Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 192

Curious to see how the new Carey ensemble will fair this week, 1-2 so far.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manitoba Legend


Carey might win one more game if she happens to draw into a fawn.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 205.200.233.162

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Duct_tape
"A top level athlete would never sign a non-compete agreement within their sport. That's the flaw in your argument here."

That's another argument why the 'job' analogy is inapplicable to this situation.
It does not apply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squiggsy


I am a top level employee in a private industry. I do not have a non-compete clause. I can go to our direct competitor, and I will not be sued. You can't stop someone from earning a living.

Jenn Jones fired Cathy O. There was no loyalty to her from the team, as they signed a younger, better player in Lawes. I think it was a good move and I don't think you should have to curl with people if you don't want to.

Just because you don't like the analogy, doesn't mean it has to stop, especially when your theory has been disproven.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 209.153.242.6

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered
R there any updates on gushue team

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 173.206.37.228

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Ontario
Posts: 192

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered
Duct_tape
"A top level athlete would never sign a non-compete agreement within their sport. That's the flaw in your argument here."

That's another argument why the 'job' analogy is inapplicable to this situation.
It does not apply.




The fact that you do not have a non-compete clause in your contract does not invalidate the argument. Non-compete agreements do exist and are enforceable. Otherwise they would not exist.

The job analogy continues to fall apart. No team is going to sue a member or a member a team. I saw in one thread where the board got into talking about labour standards acts! Its just silly!

They are a unique set of individuals that sacrifice career, family and time for the love of the sport. They make commitments to each other for the hope of representing their province and country.

Teams talk to each other and figure out how to face challenges together, not in isolation. Kind of like Rachel Homan's team did. Sweeting was a threat to them (esp since they were looking for a new second) so they talked and thought why don't we get Joanne? Not that they needed her specifically plenty of teams to ask. They just wanted to break their upcoming rivals.

Sadly, Joanne didn't trust her team to talk about it. If she had they would have probably pointed out they have built each year and to remember Homan's team was in a real spot. Cold sober second thought may have given the realization she is being used. It's easy to overestimate your abilities when the cool kids are telling you your great. Pride before a fall.

Though, no need to worry. Based on what you guys are saying she should expect no loyalty from Team Homan and be dropped at their pleasure if she doesn't measure up.

Ok, I've had my 2, maybe even 4 cents. I'll drop it. Unless there is a major personal attack- then it's Flame on!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by China Supporter
You thought Germany was bad??? Look what happened allegedly with the South Koreans...

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/new..._newsidx=154269

I will pose this question. Ji-Sun Kim is married to Xiaoming Xu, the Chinese Vice.

We saw the Korean Short Track Speed Skater Ahn left Korea due to his Sport Federation for Russia and won multiple medals in Sochi.

Personally, if the allegations are true, I would leave to curl for another country and Jessica potentially has that option.

I thought Imogen joining the mutiny was weird. Betty and Jessica in 2018?!?!? Can we trial test this at the 2016 Continental Cup?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 174.93.64.173

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manitoba Legend


Riot in cell block 9 aka Andrea Kweeg!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 174.93.64.173

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered


But it's not the best competition. The pools in the slams have some comparatively weak teams. The top 5 teams in the country basically qualify for the quarters by showing up. From there, they need to play 3 good games to win. So it's not a grind. It's 'who of the top teams play well on the weekend'. Period.

Oh, and my favourite Glenn Howard quote:
"The guys made everything and, oh, thank god!"
That was in response to the 2012 Brier win.

The emotion displayed when a team wins a slam is a tiny fraction of that of a Brier win. History remembers the Brier winners.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 209.121.225.139

Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875

"Oh I speak Legend". Like the old lady from Airplane who speaks jive. Nobody can speak Legend. Sometimes we need the words on the bottom of the screen like that show with the alligator hunters in Louisiana just to to figure out what he's saying. Not to worry, he'll post 1000 more times trying to explain it with 6 degrees of Jennifer Jones, because it always goes back to Jennifer Jones. Always.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered


A great post that accurately analyses why the claim; 'the slams are the best' is ficticious.

They don't fill arenas and have cost host committees tens of thousands of dollars in losses. There are better, stronger fields in many cashspiels. And just recently Warren Hansen, who understands and knows what's happening in the business better than anyone, was quoted stating the slams are in serious financial jeopardy.

But that isn't surprising to anyone who has watched how badly the WCT has handled things since their inception.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 74.216.23.238

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered


Thats what I just don't understand.
If there is virtually no one in the stands and the host committees are losing thousands of dollars,
WHY do they continue to host these events?
And while I am at it,
WHY is anyone sponsoring these teams if no one even sees your ad?
I just don't get it.
Maybe someone who is more familiar with these events can explain it to me.
Thanks.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 206.45.201.92

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

interesting strategy by Scotland. Without hammer, they throw corner guard. China draws under and sometimes behind tee. Scotland tries to hit China stone. What am I missing?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 66.41.29.203

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered



And to take it a step further in regards to the sponsors, I have often wondered how many returns they receive from their advertising dollars. I, for one, don't really notice the advertising at all, and I assume that I am one of many. It makes me wonder how much a benefit it is to them at these events, even when they get a fairly good crowd. And it seems as if this doesn't happen very often.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 209.121.225.215

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 70

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered


The only people making money on the slams is Sportsnet from the advertising dollars they get. None of which is passed on to the host committee. Who can actually end up paying Sportsnet if they want certain local sponsors in the ice.

Its a well kept secret by the wct that these events are money pits. Its also why so few return to the same location.

---

Last edited by Curlerfan2003 on 03-30-14 at 01:16PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 621

I know next to nothing when it comes to the economics of the Slams or even who is running them or how good of a job they are doing. Though I will say that if you are going to level scathing criticism at those who are running the Slams then two rules should apply. 1) You should use facts and arguments. Unsupported declarative opinions are little better than insults in terms of the information they carry. 2) You should not hide behind the 'Unregistered' mask.

What I do know, and anyone else can easily look up, is the depth of the fields at the Slams. They are comprised of the top teams in curling full stop.

The statement that "many cash spiels have better fields" is at best spurious nonsense. Let us look for example at this weekends Pomeroy Inn spiel. McEwen is there, Stoughton is there and Edin is there. And like the Slams the spiel is set up in pools that play a RR to qualify for the playoffs.

Aside from these 3 teams at the Pomeroy there isn't a team in the top 20 of the CTRS points or WCT money list.

At a Slam by contrast the teams are invited on the basis of their rankings. So by definition you have the strongest possible field. No cash spiel comes close.

For that matter neither does the Brier. At the Brier you had Koe, Stoughton, Gushue Morris, Laycock, Menard that's it for top 20 teams. In other words half the field isn't in the top 20.Some of them not in the top 100. I'm not exactly sure how many of the Brier teams wouldn't be ranked high enough to qualify for a Slam, but I'd wager it's usually around half. It's very likely the same for the World's and the Olympics.

It is true that at the Slams every team does not play every other team. For self-evident reasons. You can't play a 15 or 18 team RR. The Slams could limit the size of their fields much more strictly and play a round robin it's true. Would that be better? Maybe, I believe it's being considered. It would however have the unintended consequence of giving even less chance to the next generation.

In any case as it stands you have three pools and they play a round robin within that pool. The pools are divided so that each of them is equal in strength. 8 Teams make the playoffs based on the RR record. The upshot is that 3-2 usually gets you into a tie breaker.

In the last GS the tie breaker was between the current World champion and the current Canadian champion and this quality of match-up just to make it into the Final 8.

And who was in the field? I will list those at the top of the CTRS Point ranking. Jacobs (1), Howard (2), Stoughton (3), Koe (4), McEwen (5), Edin (6), Gushe (7), Martin (8),Sven (11). Laycock (12).

This Slam was also an unusual one. It's field suffering a little coming as it did so soon after the Olympics and just before the World's. As a result Ulsruud, Liu and Murdoch weren't there, they usually play every Slam. It is a further testament to how highly the players rank the Slams that so many of them showed up despite this scheduling log jam.

It is a very very simple thing indeed to look at the field in the Slams and see they are by far the best in curling. Except for the Trials It isn't close.

The difference between the Trials and a Slam is simple to see. The ROW are, obviously, not represented. Canadian curling is however so deep that the Trials have the next best field in curling after the Slams.

When it comes to the World's, the Brier or the Olympics however they never have a majority of the top ten ranked teams. Never. Most years they have only 1 of the top five.

So whatever else you might think about the Slams they are for those who care more about curling than national pride, the best events in curling. Admittedly we are a minority, that does not however change the facts. They have the best fields in curling and it isn't even close.

Last edited by JB42 on 03-30-14 at 01:47PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curlerfan2003


Its too bad too because you have solid fields in all the grand slam events but your right the stands are only half full.

Is there anybody here that has been on both a Grand Slam and Brier/Scotties committee that could fill some of us in on the differences?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 209.121.225.215

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB42
I know next to nothing when it comes to the economics of the Slams or even who is running them or how good of a job they are doing. Though I will say that if you are going to level scathing criticism at those who are running the Slams then two rules should apply. 1) You should use facts and arguments. Unsupported declarative opinions are little better than insults in terms of the information they carry. 2) You should not hide behind the 'Unregistered' mask.

What I do know, and anyone else can easily look up, is the depth of the fields at the Slams. They are comprised of the top teams in curling full stop.

The statement that "many cash spiels have better fields" is at best spurious nonsense. Let us look for example at this weekends Pomeroy Inn spiel. McEwen is there, Stoughton is there and Edin is there. And like the Slams the spiel is set up in pools that play a RR to qualify for the playoffs.

Aside from these 3 teams at the Pomeroy there isn't a team in the top 20 of the CTRS points or WCT money list.

At a Slam by contrast the teams are invited on the basis of their rankings. So by definition you have the strongest possible field. No cash spiel comes close.

For that matter neither does the Brier. At the Brier you had Koe, Stoughton, Gushue Morris, Laycock, Menard that's it for top 20 teams. In other words half the field isn't in the top 20.Some of them not in the top 100. I'm not exactly sure how many of the Brier teams wouldn't be ranked high enough to qualify for a Slam, but I'd wager it's usually around half. It's very likely the same for the World's and the Olympics.

It is true that at the Slams every team does not play every other team. For self-evident reasons. You can't play a 15 or 18 team RR. The Slams could limit the size of their fields much more strictly and play a round robin it's true. Would that be better? Maybe, I believe it's being considered. It would however have the unintended consequence of giving even less chance to the next generation.

In any case as it stands you have three pools and they play a round robin within that pool. The pools are divided so that each of them is equal in strength. 8 Teams make the playoffs based on the RR record. The upshot is that 3-2 usually gets you into a tie breaker.

In the last GS the tie breaker was between the current World champion and the current Canadian champion and this quality of match-up just to make it into the Final 8.

And who was in the field? I will list those at the top of the CTRS Point ranking. Jacobs (1), Howard (2), Stoughton (3), Koe (4), McEwen (5), Edin (6), Gushe (7), Martin (8),Sven (11). Laycock (12).

This Slam was also an unusual one. It's field suffering a little coming as it did so soon after the Olympics and just before the World's. As a result Ulsruud, Liu and Murdoch weren't there, they usually play every Slam. It is a further testament to how highly the players rank the Slams that so many of them showed up despite this scheduling log jam.

It is a very very simple thing indeed to look at the field in the Slams and see they are by far the best in curling. Except for the Trials It isn't close.

The difference between the Trials and a Slam is simple to see. The ROW are, obviously, not represented. Canadian curling is however so deep that the Trials have the next best field in curling after the Slams.

When it comes to the World's, the Brier or the Olympics however they never have a majority of the top ten ranked teams. Never. Most years they have only 1 of the top five.

So whatever else you might think about the Slams they are for those who care more about curling than national pride, the best events in curling. Admittedly we are a minority, that does not however change the facts. They have the best fields in curling and it isn't even close.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 24.77.253.19

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Forbes' list of the most valuable football clubs:

1. Real Madrid 3.3 billion
2. Manchester United 3.2 billion
3. Barcelona 2.6 billion
4. Aresenal 1.32 billion
5. Bayern Munich 1.3 billion

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 69.166.30.173

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

Get off your high horse JB42. The pheasant classic in Brooks had a stronger field for example. And it used a TKO format that took less time and was more exciting with a larger field than a slam.

And most spiels period have better fields than some briers. But that's not the point. To get there you have to beat ''the best' in your province then 'the best' from every other part of the country.

And don't raise the argument that slams get the best from spiels. Because that is less about ability to win and more about the ability to pay yo play. And we all know what an uneven playing field that has become.

The Brier is the one true level playing field. You all start at your provincial playdowns with the same chance as every team. And IMO that's one of the things the slammers hate. Because lurking in every province are teams that can beat them. Teams that can't tour non-stop, but possess the talent to beat them. And they fear that, make no mistake.

Argue all you want, but no slam will ever outdraw the brier, nor produce the excitement, drama or emotion of a national championship.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 209.121.225.215

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

The slams have great fields no doubt. But lets come clean on what they really are. A chance for the pro teams to make their year money wise and a chance for non Canadian teams to play against top talent.
The fans yawn at them consistently in spite of the fields. The hosting venues end up bleeding from every orifice due to the lack of ticket sales and concessions. The players like them for sure. Nice payday and a chance to measure yourself against top teams. All valid. However we are one nice recession away from losing not one but all of them. If it happens they are not worth saving. Public interest is near zero and these events won't attract advertising bucks when cash gets tight.
Curling is a fringe sport that the world looks at every 4 years. Sorry but that's just how it is right now. As an insider of course I love everything about the game but realistically the gravy train will stop. And sooner than later.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 142.59.27.44

Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Southern Sask.
Posts: 364

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered


it doesn't really matter how the fields in the slams compare to the worlds. McEwen has a couple slams but he'd trade them all for a world championship

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 27

Let's assume that your assertion that the Slams have the deepest fields is correct. Your original thesis was that Slam medals should be worth more than national or international championship medals. Depth of field is only one of several considerations in determining the value of a given championship.

First of all, at some point, depth of field becomes irrelevant. Only so many teams make the playoffs, and when it's all said and done, it always comes down to two teams. The difference between fields of four greats and ten greats isn't nearly as significant as you suggest, partly because it's pool play, and your team won't see all of those "great" teams.

Going into this past year, there were a number of women's teams that could win on any given weekend. Jones, Homan, Muirhead, Ott and Sigfridsson headed the list, and there were probably another five or six that would be considered underdogs, but it wouldn't shock the curling world if they won (less shocking than Feltscher).

More often than not, the final of every major tournament (including the four Slams) will involve two of the "big five", and it all comes down to who makes the critical shot or the critical mistake on that given day. Ultimately, she who handles the pressure best that day usually wins.

Trying to quantify pressure is tricky (almost as tricky as trying to measure the relative value of gold medals), however I think it's fair to say that pressure is driven largely by two factors:

The consequences of losing. If you lose the first Slam of the year, there's another one in a few weeks. If you lose at your national championship, you're waiting a year (assuming you're a sure thing to come out of your province). If you lose at the Trials or Olympics, you're waiting another four years, assuming you can keep your team together for that long.

The number of people affected by the outcome. The only people that pay attention to the Slams are the same hard-core nuts like you and me that really follow the game closely. Our national championships and World championships are viewed by over a million people in Canada. Most of these people are cheering for their province or country, and they are saddened to varying degrees when their team loses and elated when their team wins. Scale that up to the Olympics and now we have many millions of spectators and our national pride on the line. No pressure there, eh?

There's a reason so many Canadians want a piece of Team Jones, why they're dropping hockey pucks and handing out Junos and getting the keys to just about everything with a pretend lock ... they came through with perfection when it really mattered to EVERYBODY.

Don't get me wrong. I like the Slams, and I acknowledge and enjoy the fact that more often than not, I'll see a good game between two top-level teams. However, the level of emotion (good or bad) that I feel when one of "my teams" wins or loses at a Slam is dwarfed by a win or a loss at a Scotties or Worlds final.

I remember watching Jennifer follow her last rock into the house to clinch the gold medal and wondering what was going through her mind at that moment. I'm pretty sure it wasn't "wow, this is almost as good as winning a Slam".

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2007
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 207

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unregistered

Curling is a fringe sport that the world looks at every 4 years. Sorry but that's just how it is right now. As an insider of course I love everything about the game but realistically the gravy train will stop. And sooner than later.

---

quote:

---

With the final audience data of the (2012-2013) season now in, the numbers show that curling is one of the most-watched sports properties on Canadian television. Overall, more than 13.7 million Canadians, or close to half the population, have tuned in to watch some of TSN's extensive curling coverage this season.

As official broadcaster of the Canadian Curling Association, TSN broadcasts close to 300 hours of live Season of Champions curling each year, including the Tim Hortons Brier and Scotties Tournament of Hearts, along with the Men's and Women's World Championships, Capital One Canada Cup, WFG Continental Cup, and M&M Canadian Juniors.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 621

My thesis was that the Slams are events that the players care a great deal about. What I was also arguing is that the Slams have the deepest fields of any event in curling. Both of these statements are uncontroversial and backed by the facts.

What I was responding to were the posts that asserted that the Slams are worth nothing.

At no point did I denigrate the value of international events or medals in such events. What I said instead was that the majority opinion valued these events above Slams. Again hardly controversial.

Finally I stated my opinion that Slams should be more highly viewed than they are currently and attempted to put forward that case. I did not do a comparative analysis of the value of wins in events. I.e. Slams versus International events. I instead made a numbers based argument about the relative strengths of the fields.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

quote:

---

Originally posted by murphyj87


Curling is fringe sport looked at every 4 years only in those nations where curling is weak to non-existent.

1 in every 25 Canadians is, or has been at one time, a curler. That doesn't sound like a fringe sport at all.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 207.161.209.14