Forums Menu

User: 
Pass:  

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: New Holland Canadian Junior Championships
Fort McMurray, AB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 11 -- Wed, Mar 27 -- 7:00pm MT
NL (Tipple) Final
BC (Fenton) (10)
NB (Stewart) 11  Final
QC (Bedard) (8)
MB (McDonald) Final
NS (Mosher) (8)
ON (MacTavish) Final
SK (Derksen) (10)
NO (Deschene) Final
MB (Freeman) (9)
NS (MacIsaac) Final
PEI (MacFayden) (9)
NO (Rajala) Final
ON (Mulima) (9)
BC (Duncan-Wu) Final
AB (Wipf) 10  (8)
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church 3rd
Rose  Watch Live Curling!
Brenden 3rd
Guentzel  Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald 3rd
Hebert  Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye 3rd
Cenzalli
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  
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.
Page 1 of 2 -- Go to: | 1 | 2 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Author
Thread Post New Thread   Post A Reply
01-23-14 06:40PM
Prescott_Ian is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Prescott_Ian Click here to Send Prescott_Ian a Private Message Find more posts by Prescott_Ian Add Prescott_Ian to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Prescott_Ian
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2012
Location: Cardinal
Posts: 34

wieghted zones

for those who would like to read the rule

http://www.ontcurl.com/Images/up_im...t%20aug2013.pdf
page 6 has the rule
When the OCA implemented this rule i have to admit i was all for it sounds like a real good idea doesn't it.. example zone 1 has 8 entries zone 3 has only 3 entries take an entry from zone 3 and give it to zone 1, perfect problem solved.....but wait what about the fringe cases perfect example is region 1 sr. mixed

zone 1 6 entries
zone 2 4 entries
zone 3 5 entries
zone 4 6 entries

the ruling is take an entry from zone 2 and raffle it off between zone 1 and 4 .....now some one from the oca needs to explain to me the logic behind this decision and how it benefits anybody.... so zone 4 3 of the 6 teams will advance and zone 2 1 of the 4 teams advance perfect sense "NOT"
and yes im in zone 2 but really this makes sense to anyone?

__________________
Is it suppose to bounce of the back like that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-24-14 03:56PM
CoachBrewer is offline Click Here to See the Profile for CoachBrewer Click here to Send CoachBrewer a Private Message Find more posts by CoachBrewer Add CoachBrewer to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
CoachBrewer
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Sep 2011
Location: BrockVegas
Posts: 43

Yikes. That's not so good.
A similar thing happened in Intermediates Region 1, where zones 1 and 4 had three entries each and sent one team, while Zone 3 had 6 entries and sent FOUR teams to Regionals. A team could have needed to go 4 and 1 to get a spot in zones 1 or 4, while 1 and 1 would have been good enough in Zone 3 because of the weighted system which is designed to improve fairness.

It's a great effort by the OCA and I applaud the initiative, but it's not quite right.

In your Senior Mixed Example, there are 21 teams in Region 1, perfect for one weekend of curling where all the teams are treated equally. There really is no need for the two levels.

In the Intermediates example, Region 1 had sixteen teams total, again perfect for one nice weekend of curling to generate two reps to provincials. No need for two levels...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-24-14 05:01PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

In region 1 neither zone 1 or 4 reached the 6 teams or twenty percent outlined in the supplement to earn a second entry. One more entry in either zone would have guaranteed a second entry through to the regionals. It would be better to promote the event at the club level throughout the zone to try to get more participation and ensure the second entry at the regions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-24-14 06:38PM
Prescott_Ian is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Prescott_Ian Click here to Send Prescott_Ian a Private Message Find more posts by Prescott_Ian Add Prescott_Ian to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Prescott_Ian
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2012
Location: Cardinal
Posts: 34

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
In region 1 neither zone 1 or 4 reached the 6 teams or twenty percent outlined in the supplement to earn a second entry. One more entry in either zone would have guaranteed a second entry through to the regionals. It would be better to promote the event at the club level throughout the zone to try to get more participation and ensure the second entry at the regions.

not quite sure what yr meaning by this , would love to see more teams entered in all events but the current rule in this case is blatantly wrong

__________________
Is it suppose to bounce of the back like that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-24-14 09:05PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

How is the current rule wrong, it's explained quite clearly in the rule supplement.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 12:31AM
Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Unregistered
Guest

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

It's "Weighted".

Fail.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: 24.150.146.80

01-25-14 07:09AM
Prescott_Ian is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Prescott_Ian Click here to Send Prescott_Ian a Private Message Find more posts by Prescott_Ian Add Prescott_Ian to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Prescott_Ian
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Feb 2012
Location: Cardinal
Posts: 34

6 6 5 4 seems pretty balanced ...

__________________
Is it suppose to bounce of the back like that?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 07:23AM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

again, the rule states 6 teams or 20% of the entries which zone 2 fails to reach, the rule is pretty clear.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 10:06AM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

Just because it is clear does not make it right.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 10:35AM
christhecurler is offline Click Here to See the Profile for christhecurler Click here to Send christhecurler a Private Message Find more posts by christhecurler Add christhecurler to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
christhecurler
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 67

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
How is the current rule wrong, it's explained quite clearly in the rule supplement.


If the rule causes the zones to become more unbalanced (% of teams getting through), it's broken. It's not hard to create a formula to ensure weighting doesn't cause zones to become more unbalanced.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 11:54AM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

A system that allows a zone with three teams and a zone with ten teams to advance the same number of teams to a regional is unfair. Each zone has the chance to field enough teams to ensure two entries to the regional playdowns, promoting a minimum of six entries in your zone means a guaranteed two entries. I understand more teams playing in a zone means more competition, but it is a sacrifice to make sure you meet the requirements of the rule.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 12:05PM
christhecurler is offline Click Here to See the Profile for christhecurler Click here to Send christhecurler a Private Message Find more posts by christhecurler Add christhecurler to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
christhecurler
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 67

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
A system that allows a zone with three teams and a zone with ten teams to advance the same number of teams to a regional is unfair. Each zone has the chance to field enough teams to ensure two entries to the regional playdowns, promoting a minimum of six entries in your zone means a guaranteed two entries. I understand more teams playing in a zone means more competition, but it is a sacrifice to make sure you meet the requirements of the rule.


How about the OCA stop blaming curlers and just fix the formula?

Weighted zones are a good idea, but the percentage of teams getting through should be as equal as possible. In this case, the formula caused the percentage of teams getting though to become more unbalanced. Just fix the formula to make it fair, it's not hard. Why does the OCA have to make everything so difficult?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 12:47PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

The formula is fine, you don't even have to reach a quarter of the entries in the region to get two teams through. What would be your formula?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 01:04PM
christhecurler is offline Click Here to See the Profile for christhecurler Click here to Send christhecurler a Private Message Find more posts by christhecurler Add christhecurler to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
christhecurler
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 67

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
The formula is fine, you don't even have to reach a quarter of the entries in the region to get two teams through. What would be your formula?


Move qualification spots around until you get as close as possible to all zones in a region having the same percentage of teams qualifying in relation to the total entries. There's probably a more elegant way of expressing it, but I'm not a mathematician.

How can you say it's fine when the formula caused the percentage of teams who qualify to become more unbalanced than before?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 01:53PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

Move qualification spots around within the zone? That is what the weighted zones do.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 02:03PM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

These are the recommendations I would make:

1) If there are 16 or less teams entered in the entire region, skip the zones and play an all team entered region. A 16 team region can be played easily in a 4 sheet facility given 2 games Friday night.
2) If there are more than 16 teams in the region play the zone playdowns but make some modifications:

a) No zones are guaranteed 1 spot. If there is only 1 team entered in that zone, they must play in another zone within their region. This should not be a problem for that team as they were willing to play in another zone within their region for the regional competition when they entered the event.
b) Mathematically calculate the number of spots each zone gets. The formula is round((# entries in zone)/(Total # of teams entered) * 8. In some cases when you do this formula including the rounding, the sum of the spots awarded might = 7 or 9. In that case apply some intelligence when either rewarding an extra spot or eliminating a spot.
c) For instance, if there is 9 spots calculated, look at the percentage spots awarded per zone calculated as (spots awarded/spots entered) and take away 1 spot from the zone with the highest percentage.
d) If there are 7 spots calculated, look at the percentage spots awarded per zone and give an extra spot to the zone with the lowest percentage.
e) In the case of two zones having the highest or lowest look and see if either zone is also hosting the region and give that zone the favourable outcome. If neither zone is hosting the region then it goes via lottery.

I think this would resolve the unbalances that occur. I tested the model in a spreadsheet and it seemed to work pretty good. The key is that if the original calculation does not add up to 8, intelligence must be applied

Dave

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 03:21PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

a direct to regional concept has it's downsides. A team that may play in it's home zone ( say 13 as an example) may not be willing to travel to Windsor or Sarnia to play what would essentially their zone playdown's, adding cost of hotels, food, gas etc. when the option is to play a zone event locally. Doing this would most likely reduce the number of entries in events. Why should a team that goes through the process of entering be penalized because they are the only team in their zone that entered? Why complicate the math when the solution is straight forward, each zone gets one entry and then if you reach the threshold of 20% or six teams you get your second. You are just changing the number.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 03:28PM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
a direct to regional concept has it's downsides. A team that may play in it's home zone ( say 13 as an example) may not be willing to travel to Windsor or Sarnia to play what would essentially their zone playdown's, adding cost of hotels, food, gas etc. when the option is to play a zone event locally. Doing this would most likely reduce the number of entries in events. Why should a team that goes through the process of entering be penalized because they are the only team in their zone that entered? Why complicate the math when the solution is straight forward, each zone gets one entry and then if you reach the threshold of 20% or six teams you get your second. You are just changing the number.


I don't see the downside. Aren't all teams entering trying to win their zone? Which means by entering the zone they are willing to play at the regional level with it's travelling costs etc. I doubt any team is entering just to play with no expectation of wining the zone. If they are, they might as well enter a meat spiel.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 03:38PM
christhecurler is offline Click Here to See the Profile for christhecurler Click here to Send christhecurler a Private Message Find more posts by christhecurler Add christhecurler to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
christhecurler
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 67

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
Move qualification spots around within the zone? That is what the weighted zones do.


I give up!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 03:48PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

there is a difference between playing an eight team regional and a sixteen team regional, but I have asked teams at competitions this question and many said they would decline. However, using your formula;

zone1-1 entry
zone 2-10 entries
zone 3-9 entries
zone 4-3 entries

how do the numbers work out?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 04:11PM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

quote:
Originally posted by dugless_13
there is a difference between playing an eight team regional and a sixteen team regional, but I have asked teams at competitions this question and many said they would decline. However, using your formula;

zone1-1 entry
zone 2-10 entries
zone 3-9 entries
zone 4-3 entries

how do the numbers work out?



Given that zone 1 gets 1 spot the numbers are:

zone 1 - 1 spot (100%)
zone 2 - 3 spots (30%)
zone 3 - 3 spots (33%)
zone 4 - 1 spot (33%)

Is that what your are asking?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 04:15PM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

If you are referring to my proposal where zone 1 would not get 1 spot for 1 team, that team would be moved to zone 2 and the numbers would be:

Zone 1 - 0 spots
Zone 2 - 4 spots (4/11 = 36.4%)
Zone 3 - 3 spots (33%)
Zone 4 - 1 spot (33%)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 04:22PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

so you penalize the team from zone 1 for doing nothing more then signing up for their zone event, and then basically get the same numbers as you would with the current rule, zone 1 and 4 get their one entry because they do not meet the 20% threshold and the other two zones would basically be the same?

Last edited by dugless_13 on 01-25-14 at 04:30PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 04:32PM
Curling Dave is offline Click Here to See the Profile for Curling Dave Click here to Send Curling Dave a Private Message Visit Curling Dave's homepage! Find more posts by Curling Dave Add Curling Dave to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Curling Dave
Swing Artist

 

Registered: Apr 2006
Location: Brampton
Posts: 204

No I don't penalize them for entering. I don't reward them for being lucky and having no one else entering. And I don't penalize all the other teams by rewarding 1 team who did not earn getting to the region.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

01-25-14 04:42PM
dugless_13 is offline Click Here to See the Profile for dugless_13 Click here to Send dugless_13 a Private Message Find more posts by dugless_13 Add dugless_13 to your buddy list Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
dugless_13
Harvey Hacksmasher

 

Registered: Dec 2008
Location: 1994 Lumina Dr
Posts: 91

adding a team, especially what could be a very strong team, to a zone with an already large number of teams penalizes that zone. Would you want to have a top flight team shipped into your zone play you first game, knock you down to b side then force you to fight for your life the rest of the way, penalizes a team that met requirements in their zone and also the teams in the zone they get sent to. If you are that bent out of shape about them getting in automatically, parachute into that zone and play a best two out of three to see who goes to regionals.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

All times are GMT. The time now is . Post New Thread   Post A Reply
Page 1 of 2 -- Go to: | 1 | 2 | »»   Last Thread   Next Thread
Show Printable Version | Email this Page | Subscribe to thisThread

Forum Jump:
 

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
 

Curling Scores

W: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: W5 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 8:00am CT
Giroux Final
Schapman (7) Watch Live Curling!
Johnson 10  Final
Scheel (9) Watch Live Curling!
Berg Final
Viau (9) Watch Live Curling!
Pekowitz 11  Final
Berg (7) Watch Live Curling!
M: USA Curling Junior National Championships
Eau Claire, WI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: M6 -- Thu, Mar 28 -- 12:00pm CT
Church 3rd
Rose  Watch Live Curling!
Brenden 3rd
Guentzel  Watch Live Curling!
Fitzgerald 3rd
Hebert  Watch Live Curling!
Lannoye 3rd
Cenzalli
M: Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Championship
Fredericton, NB
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF -- Fri, Mar 22 -- 1:00pm AT
Lott/Lott Final
Walk/Muyr (8) Watch Live Curling!
M: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 3:00am ET
Caccivio Final
Brauchli 12  (EE)
Dryburgh Final
Ringgenberg (9)
W: Swiss Junior Championships
Thun, SUI
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: CF2 -- Sun, Mar 24 -- 9:00am CET
Schwaller Final
Oberson (9)
Blackham Final
von Arx (9)
W: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 11:00am MT
Stroeder Final
Delorey (7)
M: NWTCA Curling Club Championships
Fort Smith, NT
Teams | Scores | Standings | Playoffs
Draw: 3 -- Sat, Mar 23 -- 1:00pm ET
Delorey Final
Lockhart (EE)
Full Scoreboard  |  Play Fantasy Pick'em!  

Recent News

Recent
Homan Brings Home Gold

Homan Brings Home Gold

Sydney, Canada - In front of a full house with over 4,000 spectators, Canada (photo: Stephen Fisher, World Curling) beat Switzerland by 7-5 to take gold at the BKT Tires World Women's Curling Championship 2024.

Curling Photos

Recent

Curling Blogs

Facebook Feed

Twitter Feed

To top ↑