Registered: Mar 2009
Location:
Posts: 81

HP Funded teams

Men's National Champions
2011-2012: Non-Funded Men's team wins Nationals.
2012-2013: Non-Funded Men's team wins Nationals.

The beginning of the OOM Scoring/Qualifying System...

Women's National Champions
2013-2014: Non HPP team wins Nationals. HPP team finishes 6th at Worlds
2014-2015: Non HPP team wins Nationals. HPP team finishes 10th at Worlds
2015-2016: Non HPP team wins Nationals.

Men's National Champions
2013-2014: HPP team wins Nationals. HPP team finishes 10th at Worlds
2014-2015: Non HPP team wins Nationals. Non HPP team finishes 5th at Worlds
2015-2016: Non HPP team wins Nationals (Clark beats the dominant HPP team 3 times during Nationals). (Good luck Shuster, I still consider you a Non HPP team)

The HP Program will share their "goals" at the end of the season and "show" that they met most of them. Bottom line: ONE HPP team National Championship in SIX tries over the past three years. Add to that, two unfunded men's teams winning Nationals the two years prior to the OOM system.

All those resources...

"I" will grade that the HP Program has failed.

(Disclaimer: This is not an indictment of the teams or players.)

Your grade?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

I'll give it a B+ or A-. Chance to move to an easy A depending on what happens in the off season, who gets funding, and who does not.

The intent of the HPP was to increase the skill level and performance of USA curling as a whole, and over the last few years, the gap between the US and Canada has shrunk. Still very big, but getting smaller.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2015
Location:
Posts: 234

As an American club curler with no interest or ability to play on an Olympian level I dont care where the USOC or USCA spends its money. What I do care about is the ability for the US to continue making the olympics. The olympics brings more good to (big) US curling than any HPP will ever do.

My concern is that our continued presence in the olympics is threatened by our choices of who is sent to worlds. Last cycle we had to play our way in. TV coverage follows the olympics, curling in the US would have taken four steps backwards if Shuster doesn't beat the Czechs in the Olympic qualifier.

The rules now are tilted too heavily in favor of the OOM, fix that and I'm a happy curler.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2005
Location:
Posts: 101

I want to live in the Rainbow unicorn world of KY. Glad you follow curling, hope you enjoy it but you really have no clue.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

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

I was also thinking of the thread examining the implications of the last two Nationals on the High Performance Program.

Southern Curler makes good points and makes them clearly. We do not, however, know for sure the implications of the USA not making the Olympics. We assume that our "Olympic Growth Spurt" would go away if one gender didn't make the field. I don't think that's an accurate assumption, but the stakes are too high for me to suggest we risk finding out the truth.

Fan Of Curling can go even deeper. The last 4 Nationals haven't been very kind to the HPP. Once he adds Women's, it will become even more clear.

The measuring stick for the HPP has already been set: Are we getting better? The USOC has markers to judge this. I don't see much improvement in the HPP curlers except for Juniors (whom I would expect to see improvement in or out of system; just from experience).

I have, however, see great improvement in teams outside the HPP (Face, Brady, many of the unfunded Women's teams who didn't play this year). So is that a result of them wanting desperately to be in the HPP? Is it an unintended consequence?

We will need to keep this thread civil. I predict that, in about 45 days, we will be basking in the glow of a record year for USA curling medals. As we debate credit and blame, it could get a touch mean.

I agree with F of C. Shuster is a self-formed non-HPP team. I disagree with CurlKy. I give the program a C-. When non-HPP teams dominate Nationals, how can that be anything except an indictment? (I secretly suspect that CurlKy is a great team player who you would love to have on your team. I suspect that he/she might be taking this a little too far like a teammate who says no criticism...even constructive criticism)

I do tend to go on and on,
Ben Tucker

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 18

I give the HPP a D. It would be an F if they didn't take Shuster and his team into the program this year.

Personally, I think the HPP is approaching the challenge of being competitive in olympics in an incorrect way. The best way to ensure maximum USA performance, in my opinion, is to build the quality and depth of the US competitive field. By forming their own HPP teams, they took many solid teams and destroyed them to form two under performing teams in each adult class. Even worse in juniors, destroying half the field to form one strongly performing team (because the field was largely weakened by bringing together the best talent.). This may work to produce good world results for the one year that the juniors are maximum age, but is not sustainable year after year to produce medals.

I think the HPP should primarily focus on camps, particularly Junior camps, and deploy funding to any US team based on WCT results throughout the season, under the premise that they use it to play even more expensive events. I think the HPP coaches are good, but would be coaching teams even if they did not work for the HPP. I think there should be no HPP paid coaches. Maybe some camp directors...

Basically, I would suggest a tremendous overhaul to the system which would build the depth of team talent in US curling, which would then produce more consistent teams to perform at world competitions. Direct funding to teams, and not HPP staff.

I would also love to see all financials disclosed to all USCA members to ensure transparency in the program.

If we adopted this approach, I think it would be much more heathy for US curling, long term.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2014
Location:
Posts: 538

Tuck & Ref Hater (hey, what's wrong with refs?)

By now you know that this Canuck believes that we need an American rink "On the Podium" (not the first step of course) at:

1. Ford Men's and Women's World Championships and
2. The Olympics

...in order to attract the serious media attention that is needed for the game to advance to the next level-on both sides of the border. I'm taking the liberty of linking to the Curl Canada's "Mandate and Mission" statement-IMHO this is where the USCA should be using its reserves-and let the seriously competitive players take care of themselves. You have a game that's expanding into previously "Uncharted Frozen Waters" down there and these new areas will need all the help they can get.

Anyway, here's Curl Canada:

http://www.curling.ca/about-curling...te-and-mission/

Good luck at the World's...a silver medal would go a long way...

__________________
Jim

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

peglegg, I do more than follow curling. I am one of the founding 13 members of my curling club, taught hundreds of people via our clubs learn to curl classes, competed in 20 or more bonspiels, and have even competed in the us arena national curling championships. What does that mean, nothign really, but wanted to let you know that I am more that some person watching curling that has no idea what is going on.

tuck, you and i disagree on a lot of things, but thanks for the polite words.

Let me justify my opinion on teh HPP. The very short sided view if that the HPP is about the HPP teams. How are these "chosen" teams fairing in competition. Sure they have not won national titles. Some people far more skilled than I at curling might not see improvement in many of the hpp curling members (except juniors).

But let me preach a much large view of the HPP and points. I dont feel the HPP refers to just a few teams. The HPP in my view refers to the point in time where USA curling as a whole has said, we will no longer settle to being second fiddle to any country in the world (Canada included). So the HPP is the time after that decision was made. I also don’t think that the HPP is a static entity, and this frustrates me so much as I contuinue to hear people say that Shuster is not part of the program. I don’t think that the HPP as formed on day 1 has to be the same as it was on day 365, or day 730 and so on. Im sure that there was a plan to allow the program to find its way as it went a long. So put yourself in the shoes of US curling, what to do, what to do? I think a couple of their thought would have been something like

1 - How do we get our US curlers to play more games against the best in teh world? Not just 1 or 2 teams, but the all of the competitive teams. Enter the points requirement to be Team USA at worlds. I would venture that even amongst the decision makers, this was not something that they loved to do, but how else force teams to actually play in lots of elite events, and I would bet they felt this was necessary to make USA curling better

2- We’ve got money to help some teams, how do we do it? You could have funded a lot of teams, but a little money to a lot of people might not help, so the better approach was thought to be a lot of money to a few teams. Now do we fund self-formed teams, or do we try to put teams together. A very controversial decision to be made, and I am certain they were aware of it. My guess is that they looked at the self-formed teams, and simply evaluated the talent. Had those teams had enough top to bottom talent (and time and desire), I would surmise that they would have been kept together. But my guess is that for each team, they probably looked at least 1 player and said, maybe X is not good enough to be included, or maybe Y simply cannot devote the time and effort to eat, drink & sleep professional curling (I bet this part is a huge part of the answer more so than talent)

3 – How old are our best curlers? There are really 3 ages of athletes in any sport. Juniors, young skilled adults and veterans (aka older players). Juniors needed to be in the program because they are the future, and I doubt many will argue too much with it (though I’m sure some are completely against it). So then you have to look at the veterans, who are into the later stages of the career. How much are they going to get better from a technique and athleticism perspective? Truthfully, probably not much, since they are at the point in their lives where most physical activity has been learned. Sure they will pick up a few things here and there, but they will also lose a few things here and there due to father time. The biggest asset they bring is experience and knowledge. Now for the young skilled adults, they bring athleticism with them. They are also at a point in their lives wherein they are capable of learning new things and techniques since the human body just works that way. What these players need is experience and that only come with time and game play. So for me, looking at the teams, they tended to favor youthful players, and then scatter in some experience to fill in the gaps.

I truly believe that the HPP hopes that by getting to people like Mr & Ms Hammy, or Zezzle, Sinclair, etc, that they are truly the hope of USA curling. Having them be powerful and experienced back end players. By pairing them up with some veterans now, they get to learn the game as well as possible, and then by the 2022 Olympics, they are the skips that will take USA curling to take USA curling to the top. I hate to make an analogy to other sports, because inevitably people say “you analogy is stupid and does not apply” but the HPP began as a professional sports team in rebuilding mode. Get rid of most of the people who are not the long term solution, and really develop the youngsters. Keep a scattering of veterans around to help guide them around. But make sure there are no bad apple veterans around who could taint the youth.

I feel like this is what has gone down in the HPP, and its future, by I could be wrong. One other thing that I think is important is that I would guess that geography played a bit in some of the selections, because geography costs more to fly. I would bet that Bracy Clark might have been somone that being a plane flight and not a car ride from the Wisconsin/Minnesota/Ontario area hurt. It’s a legitimate expense, and that is a real world concern when it comes to a limited supply of funds.

And for people who think that they coaches are a waste in the HPP, you could be right. But there is one thing a coach can do, that can be difficult in a small team sport. It is far easy for a coach to “yell” at a player than another player. When players yell at each other, tensions can get high, and that can be bad in a small team sport like curling. When a coach yells, the team dynamic typically is not effected.

Feel free to jump in and tell me how I’m wrong, idiotic, and living in fantasy land.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 57

quote:

---

Originally posted by ref_hater

I would also love to see all financials disclosed to all USCA members to ensure transparency in the program.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

If we ask "Tom" or "Rick" on that link how to get a copy of what the IRS says must be publically available, do we as members of the public or dues-paying members of USCA get a free link to a hidden website with the latest "financials" or must we send a S.A.S.E. and wait a few months for the numbers?

If USCA is based in Wisconsin, is it a nonprofit corp subject to Wisconsin Secretary of State disclosures rules or has it merged with USOC to become a cog in USOC, Inc? USOC as a federally chartered corp is not subject to any state government disclosure rules and instead just has to report to Congress once and a while.

We can be sure at least for any broadcast rights, USCA has legally merged itself with USOC so those numbers may be sparse. As I recall, USOC only has to report financials to IOC every 4 years, so it will be interesting to see if anyone on CZ forums can get USCA financials for anything before December 2015.

Last edited by Alice on 02-15-16 at 06:29PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alice
If we ask "Tom" or "Rick" on that link how to get a copy of what the IRS says must be publically available, do we as members of the public or dues-paying members of USCA get a free link to a hidden website with the latest "financials" or must we send a S.A.S.E. and wait a few months for the numbers?

If USCA is based in Wisconsin, is it a nonprofit corp subject to Wisconsin Secretary of State disclosures rules or has it merged with USOC to become a cog in USOC, Inc? USOC as a federally chartered corp is not subject to any state government disclosure rules and instead just has to report to Congress once and a while.

We can be sure at least for any broadcast rights, USCA has legally merged itself with USOC so those numbers may be sparse. As I recall, USOC only has to report financials to IOC every 4 years, so it will be interesting to see if anyone on CZ forums can get USCA financials for anything before December 2015.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 18

Maybe I am missing it, but where does it say how much costs were covered for each team and each coach? Versus HPP staff and specifically Derek Brown's salary?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2012
Location:
Posts: 324

When I clicked on melvin's link, curlky, all I got were links to Rick and Tom's email addresses and a cartoon of an accountant. Thanks for your link with some current financials. Go ahead, call me "angry" or "irrational" again. I can take name calling. I learned how to deal with that in grammar school.

One exercise on those financials is to add up what are normally discretionary line items like fringe benefits, salaries, travel, rents, and such to compare as a ratio to expenses which directly benefit all members or the public. Few national charitable groups meet the Salvation Army HQ's amazing ratio. And, I realize some rent and salaries are locked in contractually for more than one year, but at some point they all become discretionary expenses as each contract comes up for renewal.

It is not an easy matter to separate out HPP or "elite" expenses from those reports. Coaching and "elite" expenses are kind of muddled. For example, how to tally some large costs like championship rocks and sensor handles since those only directly benefit some competitive curlers not the majority of all curlers. Curling basic competitive skills like reading ice as we saw in our Sochi Oympic Trials, using brooms, or judging the characteristics of rocks' running surfaces make such large national equipment costs debatable. Or maybe all USA nationals medalist competitors would rather use such national rocks at our national competitions and national training center than have those funds used to reduce their tournament entry and travel fees?

This thread is about HPP's report card. The only reason I don't give it an F is the continually rising number of other competitive curling countries. I'd only give it an A if we had the kind of competitive depth a single Canadian curling province like Manitoba or BC have.

Last edited by Alice on 02-15-16 at 10:02PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2013
Location:
Posts: 559

You are not going to get a line item disclosure of how every HPP dollar was spent per team, per coach, per player. That is a level of disclosure that is not required for IRS 501c3 disclosure. You will need to make a few estimations and guesstimates, and then some math to figure out how the money is being used. I know that the HPP haters are going to want more, adn this will only fuel them even further, but this is how public financials work for all public businesses, those non or for profit.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged