Skate America handicapping:
Men: Nathan already was a pretty heavy favourite to win here, but looking at this roster, only Vincent would come anywhere close to Nathan provided they skate decently.
Ladies: Satoko vs. would-be up-and-comers (mainly from Russia, but also including Kaori)
Pairs: Tarasova and Morozov will stomp everybody.
Dance: Hubbell and Donohue could probably win this even if they make one of their signature costly errors.
Also, Hubbell and Donohue are doing back-to-back events, interestingly.
They seemed pretty happy about it. I guess it makes sense. Same continent, so the travel won't be too bad. As National champs, they'd want SA of course, and SC is in Montreal where they train.
Polina used it last year only got one invite.
If Gracie shows well in early season I’m sure she’ll get SA TBD
Wasn't Polina a 'return' skater, not a comeback skater? I think the rules are a bit different. Polina was never top 6 at worlds.
Some thoughts:
Super annoyed that Kailani didn't get one. Algotsson, Austman, and Paganini all are lower on the SB list than Kailani (in Austman's case, she's SB 125 vs Kailani's 59, but oh wait, big country, righto...).
Am somewhat disappointed for Brendan, as I was hoping he could pick up two this time around. Especially since Rizzo (SB36) and Erokhov (SB37) both got two and are below him on the SB list (SB33 for Brendan). Though at least Erokhov is JWC.
Rizzo had an advantage because he was guaranteed 1 with his WS. It's easier to get 2 when you already have 1 guaranteed. Kerry and Erokhov weren't guaranteed any, but Erokhov got one as a host pick, and as you said, is the JW champ.
As for Austman, she's a host pick. I know you don't love that system, but her SB is irrelevant. As for Algotsson and Paganini, yes it seems they skipped over Kailani to give them each a spot. Though there were others higher than Craine who didn't get an event either, like Hanul Kim.
All right.
So you are saying that anyone who has ever been seeded in the past 10 years can qualify as a comeback skater. No matter how far their placements have dropped in the following years. As long as they take a season off first.
That is never how I have read that rule, and it's not a matter of making up the criteria but of interpreting the sentence about "not having subsequently competed" differently. But I guess I can see that the sentence can be interpreted in more than one way.
Tessa and Scott used the comeback rule in 2016, didn't they? The last Worlds they had competed in was 2013. After that they competing in several events, including the Olympics, but not Worlds, then took two seasons off. That didn't prevent them from using it. Now obviously they're different than Gracie in that their results didn't drop off, but since I don't see any mention of the Olympics in that paragraph quoted, wouldn't your interpretation of the rule mean they wouldn't have been eligible, technically? I wasn't aware of the rule very much until they came back, so I've always interpreted it as not requiring you to have not competed at all since your last Worlds. But I see why you would read it that way.