2018 USFS Governing Council meeting & board initiatives (proposed changes to the current U.S. Nationals qualifying pipeline & more)

[vesperholly]

I agree 100% Dobre. Let's also remember that the last place finisher in Senior Ladies in 2018, Emily Chan, was the 2015 Novice AND 2016 Junior national champion. Does she not "deserve" to be there??

Severely restricting participation does not foster growth.

 

[Lizziebeth]

I will be a little bummed if they reduce the fields that much. It costs a lot of money to go to Nationals and I have always enjoyed all the skaters. There is rarely one team or individual skater that did not "deserve" to be there, IMHO. Novices need to be at Nationals. Some of my best skating memories involve seeing up and coming skaters before they reach seniors.

Regarding 'embarrassing' performances, it can happen to anyone and can be kind of unpredictable. Our definitions of 'embarrassing' may differ.

 

[barbk]

I agree 100% Dobre. Let's also remember that the last place finisher in Senior Ladies in 2018, Emily Chan, was the 2015 Novice AND 2016 Junior national champion. Does she not "deserve" to be there??

Severely restricting participation does not foster growth.

I don't think it is a given that she ought to be there. Lots can happen with growth spurts and injuries.

A clear qualifying standard that is not geographically based would be a real gift. (Though I hope they use a single standard, not the two criteria standard employed by the ISU. KISS.)

 

[vesperholly]

I don't think it is a given that she ought to be there. Lots can happen with growth spurts and injuries.

A clear qualifying standard that is not geographically based would be a real gift. (Though I hope they use a single standard, not the two criteria standard employed by the ISU. KISS.)

Chan's total score from Sectionals would've placed her 12th at Nationals. Everyone's allowed a poor performance.

But I suspect that the "undeserved" stuff is more for the bottom pairs and dance teams, really.

A non-geographic standard would be really nice but logistically difficult, because it is hard to compare scores from one competition to the next. Senior ladies lowest qualifying scores (4th place) from Sectionals: Easterns 146, Mids 151, PC 139. 139 would be 8th at Mids and 6th at Easterns.

 

[barbk]

Chan's total score from Sectionals would've placed her 12th at Nationals. Everyone's allowed a poor performance.

But I suspect that the "undeserved" stuff is more for the bottom pairs and dance teams, really.

A non-geographic standard would be really nice but logistically difficult, because it is hard to compare scores from one competition to the next. Senior ladies lowest qualifying scores (4th place) from Sectionals: Easterns 146, Mids 151, PC 139. 139 would be 8th at Mids and 6th at Easterns.

Precisely why it would be nice to have multiple opportunities to qualify and a numeric standard. Any senior lady who achieves a score of X in specified competitions (regionals, Senior B, JGP, GP, selected summer comps) can advance. Or, the skaters with the top Y scores across some range of competitions get to advance.

 

[Dobre]

Any senior lady who achieves a score of X in specified competitions (regionals, Senior B, JGP, GP, selected summer comps) can advance. Or, the skaters with the top Y scores across some range of competitions get to advance.

Um . . . I'm not sure we can handle more senior ladies. If they decide that minimum scores are a better way of selecting ladies than sectionals, I can see the argument there. (Though using scores from different competitions has its flaws). But there still has to be a total-number cutoff at some point, no?

 

[Sasha'sSpins]

I'll be in Orlando around that time. Wish I could crash this meeting! I'm torn with the desire to weed out less talented skaters from Nationals - as someone said upthread it's probably the only chance for some to go to Nationals, or the biggest event they'd ever get to compete in. On the other hand, it would benefit fans and the top skaters with a trimmed down event.

 

[mag]

I'll be in Orlando around that time. Wish I could crash this meeting! I'm torn with the desire to weed out less talented skaters from Nationals - as someone said upthread it's probably the only chance for some to go to Nationals, or the biggest event they'd ever get to compete in. On the other hand, it would benefit fans and the top skaters with a trimmed down event.

How would it benefit skaters to trim down the event?

 

[Coco]

More practice time?

 

[mag]

More practice time?

I doubt there will be more practice time, just fewer practice groups. Practice time is pretty standard and I am not sure more is needed. By the time skaters get to Nationals doing hours and hours of practice is counterproductive. The practice part is done and they are really just maintaining and getting used to the venue.

 

[MacMadame]

How would it benefit skaters to trim down the event?

Long events can be more tiring from what I've heard skaters say. I'm not sure how exactly.

 

[mag]

Long events can be more tiring from what I've heard skaters say. I'm not sure how exactly.

Yes, I agree they probably are mainly from a mental standpoint. I doubt though that any skaters would like the number of qualifiers to be reduced.

My concern (although none of this has any affect on me so it is not really a concern) is that reducing the number of qualifiers does not in any way affect the quality of those skaters who are at the top. The ones vying for international assignments will be the ones vying for international assignments if there are 15 competititors or 30. Reducing the total number of competitors does limit the number of skaters who will have the experience of competing at Nationals. I don’t know if the experience part is important to the USFSA, but from the perspective of encouraging skaters to continue in the sport, to continue providing income to coaches, rinks, skate shops, dressmakers, etc. and to provide inspiration to younger skaters who train with these more advanced athletes every day, keeping the number qualifying through to Nationals as high as is practical is important. For the USFSA to suggest that reducing the numbers at Nationals will somehow be better for the skaters seems a bit disingenuous.

Now making sure the best in the country do qualify through by giving skaters more than one way to qualify and providing wild cards or something similar for skaters competing in more difficult sections certainly seems like a good idea.

 

[RoseRed]

How would it benefit skaters to trim down the event?

I would think it would benefit coaches with a lot of students more. Although I guess your coach being less busy could help skaters too.

 

[mag]

I would think it would benefit coaches with a lot of students more. Although I guess your coach being less busy could help skaters too.

I suspect that would be a negative not a benefit for skaters. Coach expenses are divided among the skaters they have at the event. It could be a significant amount if a skater who usually shares expenses with two or three other skaters is suddenly footing the whole bill.

 

[RoseRed]

I suspect that would be a negative not a benefit for skaters. Coach expenses are divided among the skaters they have at the event. It could be a significant amount if a skater who usually shares expenses with two or three other skaters is suddenly footing the whole bill.

On the other hand, I've heard many of the coaches find it hard to be away from their rinks for that long and can also be very busy, so they can't give any of their students as much focus. I suppose it would depend.

 

[GarrAargHrumph]

The USFS Adult Skating Committee will be going over some parts the Governing Council Meeting Book and etc., at least the stuff that pertains adults, on Friday evening, 7pm eastern time. They are going to try to put it on Facebook live, for those who want to view. They'd posted this on their Facebook page:

The Annual Adult Skating Committee Informational Meeting will take place Friday, April 13th from 7-8pm ET at the 2018 Adult Championships, Holiday Inn and Suites Marlborough, Midland Room. The information from the Governing Council Meeting Book along with a summary of all of this season's projects will be covered. We HOPE to broadcast this meeting via FB-Live, technology permitting, for those of you at home. We've been busy working hard for you!

 

[Debbie S]

Thanks for posting, Garr. I won't be at AN but will try to tune in for at least part on FB, assuming it works. I appreciate the Committee trying to reach out to those adult skaters not attending AN (which is the majority of adults skating).

 

[concorde]

As the parent of a skater, the current qualifying system is a dud and needs to be revised. The Regions are disproportional and a skater can skate lights out for one program and that skater qualifies but the consistent skater gets bumped.

Since USFS added the bonus point, skaters are now getting credit for trying the bigger tricks. As a result, the risk is now rewarded and that is why we are seeing big tricks at the lower levels.

About 5 years, only the very top Juv girls at Nationals had a double axel. Now the reverse is true. And in many Regions, having a double axel as a Juv is no longer a ticket to Sectionals, let alone Nationals.

About 5 years ago, having a triple as a Intermediate was a big deal. Now, you need at least one and possible 2 triple to even make it Sectionals. This past year, the top Intermediate lady did 3 different triples in her long.

Same scenarios with the Novices. As a group, last year's Juniors are actually lagging the Novices since the Juniors did not get the full benefit of the bonus system (yes - there are exceptions).

My point - the levels have now blended and no one really knows what is expected in each levels. Triple-triples are allowed as Intermediates - my guess is few skating fans are not aware of that. This system will push up the skaters with the tricks instead of allowing them to sandbag.

Because of the "blending"of the levels, I fully support the elimination of the Juv, Intermediate, and Novice Nationals. USFS recognizes this blending and what is why the proposal would let top Novices skate against Juniors at Nationals. As an fyi - This score of year's Novice gold medalist would have earned her Silver if she had skated as a Junior. And I believe that the Junior long program has more elements than the Novice programs which one could argue would have off-set the bonus points.

And going back to my original scenario, the consistent skater would be rewarded through the series process and the light out skater would be rewarded through the Regionals process.

This proposal may not be perfect but it is much better than the current system.

 

[overedge]

Another possibility, rather than "blending" the levels, would be to retain the current levels but to set maximums for what moves could be done at each level. That would create a more level playing field within each level, and also encourage skaters to develop their skills at a sensible pace. Yes, this probably would not produce skaters that can compete with the international wonderbabies - but since at least some of those wonderbabies seem to be coming out of systems that won't prepare them well for adulthood or for life after skating, maybe that is not a goal to aspire to.

 

[concorde]

Well quads are not allowed in Intermediate or Novice. Beside that, the allowed jumps are the same.
The difference in the levels are in the number of elements.

In Intermediate you get 6 jumps and 2 spins.
In Novice, you get 3 spins. Ladies keep 6 jumps but guys get to add a 7th.
In Juniors, you still get 3 spins. Ladies keep 7 jumps but guys get to add a 8th.
Hmm ... curious how the number of jumps for men will get tweaked. My guess is will align with the ladies.

Changing the subject - I think for some US skaters, education takes a back seat to skating.

 

[concorde]

At the Jump on it camp, the parents were told that one of the reasons for dropping the juv and intermediates nationals was cost. Parents were saying that nationals ran between $8-12k.

The skaters were told that USFS is thinking about revamping the upper elements for each level. My guess is those changes are at least a year out.

 

[vesperholly]

Another possibility, rather than "blending" the levels, would be to retain the current levels but to set maximums for what moves could be done at each level. That would create a more level playing field within each level, and also encourage skaters to develop their skills at a sensible pace. Yes, this probably would not produce skaters that can compete with the international wonderbabies - but since at least some of those wonderbabies seem to be coming out of systems that won't prepare them well for adulthood or for life after skating, maybe that is not a goal to aspire to.

The levels used to be capped - no triples in Juv and only toe and sal allowed at Int. The caps were lifted (also fall deductions reduced and bonuses for triples added) because of concerns that skaters were not attempting difficult triples early enough and yes, couldn't keep up internationally. Seems like lifting the caps is starting to work - we never used to see 3lutz in Novice but now it's de rigueur.

 

[Willin]

I also think that USFSA needs to promote Open Divisions. But USFSA doesn't actually care about maintaining skater counts, they care about getting just enough skaters competitive internationally.

Open (Test Track) Divisions still have those move limits to some extent with the intention to tie what skaters are doing to the test they're taking. Sure, the competitive kids can continue to go on the normal track, but those skaters who want to compete in a more level playing field for whatever reason can compete on the Open track. A lot of the high school skaters in my area who started later or didn't progress past a certain point for whatever reason love competing that track because it's more fun and less pressure. (Also they have a chance to win instead of losing to 5-10+ kids half their age) While it's somewhat popular in my area, I feel like it's not nearly as popular as it could be. The kids that could compete in it usually quit or go to ISI before they find out about it.

In synchro, these skaters can compete at sectionals (admittedly there's no regionals in synchro) and become sectional champions in an Open division. You still can't go to Nationals, but it is a more attainable USFSA medal to work towards.
That's why I think the "Get Up" ads are so tone deaf and stupid. Yes, losing is a valuable lesson and gets you ready for adulthood, but losing every competition to people younger than you and knowing you'll never beat them is really demoralizing. If you lose to your peers doing the same moves as your peers it's a lot easier to lose.

 

[ZilphaK]

I haven't read through all the comments, but having read through the document I agree with it all about 99.99%.

I do see a lot of lower level skaters burning out by Juv, Int, Nov aiming for Nationals -- which takes a different kind of time management than training to gain higher level skills for Junior/Senior. I've seen skaters holding back on learning skills -- ironically -- because it's safer to train lower-level triples and get a medal as an Intermediate that it is to work on triples at the expense of not having a perfectly choreographed and trained Intermediate program. There is only so much money, so many hours in the day.

I LOVE the qualifying system, and suggested this in a prior post. For Int, again, I'd further remove the short program completely. There are two types of training -- training to compete and training to learn skills. The more kids are competing at lower levels, the less time there is to devote to skills. This is true in team sports as well, and the US is finally getting on board with soccer and hockey in prioritizing training time over competition time for kids 13 and under; more small sides, one on one games, although parents are still not convinced that winning a championship at 10 isn't a goal to burn out your kid over. Same with skating. Skill building before 13 is a priority, competing is not. This is on point.

As a parent who has been through this system and now see other parents going through the same thing, these rules are bound to open eyes early on as to what kind of good training a kid with potential and international aspirations needs from the get go. This is going to weed out non-competitive skaters early on, and some may fall through the cracks. But there are a lot falling through the cracks, anyway. Coming from the trenches, I think this is new structure has a lot of potential.

ETA: I know that "weed out" sounds harsh. But the positive I see to that is that it will ultimately be a cost savings for parents -- kids with talent will move up to Novice fairly quickly to get a shot at the early Junior spots. That kind of advancement would, I would think, represent the kids who have that mix of athletic ability, dedication, maturity and "grind" that is somewhat nature more than nurture. False hopes would be hard to sell for very long, and fewer parents would go broke via bad advice or stringing along. Rinks and coaches still need to make money, so more of those kids would perhaps funnel into other lower or non-competitive programs, and their coaches would need to be more supportive of those programs if they didn't want to lose all their skaters.

Second ETA: As for Novice at Nationals, I don't think it's a huge deal for them to not go, especially if they are attending one or two big events like Liberty or Detroit or some of the California competitions. One Nationals once a year does not teach competition nerves -- send Novice to international competitions, competitions out of their "home" comfort zone, competitions where there *is* competition and that will do the trick. And hopefully, more rinks will capitalize on the Novice non-Nationals and offer live streaming of events. These kids are competing all the time. Viewers might miss them at Nationals, but the new training time -- and resting time -- that gets added after Sectionals could be huge for these kids. Not enough emphasis is put on rest for these kids, all of whom are skating a rough 50 weeks out of the year. That's insane.

 

[Sk8yDad]

This proposal has very negative effects on any skater that is not a completive Junior Level skater by age fifteen (15). Skaters over 15 cannot compete internationally at the Novice Level by ISU rules and will not get any of these alleged new promised opportunities to skate internationally. Taking away Novice Nationals will likely discourage any "late bloomers" to the sport, especially young men who already have limited opportunities to compete against their peers due to the very small pool of male skaters scattered across the county.

 

[Coco]

I really wish synchro would catch on for colleges, because that would really help those kids who aren't competitive for international - track by age 15.

 

[Willin]

@Coco It's very popular at colleges? There's tons of programs and that number is growing. I think Liberty University is added to the roster of varsity programs, and other schools are making synchro club varsity. The Haydenettes also recently added their own Collegiate team to the mix (although that went on Hiatus this year).

I think the bigger issue is the lack of synchro in certain areas. For instance, in the Bay Area, there are only two (three if you count up in Vacaville) USFSA synchro clubs for youths and neither is competitive on a Sectional/National stage. In LA as well the number of USFSA synchro teams is declining. This is because on the West Coast all the coaches are singles coaches and would never dream of sending their skaters to do synchro even if it's frankly the better option. Colorado has the same issue - maybe one or two coaches who do synchro and everyone else who sticks strictly to singles.

ISI or recreational USFSA skaters may also want to compete synchro in college, but to get on a collegiate team is insanely competitive. Most girls on those teams have experience on a National-qualifying USFSA team. Even those that aren't usually have a double-gold test medal or close to it. Most have passed tests in all three areas (MITF is required, FS and dance is "recommended"). One thing that most singles skaters get caught up on is the ability to do all skills but jumps/spins in both directions. Then there's the actual synchro skills - skating hooked up to other skaters, matching edges/movements, and keeping in formation is a lot harder than it sounds, particularly when you've always skated by yourself. With collegiate teams not beginning practice until August, you have to know those skills right away - there's no spring or summer session to learn those skills like there is for youth/adult teams. Basically, you have to be trained for synchro or catch up really fast to get on one of those teams.
Therefore these singles skaters aren't aware that it's an option, and by the time they get to college they likely won't have the skills to make a collegiate team.

 

[ZilphaK]

This proposal has very negative effects on any skater that is not a completive Junior Level skater by age fifteen (15). Skaters over 15 cannot compete internationally at the Novice Level by ISU rules and will not get any of these alleged new promised opportunities to skate internationally. Taking away Novice Nationals will likely discourage any "late bloomers" to the sport, especially young men who already have limited opportunities to compete against their peers due to the very small pool of male skaters scattered across the county.

I don't know that there are many/any late bloomers in elite competitive figure skating. I don't know many skaters with longevity at the top levels who weren't solidly training triples through lutz by age 13 or 14. A very small number of kids eke through to Sectionals and infrequently Nationals for the first time after 16 years old. Figure skating programs are going to have to begin luring kids away early on from lacrosse and hockey, etc. (also sports that want kids in by 6 or 7 yo) to build their base. This is an early peak sport. I've said this before and it sounds harsh, but not having a double axel and two triples by 12 or 13 doesn't bode well. There are always outliers who beat the odds and start skating later -- ages 8 or 9 -- but I'd say these kids are natural phenoms. Think Gracie Gold, Johnny Weir. Most kids grinding along take 6 mo to a year to get a solid single axel and about 2 years to get a consistent double axel. That gets harder and harder to do as kids get older. Ashley said it took four years to get double axel; I believe she started training it at around 9 or 10 yo. She said in the same interview that she landed all her triples through lutz within the next six months.

 

[ZilphaK]

I really wish synchro would catch on for colleges, because that would really help those kids who aren't competitive for international - track by age 15.

I think it's catching on more and more...just a general gut feeling, no hard data. And not just for kids who aren't competitive for international, but for kids who just like a group sport more than a solo sport, kids who know from the get go that skating isn't their every breath. There's a lot of potential here for synchro as a first choice, not an also ran or consolation prize. Again, the biggest problem we have in our particular area is coaches who poo-poo synchro and talk kids out of it. It's kind of a miserable thing to do to a kid and to your skating base in general.

 

[ZilphaK]

Honest question that I probably haven't thought through:

Is there any solid reason that boys couldn't compete against girls at competitions, maybe through Juv or even Intermediate? If there are "body of work" scores, these could be factored separately for the purposes of Regionals or Sectionals. If the point is to compete to gain points and gain competition experience, then does it matter who is or isn't getting medals at Competition Q in Town, State?

Saying this as my son is competing the weekend in No Test against girls. He knows it's going to be tough. But, really, that's not a concern. He's not going to be an elite skater, and if he were, then competition is competition, whether or not they are Belimanning at 9yo or not.