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.
06-04-13 06:39PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
OOM as a seeding mechanism is fine.
OOM as a "Who should get funding?" mechanism is fine (although I note that the easiest way to get OOM points is to compete in expensive to get to spiels, which is easier to do if you're funded...self-feeding system much?)
OOM as a way of determining *OUR NATIONAL CHAMPION* is not fine
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-04-13 07:32PM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
Iceman, Yes, I did read them and noted the timing of when and to whom they were sent.
Carrie, I am accutely aware of what it takes to run a bonspiel or a world class event. I am one of the few in my club to serve every year on fhe spiel committee...
As for the OOM, using it to stack the deck on which team goes to worlds turns our teams into gamblers focused on trying to play at the "right" poker table to collect the moving target of "right" card points. Those with any HP funds have an unfair advantage especially over our states with the highest growth rates because the plan on the table means any teams not from the upper midwest or close to Ontario are seriously handicapped for travel costs to get to the geographic areas with the most OOM points. Effectively, the plan says a USA team must be based in or close to Canada to get to worlds or have a lot of HP or private funds for travel.
Is the USCA locked in by contract with WCF to use OOM points or can it create its own open and transparent points program at least for determining our HP cash support?
I ask again: why did the USCA last year take away the travel stipends for nationals teams coming from distant places?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-04-13 08:54PM |
|
SPMFromPCC
Swing Artist
Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440 |
There would be nothing more riveting than a national final where neither team had any chance of becoming team USA. Talk about a snoozefest. It's all well and good that the winner goes to the Continental Cup, gets into the HP program the following season, etc. But seriously...is that on the minds of teams playing in the national final, or are (were) they looking forward to having "USA" emblazoned on their back? I guess the former is all they will have left now.
Maybe I'll just focus on mixed this coming season. It's financially impossible for me to have any shot at becoming team USA. It was already hard enough without the playing field being made even more uneven than before. Now the teams with funding or a sugar daddy will be the contenders. I hope everyone at the USCA is happy about that.
Thanks for making my dreams and goals a hundred times harder to reach. Might as well just take them away completely.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-04-13 10:40PM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
I can't seem to find the OOM points for two years ago. Who would have gone to Worlds out of the Fargo Nationals? Geez, I hope the math says it would have been the undefeated Heater McCormick rink. I don't care how they finished at Worlds...they earned that shot and are now a serious contender in international play.
Speaking of math, how about Women's play? Would Erika have wrapped up the Green Bay Nationals before the finals against Courtney? How about Cassie in Fargo? Her team made the playoffs...would they have just been playing to be included in the funding?
Just questions. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the impact by looking at the immediate past.
Ben Tucker
Too lazy and bad at math
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-04-13 11:00PM |
|
VanillaIce
Administrator
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154 |
quote: Originally posted by Alice
Carrie, I am accutely aware of what it takes to run a bonspiel or a world class event. I am one of the few in my club to serve every year on fhe spiel committee...
As for the OOM, using it to stack the deck on which team goes to worlds turns our teams into gamblers focused on trying to play at the "right" poker table to collect the moving target of "right" card points. Those with any HP funds have an unfair advantage especially over our states with the highest growth rates because the plan on the table means any teams not from the upper midwest or close to Ontario are seriously handicapped for travel costs to get to the geographic areas with the most OOM points. Effectively, the plan says a USA team must be based in or close to Canada to get to worlds or have a lot of HP or private funds for travel.
Alice, I am glad to hear about your experience planning events. You would be the perfect person to launch a WCT cash/points event or two in your region to provide easier access to some events. The "Tour" needs people to establish new events. The more widespread geographically, the better access for all. Ask anyone currently running this type of event for help if you need it. Remember that you'll have to pay out 1.2 times your total entry. You'll have to pay a fee for every event listed on the WCT or other event pages. You'll have to pay for the ice time and other hospitality expenses. At a minimum you'll have to raise about $5000 to cover these expenses. This requires a sponsor package and someone to go pitch it. Not to mention that you'll have to do the draw, a program, handle entries, do online scoring and maybe web streaming, and ensure that you have championship quality ice. If you're up to the task I will gladly help you get started.
I'll also say again that if my dream was to represent Team USA in skiing, bobsledding, or luge I likely wouldn't be living in Minnesota. I wouldn't be lashing out saying that the system was unfair because I don't live near a mountain.
Frankly, thanks to this debate here, I am now more convinced than ever that the only way we will succeed is to stop worrying about the qualification system and how unfair it is and start concentrating on how we can be the best in the world. If we do that, the qualification system won't matter.
I think I'll be done out here for a while. I've probably already said too much.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 03:54AM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
quote: Originally posted by jhcurl
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)
Wouldn't want to pattern a system after Sweden, a country with 1/3 to 1/4 the number curlers of the USA who regularly wins World Championship and Olympic medals.
Looking at Sweden, while they do have a selection system under the Association, it happened because the country missed the Worlds in 2009, which nearly caused the Swedish Men to miss the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver. Sweden finished 10th in qualifying, narrowly getting the last spot. No Olympics would mean limited funding and would have set men's curling back in Sweden for a number of years on the elite level.
Sweden has more then one competitive Men's team, with Oskar Eriksson ranking inside the Top 25 and more then 30 points ahead of the highest ranking USA team to start this season. To suggest Sweden has 1 competitive men's team is to suggest the USA has 0 competitive men's teams. On top of that, Marcus Hasselborg plays on Tour in Europe and ranks inside to Top 70 as well.
On the Women's side, Sweden had 4 teams inside the Top 50 OOM in both the 2 year and year to date rankings, with Margaretha Sigfridsson finishing in the Top 10, along with Anette Norberg, Jonna McManus and Anna Hasselborg.
The reason we think Sweden only has 1 men's or women's team is because it's the same team at the top and going to the Worlds right now. Not because no one else is trying.
If the USA Men miss the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, do you think the USOC will stand idly by and watch a program continue to fall behind the rest of the World? The certainly wouldn't be as interest fund it to the same degree.
The program being suggested is the opposite of the selection process implemented in Sweden. Teams are selected to go to the Worlds there, while in the USA the system they're proposing is an opportunity to play for it.
__________________
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
|
|
06-05-13 10:05AM |
|
VanillaIce
Administrator
Registered: Nov 2005
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 154 |
quote: Originally posted by tuck
I can't seem to find the OOM points for two years ago. Who would have gone to Worlds out of the Fargo Nationals? Geez, I hope the math says it would have been the undefeated Heater McCormick rink. I don't care how they finished at Worlds...they earned that shot and are now a serious contender in international play.
Speaking of math, how about Women's play? Would Erika have wrapped up the Green Bay Nationals before the finals against Courtney? How about Cassie in Fargo? Her team made the playoffs...would they have just been playing to be included in the funding?
Just questions. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the impact by looking at the immediate past.
Ben Tucker
Too lazy and bad at math
I know it's tempting to look back at past results to see what this would have meant...I just did it to make a point. But it isn't really a fair evaluation given that teams will have to plan completely differently and the values of events, point totals, and world rankings will be impacted throughout the process now.
Okay, really I am done now!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 01:13PM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
It wouldn't be a "fair" evaluation? I'm not certain that proponents of this Proposal should ever be allowed the use of the word "fair"...but my thinking on that word does not promote the discussion.
So the Proposal has our teams scouring the globe for points...at least those who can afford it or are funded to do it. This will, in theory, drastically change the field strength at Nationals. All reference to recent Nationals are moot. I think I need to call "BS" on that one.
I respect the thought process. I respect the incentivizing teams to higher commitment. I don't respect that leap in logic.
IF Heater McCormick would have stayed home and watched Fenson go to Worlds (after beating Team Fenson more than once in Fargo...same for Team George), then the Proposal is flawed. Did not the McCormick and Fenson rinks finish their Worlds with indentical records in sequential years? Do we not now have another team added to our short list of contenders in Mens? Would one concede the moral high ground for such questionable returns?
If Erika had Worlds already locked before playing Courtney, where is the wisdom in that scenario? Would Courtney have even played last year? Are we better off or worse off without that team? It is not like Erika won a Slam. They qualified in one the previous year...but it's not like they earned a near Free Pass to Worlds. They were good last year...but not all that good. If the Proposal would have sucked the life out of the Finals based on Team Brown-Tetley's not-earth-shaking points, then the Proposal is flawed.
Judging the impact of the Proposal is a logical step. Using recent history is a fair method of judging some of the impact. Looking for unintended consequences is another step. Are skips looking at points earned in the USA vs. points harder to get in Canada? Will they stay closer to home?
Ben Tucker
Punk, continue increasing your dedication. Maybe you can make the Finals...throw your practice session...wait for NBC's lights to come on...then leave the ice. I'm sure that they can fill the dead air.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 02:26PM |
|
MNIceman
Hitting Paint
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 159 |
Tuck-I believe in Philly McCormick had a few more points than Fenson going into Nationals. So in that example the National champ would have been Team USA. This most resent season is a good example of a bad outcome of the new system. Team George would not have been Team USA if they would have won the final.
The other example from this season, Erika and Courtney, is exactly what this system is in place for. Erika would have had the USA spot locked up regardless of the outcome of the final. I'm not saying that is a good thing but Team Brown had a dominating lead in OOM points (~20) over every other team in the US and Team George made a change in skip and brought in a new player shortly before Nationals. Not exactly what the USCA wants to see in their world representative.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 02:36PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
quote: I'm not saying that is a good thing but Team Brown had a dominating lead in OOM points (~20) over every other team in the US and Team George made a change in skip and brought in a new player shortly before Nationals. Not exactly what the USCA wants to see in their world representative. [/B]
Right, because no team has ever made a change in leadership or composition halfway through a season and gone on to become World Champions...
(/sarcasm off)
The USCA is overreacting to a "problem" which isn't even a real problem...yes, we *might* miss the Olympics next year (although does anyone actually think the IOC is going to let that happen...I highly expect official shenanigans if the US comes close to the danger zone...and beyond that, we should be heavily favored to be one of the two qualifying teams anyhow)
There is a principal in mathematics and statistics called Statistical Significance. Plain and simple, an event that has happened all of five times in history (Olympic Medal Curling) doesn't have enough repetitions to evaluate the null hypothesis "Nation X will do better if they use Selection Method Y".
Even World Championship level curling doesn't have enough repetition to judge.
They're fixing something that isn't broken. In the meantime, they can't even get our National Championships an uninterupted time slot for the finals while Speedskating is going to get 13 hours of coverage.
Ineffective board much?
Focus less on hand picking your chosen team and focus more on getting our excellent curlers on the ice in front of the nation.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 03:12PM |
|
SPMFromPCC
Swing Artist
Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440 |
Tuck, I'll tell you this much: I know at least one relatively high profile American curler who said that, if they ever made a national final where they knew going in that they had zero chance of becoming team USA, they would refuse to play the game, or hog every rock, or some other similar public protest. I sure hope it never comes to that.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 03:30PM |
|
nom de broom
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 84 |
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.
The above was prefaced to Mrs. Benton's email. If Mrs. Benton thinks the above is disrespectful and inflammatory, then she doesn't get out much. (I agree with Mrs. Benton that Alice's posts have no doubt included incorrect information, nay even speculation. But if a governing body refuses to disseminate information of ANY kind, then they can't whine if people miss the mark on what's happening behind closed doors).
Alice has been no more impassioned, frustrated, angry, or flippant than any of the other commenters on this thread (and she's kindergarten compared to some CZ commenters on other threads). The only difference -- and perhaps the difference that provoked Mrs. Benton's response -- is that her comments aren't "ladylike."
They're human being-like.
Nom de Broom
__________________
[Original Ray's] nom de broom
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 04:12PM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
Thanks, Nom de Broom. But, other than using the word "slimey" I'm not sure how I've been unladylike. And, many thanks for pointing out the hide-the-ball on info from USCA leadership which means, yes, I do not have 100% knowledge of what is going on.... and am still waiting for answers to questions like that killed-off travel stipend....
Mrs. Benton, I never meant to diminsh the genuinely amazing work you and others have done to get top competitive events going in the USA, but I wanted to point out how any USA team now to get enough ** worthwhile ** OOM points must go to Canada and, I realize now under the current HP system, should be going to your neck of the woods, too.
Mr. Benton, Some food for thought: if the Swiss Alps were the "only" place for skiing, where would the incentives be for other mountains all around the world to develop skiing sports on their own mountains?
Tuck, thank you as always for your wise perspectives. I always enjoy your posts.
Alice
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 04:48PM |
|
Dcasper
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2011
Location:
Posts: 24 |
It's unfortunate that Erika had such a great fall and is still burdened with having to win nationals. But I think the disrespect of Courtney's team is a bit unwarranted. The nucleus of the team has been together forever and a change at the helm just before playdowns is not much different than what some teams (or coaches) have done at worlds draw to draw.... 2010 anyone? jr ladies? I mean lets get real. Court Erika and pottinger were two games up on the field. Shuster and George... same thing. A more practical approach to this would be a two team playoff 1 vs 2 best of three for the worlds spot. How many 3 or 4 teams have made a final in recent years? I cant think of many... (is a 5-4 team really worthy of a crack at going to worlds?) float a cash bonus or program access to your 3 and 4 place teams. not to a winner that is lacking of a few points. Just seems silly.
If RR top 2 best of 3 system like that is what we are using for the trials to get the best team out then why does this not work for nationals? This new points plan is far from flukeproof, and I hope someone flukes it up real quick to expose its flaws.
Also what is being done within the program about developing player skillsets? We can fund as many people as we like and parade the same holes in the line up over n over all over Canada or we can fix them. I am not sure this is being addressed. Having played against several top 20 OOM teams in recent years I witness teams on another planet on all aspects of the game. What are players and coaches doing to get there? From my broad point of view... not much and not enough. "to get there" Alot of work can be done on the technical aspects of the game at home. More games isnt the answer in my eyes. Better shot making is the answer. All this hoopla and what we are really talking about is a bunch of beer drinking white kids sliding a rock on ice.
Pardon me for being american and (like our forefathers) not wanting to be like europe...
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 05:05PM |
|
MNIceman
Hitting Paint
Registered: Feb 2011
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 159 |
I certainty didn't mean to disrespect Courtney's team. It's just my feeling that this years Women's final would be an example of why the USCA is going to this point system.
I don't agree with it. I agree with you. We need to improve the teams not the selection process.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 05:28PM |
|
Dcasper
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Jun 2011
Location:
Posts: 24 |
I wasnt referring to your post at all... Just other things I've heard... and reasons for some people justifying this change are way off base and wrong. Another point to ponder...
Sending Shuster to worlds after losing to both finalists twice? How is this justified? Because he drew a honey route in a c bracket in september? Granted they won St. Paul and appeared in a final or two elsewhere... but Still. Who's to say they'd win more than 5 games at worlds?
And who is going to watch a meaningless final? Poor product to market at that point. We need more drama, more tears, more heartbreak and Nationals in Vegas every year... But thats a whole 'nother thread in itsself. Imagine the suspense of a game 3 final on Saturday night winner takes all (trip to worlds) at the orleans ice rink? One team triumphant the other in tears on national TV. I'd be there with a beer in hand for sure.... meaningless final... I'll be at a blackjack table or the peeler. Good luck getting a do or die vibe outta that game. Game might look like a 1230 am draw at the last chance.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 05:48PM |
|
Tee-Eh
Knee-Slider
Registered: Apr 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6 |
quote: Originally posted by Dcasper
And who is going to watch a meaningless final? Poor product to market at that point. We need more drama, more tears, more heartbreak and Nationals in Vegas every year... But thats a whole 'nother thread in itsself. Imagine the suspense of a game 3 final on Saturday night winner takes all (trip to worlds) at the orleans ice rink? One team triumphant the other in tears on national TV. I'd be there with a beer in hand for sure.... meaningless final... I'll be at a blackjack table or the peeler. Good luck getting a do or die vibe outta that game. Game might look like a 1230 am draw at the last chance.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 07:07PM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
Nationals in Vegas every year? Well, DCasper, at least we'd get to see the 12th End Sports guys on Pawn Stars as they trade webcams for blackjack chips.
Alan M, I'm not ready to agree that there is no problem. I took a stats class and know about significance. From the sixties and through the seventies, the USA was always considered a strong contender to medal in Mens...and not in Womens. Things have changed. Stats can lie, so I will trust my eyes.
The vast majority of the decline in Mens is due to improvement by the rest of the world...in my humble opinion. The vast majority of the rise in Womens is due to an increase in our own talent pool...in my humble opinion. The ladies also appear to more open to coaching and seek out really good coaching...not so much on the Mens side until they have struggled. What can we learn?
But all of this distracts us from the root question: The Board granted Derek The Scot and Rick authorization to call the shots on the HPP...or did they? Was it wise? Was it acceptable? Where do we go from here?
I suggest tweaking the Proposal by straying from the OOM point system. Increase the number of points given at Slams and set our own points awarded at Nationals. Am I compromising or am I selling out? I don't know. I just know that my gut tells me that the Proposal is a really risky step for (what appears to be) little return. Risky? Yep. Unintended consequences and decreased participation in return for similar results and no noticable increase in dedication.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 08:47PM |
|
dbsdbs
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812 |
quote: Originally posted by tuck
The vast majority of the decline in Mens is due to improvement by the rest of the world...in my humble opinion. The vast majority of the rise in Womens is due to an increase in our own talent pool...in my humble opinion. The ladies also appear to more open to coaching and seek out really good coaching...not so much on the Mens side until they have struggled. What can we learn?
Ben Tucker
Tuck nails it again. The key is the talent pool and not the process. Building that pool takes time and resources. Unfortunately, there seems to be a sense that we do not have that time and thus the resources are being directed at the upper end rather than at building the base. I have not seen anything in this long discussion thread to suggest that USA Curling has a long-term solution to building our competitiveness at the world level
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-05-13 09:17PM |
|
mr. lucky
Hitting Paint
Registered: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 142 |
Right on
We are going down the wrong path and every time we fail, they see it as proof we need to go further.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-13 12:47AM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
Speaking of paths.... I checked the USCA website tonight for what national level camps or clinics are scheduled for the rest of 2013. It would seem there are only such things for already winning juniors or those who have already locked in an Olympic Trials slot. So, to all the curlers who might add depth to the USA's competitive strength this year the USCA word is you are on your own. You are not invited to any benefits from the HP program for the rest of this year. Not even, dear leaders, a single cent for anything?
My curling region is setting up its own clinics for this summer and fall since it can't get timely support from national, excuse after excuse, year after year.
A small story. When I was a kid I first heard about curling from a grandfather who was invited to curl from someone at his local country club in New England which had discrimination policies against people of certain ethnicities and religions. Since that is what happened near him, he thought all curlers were like that and so, wanted nothing to do with them. Years later, I stumbled into curling in the Northern Plains and found a game with a proud tradition where the laird could play with the crofter on a level playing field.
A level playing field. With no discrimination based on insiders' info, geography, financial means, or the subjective laying on of hands by a national coaching staff with the power to cherry pick teams or team members off-ice.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-13 07:42AM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
The USA Nationals gold medal needs to be worth a ton more points than the Nationals silver and bronze medals. A team being denied Worlds due to lots of OOM is an injustice, but a team being denied Worlds over just a few OOM points is a grave injustice.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-13 08:13AM |
|
mr. lucky
Hitting Paint
Registered: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 142 |
What’s the point Tuck, pardon the pun. If gold is worth enough to advance, then why put a points system in place at all. Frankly all this talk about points, and the legalisms of seeding is really boring.
What is wrong with turning back the clock a year? I love the two track system. Let HP have their 4 spots at nationals, along with all the USOC money. Give us some regional playdowns with winners advancing to a national qualifier that advances the other 6. We’ll figure out how to train the masses, let HP figure out how to beat us. If HP funding is the kiss of death at nationals, they need to “connect the dots”
Its sport, you can’t predetermine an outcome. That’s called something else.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-13 01:03PM |
|
jhcurl
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431 |
The travel stipend was cut to help with the budget (I think).
Some thoughts to ponder....
Will teams play in events to try and keep points away from other teams?
Does it make sense to travel to tougher spiels and get nothing or stay closer to home and maybe earn a few points?
If a team has no points, should they bother to attend Nationals?
And, worse case scenario, what happens when a team at Nationals loses on purpose to help another team get points/get to the playoffs?
JH
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
06-06-13 01:16PM |
|
dbsdbs
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812 |
Not exactly pertinent to this conversation but perhaps interesting nonetheless. From the 2013-14 Curl Manitoba Rulebook:
All teams at a Provincial Championship are competing for the Provincial Title, CurlManitoba reserves the right to select the team to represent Manitoba at all National Championships.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|