Well yes but Zhou did put in some very good scores this year it’s kind of worth it to take him now if worlds that would be another matter entirely. But with nothing to lose.
What @ice coverage said and the fact that consistency is not even mentioned in the criteria to be taken into account within the same priority group (text sidebar of the tweet).
I’m not arguing he should have been that low. Someone said if he was half a point lower it would have made a difference. It wouldn’t have. He would have had to have been much lower than that. If he had actually imploded to that extent I would have probably advocated for both Ilia and Jason to be on the team over him. But that’s not what happened.
Yep. To be Frank I don’t have a problem with the concept of body of work Vincent would be on my Olympic team but not my world team.
Quads versus no quads debate? The only federation that is having this one is the USFSA. Almost all of the men have more than one now including the harder ones.
But that's not what USFS did. And fairness to the athletes dictates going by what USFS did.
ETA: I need to show respect to my alma mater, not that I went anywhere near Wharton. But they do know how to crunch numbers.I admit I only read Jackie's tweet and not the original text of the criteria since I'm not too fussed either way but I would give Ilia competitiveness in terms of both national score and content as well as the trending upward component.The criteria are what the criteria are. Vincent should be on the team.
Now, I love 'First three only" because it is so certain, and easy, and I remember Nats as the Olympic trials and I like what I remember.
If someone wants to say, I think the criteria didn't yield the best athlete, that's another argument. But to argue the criteria could have gone either way? So that's why I keep coming back to this thread, despite my better judgment.
I really am not understanding this.
"Competitiveness" is not, you're in a priority group, OK, that does it for competitiveness, let's go to other criteria.
It is also from my reading used to rank within the priority group:
Analyzing the competitiveness and consistency of the international scores from the identified events (1.2.1.) to differentiate the athlete’s/team’s body of work will be used to rank the athletes/teams within their priority groups. ETA: Now maybe it's just my training, but to me that language means that competitiveness continues to be used after a priority group is attained. It would not make sense, using USFS's own criteria, to say Jason and Ilia are equally competitive. I never thought of looking at it otherwise.
Competitiveness: Jason
Consistency: Jason
Trending upwards: Actually I would rank Jason higher, because the only reason Ilia had such a leap upwards was his inconsistency in the previous comps, but I understand there is an argument for Ilia.
So Jason is ranked higher within the priority group. Among other considerations, Nats is a wash, as Jason placed 3rd vs. W/D and 4th vs. 2nd (Placements, not scores, are used). Worlds, Jason is higher.
I do not see an equal argument under the criteria for both, which is probably why the selection committee took less than 40 minutes to make a decision.
And I also admit, I'll go with the analysis from the Wharton MBA (Jackie), and if he says it's clear, it's clear
. IMO, the only thing that would make it longer to reach a consensus would be a lengthy debate
.
...
If someone wants to say, I think the criteria didn't yield the best athlete, that's another argument. But to argue the criteria could have gone either way? So that's why I keep coming back to this thread, despite my better judgment.
I really am not understanding this.
"Competitiveness" is not, you're in a priority group, OK, that does it for competitiveness, let's go to other criteria.
It is also from my reading used to rank within the priority group:
Analyzing the competitiveness and consistency of the international scores from the identified events (1.2.1.) to differentiate the athlete’s/team’s body of work will be used to rank the athletes/teams within their priority groups. ETA: Now maybe it's just my training, but to me that language means that competitiveness continues to be used after a priority group is attained. It would not make sense, using USFS's own criteria, to say Jason and Ilia are equally competitive. I never thought of looking at it otherwise.
Competitiveness: Jason
Consistency: Jason
Trending upwards: Actually I would rank Jason higher, because the only reason Ilia had such a leap upwards was his inconsistency in the previous comps, but I understand there is an argument for Ilia.
So Jason is ranked higher within the priority group. Among other considerations, Nats is a wash, as Jason placed 3rd vs. W/D and 4th vs. 2nd (Placements, not scores, are used). Worlds, Jason is higher.
I do not see an equal argument under the criteria for both, which is probably why the selection committee took less than 40 minutes to make a decision.
And I also admit, I'll go with the analysis from the Wharton MBA (Jackie), and if he says it's clear, it's clear
I admit I only read Jackie's tweet and not the original text of the criteria since I'm not too fussed either way but I would give Ilia competitiveness in terms of both national score and content as well as the trending upward component.
In terms of speed in making a decision, it could be as speedy in an equal argument since they would vote based on personal preference
and 2) actually write and send the emails, so that was my rough guess of 40 minutes. (3:15 to 3:50ish) But they certainly could have convened immediately and the emails were not lengthy and could have been pre-written. So maybe an hour?You have to earn placements on the Senior Circuit that is the primary issue he had less opportunities than Jason.
You don't have to earn placements at Senior B and CS events. Those can be requested; in fact for certain Senior Bs all Ilia's team would have had to do was say "we're competing here". If Ilia was skating so well, he would have been a prime consideration for Skate America host pick if he opted for Senior GP. But the point remains: the team knew in advance, well in advance, what the criteria were, and they chose to keep Ilia Junior. Their decision. Their consequences.
If you're talking about 2016, Nathan - who at the time had programs that literally consisted of crossover-crossover-jump, crossover-crossover-jump - finished third behind Adam and Max Aaron, who absolutely should have rightly won that Nationals. The issue, as it so often is at Nationals, was the calling. Adam was given tech panel presents that produced the incorrect result.
Yes, and Ilia was named to the World team. There you go.
Some years ago you were quite correct - the only US man with a consistent quad was dumped, jeered, disliked purely for it. Why, he committed the cardinal sin of getting 80 PCS for his free skate at Skate America once, and Golden Skate acted like the end of the world had come. Would you believe it, forty, yes, forty pages bemoaning this absolute travesty, this absolute end of all things, that a skater who so favoured his quads should get eighty PCS!
This is ridiculous. Nathan was backed immediately. He was named to the Worlds team immediately. He was pretty much anointed the Chosen One immediately. The only reason he didn't go to Worlds in 2016 was because he injured himself in the Gala and rendered all discussion moot. By the time he had recovered he had already been appointed the new Champion and USFS weren't about to let anyone get in their way.
I feel you are spot on. But, Malinin got JWC and WC, and I think it’s a sweet deal.
No it’s not they are using him for JWC it is very unfair.
