Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

My earlier comments notwithstanding, I agree with Tuck that Face deserves to be in Fargo. But the bigger issue remains that I do not see any team in US that is capable of competing at the world level. If that is true, then a handpicked team seems to be inevitable.
Not sure why a selected team necessarily means a plunge in dues collected. Only a small percentage of US curlers chase the nationals and they cannot make an individual choice to not pay dues, unless they do not join a curling club. Right now a huge majority of US curlers have no interest in competitive curling and they pay dues for, one might argue, very little benefit.

An interesting discussion -- not sure we have yet hit on a solution to make USA curling competitive again at world level.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 282

I hope they DON'T go with a handpicked team; I think it is too late in the Olympic cycle to be successful and, unlike Tuck, am not convinced the right ingredients are out there ... or available, e.g., Bill Stopera may be a much improved 3rd, but is he willing to give up his business and family to pursuit the Olympic dream? Pete Fensen 2006 measured up as skip, but we are talking 2014, and I'm not convinced he is the answer. Heater and others mentioned by Tuck are also good US skips, but world class? Sorry, I don't think so.

I am reminded how many thought Tyler George had put together a "dream team" when he combined with Plys et al a few years ago. Very solid team, and lots of bonspiel successes, but only two heartbreaking losses at Nationals. My point: let the best team on the ice rep the US at Sochi and the World.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 136

Wow - haven't checked in for awhile, took me awhile to read through this. I agree with chap - whatever happens I think it is too late for this cycle to throw in a hand picked team, and I do agree with others that Face should have that spot. However, I am unbelievably starting to head toward what I considered the dark side - a selected team. It always seemed dirty, un-American, but alas perhaps tryouts, a sprinkling of politics, and the ability to focus limited funds more directly on Team USA is the most American of all (some of that is tongue and cheek). I guess I should have done more research, but can anyone explain what Scotland does. It seemed a little heavy handed the ways Murdoch got added to the squad, but I guess I was wondering how open it is. I think I remember seeing Logan Gray and some other teams playing down, but can John Doe from Tues. night league decide to play down or does he have to win something to get in or is there no way to get in. Is Scotland's system more of a hybrid type system and if so would that work here or do we have jump from pretty democratic process to hand selected system. Later. clutch

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

I wonder if all members of the USCA Board are familiar with the "Diversity and Inclusion" program of USOC.

http://www.teamusa.org/About-the-US...-Inclusion.aspx

As I read that, we can drive a 16-wheeler truck of grassroots needs through that... as long as the D&I program funds are not aimed at only populations of our current membership majorities demographic.

If anyone has the actual written strings and dictats of the USOC money please let us know. I can't find them anywhere. They surely do not forbid grassroots development in many places in the USA which have never, ever had curling clubs thanks to D&I.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2009
Location:
Posts: 99

I am so sick of reading threads on here and hearing people complain about the USCA but not give viable solutions on their own. (This is a blanket statement not aimed at anyone in particular)

You know where a "grassroots" campaign should start... At the ROOTS! With every single person who can do something, you should do something. And by this I don't mean complain to the USCA that they are spending USOC dollars the way USOC intended. Where are the ideas to bring in more money for the sole purpose of grassroots development, without pulling money away from our competitive athletes who are generally underfunded anyways?

I will continue to say this over and over. It comes down to the way things are run in our entire organization. The USCA Board of Directors really wants to make governance changes for the better of the organization. I understand that the last time it came around many clubs disagreed with parts of it. I really hope that anyone with valuable suggestions and ideas is waking up in the MNPLS/ST Paul area this morning and attending the USCA Board meeting.

Changing the National Governing Body will appease USOC, which can get us more money. But, even more importantly, it will change how effectively our organization is run. And it intends to bring in "new blood" in terms of smart business people with good connections to advertising dollars and capital fundraising to sit on the Board of Directors.

"Ask not what curling can do for you, but what you can do for curling" (Sorry, that just seems appropriate)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

OK, Youngen!! Here is some food for thought:

http://curlbc.ca/wp-content/uploads...ril-2013-cc.pdf

The power of a focused grant..... a very powerful idea...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged