Registered: Oct 2012
Location:
Posts: 11

How many aspiring athletes are going to put together teams to make a run at Nationals when they know the USCA can pull the rug out from under them if they're successful?

It's sad that we're choosing to go the route of the BCS National Championship instead of March Madness. I like to see them bring back the state playdown format to maximize participation (which magically seems to win medals in Juniors). Maximum teams participating, maximum teams training. Talent wins out.

Last edited by Mr. Ochmonek on 05-12-13 at 10:31AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

My gut tells me this is a bad idea. I'm not certain that it is a bad idea and I'm trying to remain open minded...looking for that argument that turns me around.

Here's my thinking so far:

The idea seems to look towards sending a more consistent and proven team to Worlds in the hopes of improving our finish in the standings...preserving our Olympic spot which is extremely important.

I don't think that is really good thinking. I'm not sure that the Points Leader (Schuster? Didn't do so good last time he was in BC. That's not a slam against Face. I like his team and their future...just making a point.) would have done any better than our champions, The Brady Bunch. (Poor Brady. 5 wins and six loses gets you Ninth Place in a twelve team field??? Dang, that's some bad luck. One bad first end against Japan and one bad game against a weak Russian team...dang it. The loss to Switzerland was the one that really hurt. I told you that was the big game.)

So, looking back over recent years, I'm not certain that the Points Leader would have fared any better than the National Champions. Instead of focusing on getting The Right Team with all the negative things such plans bring along, perhaps we should be focusing on getting our teams better. Certainly, the plan is to try and do both...but if this is the Big Step towards improvement, I remain unimpressed.

Those supporting The Plan will point towards sending the Points Leader will encourage teams to play more and in better fields. I'm not certain about this thinking either. The HP Committee already reviews the schedule of funded teams. If they want them in different spiels, don't OK their schedules. I also fear that some smart cookie (like a Jason Larway) will look closely at the math and circumvent the process. Instead of getting 0 points for going to a Slam and getting no wins, some smart cookie will go win a small spiel and get some points. There may be some unintended consequences here.

Will many teams try to get maximum points? A fair amount of teams did travel some last year on their own dime. Will that continue? Increase? Decrease? My fear is that, outside of the funded Trials teams, most players will look at the process as a stacked deck. They will stay very close to home and pin their hopes on doing well enough at Nationals to become a funded team. The net result will be fewer Americans playing in Canada each weekend instead of more. I hope I'm wrong.

So far, I remain uncertain of the advantages that we might expect. Perhaps it is a solid insurance plan against a crappy team getting lucky and winning Nationals just to embarrass us at Worlds, but I don't see many crappy teams at Nationals...let alone winning it.

So I'm thinking the upside of the Points Leader Proposal is iffy. Next, the downside.

Ben Tucker

Last edited by tuck on 05-12-13 at 03:32PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

Some negative things about the Points Leader Plan:

I was impressed by the question, "What if the team that was hot in September isn't hot any more?" That is paraphrasing many questions. What if the skip breaks his leg but they are leading in points? What if the team breaks up...or replaces a player? All different ways to point out that the best team in autumn usually isn't the best team in the winter.

The obvious negative is that The Proposal is grotesquely unfair. Funded teams get huge help towards accumulating points. It will no longer be a level playing field. It is a stacked deck. It is un-American. It is contrary to the Olympic ideal of honest competition.

Will it shrink entries? I'm pretty sure. Some may say to the not-yet-totally-dedicated teams, "We don't want you." I would not be one of those people. I look at the Women's field over my lifetime. As some of those curlers progressed towards being very dedicated, the pool got deeper and better. Would the Courtney George rink have continued under these rules? I'm not sure. I would hope so. I fear not. What player and what team are we discouraging.

Will it bode well for the future? Will we become a process that recycles old teams who have failed to WOW the world? Will breaking into the Points Game discourage some and delay others? I fear so.

Will it harm our charming image with America and the media? Perhaps. As important as our Olympic exposure may be, this is equally important.

How important is this Olympic exposure? Critically important. All of our growth can, at least in part if not in whole, be traced to it. But both genders? In every Olympics? We have been selling pieces of our soul to the USOC and it has proven to be wise. But to sell our entire soul? Not for so little. I might be convinced to sell it all, but I'd want much more. Much more.

These and other negatives tip the scales for me. Tip? They slam the scales down emphatically to NO. The advantage is mainly to send our "best" team...but is our best team the Points Leader? The advantage is to encourage teams to play in Canada where the points are more plentiful, but it will discourage most teams and have others looking to find easier points.

So not much on the positive side of the scales. Unfairness alone probably tips the scales in face of questionable improvements. Possibly decreasing entries and depth might be grave side effects. Risk/reward or plus/minus or positives/negatives...call it what you wish. I don't like the Points Leader Proposal.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

A side note to Chubbs and Youngen...and also others including myself:

I like and respect Chubbs. He has the credentials. I like and respect Youngen. This plan kills his team, yet he has the character to endorse it. (Youngen curls with two very talented curlers who are also farmers...they will never hit the ice much before Halloween)

I, of late, have been encouraging teams to be physically fit.

I, for most of my curling life, have been encouraging teams to play in Canada.

Let me be the first to drop the arrogance. If curling in Canada was the end-all-be-all, then teams that didn't play in Canada would always get stomped. If being physically fit was critically important, then physically fit teams would always win.

Let me be clear: I still strongly encourage good teams to do both of these things.

However, it might be time for all of us to quit pretending we know the best paths. If four guys throw a ton of practice rocks and never see Canada nor the inside of gym...yet kick every body...maybe we should judge not lest we be judged. If four gals take ballet and refuse to sweep...yet kick everybody...maybe we should judge not lest we be judged. Give credit to the winners, no matter their route to victory.

Youngen posted that he grows weary of curlers being the only one in the Olympic Village unable to touch their toes. Too bad. Become a marathon fan. As for me, give me Fast Eddie Lukowich (the cubby one that was great...not the thin Eddie who sucked) or give me The Wrench at his heaviest and surliest. I don't care what you look like...can you play? I don't care what you look like...are you a decent human being that reflects well upon the sport that I love?

Chubbs pointed out that Tiger changed golf with his obvious athleticism and vigorous training. All true and it is good advice for teams trying to get to that next level...in my humble opinion. Yet do we now force teams to submit to a Fitness Test before being allowed the privilege of playing in Nationals? Bite me. The great ideas will rise to the top along with wins on the ice.

We used to think "If you can't curl hungover, you can't curl." That thinking was changed. It was changed on the ice, not off the ice. It was proven.

So for myself and others who think they have the recipe for success: Get over yourself. If it is good, winning and losing will make it obvious. There seems to be many paths to greatness in this wonderful game and nobody has a monopoly on Undeniable Truth...except the final score.

That being said, I think that playing in Canada and fitness have proven themselves...but never to the point of disallowing access to titles. How arrogant we have all become...especially me.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Thanks Tuck, for the seminal killer arguments against the_Points Proposal. So what are some alternatives and some deeper money issues?

I've been reading about how the big money really got to the Olympic movement and how the very best sustained excellence sporting programs are created and maintained.

ABC Sports' Roone Arledge is the one who got the first big TV money out of US football and the Olympics. How? Fighting the naysayers and personalizing the competitors to the average viewers so they cared about the sports and the athletes. (Hey! If that pleasantly plump guy is a winning skip I can, too!) Constant innovation -- hand-held cameras, freeze frame, replays, Up Close and Personal interviews. We learned to care about obsure sports like gymnastics (thanks Olga Korbut!) thanks to fabulous anchors (Howard Cosell and Jim Mckay!) and Roone twiddling the knobs in the producer's van.

Where did his love of sports and its business come from? He was the high school manager of the winningest high school wrestling team coached by a man who learned to wrestle and coach out of books. ( Hey! Anyone can do this!) A 100+ matches winning streak, then another 100+ streak. Recipe? Sportsmanship first (humility in winning, graciousness in defeat), drills after innovative drills, Wednesday night wrestling matches to determine who represents the school at the Friday and Saturday matches against the best teams the coach could find from the whole eastern seaboard. Even his national champions had to prove each Wednesday night they were ready to win to wrestle each weekend. His training room was open to all - even college coaches - who came to learn from the best. He would throw in the towel if any of his wrestlers or their schoolmates showed a whiff of unsportsmanlike behavior. I know for a fact he, as a Quaker, had a West Point appointment revoked for one of his best wrestlers who as a high school senior was caught in one anti-Semitism prank. The coach immediately lined up a scholarship for the kid at a nearby college with a high percentage of Jewish students. "Civic responsibility" was as important to him as sportsmanship, well before winning. Or just being "decent", as Tuck would say.

Sprig Gardner was that coach. I know what he would think of cherry picking teams or individual athletes for any favors whatsoever based on results from years or months ago.

Last edited by Alice on 05-12-13 at 06:05PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

5 pages in the old guy with no horses in the race will chime in. Just win. We have eliminated the "second chance" where teams with a losing record got to play, that was really good. We have gone to a TKO, if you lose three, dude, you suck, go home and get better. Now, if you win, you are the best. You have beat the HP teams and all the pretenders. You most certainly should go to Worlds. If "they" don't pick you to go. Stand up and shout...Really dudes!, Eff you. If the "chosen" do not win and still get "picked", how are they the best? Someone has to explain that to me. Sorry, I thought that winning was what counted. I guess losing was okay if it was at the "right" point.

JH
My opinions, not as a USCA director. Just as a curler.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

This Is How Tuck Could Look Stupid...Again:

I could see an American team...more likely on the Women's side...winning a Slam and then having a bad Finals at Nationals. Then the winning team goes on to a disappointing Worlds. Most people would then say, "Geez, why didn't we just send the team that won a Slam?"

Maybe there is some middle road. Maybe a team getting into the Top 10 WCT standings should be automatic...but we've never had one of those.

Perhaps teams with zero WCT points earned outside of the USA should go into Nationals with the prior knowledge that they will not be Team USA for Worlds. Maybe that would get more dedication and more teams playing up north.

I don't know. I'm just looking for some compromise that accomplishes the goals of the Points Leader Plan with minimizing its inherent unfairness. For now, I'm feeling and thinking like JHcurl.

I suspect any compromise will come within the details of the proposal. Most likely, by my guessing, is that Nationals itself will be worth tons of points. Then the winner would, in almost any scenario, still be the Worlds team.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440

How about this, just for discussion's sake: Make it so that your top ten points earning teams are your ten teams at nationals. Accomplishes the supposed goal of getting teams to play more events (and still encourages play at tougher events like in Canada), while not wrecking the idea of the national champion going to worlds.

Any good?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

I hate it. It makes me want to gouge out your eyes, throw them on the floor and stomp them. But that isn't really "discussion", is it?

Why any test? Why any barriers that discourage?

If you insist that we need more teams raking up points, fund them and insist on a decent schedule.

Access to swingy ice and access to good coaching input seem closer to the heart of the problem than discouraging mediocre curlers from playing. The premise that our best teams are not making it to Nationals and that our best teams aren't winning Nationals start the thinking down the wrong path.

Ben Tucker

PS I was impressed that The Proposal mentioned an attempt to keep the USA bonspiels strong and growing. In the long run, that might have the most positive impact.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuck

Instead of focusing on getting The Right Team with all the negative things such plans bring along, perhaps we should be focusing on getting our teams better.

Ben Tucker

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

I question the assumption USOC is requiring a "New and Improved!!" HP plan by the end of this week from the USCA. If we do a rush-job plan which is not widely endorsed by the majority of all our curlers who have played recently at national levels - including all our up and coming juniors, our seniors, the wheel curlers, mixed, doubles - shame on us.

Mr. Brady Clark has proved mixed and doubles tournaments are a great path to success for building an Olympic team so why not ask at least all similarly situated competitive curlers for ideas on an HP program. Has there even been a single online free Survey Monkey poll for all of them to get their ideas and concerns considered? I find it very telling Mr. Clark was blackballed for years off the athletes advisory committees because ....what? I can only imagine single sex players fear competition from players developing themselves in the "other" events. Fear - not a good quality for sustained excellence or true champions.

I also will not soon forget the USCA HP's bosses eliminated the modest travel stipend to make it somewhat fairer for curlers from the coasts and southern states - where our sport is growing the most - to get to important matches so often in the central states. What do those from central states fear from the other parts of the USA? Anyone can see the interesting geographic distribution of the HP money last year and this year.

Last edited by Alice on 05-13-13 at 06:47PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

Just to clarify.

1. There are and have always been qualifications for eligibility for the AAC:

I. Composition of the AAC
A. The AAC is composed of eight (8) representatives elected by the pool of eligible
voters, defined in Section I.B. They are as follows:
Three (3) Male Athletes elected as Athletes-at-Large.
Three (3) Female Athletes elected as Athletes-at-Large.
One (1) USOC/AAC Representative.
One (1) USOC/AAC Alternate.
B. Only those athletes eligible to vote for AAC Representatives are eligible to stand for
election to the AAC. To be eligible to vote for AAC Representatives or stand for
election, an athlete must meet the following criteria:
1. Members-at-Large. Must have finished in the top half of the field of the Men’s or
Women’s National Curling Championship within the preceding two (2) years, or
have represented the United States and actively competed in the Men’s or
Women’s World Curling Championship or the Olympic Winter Games within the
preceding ten (10) years, as measured from the date of the closing ceremonies
of the qualifying event to the date of the election.
2. USOC/AAC Representative and Alternate. Must have represented the United
States and actively competed in the Men’s or Women’s World Curling
Championship or the Olympic Winter Games within the preceding ten (10)
years, as specifically measured from the first USOC/AAC meeting of the
Quadrennium, following the most recent Summer Olympic Games.

2. HP Program Timing
Most winter sports HP Plans are submitted to the USOC on an anual basis (usually the April/May timeframe) and are considered "rolling" plans. The plan timing for us is always tight (not something I like) because at least part of the plan covers our results at Worlds and the Olympics. In this case, Men's Worlds ended on April 7th. A rough draft of the new plan , which is tweaked from the previous years plan and worked on during the season, is usually presented in person (by the HPD, COO and an AAC rep) to the USOC a week or two after Men's Worlds. This presentation is really more of a discussion where our reps answer questions and are given suggestions and feedback on the plan by the USOC. After this meeting the HPD, COO and AAC come back and attempt to address the questions and suggestions posed by the USOC and make these adjustments to the plan document. Under the 2013 resolution made by the BOD, the HPD and COO, professionals in their fields, were given the power to make HP Plan changes as needed. However, the HPD and COO are expected to follow policy conistent with other NGB's with regard to these changes. That policy would suggest that they gather input from the AAC and BOD and it's committees as needed. Typically, this happens prior to and during our Spring Board Meetings(April 26th-28th). THIS NEXT PART IS IMPORTANT. The HPD cannot finalize any training camp, competition plans, or any other budget impact issues until the final plan is submitted and approved by the USOC. This means that on the current timeline, we need to submit in May and will not hear back on final allocation until June. Keep in mind, the USOC has to make its decisions on all sports in this timeframe as well. In the end, proposals with significant change that might seem hasty are generally part of regular process and are vetted by those professionals and Board Members who were elected to do so. It is unfortunate that the professionals and representatives in the process are so easily dismissed by some. I am not saying anyone has to like the results but this is how the process is set up to work.

Lastly, my own personal note. For too many years I have heard accusations of hidden agendas and secret meetings. Really? If any of you have ever met any of our Board Members or Staff, you would know that they are just as passionate about the sport as anyone else! They want to see the sport grow! They want everyone to benefit. They know that winning an growth are not mutally exclusive and they are also not completely coupled. There is a balance that needs to be struck. Part of that balance has to keep in mind the responsibility of being an Olympic NGB. I would simply ask that before you accuse and defame any of these people that you first check your facts and perhaps call them and discuss the issue with them. Opinion is great and it makes this country unique, but it can also be used to impede progress and, at its worst, create distrust in people who have the same love for the game as everyone else.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

The only responsibility a "National Governing Body" should have in regards to the Olympics is running a fair and open Trials process.

YOu want to make the process more strenuous? FIne...do it like track and swimming does:

ANYONE can enter the United States Olympic Qualifying Track Meet or swim meet, so long as they are Olympic Eligible in terms of Citizenship and have met a minimum qualifying time for their event.

The Top Runner/Swimmer on the track advances to the Olympics/Worlds....*IF* they have an Olympic Qualifying time. If they do not, they have a brief period of time to get one (like 2 weeks, IIRC), or the spot goes to whomever has a qualifying time that placed highest.

Logical Equivalent to curling: Any team can enter Nationals (if we gotta have a qualifying tournament to narrow the field to 10-12 for the finals, any team can enter the qualifier). The team that wins the Championships advances to Worlds/Olympics, *IF* they have a sufficiently high placement in a "Class one" event (WCT or other HIgh profile event).

IF they don't, they have a period of time to get it (and I'd recommend our program fund them in that effort), or else the spot goes to the highest placing team from Nationals that has the qualifying placement.

I'd recommend not making it a "win", I'd say a Top 4 in a WCT, or a top 2 in a high profile American event . Maybe 2 of those.

So, teams still win the United States Championship on the ice, a "Miracle" team that pulls an upset win still has first dibs on it, if they can back it up.

No committee choosing a team, no possibility of Nationals being meaningless, no drama.

Voila.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 87

We keep talking about some miracle team that usually plays in the Monday Night Beer League showing up at Nationals and winning it all. It never happens. In my experience the team that win Nationals are usually in the top 3 in the US.

Here is the list of winners for the last 20 years plus their finish at Worlds.

Year Winning team Finish at Worlds
2013 Brady Clark, Sean Beighton, Darren Lehto, Philip Tilker, Steve Lundeen (Seattle, WA) 9th
2012 Heath McCormick, Bill Stopera, Martin Sather, Dean Gemmell (Ardsley, NY) 8th
2011 Pete Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, Joe Polo, Ryan Brunt (Bemidji, Minn.) 10th
2010 Pete Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, Joe Polo, Tyler George (Bemidji, Minn.) 4th
2009 John Shuster, Jason Smith, Jeff Isaacson, John Benton (Duluth, Minn.) 5th
2008 Craig Brown, Rich Ruohonen, John Dunlop, Pete Annis (Madison, Wis.) 7th
2007 Todd Birr, Bill Todhunter, Greg Johnson, Kevin Birr (Mankato, Minn.) Bronze
2006 Pete Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, Joe Polo, John Shuster, Scott Baird (Bemidji, Minn.) 4th
2005 Pete Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, Joe Polo, John Shuster (Bemidji, Minn.) 6th
2004 Jason Larway, Doug Pottinger, Joel Larway, Bill Todhunter, Doug Kauffman (Granite, Wash.) 9th
2003 Pete Fenson, Eric Fenson, Shawn Rojeski, John Shuster (Bemidji, Minn.) 8th
2002 Paul Pustovar, Mike Fraboni, Geoff Goodland, Richard Maskel (Madison, Wis.) 4th
2001 Jason Larway, Greg Romaniuk, Joel Larway, Travis Way, Doug Kauffman (Granite, Wash.) 6th
2000 Craig Brown, Ryan Quinn, Jon Brunt, John Dunlop (Madison, Wis.) 4th
1999 Tim Somerville, Don Barcome Jr., Myles Brundidge, John Gordon, Bud Somerville (Superior, Wis.) 4th
1998 Paul Pustovar, Dave Violette, Greg Wilson, Cory Ward (Stevens Point, Wis.) 6th
1997 Craig Disher, Kevin Kakela, Joel Jacobson, Paul Peterson (Langdon, N.D.) 6th
1996 Tim Somerville, Mike Schneeberger, Myles Brundidge, John Gordon (Superior, Wis.) 5th
1995 Tim Somerville, Mike Schneeberger, Myles Brundidge, John Gordon (Superior, Wis.) 4th
1994 Scott Baird, Pete Fenson, Mark Haluptzok, Tim Johnson (Bemidji, Minn.) 5th


They are all well known teams. Many of the players are Hall of Famers. I don't see any "Miracle" teams on the list. There are a couple of teams that were outside of the top 3 when they won. Brady's team was not in most people's top 3. Probably the same with Shuster in 2009 and ironically Birr in 2007. The top team in 2007 was Disher. If I remember correctly Disher lost the 2007 and 2006 final. In 2007 he lost the final when his last rock picked. Most people thought he was the best team in the US and there was concern when the untested Birr was sent to represent the US. Birr finished second in the Round Robin and win the only US World medal in the last 20 years.

TN

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location:
Posts: 282

I think TN's point is correct, but I will restate it differently: regardless of the method of selecting the US representative, the US men currently do not measure up to medal at world events.
So, how do we find the teams with the willingness and ability to make the commitment, with the requisite skills and determination, and help insure they get the necessary competition, coaching and practice conditions to medal on the world stage? That's the real question, and changing the format isn't the answer.

Last edited by chapnlie on 05-14-13 at 07:03PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

The format is not the answer. We have just not sent the "best" team in the last 20 years.

JH
That's a joke son... I say, that's a joke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn

PPS I thought 5 pages in we needed some levity

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

I refuse to publicly agree with anything that ThirdNerd says. (Like JH, that is a joke...only mine is funny)

I'm not certain we are being fair to those who propose the change to sending the Points Leader. Perhaps the main effect that they strive for is to send all serious contenders into more and more competitions. Perhaps they are thinking that this format change will increase commitment levels.

Now, I'm not agreeing with them nor endorsing their idea. I'm just trying to be fair and trying to point out that the conversation has moved to just one half of the drive behind the Proposal.

Some emails and text messages have laid out some other good points:

Is Philly Ice Works going to get really mad if Nationals is no longer really Nationals?

Do some National champions consider Worlds a Victory Lap and part of the prize? I think not, but a Points Leader would certainly not.

As The Ancient Dropkin pointed out, we are facing more and more professional and semi-professional curlers on the World stage. At what level of commitment do our athletes need to be? What can we do to help them get there?

Perhaps crowning our National Champion a year in front of Worlds would allow them to be far better prepared.

I still maintain that our programs should be aimed at our core strengths and remain consistent with our cultural beliefs.

Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Let's not forget the ladies. Wikipedia has a list for them back to 1977.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Women's_Curling_Championship

Anyone see any interesting patterns in that data?

For starters, in the last 21 years the US ladies have won 6 world medals.

Last edited by Alice on 05-14-13 at 11:52PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Thinking about patterns... I see US Curling did not have a USOC funded staff Women's Coach as listed in ye olde 2012 Media Guide but the Men did. I could easily say, "Outrageous! Gender Discrimination!" But then.... our ladies have a bye to the Sochi Olympics our Gentleman do not yet.

http://www.usacurl.org/usacurl//ima..._final92012.pdf

Last edited by Alice on 05-15-13 at 12:47AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuck

Perhaps crowning our National Champion a year in front of Worlds would allow them to be far better prepared.

I still maintain that our programs should be aimed at our core strengths and remain consistent with our cultural beliefs.

Ben Tucker

---

__________________
Joe Calabrese

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

Perhaps crowning our National Champion a year in front of Worlds would allow them to be far better prepared.

I still maintain that our programs should be aimed at our core strengths and remain consistent with our cultural beliefs.

Ben Tucker [/B]

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 87

In the past I have been in favour of picking our National team a year in advance. We even tried it.

Team Shuster was picked as the Olympic team in the spring of 2009. They represented the US at the World's in 2009 and spent the entire fall hitting the WCT (~8 events). If I remember correctly they were the only funded HPP team that year and enjoyed all of the USCA resources on the men's side.

After the disappointing results in Vancouver there has been a loud call for the National Champion to be crowned closer to the World's so that we can send the "Hot" team.

TN

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2008
Location:
Posts: 87

First I want to apologize to Alice for not analyzing the women's results but unfortunately work is getting in the way.

Now some analysis of the men's results for the last 20 years.

The average placement of the US men over the last 20 years was 5.85 with a standard deviation of +/- 2.0. So essentially 6th place.

2004 was the last time that we had regional playdowns. So if I look at the placement at the World's for regional format years vs open format years , I get

Regional format = 5.54 +/- 1.7
Open Format = 6.22 +/- 2.4

So when we used the Regional format and had 100+ teams playing down we finished close to a place higher than using the Open Format and ~30 teams playing down.

Now it would be tempting to say that the better finish was because of the Regional format but I think that the correct answer is that after curling became part of the Olympics more countries have put resources into the sport and their National teams have gotten better. Not only China but many of the European teams like France, Denmark etc. There are no easy game at World's any more.

Now to the most important point regarding the current debate:

Does the US finish higher when we send out "best" team to the World's. Most people would say that for the last decade Team Fenson has been the best and most consistent team in the US. In the last 11 years Fenson has represented the US at the World's 5 times.

In those 5 trips Fenson's average finish was 6.4 +/-2.6.
The average finish for a non Fenson team was 6.8 +/- 2.4.

So very similiar and well within the margine of errors.

If I add in the results from the 2006 and 2010 Olympics we see a bigger difference.

Team Fenson's average placement is 5.83 +/- 2.7
Rest of the Men's teams placement is 7.29 +/- 2.5

So although it is still within the margin of error it would appear that Team Fenson would finish 1 place higher that any of the other men's teams. The difference can be attributed to having experience at the World's and years of hitting the WCT. And lets not forget talent and dedication.

Of course with a limited data set the margin of errors are big and the results can easily change as demonstrated by the difference between adding in the Olympic results.

My conclusion is that changing to a point format will not make any differnce on how the US will finish at the World's.

TN

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by Third Nerd


My conclusion is that changing to a point format will not make any differnce on how the US will finish at the World's.

TN

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

Great statistical analysis, Third Nerd, for the men's side. Finally, some solid facts and stats. Thank you.

And, Vanilla, those AAC rules, are those all set by the USOC? I would be flabbergasted if USOC so openly discriminates against ParaOlympian wheelchair curlers in favor of single sex teams given the "diversity and inclusion" the US Congress mandates upon our Olympic sporting federal nonprofit corporation. I am (very wicked grin) looking forward to see how the USCA spins for USOC its lack of a USOC-paid staffer women's coach for this year and last. Then, again, our ladies did good without one.... and maybe there was one I don't know about who was paid the same as the Men's one?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged