- Joined
- May 25, 2014
I'm with you on Cain / LeDuc!
Evaluating USFS world team selection
- Thread starter brightphoton
- Start date
I'm with you on Cain / LeDuc!
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I'd say Nathan and Ashley underperformed. The podium standard for the women was exceptionally high this year, and it's hard to imagine even Ashley at her best posting a score that would have beaten Gabrielle in an event outside the US. Nathan probably could have earned bronze at his best, but I don't think it's realistic to expect him to consistently execute that level of difficulty when no one else does either. Fortunately, Jason ended up at the top of the second-tier competitors to earn a third spot.
Well. Who were the favorites? Both of the national champions (Nathan & Karen, or "The Chens") still placed higher than their teammates. Karen definitely overdelivered by a lot, Ashley underdelivered by a lot. Nathan underdelivered a bit (the amount depends on how high you were expecting of him) and Jason overdelivered a bit. Nathan and Jason placed right next to each other but the point difference was pretty huge.
Ashley skipped 4CCs and so escaped the scrutiny and criticism that Karen and Mariah went through for their sub-par performances there. People gave her the benefit of the doubt and increased their expectations for her accordingly even though she didn't actually do anything on the ice to change expectations. So I don't think she should've been seen as a favorite going in. Hindsight is 20/20 though.
Really, really happy that the US has 3 spots in both, though! I can't wait for US Nationals next year, and I expect it'll be a fantastic competition with 3 spots up for grabs.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Country
-
You are right that pairs present a very interesting question.
I don't watch that much of pairs, and when I do, I root for the Knierims because I love spunky Alexa and for whoever Nate Bartholomay is paired with, cause he's my "homie".
Personally, here is where I just might veer from my "one comp" rule. Cain/LeDuc show real promise. But if they win Nats, and SK/K are second????
If SK/K are healthy, I think USFS would be fools not to send them. In fact, given that they are the one pairs team that the international judges seem to show some love (and they do have an amazing twist) I think USFS would be fools not to send them period.But then I'm contradicting the rule I said I approved. Oh no! :eeking:
ETA: I do like shiny gold, too, and one bronze is nothing to write home about. But I'm not sure that expectations for more (except maybe two ID medals) were warranted.....
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
When USFS selects the World team, I do not think that filling seats and attracting eyeballs should be among the factors taken into consideration.
Slippery slope, IMO.
An example from a different discipline:
As someone who likes Karen, Mariah, and Gracie (as well as other U.S. ladies), I think it would have been reasonable to expect that even after 2017 Nats (and her 2016 GPs), Gracie would have been a significantly bigger draw for 2017 Worlds audiences than Karen and Mariah.
But I never thought for one second that Gracie's understandable popularity should have been taken into account when the World team was selected. YMMV.
But I never thought for one second that Gracie's understandable popularity should have been taken into account when the World team was selected. YMMV.
Congratulations to Team USA for earning three spots for men, ladies, and dance.
Lots of hugs to Madi/Zach and Haven/Brandon.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
concorde opened my eyes on this point, so I will follow up now with changes in USFS funding based on Worlds results.
- Congratulations to Jason for moving up to Envelope A, Tier 2 funding.
- Ditto for Ashley; for Chock/Bates; and for Hubbell/Donohue.
- The Shibs moved up from Envelope A, Tier 2 to Envelope A, Tier 1.
- Alexa and Chris have earned Envelope A, Tier 2 funding.
- Ditto for Ashley; for Chock/Bates; and for Hubbell/Donohue.
- The Shibs moved up from Envelope A, Tier 2 to Envelope A, Tier 1.
- Alexa and Chris have earned Envelope A, Tier 2 funding.
And BTW, after Worlds, Max remains in the top 24 both for World Standings (#13) and for Season's Bests (#22).
So what Mrs. P said remains true -- that he did not need to be third alternate to earn Envelope B, Tier 2 funding.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
I think that would happen when the result was very close at Nationals, perhaps someone like Hicks finishing less than a point ahead of Gracie. It's hard to draw the line between a pick used to "fill seats" versus a pick based on overall superior results, because the reason a skater would fill seats is because they have showed the potential to be great. When the men's team was picked, the silver medalist had not skated a single LP as a senior internationally. Jason showed not that experience matters, but that experience combined with a demonstrated ability to skate near your potential under pressure does matter.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
It is worth remembering that it is also a business. Like it or hate it, figure skating has to stay viable financially as well. And in the USA... where Olympic sports don't really get outside funding and have to go at it alone, the business aspect is even more important.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
And I was fine with Jason's selection for 2017 Worlds -- b/c of the criteria, and b/c of the reasoning in your last sentence.
Agree.
Which to me supports my opinion that the selection committee should stick to considering only the competition results that show the potential to do well at Worlds.
Because it is a slippery slope, my opinion is that drawing an audience should not be considered in any selection decision.
Hypothetically:
What if the selection committee has to decide btwn Josh and Adam for the third men's slot next year?
They both are popular, and I don't think there would be any equitable way to predict who would draw a bigger audience.
Giving the selection committee the option of considering who would draw a bigger audience would just introduce the possibility of unnecessary subjective disagreement. IMO.
They both are popular, and I don't think there would be any equitable way to predict who would draw a bigger audience.
Giving the selection committee the option of considering who would draw a bigger audience would just introduce the possibility of unnecessary subjective disagreement. IMO.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
By that logic, a good case could have been made for the 2017 Worlds team to be Ashley, Mirai, and Gracie.
Which would have been a shame, IMO. (And I say that as someone who absolutely loves Mirai.)
Karen and Mariah would have been denied their debuts at Worlds.
And Karen would have been denied the chance to place 4th.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
I think that is taking my logic too far.
I am not advocating that butts in seats should be a factor, but rather I am advocating that we should have empathy for decision makers who may feel that they have to take butts in seats into account - and some may very well feel that way. I agree with you philosophically, but I fear it may just not be practical all the time.
Butts in seats should never be the only factor, but to be honest I think it is being consciously naive to think it is not at least *a* factor in any business. It is just a part of life and reality that we really can not escape.
And Vincent gets Envelope B, Tier 2 funding based on his 2nd place finish at Nationals. Winning Junior Worlds does not give him a "bump." He stays at Envelope B, Tier 2. fyi - 1st alternate for Worlds also gets this same funding level.
But 3rd place US Nationals finisher did go to Worlds and he gets a "bump" from Envelope B, Tier 2 funding to Envelope A, Tier 1 funding. [Note: I am not saying that Jason does not deserve this after his performance.]
I keep going back to Vincent got short-changed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
You are right that pairs present a very interesting question.
I don't watch that much of pairs, and when I do, I root for the Knierims because I love spunky Alexa and for whoever Nate Bartholomay is paired with, cause he's my "homie".
Personally, here is where I just might veer from my "one comp" rule. Cain/LeDuc show real promise. But if they win Nats, and SK/K are second????
But then I'm contradicting the rule I said I approved. Oh no! :eeking:
ETA: I do like shiny gold, too, and one bronze is nothing to write home about. But I'm not sure that expectations for more (except maybe two ID medals) were warranted.....
Cain/LeDuc are fun, but I wouldn't send anyone over SK/K next year unless a different pair makes an unexpected splash on the GP.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2012
By placing in the top ten at Worlds, Jason moved up from Envelope B, Tier 1 to Envelope A, Tier 2.
He did move up, but only by half a notch in funding -- not by one-and-a-half notches. (Same for Ashley, C/B, and H/D.)
I think you just made typos by accident, but I want to set the record straight.
BTW, for reference, here is the link to the 2017-18 funding criteria: http://usfsa.org/story?id=84105&menu=TeamUSA[/QUOTE]
ETA:
Just noticed that you made a typo regarding Vincent too.
Vincent gets Envelope B, Tier 1 funding -- for all the reasons that you have stated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
The World team should not be decided by who deserves to get funding, but by who can best achieve whatever goals the USFSA has set for the team. If the purpose was to select the team that would maximize Olympic spots, that goal was achieved fully. However, this does seem like an issue that should be addressed from a funding perspective because that should be completely merit-based.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
I also wonder how much better Cain/LeDuc can get... I worry they may have basically hit their plateau early. I would not actually rule out S/B unless it turns out they too just got to an early plateau.
The thing is... whoever gets the Olympic spot has to skate both team event skates. And frankly SK/K vs someone else could mean the difference between a medal or not... or a better medal. So i think they really should send SK/K for the sake of the team event.
Worlds.... we have two spots... we can be more creative there.
We will never never know if Vincent would have done as well as Jason.
But I do agree USFS's goal of getting the 3 slots was achieved.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
Here's the thing. A lot of Vincent-pushers were completely disregarding the concept of experience and claiming it would be perfectly fine to send two Worlds rookies to get the three spots back.
Last night Jason soared. Nathan crumbled.
Do not ever tell me that experience doesn't count, because it absolutely does.
If the USFS had sent two rookies, I have all confidence in saying that the US men would only have two spots for next year. But they don't. They have three. Because they sent a more experienced teammate to play foil to the rookie wonderkid.
Last night Jason soared. Nathan crumbled.
Do not ever tell me that experience doesn't count, because it absolutely does.
If the USFS had sent two rookies, I have all confidence in saying that the US men would only have two spots for next year. But they don't. They have three. Because they sent a more experienced teammate to play foil to the rookie wonderkid.
Well ... the opposite happened with the top 2 ladies. The "newbie" really delivered and the experienced one did not do as well as expected.
No one will ever know that would had happened since you cannot "reset" the time clock.
Last edited:
