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.
07-18-14 03:30PM |
|
jhcurl
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2002
Location: US - CT
Posts: 1431 |
quote: Originally posted by peteski
Without knowing what their options were, is it not encouraging that many of the people at the combine don't have that world experience, at least not beyond the junior level?
I hope you don't mind a Canadian, albeit a Canadian that would very much like to see the USA once again become a curling power, throwing in his two cents. I am fascinated by this process and my inclination is to say that I think it is the right idea. Right now, the only way to be at the top of the curling world if you're not Canada is to have what amounts to curling professionals (and Canada's top teams are more or less professionals anyway). To my mind, it makes sense to find the talented players that are willing and able to put in the time commitment necessary, put them together and support them as much as possible.
Now, my preference would be to have a national championship that still decides the world rep (although it looks like Nina Spatola's win wasn't completely meaningless as some feared), but I think this is a step in the right direction.
Some things I wonder about : are Courtney George and Jessica Schultz now out of the running for spots on these teams because those would seem like tough losses? How difficult would it be to put a west coast player with players from Minnesota? It's kind of interesting to think about the possibilities. I'm thinking the Spatola team will probably remain intact perhaps with Tabitha Peterson. Perhaps Deb McCormick would then captain the other team, but who would that include? Sormunen and Walker maybe? Schultz would make some sense if she's still in the running. On the men's side you would have to do some mixing and matching. Perhaps Shuster's team could add Sean Beighton if those pesky west coast issues can be sorted out. Or maybe Shuster could reunite with Craig Brown. Maybe you combine McCormick and Plys with Fenson's old front end. I don't know. You guys probably have a better idea of what makes sense, but I'll be very interested to see how this all shakes out.
Dannie's cousin, yes Courtney George and Jessica Schultz are not in the running. Only players attending can be placed on the team(s). We also are very interested in how this shakes out. Only wishing for the best.
JH
The "funny" Steski is always welcome here, Dannie is not funny just a beer mooch
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-19-14 02:30AM |
|
tuck
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: St. Thomas, North Dakota
Posts: 2613 |
I'm trying hard to back away from serious curling discussions and not solely due to the XL purple sweaters.
Anybody looking at the Women's roster missing the names we know so well that we just need the first name (Cassie, Jamie, Allison, Patti, Erika, Courtney, etc...) might feel pretty confident about the HPP teams losing Nationals. We'll see how much the coaching can improve these gals.
Anybody looking at the Women's roster should focus attention on Jamie Sinclair. Google it, people...she can play. Any Canucks slumming in from Ontario might have some background on her.
Ben Tucker
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-19-14 12:49PM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
I don't mean to impersonate any XL Purple Sweaters. Just a random interested observer.
Tuck, you are right. There are some very talented names on the women's side not involved.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-19-14 12:50PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
I'm interested in seeing how this new HP system actually works out. But I'm not holding my breath for a breakthrough.
Evolutionary theory suggests that the most efficient route to competitive success is by increasing diversity (more curlers and teams in competition) and then letting competition hone and weed out the fittest. No brain-power is required to choose the "best". They self-identify. The approach we are using is to select a small portion of the gene pool and then giving it lots of competition, and hoping we made a good decision and it will survive. The "gene selection" process is cheaper, and quicker, but not necessarily effective. The "evolutionary model" (training a large and diverse cadre of curlers from which talent is probabilistically certain to emerge) is a longer-term solution, and probably does not meet the short-term performance demands of the USOC. But it is the latter approach that is going to pay the biggest dividends. The current HP program does not really address the diversity of talent issue, and that may be its ultimate fundamental flaw for long-term results. We need to be developing and nurturing through coaching and competition a larger cadre of youth, junior, and young adult curlers. Just sayin'.
But we have to evaluate our current experiment in progress first.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-19-14 02:27PM |
|
SPMFromPCC
Swing Artist
Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440 |
RockDoc, that might be one of the best explanations I've ever seen. Very well said.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-20-14 02:53AM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
quote: Originally posted by RockDoc
I'm interested in seeing how this new HP system actually works out. But I'm not holding my breath for a breakthrough.
Evolutionary theory suggests that the most efficient route to competitive success is by increasing diversity (more curlers and teams in competition) and then letting competition hone and weed out the fittest. No brain-power is required to choose the "best". They self-identify. The approach we are using is to select a small portion of the gene pool and then giving it lots of competition, and hoping we made a good decision and it will survive. The "gene selection" process is cheaper, and quicker, but not necessarily effective. The "evolutionary model" (training a large and diverse cadre of curlers from which talent is probabilistically certain to emerge) is a longer-term solution, and probably does not meet the short-term performance demands of the USOC. But it is the latter approach that is going to pay the biggest dividends. The current HP program does not really address the diversity of talent issue, and that may be its ultimate fundamental flaw for long-term results. We need to be developing and nurturing through coaching and competition a larger cadre of youth, junior, and young adult curlers. Just sayin'.
But we have to evaluate our current experiment in progress first.
In an ideal world you are correct, but how do they go about increasing diversity? Is it significantly different from what was happening before all of this HPP stuff? That approach was losing ground.
While I like this plan for the adult level, I'm not sure it's necessary for the junior level. Perhaps that is where a wider swath of players does indeed make more sense, but how that sort of a program looks I don't know.
Like it or not though, the "gene selection" process has proven itself to work, at least in terms of top international competition. The countries who use it (Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, China, Russia all have some variation) have all shown results. There are good arguments about whether this is good for these countries' all-around curling program (is the sport growing at the club level?, etc.), but I don't think the question of their success internationally is up for debate. And if this program were to improve the USA's showing internationally, I have a hard time believing it would decrease the number of curlers.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-20-14 06:21PM |
|
mr. lucky
Hitting Paint
Registered: Nov 2007
Location:
Posts: 142 |
You go about increasing diversity by training Instructors, and coaches. By training club pros that help transition club teams to developmental competitive teams. You hold regional camps for developmental teams. You train anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to train. But, it all starts with a pool of qualified instructors and coaches. This is the other path, the path that will expand the pool of competitive curlers.
The path we are on now will probably also work. It will just have a negative impact on the growth of competitive curling.
As long as the goal is to win medals now, and as long as staff is paid for success now, there will be no incentive for taking the long view.
Last edited by mr. lucky on 07-20-14 at 06:43PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-20-14 06:34PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote: Originally posted by peteski
In an ideal world you are correct, but how do they go about increasing diversity? Is it significantly different from what was happening before all of this HPP stuff? That approach was losing ground.
You increase talent diversity by recruiting more athletes into curling at the club level and providing resources to train local instructors and coaches to build a larger pool of competitive curlers.
One of the reasons Canada has a competitive advantage over the U.S. in curling is simply numbers: they have almost 40 times as many curlers as we do. That alone is enough to secure a dominant competitive advantage. But they also have a more organized system of club pros and instruction than we do, and many ore opportunities for organized competition. But these things are easier to implement in a large membership environment.
Even if we can give a few curlers in the U.S. better instruction, and more frequent competition, it will be difficult to equalize the disadvantage of a significantly smaller talent pool. The top 100 of 600,000 curlers is always going to be better than the top 100 of 16,000 curlers. Ironically we have 10 times the population of Canada, but 1/40 of the curlers.
I'm hopeful for improvement on the international level, but I'm mindful of the challenges we face.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-20-14 06:47PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote: Originally posted by mr. lucky
You go about increasing diversity by training Instructors, and coaches. By training club pros that help transition club teams to developmental competitive teams. You hold regional camps for developmental teams. You train anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to train. But, it all starts with a pool of qualified instructors and coaches. This is the other path, the path that will expand the pool of competitive curlers.
The path we are on now will probably also work. It will just have a negative impact on the growth of competitive curling.
As long as the goal is to win medals now, and as long as staff is paid for success now, there will be no incentive for taking the long view.
Better said than my version. The main worry with our current, "focused" HPP approach is that the "not-so-chosen-few" may be discouraged from competing at this level and drop out of curling or move to other athletic venues, further reducing the talent pool. Even if it works in the short term, eventually this talent will have to be replaced/renewed. If we were a small country with no capacity for talent pool growth (like Sweden, Scotland, Finland, etc.) then the focused approach actually makes some sense, because there is no other option. But we are a very big country with great capacity for membership growth.
China is an interesting case. It is a large country, but one with very few curling facilities. So they recruited general athletes from a very large pool, then trained those few. They have no other choice, really, because they don't have enough curling facilities or general interest in curling to support 600,000 curlers like Canada. Note that this is not quite the approach the U.S. is using: we are recruiting only from current curling ranks.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-21-14 12:59AM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
quote: Originally posted by RockDoc
You increase talent diversity by recruiting more athletes into curling at the club level and providing resources to train local instructors and coaches to build a larger pool of competitive curlers.
One of the reasons Canada has a competitive advantage over the U.S. in curling is simply numbers: they have almost 40 times as many curlers as we do. That alone is enough to secure a dominant competitive advantage. But they also have a more organized system of club pros and instruction than we do, and many ore opportunities for organized competition. But these things are easier to implement in a large membership environment.
Even if we can give a few curlers in the U.S. better instruction, and more frequent competition, it will be difficult to equalize the disadvantage of a significantly smaller talent pool. The top 100 of 600,000 curlers is always going to be better than the top 100 of 16,000 curlers. Ironically we have 10 times the population of Canada, but 1/40 of the curlers.
I'm hopeful for improvement on the international level, but I'm mindful of the challenges we face.
Are these things necessarily mutually exclusive? Obviously, there is only so much money to go around, but I would certainly agree with the suggestions you guys have made. I am guessing that USA curling would like to increase diversity and is likely attempting to do so on some level. All of this is probably just a question of cost. I am just not sure the cost of the current high performance program could make enough of a difference on a broader scale.
As you've accurately outlined, the question every country (that isn't Canada) faces is how to compete with Canada given the disadvantage of the smaller talent pool. Right now, focusing dollars on a relatively small number of teams is the only approach that seems to be having any success.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-23-14 10:48PM |
|
SPMFromPCC
Swing Artist
Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440 |
Well, it has concluded. Soon, all will (theoretically) be revealed...
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-24-14 06:04PM |
|
brianewart
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: May 2014
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 15 |
quote: Originally posted by mr. lucky
You go about increasing diversity by training Instructors, and coaches. By training club pros that help transition club teams to developmental competitive teams. You hold regional camps for developmental teams. You train anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to train. But, it all starts with a pool of qualified instructors and coaches. This is the other path, the path that will expand the pool of competitive curlers.
Just about anything that would (1) increase the pool of competitive curlers and (2) assists curlers with a high level of talent/potential to find competitive teams, would work. Regional camps seem like a good start, and if USCA wants to limit attendance to high-potential candidates, they could have a club-level process to identify those athletes.
It would have been cool if the combine were a bigger event with more invitees to really get a whole bunch of competitive curlers in the same place, assess their skills, and provide some guidance. Perhaps in the future, it will be.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-27-14 06:53PM |
|
Alice
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324 |
quote: Originally posted by brianewart
Just about anything that would (1) increase the pool of competitive curlers and (2) assists curlers with a high level of talent/potential to find competitive teams, would work. Regional camps seem like a good start, and if USCA wants to limit attendance to high-potential candidates, they could have a club-level process to identify those athletes.
It would have been cool if the combine were a bigger event with more invitees to really get a whole bunch of competitive curlers in the same place, assess their skills, and provide some guidance. Perhaps in the future, it will be.
Yes, any efforts way down in the regions would produce positive results, but we are unlikely to see that within the next four years. The HP program now has a new logo (trademarked!), new uniforms (two different colors!) and seven (?) paid staff to travel around with 30 players who will have championships' berths and on-ice wins gerrymandered to make sure the paid HP staff has a fightin' chance to prove USCA is on "the right track" to win Olympic gold.
Looking forward to seeing photos of our new "USA Curling National Team" (and staff) at USCA's next trip to promote curling in Hawaii.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-28-14 01:28PM |
|
AlanMacNeill
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064 |
And now they've spent all that money but they don't have the resources to support a team at the World University Games.
short sighted and fiscally irresponsible. they are destroying our game.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-28-14 01:42PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote: Originally posted by mr. lucky
You go about increasing diversity by training Instructors, and coaches. By training club pros that help transition club teams to developmental competitive teams. You hold regional camps for developmental teams. You train anyone who is willing to put forth the effort to train. But, it all starts with a pool of qualified instructors and coaches. This is the other path, the path that will expand the pool of competitive curlers.
The path we are on now will probably also work. It will just have a negative impact on the growth of competitive curling.
As long as the goal is to win medals now, and as long as staff is paid for success now, there will be no incentive for taking the long view.
Well said. The highlighted text is what should be worrying. Club curling will probably do well whatever the USCA does at the HP level. But where will the next generation of HP talent come from?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 09:55PM |
|
curlky
Drawmaster
Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559 |
can someone with much better knowledge than me help me understand the Mens and Womens rosters? I am looking for who plays which positions (ie they have 2 skips, 2 leads, etc.)
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 10:39PM |
|
peteski
Drawmaster
Registered: Feb 2007
Location:
Posts: 631 |
quote: Originally posted by curlky
can someone with much better knowledge than me help me understand the Mens and Womens rosters? I am looking for who plays which positions (ie they have 2 skips, 2 leads, etc.)
My guess:
Women 1: skip Nina Spatola, third Becca Hamilton, second Tara Peterson, lead Tabitha Peterson
Women 2: skip Aileen Sormunen, third Jamie Sinclair, second Vicky Persinger, lead Monica Walker
Men 1: skip Heath McCormick, third Chris Plys, second Jared Zezel, lead Colin Hufman
Men 2: skip Craig Brown, third Kroy Nernberger/Sean Beighton, second Joe Polo, lead Ryan Brunt
but who knows. I'll be watching with interest.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 10:51PM |
|
biterbar
Drawmaster
Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695 |
quote: Originally posted by peteski
My guess:
Women 1: skip Nina Spatola, third Becca Hamilton, second Tara Peterson, lead Tabitha Peterson
Women 2: skip Aileen Sormunen, third Jamie Sinclair, second Vicky Persinger, lead Monica Walker
Men 1: skip Heath McCormick, third Chris Plys, second Jared Zezel, lead Colin Hufman
Men 2: skip Craig Brown, third Kroy Nernberger/Sean Beighton, second Joe Polo, lead Ryan Brunt
but who knows. I'll be watching with interest.
"Who knows"? I think you nailed it!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 11:20PM |
|
IN-OFF-FOR-2
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Mar 2013
Location:
Posts: 1875 |
Canadians
Nice to see a couple of Canadians make your team.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 11:23PM |
|
Mike54321
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Oct 2012
Location:
Posts: 12 |
quote: Originally posted by peteski
My guess:
Women 1: skip Nina Spatola, third Becca Hamilton, second Tara Peterson, lead Tabitha Peterson
Women 2: skip Aileen Sormunen, third Jamie Sinclair, second Vicky Persinger, lead Monica Walker
Men 1: skip Heath McCormick, third Chris Plys, second Jared Zezel, lead Colin Hufman
Men 2: skip Craig Brown, third Kroy Nernberger/Sean Beighton, second Joe Polo, lead Ryan Brunt
but who knows. I'll be watching with interest.
You're missing the bench players!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
07-29-14 11:56PM |
|
SPMFromPCC
Swing Artist
Registered: Jun 2007
Location:
Posts: 440 |
I would swap Jamie and Aileen, but otherwise it looks pretty much spot on to me.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|