|
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.
| 05-26-16 02:01AM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
quote:
Originally posted by MNIceman
...To me the HPP policies show that they are not confident in their own teams winning. They are scared of the HP teams not qualifying on their own and of how that would reflect on the HP program leaders in the eyes of the USOC. So to take care of that problem they make it impossible for the HP teams to not qualify for Nationals and the Olympic Trials.
This is not a good way to build confidence and a culture of winning in the HP teams.
So the set up now looks like "affirmative action" for players in the HPP or whomever Derek and Co. "likes" despite actual on-ice OOM results. A topsy-turvy situation with confidence and power ceeded to HP staff v. skips on the ice.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 10:01AM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
What bothers me so much about some of the people complaining is that they make it seem like the HPP desperately wants the US to fail, which I am 100% positive is not the case. I look at it this way, if you have 2 teams that have similar or equal resumes, with one being an HPP team and the other not, who would I pick if I were the director of the HPP? One important note is that if their on-ice resumes are similar, their total resumes are not similar. The HPP director has access to the HPP team throughout the year. They see practices, video review of all of the matches, coaches critiques, etc, They know how many times you have hit clutch shots, or blown clutch shots. This information is not available for the non-HPP team, there just is not enough coverage of curling to have that information. It is not the fault of the non-HPP team that the information is not available, it is just a fact. So if I were in charge, and I was very familiar with the non-HPP team, AND happy with their results, then for me to knock them out of a spot I would need the non-HPP team to have an overwhelmingly better on-ice resume, not an equal one or slightly better. I would do the same thing if this were a place of business and I had to select an internal or external candidate to select for a promotion.
And an argument can be made that jut open up the trial to more teams. This will not end the argument. This will only move the argument from the 4th team selected to the 8th team selected as an example. People are going to argue about selections no matter what. Look at the NCAA basketball bubble teams every year
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 10:27AM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
One critical thing you're missing, curlky...
No one seriously expects the 69th team into the NCAA's to be a serious National Championship contender...the question is only if they are better than the 68th team, therefore should be the one getting the privilege of getting destroyed on the first weekend and forgotten about by the Final Four.
(that's 99% of what made VCU's run a few years ago so amazing, they upended that expectation and made the run, despite being Team 68...and that experience vaulted them from an "also-ran" to a "strong mid-major" program...that's a *GOOD* thing.
A better analogy to the NCAAs is the fact that the NCAA allows *ALL* comers to compete for a Title. Want into the Big Dance? Win your conference's berth.
The NCAA doesn't set it up so that 64 teams can enter the tournament, but only those who had 30-5 or better records during the season are eligible for selection to the Final Four. They settle it On The Court, where it should be settled.
Open Olympic Tournament. 8 teams...the 4 most recent National Champions and the 4 highest OOM teams not already in. Double Round Robin, best record wins the Red White and Blue. No selecting teams that get to play based on who Derek prefers. If Derek's pet team isn't good enough to crack the top OOM of American Teams, they don't deserve the shot.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 01:47PM |
|
Grat
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 107 |
It's not that they don't want the US to succeed, it's that they haven't earned the trust that they can do it better. The results at worlds this year were promising, but we are also seeing HPP teams outperformed by non-HPP teams.
I don't like that our national champion doesn't go to worlds, but like that the current process encourages our best teams to play more. It gives an advantage to the funded teams, but still lets other teams earn their own way from a set criteria. The Olympic trials selection, on the other hand, gives too much power to a program that hasn't proved enough yet. If the program works those teams should be able to qualify on their own.
Of course it's all speculation at this point, the committee could choose a non-HPP team instead of an HPP team. But that's another area where the program hasn't earned the community's trust yet.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 04:23PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
Grat, I am impressed that you are one of the few people who acknowledge not only what they dont like, but what they do like.
If there is a non-hpp team ranked 36 in the OOM, and an HPP team ranked 40, I expect then to take the HPP team for reasons I mentioned above, and I am OK with that. But if there is a non-HPP team ranked 36, and the HPP team is ranked 75, and they take the HPP team, then I will side with you that Derek woudl have to answer some questions for me.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 06:08PM |
|
IMWright
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 206 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlky
What bothers me so much about some of the people complaining is that they make it seem like the HPP desperately wants the US to fail, which I am 100% positive is not the case. I look at it this way, if you have 2 teams that have similar or equal resumes, with one being an HPP team and the other not, who would I pick if I were the director of the HPP? One important note is that if their on-ice resumes are similar, their total resumes are not similar. The HPP director has access to the HPP team throughout the year. They see practices, video review of all of the matches, coaches critiques, etc, They know how many times you have hit clutch shots, or blown clutch shots. This information is not available for the non-HPP team, there just is not enough coverage of curling to have that information. It is not the fault of the non-HPP team that the information is not available, it is just a fact. So if I were in charge, and I was very familiar with the non-HPP team, AND happy with their results, then for me to knock them out of a spot I would need the non-HPP team to have an overwhelmingly better on-ice resume, not an equal one or slightly better. I would do the same thing if this were a place of business and I had to select an internal or external candidate to select for a promotion.
And an argument can be made that jut open up the trial to more teams. This will not end the argument. This will only move the argument from the 4th team selected to the 8th team selected as an example. People are going to argue about selections no matter what. Look at the NCAA basketball bubble teams every year
I don't think that people think that the HPP wants the US to fail. I think that the HPP thinks they know all, and what they think is right and everyone else is wrong, no questions asked, and if you're not with them, you're against them. And there's some self-preservation mixed in there. It reminds me of any company with a bad CEO.
When you have to have all this "'splaining", on why they're doing this and that, and the like, you know something's not right.
I almost give up commenting on it (and I think many have, which is why there's a lot less chatter this year than last year). Many people I talk to know the HPP, the combine, etc, is one big sham and dog and pony show, and any attempt by the HPP and the people in it to be "fair" is a huge farce.
In reality (unfortunately), there's nothing that can be done about it (at least until there's a huge failure that can't be overlooked)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-26-16 09:52PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by IMWright
I don't think that people think that the HPP wants the US to fail. I think that the HPP thinks they know all, and what they think is right and everyone else is wrong, no questions asked, and if you're not with them, you're against them. And there's some self-preservation mixed in there. It reminds me of any company with a bad CEO.
Just because someone (in this case Derek) has a different approach that the one that you woudl take does not make his way wrong. Many times there are more than one way to do a job. The job that he is tasked with and paid for is to manage a program to make USA Curling competitive on the international level. So far, as Gerry stated above, he is doing a good job. Compared to how Team USA was competing prior to his arrival to its current state is very good. You may not like the method, but team USA is strong in most events now, regardless of who those people are. You may have an issue with the HPP team versus non-HPP team issues and who goes where, etc. But he is doing a good job at what he was asked to do. Since things have changed, more US teams (HPP and non) are competing at elite events, competing more weeks per year, and having international success.
Now with all that being said, I hope that you and others who aren't happy continue to be a check and balance to make sure things are going in a good direction. I only ask that as you do this, do so in a manner as positive as possible. Curling does not need clouds of negativity. Now feel free to bash me and tell me I'm wrong, I'm OK with it.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 05-27-16 12:13AM |
|
IMWright
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 206 |
quote:
Originally posted by curlky
Just because someone (in this case Derek) has a different approach that the one that you woudl take does not make his way wrong. Many times there are more than one way to do a job. The job that he is tasked with and paid for is to manage a program to make USA Curling competitive on the international level. So far, as Gerry stated above, he is doing a good job. Compared to how Team USA was competing prior to his arrival to its current state is very good. You may not like the method, but team USA is strong in most events now, regardless of who those people are. You may have an issue with the HPP team versus non-HPP team issues and who goes where, etc. But he is doing a good job at what he was asked to do. Since things have changed, more US teams (HPP and non) are competing at elite events, competing more weeks per year, and having international success.
Now with all that being said, I hope that you and others who aren't happy continue to be a check and balance to make sure things are going in a good direction. I only ask that as you do this, do so in a manner as positive as possible. Curling does not need clouds of negativity. Now feel free to bash me and tell me I'm wrong, I'm OK with it.
Just because someone is anointed head of the HPP does not mean that everything he says is right. Like I said, reminds me of many companies run by bad CEO's.
I don't bash posters on here, although I do disagree with you.
Non-HPP teams have won US Nationals for the last two years (men and women). Based on that, non-HPP teams have done better than HPP teams at US Nationals. That doesn't say much for the HPP, other than because of that, of course it makes sense there are all these rules for "discretionary picks" and "who gets to go to worlds, etc." And there's the comment of "well, because of the rules and program, people are playing more competitive events, getting higher ranked, etc". Well, I'll concede that, but there are ways to encourage that without stacking the deck in favor of your own handpicked teams, while non-"blessed" teams have essentially no chance.
I feel it seems like a pretty major conflict of interest that those who make the rules regarding nationals, qualifying, etc., are the same ones who have their own "blessed" teams. It's like giving the keys to the prisoners. They're making rules that favor themselves and disadvantages others - and that smells rotten.
And comments shouldn't just be positive and not negative. They should be constructive (which can be positive or negative). Everything can't be sunshine and rainbows.
Yes, I'm glad Shuster got a bronze this year at Worlds, even though it was with the current system. It's impossible to know what would have happened if Clark had gone. And the USCA will tell the USOC that they met 7/8 milestones, and people will be happy. It just has a bad taste to it all.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-03-16 03:24PM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
DEREK BROWN: KILLER OF DREAMS
One could argue with total logic that it is Mr. Brown's job to kill dreams. He is the person that stands and says who will represent our nation on the international stage and he is the person who sets the minimum standards.
This particular chat thread has reported on new standards and format to make it into our Olympic Trials. It then went on to debate those standards and format.
The standards have been set very high. In fact, for a USA team to force their way into our Olympic Trials, they will have to have an historic season.
Pretty much the HPP, USOC and USCA have laid down rules that say, "We will be picking the teams that are allowed to play in The Trials...and most of them will be our HPP teams."
So are the minimum requirements set too high? Yes. There is no reasonable path for a non-HPP team to make it to The Trials. Does that kill the Olympic dream for many? Yes.
I fear that this is bad for USA curling in the long-term.
That being said: Don't let this kill your Olympic dream. While the standards are impossibly high, they have left themselves room to select a really good non-HPP team. Be that team. If you hit the ice and beat their teams and rack up points, you can still "kind of force" your way into the Trials. Work hard. Get points. Curl great. They won't dare leave you out.
I wish there was a path "on the ice" for one team of each gender, but that is not the case. I think it would be more American and better for curling. I wish it was easier for all curlers to dream. However, I can't deny that the HPP is trying to improve our medal chances. I can only argue with their methods; not their motives.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-03-16 03:44PM |
|
Grat
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 107 |
As much as I dislike the criteria as written, I have some faith that the committee will choose deserving teams for the trials, and that non-HPP teams can earn their way to a selection. It's just bogus that teams are at the mercy of the committee, and we can't know until the announcements are made.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-04-16 08:34AM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
quote:
Originally posted by IMWright
Non-HPP teams have won US Nationals for the last two years (men and women). Based on that, non-HPP teams have done better than HPP teams at US Nationals. That doesn't say much for the HPP, other than because of that, of course it makes sense there are all these rules for "discretionary picks" and "who gets to go to worlds, etc." And there's the comment of "well, because of the rules and program, people are playing more competitive events, getting higher ranked, etc". Well, I'll concede that, but there are ways to encourage that without stacking the deck in favor of your own handpicked teams, while non-"blessed" teams have essentially no chance.
This is the reason the qualification for Worlds has changed and many don't understand. Winning the USA Nationals does not strongly correlate with International success.
USOC is looking for success at the International level and being the USA National Champion means little if you're finishing well out of the medals at the Worlds.
To say teams have no chance would be correct if they don't go out and play. And win. But the opportunity does exist that if you go and win games on Tour, qualify (win money to pay for future events) and build on that.
__________________
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
|
|
| 06-04-16 11:02AM |
|
VAcurler
Hitting Paint
Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 136 |
Under the current scenario, is it possible that a single non-HPP team wins the National Championship next year and the year after but never makes it to either Worlds because of the OOM standings and therefore doesn't qualify for Olympic playdowns even though they won 2 national championships?
Or even worse, the Clark rink finds their mojo and wins the next 2 so are the 3 time defending champion?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-04-16 11:18AM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
Oh Gerry, Gerry, Gerry, Gerry. If only I could edit that post for you! (amusing myself, if nobody else)
You paste in IMWright's post, but you don't really respond to it. You use bogus stat language (winning Nationals doesn't correlate with ANY nation having success at the international level except for Canada).
IMW's point is that self-formed teams like Erika, Brady and Face Shuster have been kicking the collective butts of over-funded, over-coached and over-rated coach-selected teams. IMW further states the obvious; that we'll never know how some of the National champs would have done at Worlds because they didn't get to go (Nina the year the HPP Women bombed at Worlds or Brady last year when the self-formed Shuster rink broke the medal drought)
Yes, Gerry, there is an on-ice path for self-formed teams to get to Worlds. Erika and Face have proven it to be possible. The question to you is: Do they have a REASONABLE chance to insure inclusion into The Trials under these new standards?
My answer is: No. It would take an historic year without and be done without any sponsorship.
You, however, know far more WCT Points history than me. So I ask you directly, Gerry Geurts; are the standards achievable and reasonable?
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-04-16 02:12PM |
|
IMWright
Swing Artist
Registered: Dec 2014
Location:
Posts: 206 |
quote:
Originally posted by MNIceman
To me the HPP policies show that they are not confident in their own teams winning. They are scared of the HP teams not qualifying on their own and of how that would reflect on the HP program leaders in the eyes of the USOC. So to take care of that problem they make it impossible for the HP teams to not qualify for Nationals and the Olympic Trials.
This is not a good way to build confidence and a culture of winning in the HP teams.
I feel that comment hits the nail on the head. The HPP coaches are scared that their teams cannot qualify on the ice, hence they stack the deck in their favor. If they weren't scared, then they wouldn't give an advantage to their own teams.
Not good for US Curling.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 12:42AM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
I called the HPP coach-selected teams "over-funded, over-coached and over-rated". Now that I'm calmer, that is worded too strongly. I stand behind the point I was making, but I apologize for the strong wording. Anybody that works hard at the game has my support.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 01:30AM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
quote:
Originally posted by Gerry
This is the reason the qualification for Worlds has changed and many don't understand. Winning the USA Nationals does not strongly correlate with International success.
Umm....hate to point this out, but my real life job (doing statistics for the government) forces me to.
Actually...seeing as how *no* USA team has won Worlds without being our National Champions,and only one team has even medalled without being it (and they were National Champions previously), then the Correlation between "Winning a USA National Championship" and "Medalling at Worlds" is significantly stronger than the correlation between "Being in the Top 15 in the OOM, but not being USA National Champions" and "Medalling at Worlds"
in either case, however, statistical validity is nonexistent due to small sample size. Well...not completely true...there's enough World's in the data set to get a correlation...but not if you confine it to "The Olympic Era", which is reasonable, IMO.
Plain and simple, by definition, only three countries are going to Medal at Worlds every year (per classification, at least). There are 50some nations in the WCF...if we medal more often than once every 17 years, we're doing better than average.
What you *can* get a statistically valid sampling on is the correlation between "Number of Teams attempting to become US National Champions" (as decent a proxy for "Willing to try to acheive at the highest level possible) and "Openness of team selection method". And it shows quite purely and clearly that there is a CLEAR negative correlation between the removal of the chance to go to Worlds for a majority of teams at Nationals and the number of teams willing to try to go to Nationals.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 02:32PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
quote:
Originally posted by tuck
Oh Gerry, Gerry, Gerry, Gerry. If only I could edit that post for you! (amusing myself, if nobody else)
You paste in IMWright's post, but you don't really respond to it. You use bogus stat language (winning Nationals doesn't correlate with ANY nation having success at the international level except for Canada).
IMW's point is that self-formed teams like Erika, Brady and Face Shuster have been kicking the collective butts of over-funded, over-coached and over-rated coach-selected teams. IMW further states the obvious; that we'll never know how some of the National champs would have done at Worlds because they didn't get to go (Nina the year the HPP Women bombed at Worlds or Brady last year when the self-formed Shuster rink broke the medal drought)
Yes, Gerry, there is an on-ice path for self-formed teams to get to Worlds. Erika and Face have proven it to be possible. The question to you is: Do they have a REASONABLE chance to insure inclusion into The Trials under these new standards?
My answer is: No. It would take an historic year without and be done without any sponsorship.
You, however, know far more WCT Points history than me. So I ask you directly, Gerry Geurts; are the standards achievable and reasonable?
Ben Tucker
Before I post let me insert a line from Blazing Saddles, voiced by Mel Brooks, that (to this Canadian) seems pretty appropriate:
"...Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phony baloney jobs!"
Of course the standards are unreasonable. Derek Brown wouldn't have a job if he wasn't so busy trying to make your selection process one that is subjective (coaching orientated ) instead of an objective (whoever wins) one.
What good is a HPP if their teams keep losing at Nationals to teams of athletes ignored by those in power? You don't look very effective as a program or its director when that happens. And you don't really care about the long term view either. What you do care about is keeping your phony baloney job. And the only way to do that is to control the system so it's stacked in favor of the HPP. Which is what you have now.
One of the truly concerning things over the past 15 years, which many have turned a blind eye to, is how coaching has been slowly taking over our sport. It's been a very subtle power play but it's even happening here. Your world team selection process is just another example of what is happening.
Sure, what Gerry says is possible. But then anything, no matter how difficult the path, is possible. I could say a homeless man can become Prime Minister if he follows the path and it is, theoretically, possible. But is it a reasonable path to follow? Of course not.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Last edited by jamcan on 06-05-16 at 02:49PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 04:22PM |
|
SmokeyJoe
Hitting Paint
Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 127 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Before I post let me insert a line from Blazing Saddles, voiced by Mel Brooks, that (to this Canadian) seems pretty appropriate:
"...Gentlemen, we've got to protect our phony baloney jobs!"
Great quote from Blazing Saddles! Agree with Tuck and jamcan. The HPP coaching staff received a free lesson in advanced sweeping techniques at US Nationals this year, courtesy of the Clark Team. They don't want to be embarrassed like that again.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 08:38PM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
NOW YOU SEE WHAT YOU PEOPLE HAVE DONE? We have Canucks here again! Where the hell is Donald Trump and his damn walls when you need them?
Jamcan, did you NOT read my insult of BC curlers in the Teams Selected thread? Pretty funny stuff...unless you're from BC.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 09:11PM |
|
Gerry
CZ Founder
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 4002 |
In 2013, Team Shuster as a non-program team, non-funded team was selected to the Olympic Trials by the current administration as a program selection.
If you're assuming they're just going to ignore teams who aren't part of the program, track record does suggest otherwise.
__________________
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
|
|
| 06-05-16 09:18PM |
|
jamcan
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: vernon bc
Posts: 2340 |
Ah tuck, bless your heart. Of course I read that post. And I howled. Because I get your humour and you're not Manitoba Legend. Or maybe it's cuz my brain is fried from two days of helping my best bud install a huge above ground pool in 39 degree, okanagan desert heat!
But your points are valid. We, as a sport, have lost track of what made us great: the simple truth that all should play and let the scoreboard, not a prejudiced individual (sorry folks, we're ALL prejudiced to a degree. It's a disgusting part of human nature we must continue-luv ya Ali-to overcome) decide who the winner is.
Otherwise? Well, give it a few more years the way Gerry envisions things and only the rich or 'chosen few' will be playing.
__________________
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 09:31PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by jamcan
Derek Brown wouldn't have a job if he wasn't so busy trying to make your selection process one that is subjective (coaching orientated ) instead of an objective (whoever wins) one.
1000% false. As long as some amount of funding is going out to help some amount of curling teams for international events like worlds and the Olympics, from here on out, there will be a director of HPP / national coach. This person is likley to employ assistant coaches. This will not change regardless of the format of playdowns, trials, or nationals.
Gerry, thank you for your post about how Shuster was invited as a non-HPP team. Too many people here are convinced that the HPP is all out to screw the non-hpp at all costs without exception no matter what.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 10:06PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
There wouldn't have to be all this hue and cry about "They have picked..." if they would just go to a nice, simple, EARN YOUR SPOT process.
4 National Champions, 4 highest remaining on OOM from the last 24 months before some reasonable cutoff date....8 teams, round robin, best record advances.
(if a team repeats as NC, then add in the 5th highest on OOM, 6th, 7th)
Or is the HPP afraid their chosen teams wouldn't be good enough to actually qualify via a process where the finger isn't already on the scale?
Never mind, I know the answer already...
You're supposed to qualify and WIN to represent the USA, not be chosen by a staff member not even *from* this country.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-05-16 10:18PM |
|
Grat
Hitting Paint
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 107 |
Difference in 2013 is that they were required to select a fifth team because four teams had already earned their spots on the ice through an objective criteria, and I doubt there were any funded teams left to select who hadn't already qualified. Logically they picked the team that finished third in the two previous nationals.
Now we see the US being represented at events like the Americas Challenge and Curling Night in America by our top ranked HPP team, not our top ranked overall.
It's hard not to believe that every HPP team will get an invite, but people will be skeptical they will invite a non-HPP team given that they made the process so subjective.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 06-06-16 09:23AM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
quote:
Originally posted by AlanMacNeill
You're supposed to qualify and WIN to represent the USA, not be chosen by a staff member not even *from* this country
Where is this rule written down. I have always just thought team USA was the best team/person in teh USA at any given sport. I have never cared about how that was determined, and have known that even for sports where you won a trial to get in, there were always exceptions due to injury, etc.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
CurlingZone > Chat Forums > Tours, Events and Major Championships > U.S.A. Curling > USA Olympic Qualifications Criteria
In the run up to Christmas Day, 1893, the Aberdeen Peoples's Journal offered a prize of one guinea for the best letter about curling! That's the invitation... (read more)
A quick break for the Memorial Day holiday and we're back with our guest and new USA Curling Womenâs National Team & Juniors Director Jessica Schultz.... (read more)
I am in week 3 of isolation/quarantine/home schooling and getting a little squirrel-y. Personal hygiene has become optional. The kids have watched the entire... (read more)
On today's World Curling Report...we recap Day 1 of the 2019 Canada Cup. (read more)