with a paid team): Exactly my point. Growth in both of those nations lag behind our growth...by miles and miles. Barely any growth at all. Give the "Powers That Be" some credit. Given the facts, they will make the good calls. These are not stupid people.

The real question, as it so often does, comes down to budgeting. How can we best use the limited funds (very large funds, but limited) to capture both growth and medals? Can both be done?

Of course it can be done. We just need to figure things out. Some think that lots of money directed at coaching can do both. Some think that funding fewer teams to a higher level can do both. I disagree with both of those ideas.

Maybe it is time to think outside of the box. How about we have our Nationals at the end of April? Then we can fund our winners for 11 months before Worlds? I think it is a terrible idea because I have different plans for the USOC money...but I wanted to give this debate a newer idea. What is your new idea? Tet wants to make teams live together in a small house like "Jersey Shore Meets Real Curlers Of Duluth".

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613

PS As we post ideas, I would strongly encourage everybody to give a listen to Gemmell's interview of Canadian Curling News publisher Karrys.

These are two of the best informed and smartest curlers in the world. Together they explore medals and growth and the future. It really applies well to this discussion.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Fairport, NY
Posts: 143

I like the idea of changing the dates of Nationals. But I'd make it early in the season (like late October at the latest). I know that goes against the grain and their isn't a lot of ice early in the season. I call this the NASCAR concept. NASCAR has their top race early in the season to kick off the year. NASCAR is a growing sport. We should look at models that have proven spectator growth.

Having Nationals early does two things...

1) It helps us get our national teams early enough to prepare all year for worlds. Funnel the USOC money to two teams per and base it on who wins Nationals. Maybe the Challenge Round could be in April so teams can prepare physically and mentally for an October Nationals.

2) It helps us take advantage of our #2 media property (frankly our only current media property besides the Olympics). When we get the Olympic push every four years, it's hard in a traditional curling club to maintain interest because the event happens so far into the season. Maybe people do a "Learn to Curl", curl for one draw and the vast majority forget about it an do not return.

__________________
Joe Calabrese

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged