Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

Curlky has just eliminated me from competitive curling and ended my dreams.

Sincerely,

Stan

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

Originally posted by tuck
I love your plan, Alan, but there is one huge problem. The USOC will not fund it. That plan falls outside of what they consider to me their mandate. That's a problem to the tune of 500k per year. But to be clear, I love the plan.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

Has the HP forced a handful of teams to make some trips to Canada to pursue points? Absolutely.

Has the HP held tryouts that chose the best players formed the best teams, paired them with the best coaches and had success at Nationals and Worlds? Absolutely not.

Will the HP recognize and reward those teams that traveled on their own dime to Canada, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. with HP spots and funding moving forward even if they were born before 1980, 1975 or even 1970? I will have to see it to believe it. Birr and Clark's team average age throwing out Colin Huffman has to be north of 40. Will they even get a look? (Birr's 2007 bronze medal at World's had a 47 year old Bill Todhunter at vice and qualified second)

Has the HP acted in an open, forthright manner with the USCA membership in general and more specifically to the competitive members of the USCA that may have the ability to qualify. No.

Sorry, we may have had a fun competitive and fairly well played Nationals, but the HP had nothing to do with the top three Men's teams and in women's continues to send someone other than the National Champion who has historically not made the podium.

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by biterbar
Curlky has just eliminated me from competitive curling and ended my dreams….

Will the HP recognize and reward those teams that traveled on their own dime to Canada, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. with HP spots and funding moving forward even if they were born before 1980, 1975 or even 1970? I will have to see it to believe it. Birr and Clark's team average age throwing out Colin Huffman has to be north of 40. Will they even get a look? (Birr's 2007 bronze medal at World's had a 47 year old Bill Todhunter at vice and qualified second)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

LOL, I meant that the description of Stan, old, out of shape, good draw weight, 50% on takeout's and crappy sweeper fit me to a tee.

Even Birr is a youngster to me.

And what is a stop watch for?

Luckily my club still let's me play every week!

"Stan"

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

My point about age is while Brown and McCormick are still of the most pure throwers in the US, will the HP fund a full team of "older" curlers on one team who just happen to gel well and play great at one National?

Should they at the expense of turning off a bunch of 30 and under?

Tough question to answer.

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 81

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlky


I judged results with a viewpoint of the intent of why the HPP was created (from what someone told me at least). They wanted to make sure that a team did not catch fire one week and win nationals and then go back to their normal skill level at worlds and get destroyed.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

Dear Kentucky,

I, too, hold grudges. My problem is that I have so many of them, I can't remember them all. For such things, I have the memory of a fruitfly. My current grudge is against my wife's Yorkshire terrier. The little fart thinks that he runs the house that I built and paid for. Kentucky, do you want a Yorkie? Be warned: He's a little bit bossy.

I stand by my position that the HPP is a failure. In Men's, it is a proven failure. In Women's, it hasn't improved World standings and is only successful in picking the right curlers because the talent pool is so shallow that anyone could pick a winner.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, the HPP is wildly successful in what could be argued as its most important role. It is very good at securing funds from the USOC. I kid you not. That is big. That's the ballgame. Props to Rick P. and Derek The Scot.

Ben Tucker (hopelessly behind in reading this thread)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2013
Location: Michigan, United States
Posts: 22

I should be keeping my mouth shut, but oh well.

The 2017 Nationals (and 2016, 2015 Nats for that matter) seems to demonstrate to us what works for competitive curling and what doesn't. My conclusions are different by gender.

For the men, the HP program has gotten more mens teams to travel more and compete at high levels. This is very positive for US Men's curling. However, I have to agree with those that say that a constructed team doesn't work as well as a self-formed team. Shuster is a great talent and that team, together, elevates each other's game. Giving an already very good team get the resources and support that the USOC and HP program provides has made the team even better. I would have liked to have seen Team Clark get the same resources and see how much better they could be than where they were a year ago.

What does it take to build a great team? I am not sure we can point to the exact thing - call it chemistry or whatever, but we know it when we see it. Shuster's team was very good with Trevor as lead, but got better with Landsteiner. Team Brady was good, but Colin coming onto the team elevated it higher than before. Doug Pottinger is a hell of a curler, but Richie provided a spark to Team Birr that they didn't have last season.

I say let teams slug it out. Make them build themselves up from nothing and put in the work to chase the dream. Keep encouraging all teams to travel to Canada. Give resources to those teams that rise to the top and see if the additional support transforms them from good to great. And if not, then try the next team, etc.

The Womens' side is a different animal. We are hurting the talent pool. The fact that we can _barely_ field 8 teams for Nationals is depressing. I don't doubt that Team Sinclair and Team Roth are the top US teams right now. We will have to see how the US Women do at Nationals and at the Slam and next year at the Olympics in order to judge them fully. I certainly will be cheering for them and wish them all the best. I also think if Erica had not retired, she would be going to both events this Spring and Korea next year.

If we are hurting the talent pool today, how will we be able to build the teams of the future? The current system seems to keep a number of women from wanting to curl competitively at this level. That needs to be addressed. Otherwise we will be forced to build teams as we are today. With less talent, they may never reach the levels of success that we would like them to achieve. Our system might be self-fulfilling.

I think there is lots of good talent in US Women's curling right now (both HP and non HP). But I don't know if all of the pieces fit quite right yet. Again, let the teams figure themselves out. Make them work for the funding. Then give the good teams the resources to become great. A different approach is needed to bring more Women into the competitive game. I hope we figure out what that is.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

Nice post, bjacks.

Here is some more fallout from the Seattle Nationals:

Team Brady Clark and Team Cassie Potter both showed up to crash the HPP party. Both did quite well. Do you know what they have in common?

Sponsorship. In this new era of chasing Points (an expensive little past-time), you can be older with a solid job or you can get sponsorships. Props to the Brady Bunch and Team Cassie for lining up enough funding to give themselves an outside chance in an field tilted in favor of funded teams. Shuster got some help the year they kicked down the Points door as well.

So if some ambitious team out there is plotting to force their way into the HPP with Points and National medals, follow their example. Get some sponsors as best you can and hit the road. Be warned; it takes a big budget.

Ben Tucker (fallout director...self-appointed)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2016
Location: Vienna, VA
Posts: 98

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlanMacNeill


I'd have to run the numbers, but a good US based curling tour *should* be able to be adequately self-funded (ie sponsorships and TV money...we get the ratings...I firmly believe that if approached correctly ESPN, Fox Sports, or the other one would give us the airtime).

The USOC money could then just be used to fund the athletes and coaches. They do it for Track, Bobsledding, and all sorts of other events where the "Paid" atheletes don't get a leg up in "Who's going to the Olympics?" competition (beyond those inherent advantages being a funded athlete comes with).

Hell, to be honest...I believe that a well run and funded US tour of curling would almost make it so the USOC money could be 100% funneled to Juniors...there should be enough money out there for the adults to be self-sustaining off of pots and endorsements, much like bowlers, darts players, or other "B level" sports...

If I ever win the lottery, I'd be willing to throw $10-$15M at finding out...admittedly, I'm never winning the lottery...but then, I don't actually think it'd cost $10-15M to make go, to be honest...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2012
Location:
Posts: 136

Curling night in America seems to work. Are we paying for the airtime or are we getting paid for the content or is this a free for them and advertising for us deal?

Whatever that model is - get it setup on the aforementioned curling stops (with hopefully championship ice and rocks) and there is your US curling tour.

With the US-CAD at 76% the US pot will get some nice Canadian teams to come down for the bigger payout.

It can be done...it's just hard.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by BDure
(We also have a few skips who only recorded OOM points at the Kalamazoo Classic and the delightfully named Fort Wayne Mad Anthony CashSpiel.)

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 278

Hello, I'm a Canadian who is really interested in the growth of clubs in the USA and seeing much better performances from your touring teams. Anything that raises the level and popularity of our sport in the US is good for the rest of the curling world.

My two cents, hopefully I don't have any fundamental facts wrong.

The HPP method of funding teams has served it's purpose and has now outlived it's usefulness. Fund your National Champions. If there still is money in the pot fund the runner's up as well to a lesser extent. Trying to select 12 male and 12 female players and then forcing them to play together is something sort of like some smaller European countries do that have a very very limited number of curlers. Sweden and Denmark being examples of this.

The US is well past this point. Self formed teams work in Switzerland, Japan, etc. Teams that makes the sacrifices to become better with their time and money will naturally rise to the top. When a team wins your national championship fund them for two years (that's the Canadian system). This incentive will make those teams that dream of becoming the best have something to strive for. I see there was trouble filling the woman's field. Well, why would any 'good' Club team bother entering when they feel the deck is stacked against them with HPP teams and no shot of going to the World's should they pull an upset anyways. A level playing field is the only way to develop a greater depth of good curling teams. If you ever dream of NBC televising the national finals it has to be for all the marbles.

I just recently figured out that HPP actually funds some Junior teams as well? Crazy. So there is some camp where they pick 8 or 12 kids and fund them? This is the dumbest thing possible. Any kid that doesn't get selected has an automatic disincentive to either give up curling (worst case) or think they are not good enough (best case). Don't find any junior teams. Take all the money going to funding teams and put it into touring coaches that run clinics wherever their are curling clubs. Put on lots of junior bonspiels and regional championships that have an hpp coaching component to them. Then run clinics to coach the local coaches to a higher level. If curling USA is already doing this then just do more of it more often with junior players. Natural selection will determine which kids love the game and dedicate their lives to it. Cream always rises to the top. Playing with their friends makes the games more fun. Kids naturally put together their own super teams as they get older.

If you want great national teams winning gold at the Olympics and World's those kids are right now 18 to 10 years old. It's like making 25 year old scotch... their are no shortcuts. You can only reap in the future what you sow today. It all comes down to making the pyramid of kids as wide as possible so you cast a wide net to find and nurture as many as possible.

I guess if the powers at be have to justify their existence then this hpp funding teams will continue but at this point it needs to stop immediately. Long term it is doing far mote harm then good. Put the money into coaches, clinics, bonspiels, Perhaps buy some network time and televise your national championship to grow the sport more.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

quote:

---

Originally posted by BDure


I'm curious about the U.S. tour idea. Do you simply mean more events on top of Ed Werenich Golden Wrench, U.S. Open, Coors Light, Curl Mesabi and St. Paul? (We also have a few skips who only recorded OOM points at the Kalamazoo Classic and the delightfully named Fort Wayne Mad Anthony CashSpiel.) Or do you mean something totally separate, maybe a bunch of events like Continental Cup and "Curling Night in America" that aren't really part of the WCT?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Apr 2009
Location:
Posts: 25

I like the idea of a US based tour. If this happens there would be no reason for the USCA as the USOC would forget about them in a heartbeat. You don't think the USOC notices how incompetent the USCA has been at building great teams?

My suggestion would be to build it around the way Professional Soccer has been built, as in the Premier league, etc.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2011
Location:
Posts: 1064

Disagree,

In my mind, you pursue a "Separation of powers" much like golf and bowling do.

There is a National Organizing Body (the USGA for Golf, the American Bowling Congress for bowling) who handles the universal rules of competition, sanctions the Professional Tour, represents the sport at the Olympic Level (Bowling is an Olympic Sport, just not a sport contested at the Olympics, there is a difference...), and looks out for the Amateur and Recreational game (both the USGA and ABC, for example, hold "National Championships" that have nothing to do with the Pro Tours).

Then there is "The Pro Tour" (PGA for Golf, PBA for Bowling). They schedule the Tour, determine who qualifies to play on it, handle the TV rights, pay the players, establish specific rules variations for their tour, crown Champions, etc.

Both organizations work together to grow the game, the Pro Tour shows give commercial time to the Amateur Sanctioning Body, the Pros show up at the National Body's "Championship event", etc.

It's a healthy and symbiotic relationship. It leaves "The Pros" able to focus on aspects of the game unique to the Top Tier Pro game (Broomgate, for example), while allowing a game that is similar enough to that Pro sport to be accessible for the other 99.9% of the population.

That's the model to pursue, IMO.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

Excellent post Three, especially on the Junior side of it. We have been killing the Junior feeder system.

Hopefully the new U-18 will help revive it, but the coaching from HP and training of local coaches is key.

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 96

I just recently figured out that HPP actually funds some Junior teams as well? Crazy. So there is some camp where they pick 8 or 12 kids and fund them? This is the dumbest thing possible. Any kid that doesn't get selected has an automatic disincentive to either give up curling (worst case) or think they are not good enough (best case). Don't find any junior teams. Take all the money going to funding teams and put it into touring coaches that run clinics wherever their are curling clubs. Put on lots of junior bonspiels and regional championships that have an hpp coaching component to them. Then run clinics to coach the local coaches to a higher level. If curling USA is already doing this then just do more of it more often with junior players. Natural selection will determine which kids love the game and dedicate their lives to it. Cream always rises to the top. Playing with their friends makes the games more fun. Kids naturally put together their own super teams as they get older.

Three(in my opinion) has written the most important paragraph in this thread. We can debate the success of the HPP, but I don't think the HPP junior program is helpful in its current form.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2016
Location: Vienna, VA
Posts: 98

quote:

---

Originally posted by AlanMacNeill


Dunno for sure, since this is spitballing...but the *critical* part, IMO, is that there be an understood and definable season-long "American Tour", awarding points within itself and awarding a Championship Trophy to the teeam standing at the end, and (*IF* we're going to be "professional" like we seem to be unable to avoid), 80% of so of the teams in each of those events need to be the same team, referring to the tour as The Tour (being sure to drop the Title Sponsor's name in there as often as possible), with the same announcers, on the same network, same approximate time for the weekly broadcast, same understandable points structure through the season, etc, etc, etc.

Think NASCAR, the PBA, PGA, etc...you don't need to be a member to qualify (but the odds are against ya doing so...)

Could that be formed out of our existing bigger spiels with a few additions? Yeah, probably, if those spiels wanted to be subsumed. Could it be formed out of thin air via lots and lots of money? Yeah, that could also be done.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curlrock
Three(in my opinion) has written the most important paragraph in this thread. We can debate the success of the HPP, but I don't think the HPP junior program is helpful in its current form.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location:
Posts: 812

quote:

---

Originally posted by Three


I just recently figured out that HPP actually funds some Junior teams as well? Crazy. So there is some camp where they pick 8 or 12 kids and fund them? This is the dumbest thing possible. Any kid that doesn't get selected has an automatic disincentive to either give up curling (worst case) or think they are not good enough (best case). Don't find any junior teams. Take all the money going to funding teams and put it into touring coaches that run clinics wherever their are curling clubs. Put on lots of junior bonspiels and regional championships that have an hpp coaching component to them. Then run clinics to coach the local coaches to a higher level. If curling USA is already doing this then just do more of it more often with junior players. Natural selection will determine which kids love the game and dedicate their lives to it. Cream always rises to the top. Playing with their friends makes the games more fun. Kids naturally put together their own super teams as they get older.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 695

quote:

---

Originally posted by curlky


I am not sure if this is true or not. I debate myself on this topic. One issue often forgotten about US curling is the size of the US versus the number of curlers. US clubs just don’t have very many juniors so finding 4 in the same basic area who can practice locally and have funding isn’t super likely. I just don’t know if there are enough talented juniors who have the ability to travel to go to elite events to get necessary experience.

---

__________________
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire"-Winston Churchill

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by biterbar
Curlky, are you from Kentucky?

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2016
Location:
Posts: 33

would love to see a separate thread on the state/future of junior curling in the USA. several good sub-topics there.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged