Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    2,667
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    Just curious, bek: why is it important to have every section of the country represented?
    A good question actually. Should every country be represented at the Olympics, or should the Japanese send 7 ladies because they have that many good ones? I guess there is really no totally fair way to do it.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    29,583
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    42893
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    why is it important to have every section of the country represented?
    I believe any plan to change the current qualification system for Nationals must be approved by a vote at Governing Council (by delegates from all the figure skating clubs in every region/section/state of the country). Some of us, I am sure, remember what happened when the "12/4" plan was proposed years ago and the reasons why it didn't pass at Governing Council...

    I'm also wondering if being from a strong section makes a young skater become better than they otherwise would have been. They develop knowing that they have to be really sharp just to get to Nationals, and they have tougher competition from a younger age. This has to have a positive impact on them.

    Conversely, how many skaters from weaker sections aren't pushed to become the best they could be because they can "get away" with efforts that wouldn't get them to sectionals in other regions?

    By no means do I think someone is loafing it on purpose. But w/o being pushed, who can say what they might have achieved?
    But not every talented skater can afford to relocate to a strong section -- or, more specifically, a major training center. And is it fair to penalize the "weaker" regions that currently don't have major training centers and/or a larger group of elite or name coaches?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Another point that occurred to me is that by using scores from many competitions, a lot of skaters won't know for sure whether they qualified for Nationals until long after their qualifying event is over.
    If the qualifying score is set before the season starts, and the competitions where you can earn the qualifying score is also set, than the skaters should know as soon as they get their scores, if they made it to nationals or not. They may reserve the right (if not enough people have reached the standard to lower the qualifying score before Nationals.


    But not every talented skater can afford to relocate to a strong section -- or, more specifically, a major training center. And is it fair to penalize the "weaker" regions that currently don't have major training centers and/or a larger group of elite or name coaches?
    But its also not fair to penalize stronger skaters because they come from stronger regions. And I think its specifically problematic when we are talking about young skaters and giving them JGP's etc. If they are going to keep the system, they need to make some changes on how JGP selections are made out so a skater like Agnes doesn't miss out no JGP spots. Or another skater doesn't miss out do to injury etc. That's why I think that a system that allows sectional winners and maybe even more than that but also introduces a qualifying scores for others would be a good compromise. Weaker sections could ensure their own representation, while the USFSA could ensure the best skaters are at nationals. Win/Win.
    The ISU is not using scores at previous events to determine who qualifies for the championships. The minimum score requirements are just thresholds to determine whether a skater may even be considered. But a federation that has multiple skaters who meet that threshold can use whatever method they choose (often results of national championships) to determine which of them to send to the ISU events.
    The thing is though that the ISU championships are at the end of the line. The ISU itself isn't trying to figure out what skaters it wants to represent them at a bigger meet. It seems to me part of the point of Nationals is to figure out who will represent us internationally. So a system that excludes some of our best skaters is counterproductive towards that aim.
    Last edited by bek; 09-07-2010 at 04:30 PM.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,549
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    I'm not sure those things are absolutely necessary for a young skater to be competitive, although they surely help.

    It may take a few years initially, but I think a qualifying score system will push skaters from weaker sections to improve more than the currest system does.

    But if allowing each sectional's winner, or highest ranking non-qualifier, provided they are 4th or higher, to qualify is necessary to get the change made, so be it

    Addressing the issue gkelly raised, about not knowing what score is needed until very late in the process, perhaps this could be a two tiered thing, where a skater needs to hit a qualifying score by a specified date (a week after the last regional). Or instead of a qualifying score, they need to be in the top 50 scores, or be within 25% of an average of the top 5 scores, etc., there are a million ways to do this.

    Then from there, the top X scores as of 12/1 will be taken. It doesn't eliminate that issue, but it does lower the odds someone fluyky will come from out of nowhere at the 11th hour. It also it spares parents of skaters who really don't have a chance from spending gobs of money to travel to "just-before-the-deadline" competitions. It also rewards consistency, to some degree.

    Unfortunately, there will still be people that come oh so agonizingly close, only to miss a trip to nationals. However, I think it is more fair for those people to lose out on a score comparison nationwide, then to lose out because they are from a strong section, and clearly performing better than qualifiers from a weak section.

    Maybe a formula that is base value + (-GOE) + 1/2(+GOE +PCS)? Wonder what that would yield...
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,461
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by bek View Post
    If the qualifying score is set before the season starts, and the competitions where you can earn the qualifying score is also set, than the skaters should know as soon as they get their scores, if they made it to nationals or not. They may reserve the right (if not enough people have reached the standard to lower the qualifying score before Nationals.
    Oh, you're going to start out setting the score pretty high and everyone who meets that score will qualify?

    What if they think they're setting a high bar but either there was a mistake in setting it that didn't take into account last-minute scoring changes, there were mistakes or manipulation or just a general trend toward generosity from some of the panels (whether domestic or international), the skaters really rise to the challenge, or whatever, and 30 or 40 skaters meet that minimum?

    The thing is though that the ISU championships are at the end of the line. The ISU itself isn't trying to figure out what skaters it wants to represent them at a bigger meet. It seems to me part of the point of Nationals is to figure out who will represent us internationally. So a system that excludes some of our best skaters is counterproductive towards that aim.
    Right. And some of the best skaters might not deliver the best technical content at their qualifying events. If they can beat weaker skaters with harder jumps even if they water down their tech content at sectionals, shouldn't they have the opportunity to go on to Nationals and show what they can do with fuller content, if they're able?

    Remember, when they get to Nationals and when they get sent on to international events, they're going to be judged on PCS as well as TES. So the decisions of who to send on should be based on total scores, not just TES.

    If that's too inconsistent, then don't use total scores at all -- use placements, as is currently the case.
    Last edited by gkelly; 09-07-2010 at 05:19 PM.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990
    Right. And some of the best skaters might not deliver the best technical content at their qualifying events. If they can beat weaker skaters with harder jumps even if they water down their tech content at sectionals, shouldn't they have the opportunity to go on to Nationals and show what they can do with fuller content, if they're able?
    Well those stronger skaters will have more than just one competition to meet that score. If they haven't met the score anywhere, than one could ask if they really are that strong.

    Maybe using PCS is fine/makes sense. I'm not sold on either using TES or PCS.
    Right. And some of the best skaters might not deliver the best technical content at their qualifying events. If they can beat weaker skaters with harder jumps even if they water down their tech content at sectionals, shouldn't they have the opportunity to go on to Nationals and show what they can do with fuller content, if they're able?
    If the score is set high enough than 30/40 skaters won't meet it. If they are going to allow placements at sectionals than there's no reason to have a low score it can be something even as high as lets say 150 total for a Senior woman.
    Last edited by bek; 09-07-2010 at 05:08 PM.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,461
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    But if allowing each sectional's winner, or highest ranking non-qualifier, provided they are 4th or higher, to qualify is necessary to get the change made, so be it
    How does that work?

    Addressing the issue gkelly raised, about not knowing what score is needed until very late in the process, perhaps this could be a two tiered thing, where a skater needs to hit a qualifying score by a specified date (a week after the last regional).
    Regional, or sectional?

    Or instead of a qualifying score, they need to be in the top 50 scores, or be within 25% of an average of the top 5 scores, etc., there are a million ways to do this.
    So they know in October or November that they're within the top 50 scores or they've hit the preset minimum, but they don't know until December whether they made the cut for top 24 or whatever the maximum number at Nationals has decided to be?

    Then from there, the top X scores as of 12/1 will be taken. It doesn't eliminate that issue, but it does lower the odds someone fluyky will come from out of nowhere at the 11th hour.
    The problem isn't that someone fluky would come from nowhere in December. It's that a skater who had been assigned to the last GP event or senior B event and hadn't met the minimum score yet, or who qualified for the JGP with relatively low scores in relatively weak fields, might earn a high score in December and qualify for Nationals, knocking out someone who had been among the top 24 or whatever the cutoff is since sectionals ended.

    A skater who has a GP assignment or who qualified for the JGP would not be considered a fluke to qualify for Nationals. But until they actually earn the qualifying score, they haven't claimed one of the Nationals slots yet, and a skater who is currently 23rd in the standings may or may not end up getting bumped.

    Or is the idea that everyone who hits a certain minimum goes to Nationals and there will be qualifying rounds there for the larger (i.e., ladies') fields?

    Is the plan to eliminate sectionals? What about pairs and dance, which now only start at sectionals? What about senior men, who often don't have enough skaters in one region to compete against and start at sectionals?

    Different posters in this threads have different plans, so I'm not sure we're always talking about the same thing.

    It also it spares parents of skaters who really don't have a chance from spending gobs of money to travel to "just-before-the-deadline" competitions. It also rewards consistency, to some degree.
    But the skaters who don't really have a chance do like to go to regionals -- that's their big event of the season. And if they happen to qualify for sectionals, that's their big accomplishment. If they beat some former national competitors in the process, more sense of accomplishment.

    If they live in Montana or someplace like that, they're going to have to travel anyway to get to a designated competition, whether it's club comp, regionals, or sectionals. Maybe they can really only afford one out-of-state trip per year, two (i.e., qualifying for sectionals in the current system, or for nationals if they're in an event that doesn't have regional competition) would be a stretch. For a skater whose current just-within-reach big goal is getting to sectionals to compete on the same ice with nationals contenders and who will be "pushed" by doing so, in the qualifying score proposal would they be best off planning their one big trip to be out of region to a big summer competition or to regionals, or sectionals if they have the option of choosing that as their one event?


    Unfortunately, there will still be people that come oh so agonizingly close, only to miss a trip to nationals. However, I think it is more fair for those people to lose out on a score comparison nationwide, then to lose out because they are from a strong section, and clearly performing better than qualifiers from a weak section.
    I agree with that, to a certain degree, but not if the score comparison is TES only.

    Maybe a formula that is base value + (-GOE) + 1/2(+GOE +PCS)? Wonder what that would yield...
    Complicated calculations, but that would be more fair.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    17,017
    vCash
    1561
    Rep Power
    4990

    Or is the idea that everyone who hits a certain minimum goes to Nationals and there will be qualifying rounds there for the larger (i.e., ladies') fields?
    That's what I'm thinking.

    For a skater whose current just-within-reach big goal is getting to sectionals to compete on the same ice with nationals contenders and who will be "pushed" by doing so, in the qualifying score proposal would they be best off planning their one big trip to be out of region to a big summer competition or to regionals, or sectionals if they have the option of choosing that as their one event?
    It would depend on their goals, and how they feel they'd do at their sectionals. If your sectional is pretty weak and you think you have a shot at qualifying directly there, you'd obviously go there. Perhaps though the rule could be that scores in sectionals count unless the skater is skating internationally (at assigned events) and or the skater has had a documented injury and then a qualifying score at a club competition could be used. That might keep things more organized. Maybe IF the skater showed up to sectionals and had a score that was high enough for club competitions, that could be used to. But they'd have to show up for sectionals unless injured (etc)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,461
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    OK, here's an idea.

    Pick a qualifying score now for junior ladies, senior ladies, junior men, and senior men based on what we expect to be a good cutoff under this year's rules. (Ideally it would have been chosen in June, as soon as the new rules were known and before the first summer competition that counts.)

    Skaters who have already competed at summer competitions or the first JGP already have scores.

    Over the fall, let's keep track of scores from the last few club competitions and international events, regionals, and sectionals.

    Can JGP skaters who have passed their US senior tests use scores from junior events to qualify for seniors? Since the difference in content is only one ChSp or ChSt, plus an extra 30 seconds for in-betweens, it won't make too much difference.

    In December let's see how many skaters meet those minimums and how closely the nationals fields that would be chosen by this method match those that are actually chosen by the current system of sectionals placements + byes.

    Then, or after we see how the skaters actually do at Nationals, we can evaluate whether it looks like a qualifying score system would work just as well or better at choosing the nationals qualifiers.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,549
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    To clarify my earlier post....

    I'm thinking that the qualifying score should be hit by the week after regionals, yes regionals, and it will serve a similar function to regionals.

    The top X scores, I'm thinking top 18 scores, of skaters from amongst those who've hit the qualifying score by the specified time, will then be selected for nationals. They could go by rankings as of 12/1 or 12/15, something like that, definitely after sectionals.

    As a "bone" for the weaker sectionals, consider this:

    Skaters A, B, C & D finish 1-4 at a sectional. Skaters A & B qualify for nationals by virtue of their top 18 score. Skaters C&D do not. Skater C will still qualify to nationals by virtue of being the highest ranked skater from sectionals, (from amongst those ranked 4th or higher), who doesn't qualify through her score.

    I think it's better than allowing the winner from the sectional, as most sectional winners will always be in the top 18.

    I'm in favor of capping the senior national fields at 24. At the other levels, a case could be made for a bigger field. But in any event, to get at 24:

    1) you take the top 18 scores from that season, scores earned in either international competitions or designated domestic events between July 1 and December 15,

    2) a max of 3 "wild cards" from amongst the non-qualifying top four finishers at each of the 3 sectionals,

    3) the remaining number of spaces (minimum: 3) from either injury byes or returning champions, or skaters with scores ranked 19-24, chosen in order of their rank.

    As for the skaters with late season GPs, competing only once is a risk they take. If they are truly on the buble, then that's just the breaks. If they legitimately couldn't compete prior to that, and something happens at the GP that prevents them from skating to their abilities, they can petition for a bye.

    Perhaps there should be one last ditch competition after the last GP and JGP events, and after sectionals. It would be open to skaters who'd met the qualifying score, or were recognized through a bye as having a legitimate reason to not meet the qualifying score by the end of regionals cutoff date. It would also be open to skaters who were safely going to be w/in the top 18, but wanted feedback on levels, more experience, etc. I would totally pay to watch this online

    For purposes of ranking scores, it would be 100% of Base Value, 100% of -GOE, and 50% of +GOE and 50% of PCS.

    ETA: and yes, I'm all for doing this and comparing it to actual qualifiers.
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  11. #31

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,461
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by Coco View Post
    To clarify my earlier post....
    This seems to be fairly well thought out. Some significant differences from what jlai and bek are suggesting. Do we want to agree on a (hypothetical) plan and refine it together for comparison purposes?

    Correct me if some of the assumptions below are not what you had in mind.

    Several club competitions in July through September will be designated as official qualifier competitions. Skaters can enter as many of these as they choose in whatever location(s) they like and use their high scores there as qualifying scores.

    Regionals will still be held in October. Juvenile and intermediate singles skaters will still qualify through their regions directly to Junior Nationals, with qual rounds. Whether they use scores or placements or a combination to determine who goes can be decided later, because this thread is focused on juniors and seniors.

    Novice singles skaters (a couple hundred ladies nationwide) still qualify from regionals to sectionals and sectionals to Nationals?

    Junior and senior events will be offered at regionals and sectionals. However, skaters at these levels can choose to enter any regional or any sectional, not necessarily in their home region or section and without having to qualify from region to section? Or they can choose to enter none of them if they're happy with their summer scores and/or have international conflicts?

    Or are they required to enter one if they don't have a conflict? Are sectional junior/senior events open to anyone at those levels who prefers competing in November than October, or open only to those who place well at regionals?

    Possibly senior men's event is offered at sectionals but not regionals. Or, since it's all about scores and not placements, an event can be held if there's only one skater, for him to earn official scores.

    Pairs and dance teams at all levels use sectionals or the few designated pair and dance summer events, or internationals if applicable.

    At the time of regionals are over in October, some of the skaters will be finished competing and some (a few top skaters with later GP/B internationals) won't have competed at all yet. A significant number will already have a score but will also still be planning to compete at least once more at sectionals or a later international.

    I'm thinking that the qualifying score should be hit by the week after regionals, yes regionals, and it will serve a similar function to regionals.
    What does this mean? The "qualifying" score is the minimum score needed to be eligible for nationals that year, but doesn't in itself qualify you for nationals?

    Does anyone who has met that minimum (whether at summer competition, regionals, or early international) get to go to sectionals unless they have a conflict? Does where they earned the score affect which sectional they go to?

    Do they have to go to sectionals (or later international) or can they choose to use the score they've already achieved to count toward their national qualification?

    The top X scores, I'm thinking top 18 scores, of skaters from amongst those who've hit the qualifying score by the specified time, will then be selected for nationals. They could go by rankings as of 12/1 or 12/15, something like that, definitely after sectionals.
    This is not the top 18 as of the end of regionals, though. So after regionals, skaters only know that they are qualified to compete at sectionals

    At the end of sectionals, they know how well they did at sectionals and what their high score is. If they're high up in the top 18 they may be guaranteed a spot to Nationals. If there are still other skaters scheduled to compete internationally who haven't qualified yet, the skaters ranked about 16-18 as of the end of sectionals are still "on the bubble" and waiting for everyone else to finish competing to learn whether they qualified.

    I'm in favor of capping the senior national fields at 24. At the other levels, a case could be made for a bigger field.
    Actually, historically the junior and novice levels are always smaller. Novice fields have pretty much always been 12 because there are almost no byes.

    Juveniles and intermediates have qual rounds at Junior Nationals, but they don't go to sectionals. And their programs are shorter , and juveniles (and intermediate pairs) don't do SPs.

    Nationals is already a week-long competition. If you added qual rounds for all disciplines that need them at all levels, you'd need at a week and a half.

    But in any event, to get at 24:

    1) you take the top 18 scores from that season, scores earned in either international competitions or designated domestic events between July 1 and December 15,
    Which means you can't finalize the field until after Dec. 15. It's not just a matter of adding a few more, but of skaters at the bottom of the top 18 after sectionals waiting to find out if they'll be knocked down to 19 or lower, and potentially whether the person who knocked them down was from their section or elsewhere.

    2) a max of 3 "wild cards" from amongst the non-qualifying top four finishers at each of the 3 sectionals,
    3) the remaining number of spaces (minimum: 3) from either injury byes or returning champions, or skaters with scores ranked 19-24, chosen in order of their rank. [/quote]

    Do you mean maximum 3?

    As for the skaters with late season GPs, competing only once is a risk they take. If they are truly on the buble, then that's just the breaks. If they legitimately couldn't compete prior to that, and something happens at the GP that prevents them from skating to their abilities, they can petition for a bye.
    How are injury byes awarded? They were eliminated a number of years ago -- why bring them back?

    By "returning champions" above, do you mean people who actually won Nationals or Worlds/Olympics recently enough to qualify directly to Nationals without competing according to the current rules (e.g., Sasha Cohen 2010)?
    Are there also still byes for skaters who finished in the top 3? 4? 5? at Nationals last year, who have probably gotten Grand Prix assignments but can afford to skip them, and also skip domestic events, if they're injured, because they already have a top-X bye, which is not the same as an injury bye?

    E.g., if Mirai Nagasu is still injured and unable to compete at her GP assignments (or regionals/sectionals) this fall, she gets a bye to Nationals because she's a former national champion and/or because she was 2nd last year? But, e.g., Caroline Zhang or Alexe Gilles or Kristine Musademba would not have that option -- if they can't do their GPs or sectionals, they're out of luck.

    Perhaps there should be one last ditch competition after the last GP and JGP events, and after sectionals. It would be open to skaters who'd met the qualifying score, or were recognized through a bye as having a legitimate reason to not meet the qualifying score by the end of regionals cutoff date. It would also be open to skaters who were safely going to be w/in the top 18, but wanted feedback on levels, more experience, etc. I would totally pay to watch this online
    This would have to be scheduled in late December (or early January in years when Nationals is a few weeks later). I don't think it would happen.

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Age
    42
    Posts
    8,595
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2418
    If there is a minimum score needed to make Nationals, or there is a required score to get to Nationals, you can bet that every skater will migrate towards the Midwestern Sectional. The scores are ALWAYS inflated there, and they would have the best shot of making it from there.

    A more interesting way would be to have the top 6 from each Section go to Nationals qualifying. The top 12 get in...

  13. #33

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    26
    Posts
    2,027
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Sylvia View Post
    But not every talented skater can afford to relocate to a strong section -- or, more specifically, a major training center. And is it fair to penalize the "weaker" regions that currently don't have major training centers and/or a larger group of elite or name coaches?
    This is true, but its not like using scores would take spots away from anyone long term, it would change every year, depending on where the top scores are coming from. I think everyone is alluding to the fact that Easterns is very weak in junior ladies this year, while both mids and pacs are absolutely stacked. But it certainly isn't always like this, and it's not like that this year because the East lacks training centers or good coaches or anything. It's just how it's shaping up this year. When "region hopping" was banned and replaced with the percentage qualifying system, it was only discussed for the developmental levels (juvenile and intermediate). It was perceived that region hopping hurt the development of skating in smaller or weaker sections, but if that talent hasn't developed by the novice level, the skaters from the weaker region don't make it out of their sectional. I sort of see using qualifying scores as a nationwide scale of this.

    If there is a minimum score needed to make Nationals, or there is a required score to get to Nationals, you can bet that every skater will migrate towards the Midwestern Sectional. The scores are ALWAYS inflated there, and they would have the best shot of making it from there.
    I don't necessarily think this is true. Maybe recently, scores have been higher at Midwesterns, but I think that's because the quality of skating has been pretty impressive.

  14. #34
    Title-less
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    8,769
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6417
    Re: Question of qualifying by region or qualifying by top/best scores

    It's a tough one. The reality is that in Olympics and worlds, the countries without a strong skating tradition get to enter 1 person --even a skater without a full set of triples--while the strong countries get to enter 3 at most. Geog representation is a big part of any Olympic sport, and I think regionals/sectionals only mirrors that geographic representation system within the US. Unless we do away with geog representation all together (kind of like tennis grand slams) that will remain part of the skating system, whether within US or beyond.

    Is geog representation a fair system? Kind of hard to say. Depending on your values I guess.

    ETA: IMHO qualifying systems will always mean uneven fields to an extent, e.g. the qualifying rounds at worlds weren't even back when they existed, and that was based on ranking and such. ANd the fields at GP are also rather uneven too, which makes qualifying for gpf sometimes a combo of luck and skill.
    Last edited by jlai; 09-07-2010 at 10:16 PM.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Age
    42
    Posts
    8,595
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2418
    Quote Originally Posted by mgobluegirl View Post


    I don't necessarily think this is true. Maybe recently, scores have been higher at Midwesterns, but I think that's because the quality of skating has been pretty impressive.
    It is very true. Skaters from the Midwestern Section almost always score higher in their sectional than they do at Nationals. And their scores are seemingly always higher than the other sections. It's been happening since 6.0... remember when AP McDonough got a 6.0 at Sectionals?

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,461
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Ignoring the bye issue, I always thought it would be interesting to have juniors and senior use the fall qualifying competitions as a circuit like the GP rather than a funnel-like tournament structure. Enter two events and best combined results advance to Nationals.
    Quote Originally Posted by gotice View Post
    Interesting thought process for sure but somehow there has to be an overall "level" playing field which regionals and sectionals is providing on the broader scale of things. Region hopping is feasible with Junior and Senior skaters, so would there be events like the three big summer events on top of regionals/sectionals during the fall? Problem would be getting the clubs to host/pay for these, right?
    Just tossing around an idea, which would certainly need more refinement.

    As of next year, juveniles and intermediates will be going to sectionals, so those events will continue to be held in November in any case.

    For the lower levels, there does need to be some kind of funnel system because there are just so many girls at those levels in many of the regions, and letting them all do two events would just compound that problem.

    Suppose that each regionals operates as it always has for novice and below.

    For junior and senior singles only:

    Every regionals in October offers junior and senior men's and ladies' events open to any eligible competitors with the appropriate test credentials. Each sectional event in November also offers open junior and senior events -- at these levels, the only difference between the regional and sectional events are the months when they're held. It would be expected that skaters would enter the event in their home regions, but it might not be required.

    Each skater could register for two of these events at the beginning of the qualifying season. I'm not sure it should be possible to add another event after the deadline if one does unexpectedly well at the first.

    Skaters who are aiming to qualify for Nationals should enter two events. Then use a point system to determine the top 12 qualifiers, who move on to Nationals.

    I'm not sure it would make sense to include summer competitions because the dates don't work out with the qualifying deadline. But probably that could be worked out if needed.

    For skaters whose international assignments allow them to enter only one of the US qualifying events, there should be a way to use the international placement as the second event for qualifying points.

    Would it need to be weighted somehow so that, e.g., 5th at a GP event counts for more than 5th at a senior B, and both count for more than 5th in seniors at a regional event?

    Skaters whose international assignments preclude them from entering any of the qualifying events get a bye directly to Nationals, assuming they actually attend both events.

    Specific policies for timing of international fall events relative to US qualifiers and for withdrawals from one event with good results at another would need to be worked out.

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    99
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by haribobo View Post
    I'd be all for it. Maybe dump Regionals and just have Sectionals, with Qualifying Rounds. I think a combination process would be good- allow the top 10 summer/fall comp scores a bye to Nationals, and then take the top 3 from each Sectional, ensuring multiple chances. If they wanted smaller junior and novice fields, they could take the top 6 summer scores and then top 2 from each Sectional. In that case, the following skaters would currently be in line for a bye to Nationals in Junior Ladies- Gracie Gold, McKinzie Daniels, Angela Wang, Courtney Hicks, Lauren Dinh, and Mary Beth Marley. That would significantly reduce the current imbalance between Sections. More spots for Pacs and Mids ladies, and less for Easterns. Not to be hating, but come on now, do we want the best at Nationals, or not? CoP makes it so easy to do this, so why not? I don't even think score tweaking would be necessary- so far I think the judging has been pretty normal and balanced. Maybe they could assign certain summer/fall comps as qualifying events (Liberty, Detroit, Golden West, Indy, Lake Placid, Mid Atlantics, Glacier Falls, DuPage, etc) so you don't get some wacky backyard comp judged by the skater's parents as a counting score.
    Thanks Sylvia for bringing this back - wasn't aware, great stuff!! Some issues still ensue with these ladies listed from last year - yes, Daniels went onto 4th in Jr. at nats four months later, yet only a year later from this post she's not anywhere near getting a bye to nationals as a senior. And then those who are moving up levels.

    Then you have the juniors who did actually change sections this season to Easterns for example in juniors this year who are trying to get to nationals Shpilband and McBeath. So did we penalize (Gold/Keiser/Wang/etc) the girls last year for not changing regions/sections? They did have that opportunity. Yet, going back farther (and I'm only using skaters names as examples not trying to call anyone down - these kids are all so talented) Ashley Wagner never competed out of SA which is far more competitive region than NWP, yet she trained on the East Coast. Yes, she has two GP assignments this season, but since she didn't get top 5, wouldn't she have had to qualified at regionals if she wasn't getting a bye thru south atlantics to skate canada.

    So, the current system is utilized by some skaters to benefit their situation to get where they desire. Some don't. Lots get lost in the shuffle who should have had a better shot. I'm all for leveling the mark and getting the right people where they belong.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Albany, NY
    Age
    33
    Posts
    6,549
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    975
    If my system as proposed was used last season, the junior ladies at Nationals would be: Hicks, Marley, Wang, Dinh, Daniels, Gold (for top 6 summer scores), then Kulgeyko and Edmunds (top 2 Pacs), Jiang and Cain (top 2 Mids), and Timlen and Dunne (top 2 East). So in the end Wang and Gold would have replaced Eng and Rajic. Keiser still wouldn't have made it but at least she had more chances. So yes, I still approve of my own suggestion.

    This season we would see G. Gold, H. Miller, B. Long, L. Verhulst, K. Shpilband, and P. Edmunds as auto qualifiers for the top 6 summer scores (thanks to the Unseen scoretracker!)

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Age
    42
    Posts
    8,595
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    2418
    Most of you are advocating for a hippy qualification system that includes everyone. Not everyone should qualify for Nationals-- only the best. How many other sports have qualification to Nationals based on where you live? Not many. The fairest way is to have Regionals all over the country like they do now and have a minimum qualifying standard to Nationals Qualification. At Nationals Qualification, send the top X number of skaters to Nationals. Summer competitions aren't qualifying competitions-- if you want to see skaters burn out, then make the summer just as important as qualies.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    672
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    i know it is hypotheical,
    b ut i wonder what brought in on.
    a skater you like that has to qualify and don't want to.
    or a skater/team you don't like that don't have to qualify and should.
    or a skater you don't like that want to qualify and not make it to nationals.

    just wondering that is all.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •