Mark Mitchell: "Why would they come back to the rink?"

[overedge]

I would hope that Mitchell would tell all of his skaters to come to the rink, to work hard, to learn, and to enjoy what they do because it's a great sport and they are lucky to have the opportunity to participate.

At one of my first competitions (a very low level adult competition) I ended up with what everyone - including myself and my coach - thought was a completely wrong placing. My coach said to me "Welcome to figure skating". I think pretty much every skater learns that if you base your satisfaction with skating on how you are externally evaluated, sooner or later you are going to be really unhappy. You need to be in the sport because you enjoy doing it.

Although I agree that having a vague "under other circumstances" type clause in the selection criteria is probably necessary, I too would like to see USFS make the selection criteria more explicit, ideally with weightings or other numerical values attached. But that being said, I think Mitchell is being a little inconsiderate of his students who aren't Miner by talking about quitting coaching. That could significantly affect their skating as well and he has a responsibility to them too.

 

[HeManSkaterDad]

I don't think the actual committee discussion was as touchy-feely as you seem to describe. We know for certain that the selection committee looked at how the men were actually scoring in international competition--that much was clearly stated by USFS at the announcement. Not just final placements per competition. To a selection committee trying to formulate a team where the very best from other countries will all be present, it can carry more weight to be able to consistently score above 260 in intl competition after competition--even if not medalling--vs a skater who tends to be scored in the 220-230 range by intl judges. Ross simply has not been able to break into the 250-260+ range and that was unlikely to change in the next five weeks.

I wasn't in the room, so I do not know for certain that they looked at anything in particular, how they weighed it or what other factors they considered. I hope they followed the criteria as best they could (I did note that I thought they were in a tough position) because of the vague criteria), but there is nothing to support the assumption they followed any criteria because there is nothing to measure it against. Even under scores the IJS, which has actual rules and some criteria, there still seems to be more than a few scores that just cannot be justified under the rules.

I am not saying this committee was wrong (nor am I saying they were right), nor am I suggesting that any of the members voted improperly. What I am saying is don't try to tell me there are real ,quantifiable criteria that could have been used by a skater to access his or her chances and that were then applied by the committee. Because there is no way for a skater to know how it will be decided, it is inherently unfair. Further, because there is no criteria to check the result against, is impossible to refute the allegation of impropriety.

 

[HeManSkaterDad]

USFS should just maker it simple and honest, and use this criteria "After Nationals, we are going to select the skaters we think will do best at the internationals based on everything we know about them."

Isn’t that pretty much what they said?

No, it is the exact opposite. My statement does not suggest there any rules, calculations or other objective measures and makes it clear (trying to use a single sentence) that it will be a subjective decision. Stating the decisions were based on these 'criteria' which references scores, trends and other factors suggests scores are compared, adjustments made, weights and factors applied to result in an (semi)objective result. Did they 'do the math'? If so, show your work committee.

I would say my mea cuplas and apologize for ever doubting the USFS system if we could do one simple thing. Have all 12 members of the committee, without consulting with each other, write down the weight (in percentage) that was to be given to Nationals. Was it 75%, 50%, 10%, something else? If they all agree (honestly), then I will admit I was totally wrong. My bet is there would be at least 5 different answers, even if we ask them to round to the nearest multiple of 10 (most likely answers being from 10% to 50%), which would mean someone was giving Nationals five times as much weight as another. That kind of a range means there is no real criteria, just propaganda to cover the fact it is really just the committee's best guess as to who will do the best. I suspect that is what has really happened, 12 experts made their best informed decision. Don't hide from it behind alleged criteria and references to data and trends and calculations, just come out and say there is no way to objectively measure this, so we gathered the experts and told them give us the team most likely to do well.

 

[Inessence]

Triple Whammy! Poor Mark. I hope this doesn't permanently diminish his love of the sport. Rise above, Mark.

 

[VGThuy]

Do you seriously think Ross wasn't doing his best at every competition? I do follow the GP and Nathan did much more there than here. This was a very watered down program for him Partly because he was sick.

That reminds me of a TSL interview with the Shibs after the SD at 2016 Skate America where Dave said he noticed they came out of this season debut stronger than before and if it was intentional, and Alex jokingly said "yeah, unlike all those other times..."

 

[Tavi]

No, it is the exact opposite. My statement does not suggest there any rules, calculations or other objective measures and makes it clear (trying to use a single sentence) that it will be a subjective decision. Stating the decisions were based on these 'criteria' which references scores, trends and other factors suggests scores are compared, adjustments made, weights and factors applied to result in an (semi)objective result. Did they 'do the math'? If so, show your work committee.

I would say my mea cuplas and apologize for ever doubting the USFS system if we could do one simple thing. Have all 12 members of the committee, without consulting with each other, write down the weight (in percentage) that was to be given to Nationals. Was it 75%, 50%, 10%, something else? If they all agree (honestly), then I will admit I was totally wrong. My bet is there would be at least 5 different answers, even if we ask them to round to the nearest multiple of 10 (most likely answers being from 10% to 50%), which would mean someone was giving Nationals five times as much weight as another. That kind of a range means there is no real criteria, just propaganda to cover the fact it is really just the committee's best guess as to who will do the best. I suspect that is what has really happened, 12 experts made their best informed decision. Don't hide from it behind alleged criteria and references to data and trends and calculations, just come out and say there is no way to objectively measure this, so we gathered the experts and told them give us the team most likely to do well.

Yes I would agree, they made their best informed decision. I think most people do.

That said, when someone applies for a job or entry into a competitive school, the applicant is not just told, “we’re looking for the person who can perform best”; rather, they’re given some general criteria and concrete guidelines, such as particular work experience, degrees, specialized test scores, and skills that will make their applications competitive.

At the same time, I can’t imagine that any employer or school would willingly reveal to applicants detailed information on the relative weight of each factor they consider or show them exact calculations explaining why they were or weren’t selected. Nor can I imagine USFS doing so. It’s too limiting, and they would open themselves up to lawsuits and endless complaints that factor x (for example, the current Nationals score) should be weighed more heavily than it is, or that factor z should have been considered in their case. Intangibles such as drive and determination also come into play when you’re building a team. How do you even weigh those?

Your proposal seems to me far more unfair than what USFS currently has out there. By providing no guidance whatsoever, it leaves everyone in the dark, and essentially says, we’ll do whatever we want. Many think that’s what happens already, but I actually think USFS has made a good faith attempt to provide guidance. The consternation raised by the selection of the men’s team makes it clear they haven’t fully succeeded, but I think it’s preferable to tweak the process rather than throwing everyone into even worse confusion.

 

[jlai]

I think no matter what they tweak, no matter how clear the criteria, leaving podium finishers at home or any kind of hard choices is gonna cause a 25-50 page angry thread, picking apart criteria. Next time if USFS has wegiths, they'll pick apart the weights.

 

[LilJen]

I can see arguments both for Miner and for Rippon, and I even have a little sympathy for the selection committee, who were given no real guidance by the alleged criteria. I do not put much credence in the 'the criteria where out there' argument. Yes, an initial set of criteria was published in July 2016, amended in September of 2017 and again on December 21, 2017, so the criteria was hardly set in stone.

However, the term 'criteria' is at best generous. It states:

"U.S. Figure Skating’s IC Discipline Groups will take into consideration the performances and results from the events outlined below to determine athletes/teams who will have the most performance impact at the 2018 Olympic Winter Games. The IC Discipline Groups will take into consideration placement and performance (to include performance data derived from the athlete’s detailed result sheets from the competitions listed below along with season’s best scores, season’s trending scores, median and mean data on each athlete/team) from the current 2017-18 season to assess continued growth, consistency and reliability of the athletes/teams being considered (see Attachment D) and the competitive field at the following events listed in a priority order and weighted by tiers"

But then adds:

"In addition, consideration of other athletes/teams will be given due to extenuating circumstances as approved by the IC Discipline Groups."

That is it, there is nothing discussing actual weighting, measurements or values. There is not one objective measurement mentioned. Using the above criteria, the committees (one for each discipline) ranks the skaters and votes on the list. There is no manner in which anyone could practically, strategically train and plan for it. Further, since the athletes have to rely on USFS to assign them to an international, they cannot even control if/how much criteria data is being considered.

USFS should just maker it simple and honest, and use this criteria "After Nationals, we are going to select the skaters we think will do best at the internationals based on everything we know about them."

Oh my God...do you all realize or care that you are talking about other humans? Ross, Mark, Ashley...all real people with real emotions. Some of you are frankly some cruel, sickheaded puppies.

What seems to be at issue here is that it was clear going into Nationals that only five men were under consideration: Nathan, Vincent, Max (and honestly, was he REALLY in the mix or was it mostly NBC making a story?), Adam, and Jason. I agree with Mark's statement that it was a waste of time to have the other 20 some odd men compete if, as we saw exactly with Ross, had no chance of being placed on the Olympic or World team no matter what they did. This was/is the National Championships which is ONE competition after which three people earn medals. If newbies or veterans have no chance to translate those finishes into world team berths, then I agree with Mark that they should be told that ahead of time. And let us forget all this nonsense about "true professional" or "true passion for your sport"...people who say that crap are people who have never been athletes or accomplished anything. True athletes want to win and succeed. If they are clearly not going to be allowed to succeed then there is no actual athletic endeavor to be had.

As for the "Criteria", there really was none. Criteria would have been quantifiable...the list the athletes were given was nothing more than a PR stunt. Criteria would have had points, comparative results, minimum scores...something other than "ah you finished here and HA, we did not give you two grand prix assignments so too bad old man." How could Ross qualify for the GPF with one event? What makes it all the more irritating was how the same dialogue that was used to justify leaving Ross off the team was the same dialogue used to put Karen Chen on the team.

I hope Mark Mitchell does not stop coaching...I hope the top level coaches start protesting and boycotting.

Did you see this chart from Jackie Wong? There WERE points on there. Not weightings, but you could see that, other than 2017 US Nats, Adam beat Ross every single time, points wise and always when they met head to head.

No, Ross could not qualify for the GPF with only one GP event. . . because you have to EARN GP events with previous results. He didn't earn those spots because he hadn't performed well enough.

However, I do agree that the 2nd alternate positions for Ross are rather a low blow.

I have more of a beef with them sending Bradie, frankly. Yes, she's been consistent for the last, oh, 6 months, but that's about it. And she was wayyyyyy overscored on PCS. However, she did win, so whatever.

 

[Rock2]

IMO, complaining publicly is not in Ross' best interest. It won't change any of the assignments. And it may just encourage Ross to become bitter. From personal experience, you don't want to be bitter about the crap life throws at you.

Understood.
I see this as going to bat for your skater. He's not hurting Ross, the decision is made and Ross is likely retiring after this year. He's taking more of a personal risk if anything.

I think many of us would have a hard time keeping quiet if we and our teams were slighted on an ongoing basis over a period of years. To my knowledge has been pretty respectful from 1992 until now. He has earned a little latitude to let loose IMHO.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

I will be on edge to see how Adam, Karen and Vincent, factor in helping Team USA keep three spots in Milan for 2019, too.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

It reminds me of when Alissa Czisny virtually came from nowhere in 2005 to place second at Skate America, then win Skate Canada after being invited at the last minute. She made the Grand Prix Final with those two victories, and bam, the hype machine went into action, saying she had a shot at an Olympic medal.

Sadly, Alissa tanked at the 2006 US National Championships, and wasn't even close to making the team.

Even with all the training and preparation in the world, it is so difficult to predict and anticipate results.

Jumps don't come from nowhere, and there are so many internal and external variables to consider that go into a performance as well.

Bradie has it over the other ladies in that she is getting great international TES and PCS, has a pleasing look on the ice, and seems to know how to compete.

 

[Carolla5501]

The interesting thing is both Bradie and Ross were given Skate America. Bradie won a medal and opened up everyone's eyes. Even she seems to admit that without that Skate America performance she's not sure she would be on the team. Ross came in 6th out of 10 beating one Japanese skater and three Canadian men (and the men from Canada were not an impressive lot) At that same event Adam came in 2nd.

So head to head Adam won one, Ross won one. But then you look at the last 4 skates. SP Skate America, Ross comes in 8th, Adam comes in 2nd. LP Skate America, Ross comes in 5th, Adam comes in 1st (beating Nathan Chen). SP Nationals Ross comes in 6th, Adam comes in 2nd. LP Nationals Ross comes in 2nd, Adam comes in 4th. Overall it's not a overwhelming evidence that Ross is the better skater IMHO

 

[Doggygirl]

I want to just comment on the sentiment that has generally been expressed by some as [paraphrased] "why even compete in nationals if you will not be considered for the Olympic team?" I assume this same sentiment would apply to non-Olympic years regarding World Team selection.

There were many many many competitors at this national competition who did not have any sort of realistic chance to make the Olympic team. So why were they all there? I believe for many if not all, it is an honor and an achievement to qualify to compete at the national level. Just to get there! I'm sure for many, working to improve their scores or placements from previous years was a goal.

If the only people who ever competed at the National Championships were the ones who felt they had a clear shot at the podium, or a clear shot at Oly or World qualification, it would be a pretty small field at Nationals every year.

I'm sure Mark Mitchell has students at nationals of varying levels of experience and talent. I wonder if anyone asked him about those students. If they didn't have a realistic chance to win, why were they there? In fact, why would anyone even take the ice except Nathan in this field if winning was the only reason to be there?

 

[Seerek]

Bradie's key result was actually Lombardia in September (196 total) when she lost bronze to Carolina Kostner by less than 2 pts, this despite the fact Tennell's components (~6.86) were below Amber Glenn in the short program (~7.08). That got the ball rolling all the way to this past weekend.

 

[Marco]

Look at Bradie or 2014 Polina. First time medalist at the Olympic Nationals and were named to the team. It really only took a GP bronze for Bradie or some JGP golds for Polina to establish some BOW to go with the National medal for the O team.

It's just unfortunate that Ross doesn't have those. Or just unfortunate that Team Ross wasn't working towards these things at all.

 

[Willin]

So heart-broken for Mark and Peter. I know some of his younger skaters personally. Their whole training methods are designed to get their skaters to peak at nationals. A whole generation of coaches studied periodization techniques and the body of work bs rewards skaters that peak early or the year before. 1 month before the olympics, you pick who is in shape under pressure. You reward results in a low-pressure environments where some skaters use the GP as a warm-up.

As for not being able to peak all season long---May I present....Miss Alina Zagitova. Proving that it IS humanly possible to do so.

Look. As @jiejie pointed out, peaking isn't a thing anymore except in the US. In a TSL interview (I think with Ashley?), whoever they were interviewing said that no competitors from any other country cared about peaking. They treated every competition as equally important. So that interviewee said they train consistently for every competition so that they wouldn't peak. If you need any evidence of that philosophy in other countries just look at every Russian and Japanese lady. They're not training to peak - they're training to win everything they enter. And they're winning a lot.

This is the new attitude. This is the attitude every skater and coach needs to get. I understand that American coaches and USFSA in general are behind the curve on some stuff, but they need to understand what's necessary to keep up if they want to stay in the game. USFSA has caught up with the idea of no peaking by adding in BOW like Russia uses to select teams, so now those coaches that haven't caught up are going to be left behind.

It should also be noted that this "not peaking" attitude expands well beyond top singles skaters. My college coaches impressed on us that we needed to skate perfectly at every competition to build a good reputation with the judges. If we built a reputation for mistakes, the judges would grade us more harshly even if we didn't make mistakes, and we'd lose out on the possibility of a medal at our biggest competition of the year because of that. And, after big falls at the first two competitions, low and behold we got a result all the coaches/spectators/athletes in attendance questioned come that big competition.

And if he wants to quit coaching because he is pissed at the usfsa, perhaps this is an indication that he should not have taken up coaching.

At one of my first competitions (a very low level adult competition) I ended up with what everyone - including myself and my coach - thought was a completely wrong placing. My coach said to me "Welcome to figure skating". I think pretty much every skater learns that if you base your satisfaction with skating on how you are externally evaluated, sooner or later you are going to be really unhappy. You need to be in the sport because you enjoy doing it..

Yes - exactly! Especially with 6.0 results can be weird. I've seen a coach of mine stomp out of arena after being pissed off about the result I mentioned above (coaches and other teams agreed we should'be been at least 4th or 5th, but we got 9th). I've wanted to grill judges about my scores in other competitions. Sometimes my teams have gotten unusually good results after benefiting form weirdness. There's also always that one judge that ranks everyone in a weird order, often almost exactly the opposite order as the rest of the judges. And yet, despite this weirdness, I stick with it because I expect it and accept it will happen. It's part of skating, 6.0 or IJS.

Because of that weirdness, I learned that failure wasn't always predictable or my fault. You just had to get used to it and do your best every time - because you can't control everything, you can only control yourself. If you're to stick with skating, you have to learn that or you're going to have a very, very bad time.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

It reminds me of when Alissa Czisny virtually came from nowhere in 2005 to place second at Skate America, then win Skate Canada after being invited at the last minute. She made the Grand Prix Final with those two victories, and bam, the hype machine went into action, saying she had a shot at an Olympic medal.

TOTALLY! FOR SURE!

And I was in Pittsburgh for that! As well as the following SKAM where ANGELA Nikodinov came from nowhere to win that too. And then was invited to CoC last minute as well.....

Sadly Angela had the accident and then death of her Mom en route to the rink at Nats... sigh......

 

[mag]

I think most coaches and athletes considered that the “body of work” criteria would be used only in the case when something happened with a clear favourite (Nathan this year, Ashley and Davis & White in 2014) and they finished too low to be named to the team based on their Nationals finish. In that case, the lowest qualifier by Nationals results would not be named to the team and the other skater would be. There is logic to this approach. Had Davis & White had something happen which kept them from competing at their usual level or, like with Ashley, if they just had a really bad day in an otherwise stand out two seasons where they are clearly the top US contender.

That is not what happened here. The only contender the US has in the men’s competition is Nathan. Now perhaps it is the team event which is colouring this decision. Fine, if that is the case and the USFSA want Adam for a portion of that event, then they should name him to the team and leave Vincent off. I am not sure there is really an argument for Adam over Vincent, but at least the logic is more sound. In any case, the top finisher of those not named to the Olympic team should automatically be the first alternate. I fail to see any sound argument for Jason being the first alternate.

ITA with @HeManSkaterDad. If you are going to have criteria, it should be specific, verifiable, and set at the beginning of the Olympic cycle. No changes once the cycle begins. That allows all athletes to make informed choices about the their training. There also needs to be clear criteria for receiving international assignments. For example, Score X at one of Y summer comps and you will be sent to a Challenger Event. Score W at your Challenger and you will get a 2nd. Then they need to stick to it and those who fail to meet the criteria do not get assignments. Those kind of strict rules would give Skaters and parents faith that the system is not rigged and makes sure that assignments are based on verifiable results rather than some fuzzy intuition about who may have “potential.”

@Tavi, as to this painting the committee into a corner, that is the point. I don’t know about US employers, but can assure you that many employers in Canada, especially public sector employers, have very specific criteria and matrices for employment decisions. All the notes and calculations are available when decisions come under dispute.

 

[Rock2]

I want to just comment on the sentiment that has generally been expressed by some as [paraphrased] "why even compete in nationals if you will not be considered for the Olympic team?" I assume this same sentiment would apply to non-Olympic years regarding World Team selection.

There were many many many competitors at this national competition who did not have any sort of realistic chance to make the Olympic team. So why were they all there? I believe for many if not all, it is an honor and an achievement to qualify to compete at the national level. Just to get there! I'm sure for many, working to improve their scores or placements from previous years was a goal.

If the only people who ever competed at the National Championships were the ones who felt they had a clear shot at the podium, or a clear shot at Oly or World qualification, it would be a pretty small field at Nationals every year.

We have to recognize that different athletes are at different stages of their career and are seen at different echelons.

Possibly half of the field or more had reaching nationals as their goal. They have no illusions of going further so they just enjoy the experience and/or start to build their reputation. No friction there. Their expectations are met.

I'm sure at least a third or a half of the field thinks they are in it for a worlds/olympic spot. Among those are some athletes who stick around for an entire four years, racking up bills and putting their aging body through the ringer to compete at that last nationals in the hopes of making the olympic team. Many of these have qualified for worlds in the past and skated at major internationals for their country.

It's disappointing to know that for these people, the Olympics were not an option. In fact, 3 of only 4 specific guys just needed to be within sniffing distance of the podium to form the team. Just doesn't sound fair to elite athletes who lay it down in undeniably the biggest qualifying event and are sent home.

I think somehow in the formula second place + clean skating with a quad should have been enough. If the committee felt Adam was such a superstar I would have bumped Vincent.

 

[mag]

It's disappointing to know that for these people, the Olympics were not an option. In fact, 3 of only 4 specific guys just needed to be within sniffing distance of the podium to form the team. Just doesn't sound fair to elite athletes who lay it down in undeniably the biggest qualifying event and are sent home.

I think somehow in the formula second place + clean skating with a quad should have been enough. If the committee felt Adam was such a superstar I would have bumped Vincent.

This x 1000

 

[Coco]

Ross' performance was far from pointless. He was a long shot, and he needed - apparently - more than a few mistakes from more than a few competitors to make the Olympic team. He did his part, but did not get ALL the help he needed. Adam had his worst performance in years and was only 5 points behind. If he'd done a lot worse, or missed both short and long program, maybe the calculation was different.

 

[jlai]

I think most coaches and athletes considered that the “body of work” criteria would be used only in the case when something happened with a clear favourite (Nathan this year, Ashley and Davis & White in 2014) and they finished too low to be named to the team based on their Nationals finish. In that case, the lowest qualifier by Nationals results would not be named to the team and the other skater would be. There is logic to this approach. Had Davis & White had something happen which kept them from competing at their usual level or, like with Ashley, if they just had a really bad day in an otherwise stand out two seasons where they are clearly the top US contender.

That is not what happened here. The only contender the US has in the men’s competition is Nathan. Now perhaps it is the team event which is colouring this decision. Fine, if that is the case and the USFSA want Adam for a portion of that event, then they should name him to the team and leave Vincent off. I am not sure there is really an argument for Adam over Vincent, but at least the logic is more sound. In any case, the top finisher of those not named to the Olympic team should automatically be the first alternate. I fail to see any sound argument for Jason being the first alternate.

ITA with @HeManSkaterDad. If you are going to have criteria, it should be specific, verifiable, and set at the beginning of the Olympic cycle. No changes once the cycle begins. That allows all athletes to make informed choices about the their training. There also needs to be clear criteria for receiving international assignments. For example, Score X at one of Y summer comps and you will be sent to a Challenger Event. Score W at your Challenger and you will get a 2nd. Then they need to stick to it and those who fail to meet the criteria do not get assignments. Those kind of strict rules would give Skaters and parents faith that the system is not rigged and makes sure that assignments are based on verifiable results rather than some fuzzy intuition about who may have “potential.”

@Tavi, as to this painting the committee into a corner, that is the point. I don’t know about US employers, but can assure you that many employers in Canada, especially public sector employers, have very specific criteria and matrices for employment decisions. All the notes and calculations are available when decisions come under dispute.

Your suggestions aren't realistic. Isu changes points and rules every year and there is no way to have a fixed set of criteria for the whole 4 years. Take for instance, in 2015 you only need two quad toes to be on the world podium and now you need 3-5. So much has changed since the beginning of the cycle.

 

[overedge]

Your suggestions aren't realistic. Isu changes points and rules every year and there is no way to have a fixed set of criteria for the whole 4 years. Take for instance, in 2015 you only need two quad toes to be on the world podium and now you need 3-5. So much has changed since the beginning of the cycle.

And if everyone falls on their quads, you won't need any to get on the world podium You don't "need" quad toes to get a medal at Worlds. There's no rule saying that. The rules assign a high point value to quad toes, and people do as many of them as they can to maximize their point totals.

I don't see why there can't be criteria at least two years out to say, like @mag has suggested, placing 1st to 5th at the Nowherestan Invitational gets you X points, placing 6th - 12th gets you Y points, and so on. Basing it on podium placements rather than on point totals at competition means the rules don't have to be revised every time IJS changes.

Then whenever it's time to appoint the Olympic team, the points get added up, and any exceptional factors mentioned in the rules are taken into account, and the team is chosen. The important things are that the rules are stated in advance, that the rules have some sort of justifiable numerical measure attached to them, and that everyone understands how the rules are going to be applied.

 

[jlai]

The criteria are for two years. Meg was suggesting four years and have it set in stone. That is not realistic

 

[acraven]

With respect to training to win everything vs. training to peak at one or two key events, I (a non-athlete) offer this: What works for young bodies like those of the superstar Russian ladies may be completely impractical for a lot of 24- and 26-year old bodies because of injuries that never quite go away and/or wear-and-tear. I don't know where you draw the line between too-injured-to-compete and too-injured-to-train-at-maximum-level.

 

[Ursula]

You tell 'em, Mark! Now is not the time to play nice and act like everything is OK.

 

[mag]

The criteria are for two years. Meg was suggesting four years and have it set in stone. That is not realistic

It was a starting point. I like @overedge ’s changes. Two years seems reasonable.

@Coco, the reality is that if Adam had placed below Jason, Jason would most likely be going to the Olympics. He is listed as first alternate. That makes what Ross did pointless. Ross was TWENTY ONE points above Jason yet Jason still gets first alternate? So if Adam gets injured between now and February (and I in no way wish that to happen - none of this is about Adam personally) Jason will go. He will go to the Olympics and the guy who scored 21 points more at Nationals will not.

There is nothing remotely logical about that.

 

[Deleted member 19433]

I certainly feel for Mark and how heartbroken and upset he clearly is. I would be too. I truly believe that it's only by coincidence that this happened to him again and wasn't motivated by ill-intent, but that doesn't mean it doesn't emotionally sting. I sincerely hope he is able to calm down and doesn't quit coaching.

Ross's trip to San Jose wasn't for nothing. He won a silver medal, an international assignment, and had the skate of his life on a big station and will always have that wonderful memory of that performance.

@Coco, the reality is that if Adam had placed below Jason, Jason would most likely be going to the Olympics. He is listed as first alternate. That makes what Ross did pointless. Ross was TWENTY ONE points above Jason yet Jason still gets first alternate? So if Adam gets injured between now and February (and I in no way wish that to happen - none of this is about Adam personally) Jason will go. He will go to the Olympics and the guy who scored 21 points more at Nationals will not.

There is nothing remotely logical about that.

I understand why it's controversial, but my post here and Jackie Wong's blog post and graphic help explain that there is, in fact, some logic behind it:
https://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/th...junior-worlds-selections.102888/#post-5239251
http://www.rockerskating.com/news/2...championships-part-1-making-sense-of-criteria

 

[once_upon]

As long as skating is about the spots. Those damn spots, as some people keep harping on - we need those spots so we need results - spots. USFS will do what makes the most sense.

No amount explanation by the selection committee or length of a thread on a FS forum, will change the minds of those who want Nationals to be the final say.

It's all about your damn spots.

 

[Tavi]

I think most coaches and athletes considered that the “body of work” criteria would be used only in the case when something happened with a clear favourite (Nathan this year, Ashley and Davis & White in 2014) and they finished too low to be named to the team based on their Nationals finish. In that case, the lowest qualifier by Nationals results would not be named to the team and the other skater would be. There is logic to this approach. Had Davis & White had something happen which kept them from competing at their usual level or, like with Ashley, if they just had a really bad day in an otherwise stand out two seasons where they are clearly the top US contender.

That is not what happened here. The only contender the US has in the men’s competition is Nathan. Now perhaps it is the team event which is colouring this decision. Fine, if that is the case and the USFSA want Adam for a portion of that event, then they should name him to the team and leave Vincent off. I am not sure there is really an argument for Adam over Vincent, but at least the logic is more sound. In any case, the top finisher of those not named to the Olympic team should automatically be the first alternate. I fail to see any sound argument for Jason being the first alternate.

ITA with @HeManSkaterDad. If you are going to have criteria, it should be specific, verifiable, and set at the beginning of the Olympic cycle. No changes once the cycle begins. That allows all athletes to make informed choices about the their training. There also needs to be clear criteria for receiving international assignments. For example, Score X at one of Y summer comps and you will be sent to a Challenger Event. Score W at your Challenger and you will get a 2nd. Then they need to stick to it and those who fail to meet the criteria do not get assignments. Those kind of strict rules would give Skaters and parents faith that the system is not rigged and makes sure that assignments are based on verifiable results rather than some fuzzy intuition about who may have “potential.”

@Tavi, as to this painting the committee into a corner, that is the point. I don’t know about US employers, but can assure you that many employers in Canada, especially public sector employers, have very specific criteria and matrices for employment decisions. All the notes and calculations are available when decisions come under dispute.

Hi @mag - thanks for your thoughts. If I recall, you’re a skating parent, so I’m betting you’ve thought a lot about this. I think (not sure) that USFS has the kind of minimums you’re talking about for sending skaters to international assignments. But I think Olympic selection is a whole other animal, and now with the team event, it’s bound to change the process even more.

It seems to have upset a lot of people, but I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying top 2 or 3 at Nationals will earn you medal but not necessarily an Olympic berth, as long as the rules are clear and don’t change unexpectedly. But I’m really not sure why anyone would have assumed that the body of criteria would or should only be used in very limited circumstances. In 2014 USFS sent Jason to Sochi and Max to Worlds. There is no way that decision fits within that assumption, but it does make a lot of strategic sense not to send a newbie senior to Worlds - and that happened again last year when Jason was sent over Vincent.

In any case, the biggest issue in selecting for an Olympic Team is that there are a lot of highly qualified candidates for a tiny number of places. I personally think that some version of the process USFS has already set forth, with some quantitative component but leaving room to consider intangibles, is reasonable. But I understand not everyone will agree.

By the way, yes, in the US, public agencies (including mine) do use selection matrices in the hiring process, but they’re relatively simple rather than highly quantitative, and hiring managers are not required to select the person with the highest score as long as they have a valid, non-discriminatory reason for the decision.