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

So, an email comes today. Fort Wayne has decided they are giving out points. Who makes this decision? What are the criteria for giving out points in a spiel? Is there a format/conditions that must be applied? The slams are essentially invitation, are they excluded? Some of the GLCT spiels have men/women mixed in the play, are they excluded? How many points are awarded based on what? What if the National Championship is not worth a bunch of points? Do you want a team that finishes fifth at Nationals (in the original proposal) representing the US at Worlds?

For an organization that is trying to be "professional", this is the absolute worst proposal I have ever seen. I am embarrassed to be part of this organization if this is the level of "professionalism" that is displayed. We would not be on page 6 of "debate" if there were ANY details at all provided. My company does proposals for a living, they would have folded up shop 15 years ago if this was the type of proposal given to clients.

I have expressed these issues to the executive board of the USCA. Not the concept of the proposal but how it was presented. I would urge all others to do this as well if you feel this was handled badly.

JH
I want to enjoy a bit of summer, don't think that is going to happen.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

JH,

here is how points events are set up and evaluated:
http://www.worldcurl.com/oom/oom.php?task=calculations

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 159

A good way to implement a point based system while ensuring the importance of Nationals could be to reset all the teams points once they get to Nationals (Similar to the PGA Tours FedEX cup playoff final event). For example the team with the most OOM points going into nationals would be reset to 10 points. Then you could have the winner of Nationals receive 11 or more points. Maybe only give out points from Nationals to the playoff teams.

This could be an easy way to ensure that a team doesn't end up in Nationals with a 50 point lead and already have the trip to Worlds locked up.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

MnIceman, I see how that would solve keeping Nationals relevant. It does not, however, achieve the HPP twin goals of adding incentive for our teams to hunt points early in the year and avoiding some fluke champion upsetting a team that has had a great year.

I appreciate the spirit of compromise that you have shown, but I must admit it wasn't my first response. Initially, I was compelled to type a more sarcastic reply: "Yeah...or we could just send our national champion. I hate that idea and I hate you. How about we hold a ten-team tournament with a round robin leading to playoffs? Wait! We already do that." But such a reply is neither funny enough nor constructive.

It is my hope that some compromise, such as MnIceman's (which ain't bad), does appear in the final HPP mandate. As time grows short, I suspect that we will hear something soon.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

The more I think things through, the more my thoughts return to an old idea that, at various times, was promoted by others: Patzke, Barcome, Benton and others.

Exposure to good competition and great ice on a regular basis is the way to improve teams. Increasing depth is the correct tactic to counter nations that elect to forfeit growth by creating professional curlers. It simply HAS to be cheaper to bring some good teams to the USA than it is to send a mere handful of our teams to play repeatedly in Canada.

The gentlemen listed above dreamed of an American tour with some TV exposure. I don't think the timing was right two decades ago (Barcome) or a decade ago (Patzke and Benton), but I think the time has come.

Instead of funding five Men's teams and four Women's teams to play some weekends in Canada, we bring five Men's teams and four Women's teams down here to play on those weekends. I think it can be cheaper and better. I think it can expose EVERY competitive player to the competition and ice conditions that we look for when we send a handful of teams north...and we will exposing them to all of our teams and not just a handful.

I also believe that we could use such a tour to expose all competitive players to more coaching. We have too many serious competitors that have never been exposed to our national coaches who have a lot to offer.

How to best fund such a tour and bring in USOC monies within their policies could be tricky...but it is possible. How to interest a cable network for some coverage could be tricky...but it is possible. Getting a Title sponsor could be tricky...but it could be done.

I see depth as the both the answer to increased success in international play and continuing to promote growth. That it also fits within American and Olympic ideals is just a bonus.

This would introduce all competitive teams to good Canadian rinks and good ice. This might increase TV exposure. This might bring coaching to the forefront. This might be a better answer than messing with the format.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

Dumb question...

Has anyone actually *approached* NBC Sports Network, Comcast Sports Network, or any of the 2nd Tier ESPN competitors and *pitched* a "Major League Curling" concept?

Create a series of 10ish spiels around the country, or adopt 10 of the larger US ones (probably have to stay out of Canada because of TV rights issues...I'm guessing...), get a sponsored purse that, for curling, would be significant, but for TV it's relative pennies (say a total of $500,000 over the 10 events), give the rights to said Sports Network, and go to town?

Put each of the spiels near a Full Season club, and write into the contract that the club gets a promo spot as part of the show.

Find a core of our best teams and give them spots in the Televised Quarter finals as seeded teams, however add in the Poker vibe with each of the tournaments having an Open Qualifier for a couple of the spots for that "Anyone can play against the best" factor....9 times out of 10 the Semis will be Four of the best teams, but on occasion a novice will break through, which is always good TV.

End it with a "Championship final" of the 10 winners of the tournaments for something that looks cool on TV.

If there can be 24/7 Golf and Tennis channels, and *3* separate Soccer channels...there should be able to be access for this somewhere.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Alan and Tuck, I like the idea of bringing world class curlers to the USA so as many of our competitive teams can benefit instead of a cherrypicked few - at least for the time between the end of a season and Nationals. After Nationals, I could see a couple of teams getting extra HP funds to prep for a worlds berth they had earned on the ice at Nationals...

So... golf has the PGA and the USGA both running televised tournaments... with all sorts of TV contracts....while the Augusta National Club Masters is in its own seperate world.... which all golfers want desperately to play in.... Why not have a Four Seasons' invitational for both the "professionals" and "amateurs" as Augusta does? Invite both the Olympic track top teams and the club champs and even the Canadian cashspiel killers who don't bother with the Olympics. Broadcast on TESN. Get Loudmouth pants for one sponsor. Just as the best USA golfing amateur, Bobby Jones, created his Golf Masters without toadying to USGA or PGA....

Last edited by Alice on 05-29-13 at 08:40PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlanMacNeill
Create a series of 10ish spiels around the country, or adopt 10 of the larger US ones (probably have to stay out of Canada because of TV rights issues...I'm guessing...), get a sponsored purse that, for curling, would be significant, but for TV it's relative pennies (say a total of $500,000 over the 10 events), give the rights to said Sports Network, and go to town?

---

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alice
Alan and Tuck, I like the idea of bringing world class curlers to the USA so as many of our competitive teams can benefit instead of a cherrypicked few - at least for the time between the end of a season and Nationals. After Nationals, I could see a couple of teams getting extra HP funds to prep for a worlds berth they had earned on the ice at Nationals...

---

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

So, the USCA's worthwhile OoM has points only from Canadian events except for our own Nationals?!

I will say it again... just as Bobby Jones made the Masters the place to be every year for all top golfers... and yes it took decades and TV + Arnold Palmer to get that far.... so, too, should someone this year start such a thing for us in the USA and the USCA should supoort it by giving OoM points for our curlers and maybe even HP cashspiel funds, too. Offer either money or points and many of our top USA teams would come. Maybe the first year only one top Canadian team would come... but build from there. Invite the very best four curlers from Canada to challenge our best!

Hmmmmm.... how about a player's spiel for individual points? Open - mixed and single sex teams? A mashup of professionals and amateurs?

We need to to think out of the box for any real changes to our HP program. Shuffling points like poker cards and HP cash doles is not working. As virtually everyome here has written, we need more competitive events for more of our top curlers and better coaching opportunities for all of them. An OoM event here in the USA other than Nationals is one example of real change.

Last edited by Alice on 05-29-13 at 10:20PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alice
So, the USCA's worthwhile OoM has points only from Canadian events except for our own Nationals?!

I will say it again... just as Bobby Jones made the Masters the place to be every year for all top golfers... and yes it took decades and TV + Arnold Palmer to get that far.... so, too, should someone this year start such a thing for us in the USA and the USCA should supoort it by giving OoM points for our curlers and maybe even HP cashspiel funds, too. Offer either money or points and many of our top USA teams would come. Maybe the first year only one top Canadian team would come... but build from there. Invite the very best four curlers from Canada to challenge our best!

Hmmmmm.... how about a player's spiel for individual points? Open - mixed and single sex teams? A mashup of professionals and amateurs?

We need to to think out of the box for any real changes to our HP program. Shuffling points like poker cards and HP cash doles is not working. As virtually everyome here has written, we need more competitive events for more of our top curlers and better coaching opportunities for all of them. An OoM event here in the USA other than Nationals is one example of real change.

---

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

Curling in not cheap to broadcast from a television perspective.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

Just getting a look around at the truck producing the Nationals playoffs last year, I can tell you first hand the costs are significant.

A production truck itself is likely in the seven digit range. Each HD camera they had also had a $25,000+ lens (just the lens).

Additionally, they had around 15-20 people supporting the broadcast in one capacity or the other.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love the money to spend, and we'd like to go HD in the future in a cheaper way, but tv standards are higher than the web.

I don't want to get into a "future of TESN" in this thread, but I just wanted to weigh in on the costs, because we've looked into it a bit.

__________________
Joe Calabrese

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 39

quote:

---

Originally posted by TakeItOut!

A production truck itself is likely in the seven digit range. Each HD camera they had also had a $25,000+ lens (just the lens).

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

Sure, but the networks already *have* all of that stuff (or know where to get it...some of it is rented, as I understand it according to a friend in the business...cameraman for Fox's DC affiliate), so to say "A network would have to buy..." all of that stuff in order to do a show is not really accurate.

We should be able to do better than we do currently, which would accomplish two things...1. It would get better games in the US, which would result in our having better teams, and 2. It would grow the sport, which woudl result in our having more players, which would result in long term better teams.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

I never should have mentioned TV exposure when putting forth an alternative idea. It has proven to just be a distraction. My thinking was more along the lines of "Build it and they will come."

Slams? Hell, we can buy those. They seem to be put on the auction block every four or five years. (just trying to keep Guertzie fired up...that should do it)

Guerts did have a legitimate point when mentioning that top teams seem to be seeking points. True, but free entry and some travel expenses would weigh heavily with many. We don't need Howard and Martin all the time...just some good teams that have an attitude of giving back to the game. Guys like young Hamblin or Guy Hemmings. Cotter? Yeah, I think we could get a few weekends out of Cotter. Heather Nedohin? Yeah.

Basically, I don't think we can outplay the small nations at their own game. Picking a handful of players and making them pros is against our culture and seems to not promote growth in those countries. We need a strategy that counters theirs...and I believe that depth is the answer. Don't trend towards the Chinese method until they get better results at Worlds and at home.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

So, now a survey has gone out to recent past nationals player-downers to try to bolster support for the USCA HP staff and its Executive Committee rubberstampers.... while the entire Board is split right down the middle. But, Huzzah! .... there are the votes needed now to call a special meeting to give American curlers the same rights Canadian curlers have to a fair and open HP process with checks and balances.... instead of the mercurial, "Y'all can read our cherry pickin' minds!" we have now.

July 4th is coming up. I do love fireworks. And cherry pit spitting contests.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

I am not convinced that anyone who makes any noise about things now is being listened to, or acknowledged, in any way. I hope I'm wrong.

Time will tell. One way or another this needs to settle soon.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Not to worry. The current powers that be are listening while hunkered down, firing off that survey BEFORE telling the whole board they were on the slimey prowl for ammo to fight those on the board who want to discuss the HP plan and maybe improve it.

The infamous plan announced right AFTER a whole board meeting.

The plan with a moving target of points.

The plan favored by a favored few. (Flaming Cherries Jubilee anyone?)

The plan that would turn us into .... let's pick one!
a. Soviets
b. East Germans
c. Chinese
d. North Koreans

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002

A message emailed to me to post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alice
So, the USCA's worthwhile OoM has points only from Canadian events except for our own Nationals?!

I will say it again... just as Bobby Jones made the Masters the place to be every year for all top golfers... and yes it took decades and TV + Arnold Palmer to get that far.... so, too, should someone this year start such a thing for us in the USA and the USCA should supoort it by giving OoM points for our curlers and maybe even HP cashspiel funds, too. Offer either money or points and many of our top USA teams would come. Maybe the first year only one top Canadian team would come... but build from there. Invite the very best four curlers from Canada to challenge our best!

Hmmmmm.... how about a player's spiel for individual points? Open - mixed and single sex teams? A mashup of professionals and amateurs?

We need to to think out of the box for any real changes to our HP program. Shuffling points like poker cards and HP cash doles is not working. As virtually everyome here has written, we need more competitive events for more of our top curlers and better coaching opportunities for all of them. An OoM event here in the USA other than Nationals is one example of real change.

---

__________________
CurlingZone
Everything...Curling!

Please click on our sponsors' banners periodically, as visiting their sites helps keep CurlingZone.com Free!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 159

Well said Carrie.

Alice-Did you read the letter and survey that was sent out? It simple informed people of the details of the new plan as they now stand and asked for input on figuring out the remaining details. Stick to the facts please.

Now back to the thread topic!
According to my math the new proposed process if in place last season would have resulted in Team Shuster locking up the spot to Worlds before the Men's final was even played. I believe Team George earned points in 7 events with 3 of those in Canada. Overall a pretty solid season. Looks like Team Clark didn't play quite as much but also got points in a couple Canadian events and in their hometown cash spiel. So 2 teams playing in the National Championship final that worked hard all season, played in several events, traveled to Canada multiple times and had some success at these events and there was no chance they would get to be Team USA. Can this example really be a desired outcome of this new system?

I find many more nightmare scenarios with this system than good ones. Who is looking forward to the first ever curling recount!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

I have avoided posting here for quite a bit. I will just say, listen to the most recent curling show podcast. Dean interviews Viktor Kjall from the World Championship team. I am making no judgements but is this what the future holds for the US (one competitive Mens team).

Another great interview from Dean. Listen to it at least twice.

JH
"very interesting....but scary" (old people will get that reference)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

One point about this that everyone is missing is that the quality of teams going into Nationals has a big effect on the point value. In other words, the more teams there are with points and the higher the World Ranking of those teams, the more value Nationals is worth. From the WCT OOM Calculations page:

Mens/Womens Tier 2 Playdowns (CAN/USA = Nationals, ASIA/EUROPE = Pacifics/Europeans) For the event to award maximum points, they must meet all three conditions below: 1. Must have 10 or more teams. 2. Must have 2 teams in the Top 10, OR 3 teams in the Top 25, OR 5 teams in the Top 50 on the Order of Merit at the beginning of the event competition. 3. IF both 1 and 2 are met, this condition considered met, otherwise a team from the World region in question must have finished in the top half of the field at the previous year's World Championships. Events meeting 2 of 3 conditions receives 50% of point values, while events meeting 1 or fewer conditions will receive 25% of point values. 1st 45.000 points 2nd 35.000 points 3rd 30.000 points 4th** 20.000 points Games during the round robin are worth 2.000 points per win for teams not making the Page Playoffs **if 8 or more teams in event AND team is a playoff qualifier

So based on this, last year Men's Nationals was a 22.5 point event for first, etc. Under the proposal being considered these Nationals points would be multiplied by two so first would have been 45 points and the breakdown would have looked like this:

Team OOM Place Points Total
Clark 3.9 1 45 48.9
George 20.4 2 35 55.4
Shuster 30.175 3 30 60.175
McCormick 7.345 4 20 27.345

So as MNIceman states there would have been no way for Brady to go to worlds going into the event. Shuster gets the spot at Worlds.

However, if the same teams had all played more and managed to earn higher rankings on tour, thereby carrying more points into Nationals, then nationals becomes a 100% OOM event and the breakdown looks like this:

Team OOM Place Points Total
Clark 3.9 1 90 93.9
George 20.4 2 70 90.4
Shuster 30.175 3 60 90.175
McCormick 7.345 4 40 47.345

In that scenario Clark still earns the win but in a more seasoned field. So you see it's all about creating even MORE value for our Nationals by improving our overall play at the World Level and increasing our overall rankings to make our Nationals worth more. Again, I say that our eye should go beyond being Team USA and doing well at Worlds. We should be focused on being the best in the world consistently. If that happens, World and Olympic results will follow.

Not to mention that when you look at these numbers swapping a place or two creates a ton of difference and drama in the system.

No doom, no gloom. There is a method to the "madness".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

So....you're saying that beating *the same teams* in *the same event* should be worth more or less points based upon how their previous season to that point went.

Sounds awfully BCSish to me...and does anyone actually *like* the BCS?

Nope...the more I see this the more I think I'm not gonna bother apping to help at Philly...and I think I'm going to encourage others to follow suit..."Nationals" needs help..."Another Bonspiel" doesn't...and this is turning Nationals into Just Another Bonspiel.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154

Actually Alan this is exactly how the OOM has been working for the WCT, CCA, and other countries for some time now. You only have to look at the top teams at Worlds and then compare them to their OOM rankings going in to see the correlation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged