2018 USFS Olympic team selection thoughts

[Mathman]

The Gladys and Fifi scenario was artistic rhetoric. Since it was an artistic choice, you have to honor it.

I "know" (slightly) one of the people on the Selection Committee. Your artful characterization is way off the mark. (They should tap Michelle Kwan. She has owned and loved a succession of delightful little dogs of miniature breeds. )

But one point in favor of the "nationals winners take all" model is this. Many skaters do not have an opportunity to skate in last years Worlds or in the Grand Prix. They deserve their shot at the Olympics like everyone else. If an unsung newcomer can ride into town and outshoot the reigning top guns, good for her!

 

[Barb]

^ A "dominant skater" who misses Nationals because of injury or illness can apply for a bye. I guess it is up to the USFSA to decide what constitutes a "dominant skater." Nancy Kerrigan in 1994, Michelle Kwan in 2006 were examples.

The problem is when the skater is not enough sick to withdraw or when their skates arrived just hours before the competition, or something out of her/his control that can prevent them of give its best performance. By the way, what other top country selects their team based solely on the result of nationals. Not even Spain will base their selection only on nationals.

 

[Mathman]

It's interesting, because while Nancy and Michelle had far better overall careers, if you look only at events in the previous calendar year before Nationals (including the last Nationals), Ashley's results far exceeded those of Nancy and Michelle.

Quite true, although both Kerrigan and Kwan were national champions in the previous year. Anyway, these two cases were quite unique and unlikely to be repeated. Kerrigan could not compete at nationals because of a criminal attack by people favoring her rival. As for 2006, Michelle Kwan was MICHELLE KWAN, who had carried USFSA on her back for a decade.

 

[Mathman]

So, in a team sport like say basketball, the coach decides who is on the team and who isn't. He/she decides who plays when based on knowledge of their playing style, track record, etc. Do you feel that is wrong too?

I think that is the key question. Is the USFSA like the owner of a team, who hires a coach to run it, with the players as employees (unpaid, in the case of college sports)? Or is it a regulatory body that oversees fair and even-handed competition for all participating athletes?

Here is their Mission Statement: http://www.usfsa.org/story?id=83967

 

[NoNameFace]

well, my only point about this - being an overly optimistic enthusiast of US skating in general, regardless of discipline, proficiency and success level internationally - is that I'll be heartbroken no matter what when the time of Olympic team announcement comes, because some skaters I truly like/love/adore/appreciate will be left at home. It is especially in regards to Men's field where I want at least 5/6 men to go...

Saying that, I just hope all those talented US skaters will have an amazing upcoming season, with a finish at the Olympics or not

 

[TontoK]

Worth mentioning that Todd Eldridge did not skate at Nats and was awarded a spot on the team, based on prior results.

The decision was pretty much universally applauded.

Todd went on to finish third among Americans at the Olympics, and third among Americans at the WC.

No big deal. Except for Mark Mitchell (I think it was he, but I'm too lazy to verify) who was the bronze medalist that year and never had a chance to realize his Olympic dream. Mark did get his chance to go the WC that year, where he beat Todd.

But Mark never got to be an Olympian, the ultimate dream of most athletes. That decision was made off the ice, and Mark's dreams and the competitive results were subjugated to the better judgement of a committee.

I think my example of Vincent just barely beating Jason may have triggered some emotion among his strong fans. So let's flip this so the discussion can remain neutral.

New scenario: Nathan has been skating wonderfully all year. At US Nats, he has a mini-meltdown with a couple of falls and more stumbles. He finishes 4th, barely behind a clean Jason. Jason's had an OK GP season, but nothing to write home about.

In this new scenario, I think Jason absolutely earned the right to be on that Olympic team, because he held up under pressure.

This is my consistent with my belief in the trial system.

But how many who argued the other side before think that Jason should be booted from the team in favor of a more "consistent" Nathan?

 

[Mathman]

And forgive my generalities but maybe Americans latched on to the idea that Nationals are the Olympic trials (like how other sports have that one competition be the determining factor or at least the perception is that it is) because that narrative was pushed for the longest time...

I think that back in the day there were not many international events where U.S. skaters could test themselves against the best of other countries. So the U.S. championship was a much bigger deal than, sadly, it is now. That is one argument -- one that has fallen by the wayside -- that used to be offered in favor of the "Nationals winner takes all" model. Namely, this elevates U.S. Nationals to a sporting event of importance that is easier to market.

An interesting case is Janet Lynn versus Julie Lynn Holmes in the early seventies. Janet Lynn was America's darling. She won the National Championship three times, with Julie Lynn Holmes second.(The placement was considered controversial in at least one of those years.) But Julie Lynn Holmes finished higher at Worlds every time they competed, in 1969, 1970 and 1971, where Holmes got 4th, 3rd and 2nd.

 

[Mathman]

This is my consistent with my belief in the trial system.

If I remember my USFSA history right, I think it was a legal problem that caused them to decide not to call the U.S. Championships the Olympic trials. Namely, the (new at that time, I believe) legal staff realized that according the the charter of the United States Olympic Committee, the USOC automatically has jurisdiction over the Olympic qualifying events for all Olympic sports. The USFS. wanting to retain full control of its own event, changed the official rules for the Olympics. (There might have been a money issue, too -- I don't know.)

Back then, the rules for both the Olympics and Worlds were that the U.S. champion was chosen automatically. Then there were various criteria for the other team members, if any. The new rules kept the "U.S. champion is automatic" rule for worlds, but left it out for the Olympics. Now, that rule has been eliminated for both Worlds and the Olympics, for consistency I suppose. (Although it is hard to imagine a scenario in which the U.S. champion would not be selected. Mirai was the U.S. champion in 2008, but she could not go to Worlds because she was too young. Past World Champion Kimmie Meissner finished seventh at Nationals and went to Worlds that unusual year.)

 

[TontoK]

If I remember my USFSA history right, I think it was a legal problem that caused them to decide not to call the U.S. Championships the Olympic trials. Namely, the (new at that time, I believe) legal staff realized that according the the charter of the United States Olympic Committee, the USOC automatically has jurisdiction over the Olympic qualifying events for all Olympic sports. The USFS. wanting to retain full control of its own event, changed the official rules for the Olympics. (There might have been a money issue, too -- I don't know.)

Back then, the rules for both the Olympics and Worlds were that the U.S. champion was chosen automatically. Then there were various criteria for the other team members, if any. The new rules kept the "U.S. champion is automatic" rule for worlds, but left it out for the Olympics. Now, that rule has been eliminated for both Worlds and the Olympics, for consistency I suppose. (Although it is hard to imagine a scenario in which the U.S. champion would not be selected. Mirai was the U.S. champion in 2008, but she could not go to Worlds because she was too young. Past World Champion Kimmie Meissner finished seventh at Nationals and went to Worlds that unusual year.)

Interesting, I don't think that US Track or US Swimming gives up its jurisdiction of their world or Olympic trials.

What might be involved... perhaps if they're called Olympic Trials, then the USOC would have some claim to the money.

However, it could be run as a trial without calling it "The Trials."

TBH, I'm about argued out on this thread. I hope that the top three athletes are such obvious selections that this tempest will be a moot point.

 

[gkelly]

I think that is the key question. Is the USFSA like the owner of a team, who hires a coach to run it, with the players as employees (unpaid, in the case of college sports)? Or is it a regulatory body that oversees fair and even-handed competition for all participating athletes?

I think with respect to running a national championships (and other USFS-sponsored events that determine who qualifies for for Nationals and determines national champions for other test levels/disciplines/competition tracks), it is a regulatory body that oversees fair and even-handed competition for all participating in those events: how skaters are scored within the rules, which directly affects their final placements and the medals earned if any.

The other rewards that skaters may receive as a result of their placements at USFS championships are not part of "fair and even-handed competition" within the event. For example, the event officials and even the federation leadership officials may have no say whatsoever in which skaters get hired to appear in corporate sponsor ads on the strength of their national results, or in who gets honored by a corporate or individual sponsor offering a prize of a car or trophy or $1,000 check for skaters who earn the most perfect scores or the highest total PCS or the most ratified quads or a specific non-medal placement in a specific event, or who had the "best performance" in each discipline by a vote of Professional Skaters Association members.

Assignments to international events fall somewhere in between. For that purpose, I think USFS does serve a purpose more similar to managing a team to send out to competition against other federations.

The number of places available at ISU championships or on the JGP, for example, depend on factors beyond USFS's control; the placements of last year's entrants are the determining factor, but those placements depend on how other countries' skaters performed and how the international judges scored them all.

USFS also has little control over whether skaters qualify for international events in terms of age eligibility, citizenship for the Olympics, or minimum technical scores. (In other countries, the national Olympic committees may have additional requirements that override the specific sports federations -- that hasn't been an issue in the US, at least not for figure skating.) There will be times that skaters who place high enough at Nationals to earn an "automatic" spot won't be able to make use of that spot because they don't meet outside criteria. So the automatic qualification can't always be automatic.

As mentioned above, there will also be times when dominant skaters have to miss Nationals, or have a documented minor health or equipment emergency at Nationals that prevents them from finishing the event or prevents them from skating at their usual standard but that isn't likely to affect their performance a month or two later.

In some cases, it may be necessary to make team assignments provisionally, contingent on, e.g., demonstrating recovery from injury or on earning ISU-mandated minimum technical scores at an intervening international event.

And if Nationals results automatically lead to specific international assignments, that increases the incentive for officials to compromise the integrity of this national event in order to achieve the team they would like to see. This was more of a problem under 6.0 but it could still be an issue.

So I think it does make sense to include some flexibility in the team selections rather than automatically following Nationals results.

However, there is also value in rewarding the ability to deliver when it counts, and making Nationals "count" in that way.

What if the selection criteria listed Nationals results as Tier 1 and most-recent GPF/Worlds results as Tier 2? (Or 1A and 1B?) So it's possible for the selection committee to deviate from strict Nationals finish when necessary, but the rules/guidelines encourage following Nationals results as much as possible rather than second guessing?

 

[Moxiejan]

Interesting, I don't think that US Track or US Swimming gives up its jurisdiction of their world or Olympic trials.
What might be involved... perhaps if they're called Olympic Trials, then the USOC would have some claim to the money.
However, it could be run as a trial without calling it "The Trials."

There are indeed factors, including money and control, that influenced the decision by USFS to not designate Nationals as an Olympic Trials and to instead publish a list of events (including Nationals) that would be used to pick the qualifiers. Yes, in most cases the top finishers at Nationals do make up the Olympic team, but USFS has stated that it wants to continue its tradition of having Nationals stand by itself as its own event, in all years.

I remember reading a long explanation of this back in 2014; I'll look for it.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Worth mentioning that Todd Eldridge did not skate at Nats and was awarded a spot on the team, based on prior results.

The decision was pretty much universally applauded.

Todd went on to finish third among Americans at the Olympics, and third among Americans at the WC.

No big deal. Except for Mark Mitchell (I think it was he, but I'm too lazy to verify) who was the bronze medalist that year and never had a chance to realize his Olympic dream. Mark did get his chance to go the WC that year, where he beat Todd.

But Mark never got to be an Olympian, the ultimate dream of most athletes. That decision was made off the ice, and Mark's dreams and the competitive results were subjugated to the better judgement of a committee.

From the perspective of winning medals, the decision was the right one, even in retrospect. A healthy Todd was a medal contender because he achieved a world medal the year before. Unfortunately, the USFSA isn't in the business of making Olympic dreams come true; the organization is trying to win medals. I think you have to send your best, and Todd had the best record of the American men leading up to that Nationals.

 

[TontoK]

From the perspective of winning medals, the decision was the right one, even in retrospect. A healthy Todd was a medal contender because he achieved a world medal the year before. Unfortunately, the USFSA isn't in the business of making Olympic dreams come true; the organization is trying to win medals. I think you have to send your best, and Todd had the best record of the American men leading up to that Nationals.

If true, then this is indeed unfortunate.

So the argument ultimately leads to agreement. In some fashion, anyway.

 

[Mathman]

If true, then this is indeed unfortunate.

To me, this has always been the crux of the matter. Is it the job of USFS to design the fairest possible selection system, or is it their job to win the most medals possible in international competition?

Gkelly gave a thoughtful and nuanced response to this dilemma above.

I guess it is lucky for all concerned that most of the time it turns out the same.

 

[noidont]

If the USFS only cares about medals then they shouldn't have sent Polina, who at the time never attended a senior international competition and didn't medal at junior grand prix, losing to not one but three Russian juniors two years younger. The chance of Edmunds medaling at the Olympics was close to zero. Nagasu at least medaled at one GP that season and had a track record of winning other medals. Plus, Polina beat Mirai by 2 points, not 10, much smaller than the gap between Mirai and Wagner. The Polina situation is close to the Vincent Zhou situation this year and USFSA was glad to let Jason Brown go to Worlds.
USFSA likes medals, and they like marketable blondes. They saw something in Edmunds that fit with their soapy disney marketing needs and went with it. The same situation presents again and they would do the same, even if Polina's 13-14 season had nothing but Nationals. What really bothers me about USFSA is that they like to throw a skater under the bus for not living up to his or her potential, but then you have skaters like Brown or Wagner or Rachel Flatt who had subpar technical ability to begin with and suddenly your 7th place finish is an achievement and a display of hard-working will or whatever. They seem to really invest in their conjured up soap narratives. Either you let competition results speak and then come up with a marketing campaign or you stick with your narrative and let athletes find their place in it, but you shouldn't send mixed signals. That I think is the definition of unfair. I say this because the chance of any US lady medaling next year is quite slim. I fear that it's gonna be a battle of who is the best TV personality when time comes around.

 

[VIETgrlTerifa]

I definitely would have sent Polina over Mirai as well.

 

[bevybean]

If true, then this is indeed unfortunate.

So the argument ultimately leads to agreement. In some fashion, anyway.

I'm surprised that you would say this given your position about how Olympic spots are chosen. I'm guessing that there is a nuance here that I'm missing. If USFSA was in the business of making Olympic dreams come true, then how about the following scenario: the top 3 men at Nats is (in no particular order) Jason Brown, Nathan Chen and Max Aaron. Adam Rippon places 4th. Then they should send Adam instead of Nathan because he's never been to the Olympics and this is probably his last chance whereas Nathan could wait until 2022. I don't think that is a scenario that anyone would agree with (except possibly Adam Rippon).

It might seem cold or something to say that USFSA is trying to win medals, but those medals are what heighten excitement and interest in the sport and bring more fans. And more fans = more money which is necessary to continue funding for all the various programs and athletes. I think it becomes a tough position for USFSA to be in, because I would guess none of them are cold heartless "we only want to make money" kind of people, but money is a reality that they need to deal with.

BTW, US Curling went through a major overhaul of the selection process of who goes to Worlds and the Olympics that was controversial and unpopular with many fans because USA wasn't getting medals at the Olympics or Worlds. Lack of medals meant a potential loss of IOC funding which is necessary to really get training for the athletes in order to make them medal contenders. It becomes a very circular thing.

 

[Ender]

I definitely would have sent Polina over Mirai as well.

But coming into this season, Nagasu has been competing for a while and she is doing not bad, she didn't stay out of competition for 2 seasons.

 

[bevybean]

I think that is the key question. Is the USFSA like the owner of a team, who hires a coach to run it, with the players as employees (unpaid, in the case of college sports)? Or is it a regulatory body that oversees fair and even-handed competition for all participating athletes?

Here is their Mission Statement: http://www.usfsa.org/story?id=83967

For the record, my point was that a coach is still competent enough to assess athletes and make decisions even though he/she isn't a current athlete or possibly never has been. But, your response lead to gkelly's excellent post, so that is awesome!

 

[TontoK]

I'm surprised that you would say this given your position about how Olympic spots are chosen. I'm guessing that there is a nuance here that I'm missing. If USFSA was in the business of making Olympic dreams come true, then how about the following scenario: the top 3 men at Nats is (in no particular order) Jason Brown, Nathan Chen and Max Aaron. Adam Rippon places 4th. Then they should send Adam instead of Nathan because he's never been to the Olympics and this is probably his last chance whereas Nathan could wait until 2022. I don't think that is a scenario that anyone would agree with (except possibly Adam Rippon).

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

I think our federation should be focused on providing a fair and level playing field for the athletes.

I think the best way to do that, in terms of Olympic and World team membership, is to provide a high-profile, well run, and highly respected competition to determine those spots, as close as practically reasonable to the Olympics or World Championships.

Everything is in place at US Nationals. All that is left is for them to get out of the way and let the athletes sort out team memberships by virtue of their performances. Athletes will realize their Olympic dreams by virtue of their own merit under a high stakes environment. It is a sad fact that not every athlete will realize their dream, but at least this method keeps any political maneuvering, real or perceived, off the table.

In your example, Nathan would go. He earned the spot by virtue of his placement. If Nathan finished 4th, then Adam would get the spot. Everyone would know this upfront. Their would be no controversy, except for the usual controversies that accompany a judged sport.

Here's an example of the type of thing that bothers me. Everyone assumes that the Knierims will be the American pairs team sent to the Olympics. I read comments like "of course the federation won't send another team." This causes me to scratch my head. What if they fail at US Nats? What if another team emerges, one that is rising very quickly, all the pieces falling into place, but has very limited international eperience? What if... what if...

There's already an assumption, and maybe it's among those who don't know what they're talking about, that the only pairs spot is already locked in.

That there's even a perception that the fix is in... that reflects so poorly on our federation. I'm not sure why I seem to be the only one who views this as a problem.

(Of course, with only one spot, the Champion will get it, as is right, but you get the idea...)

You mentioned curling, so I'll bring up another sport. Sports that run trials have left world champions and world record holders at home, because they didn't finish well at trials. No one that I know views that as controversial in the least. Quite the opposite. Everyone has a right to compete without selection bias.