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

[overedge]

H
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.

The Canadian public and publicly funded agencies that I'm familiar with also have relatively simple hiring matrices. But there are quantitative elements, and how those elements are used are clearly explained to the hiring committees, along with the hiring criteria. E.g. if the job description says something like "bachelor's degree required, graduate degree an asset" there will be a higher point value assigned to candidates with master's or PhD degrees, and a candidate who doesn't have a bachelor's degree won't receive any further consideration.

And there is room for considering intangibles as well. E.g. if there is an employment equity initiative, the ad may say something like "preference will be given to candidates who are [personal characteristic]". But what that means in practice is that preference only is used if all other things are equal. And the hiring committee had better have the documentation to show that two or more candidates were considered equally qualified before the candidate with the preferred characteristic is hired. So while that's an intangible, how it is used is very clearly laid out.

The criteria and the weighting/point value don't have to be complex. And intangible or subjective judgements can be part of the process. But the important thing is that everyone understands how the criteria are going to be applied or evaluated, including the subjective ones. I don't think USFS met that standard in this case.

 

[mag]

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.

Except it is not about spots. There are no spots to be earned at the Olympics. Unless the plan is to use Adam in the team event, which is possible, there really is no reason to use the body of work criteria to send him over Ross. Neither have a chance at an individual medal so why not stick with past practice and send the medalists? The BOW has been around for ages and used very sparingly. Now suddenly there is a wholesale change in the men’s competition. Yes they sent Jason over Max in 2014 (I had forgotten about that) but there only 2 spots open, a terribly unreliable champion, and a new team event to consider, AND, most importantly, Max was sent to Worlds!

I think the team event has changed Olympic selection and I think if the USFSA (and SC, because I am sure we will have drama at the end of the week!) had been really clear upfront that this is what it is about, and then also announced the skaters for the team event at the same time, it might have help minimize the damage. I would still argue they should have sent Adam instead of Vincent, but at least it would be a window into “why?”

If Adam does not skate in the team event I think the outrage will continue.

@Tavi
ETA: Results from 2014
2 17 Jason Brown, Skokie Valley SC 3 87.47 1 182.61 270.08
3 15 Max Aaron, Broadmoor SC 4 86.95 3 173.49 260.44

Jason Brown was second in 2014 so the Olympic selection was based on Nationals results.

 

[snoopy]

? There are spots - 3 spots on the team.

The sentiment that only medal contenders, like Nathan, should be given BOW consideration is extremely hypocrital. Why should they get special treatment? The USFSA should apply the stated criteria to everyone regardless of their medal chances. The USFSA approach is more logical than most of the suggestions here.

The top 5 finishers in nationals are given consideration for the Olympic team. A top 3 placement is not a clear ticket in and that has been known since Ashley's Sochi pick. End of story.

 

[Vash01]

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.

I suggest setting the criteria quantitatively at the start of Every year. That's what my employer does, so when I get my review at the end of the year, there are no major arguments. This is done at the start of every fiscal year. It is not that difficult for the Usfsa to set definite rules, quantify the selection criteria, once the ISU rules are published. IMO the Usfsa has carefully avoided being specific, in order to leave some wiggle room to make some subjective decisions.

 

[zoe111]

Actually all the people involved in the process from Samuel Auxier on down are real people with real emotions. They all deserve respect and the benefit of the doubt. They are trying their best to implement a difficult process that results in disappointments for skaters who have also tried their best.

And you know this how? From what I understand of the USFS ptb I would say this is a stretch

 

[once_upon]

except my experience today with family and friends was: no one paid attention to the men's selection, none of them knew the controversy over sports. No one actually cared. They only talked about Ashley's comments and that because it was reported and heard.
I don't think if Adam doesn't perform that anyone will give 2 thoughts about it. The only meltdown I foresee is the only on FSU.

 

[Marco]

I agree with the men's team selection but would also say the USFS did a poor job prepping for the situation after what happened with Ashley / Mirai four years ago. They really should have made the criteria clearer and advertised way in advance that the Olympic Nationals is not the sole decider (if everyone wasn't already extremely clear).

Also, if the Fed already had the team in mind, they just need to do some work on the calls and PCS (like they did in the ladies to Ashley) to ensure their preferred three make the podium and so there will be no/less drama. I said this before Nationals and am disappointed that they didn't procure this to happen.

 

[Tavi]

@mag, you’re right that Nationals placement was probably the largest factor but Jason was actually not sure he would be selected until he received the text, so the rest of his season may also have factored in. I remember TSL speculating quite a bit after each event as to whether Jason and others had upped their chances of being considered for the Olympics or made their prospects worse. As I was a newbie skating fan at the time, I simply assumed the existence of something like a body of Work based on TSL’s comments.

@overedge, I was trying not get too detailed about it, but yes, there’s a quantitative piece to our matrix to the extent that there are a series of requirements that each candidate is rated on between 0-3. Anyone who gets a 0 in anything is considered not minimally qualified and doesn’t get an interview. Managers are given training in how to rate, but I still consider it a subjective process as it’s a judgment call with some things. Once the candidate had been rated in all the criteria, the total is added up. That’s really the extent of the quantitative piece. Candidates who are interviewed are all asked the same questions and the managers note the responses on the interview sheets. Where our process seems to differ from yours is that ratings for the interview questions aren’t added to the matrix but are taken into account. The formal job requirements for a manager, for example, might state that he or she must have x years of experience managing y with many employees. The candidate’s resume may include the required experience so she may be rated a 2 or 3 in that requirement. But if the interview reveals that she has poor communication skills, which are important in her job bit not a separate requirement, her matrix won’t be altered - the issue will instead be documented in the notes and can be used to support the rationale for non-selection. Basically, a manager has leeway to hire the qualified person she believes will be the best fit for the department, even if she’s not the absolutely highest ranking candidate numerically. As long as she can support it and it’s not for an unlawful reason (ie she doesn’t want to hire someone black), it’s fine. It can become problematic when someone with far less experience is hired and a far more highly qualified candidate is rejected.

We have quite strict rules against asking about race, disability, etc, so none of that can be included in the matrix.

I do think the USFSA process needs tweaking!

 

[Lanie]

except my experience today with family and friends was: no one paid attention to the men's selection, none of them knew the controversy over sports. No one actually cared. They only talked about Ashley's comments and that because it was reported and heard.
I don't think if Adam doesn't perform that anyone will give 2 thoughts about it. The only meltdown I foresee is the only on FSU.

My dad called me to ask what the hell happened. He used to be a huge skating fan but isn't anymore due to the politics. And he says "This is why" re: Ross. I've seen others who aren't into skating post about Ashley and Ross, or share stuff on Facebook. I think Ashley though gets more attention because a) ladies and b) she talked.

 

[Anita18]

@overedge, I was trying not get too detailed about it, but yes, there’s a quantitative piece to our matrix to the extent that there are a series of requirements that each candidate is rated on between 0-3. Anyone who gets a 0 in anything is considered not minimally qualified and doesn’t get an interview. Managers are given training in how to rate, but I still consider it a subjective process as it’s a judgment call with some things. Once the candidate had been rated in all the criteria, the total is added up. That’s really the extent of the quantitative piece. Candidates who are interviewed are all asked the same questions and the managers note the responses on the interview sheets. Where our process seems to differ from yours is that ratings for the interview questions aren’t added to the matrix but are taken into account. The formal job requirements for a manager, for example, might state that he or she must have x years of experience managing y with many employees. The candidate’s resume may include the required experience so she may be rated a 2 or 3 in that requirement. But if the interview reveals that she has poor communication skills, which are important in her job bit not a separate requirement, her matrix won’t be altered - the issue will instead be documented in the notes and can be used to support the rationale for non-selection. Basically, a manager has leeway to hire the qualified person she believes will be the best fit for the department, even if she’s not the absolutely highest ranking candidate numerically. As long as she can support it and it’s not for an unlawful reason (ie she doesn’t want to hire someone black), it’s fine. It can become problematic when someone with far less experience is hired and a far more highly qualified candidate is rejected.

We have quite strict rules against asking about race, disability, etc, so none of that can be included in the matrix.

I do think the USFSA process needs tweaking!

For employment, there may be more leeway that you think. (Maybe it depends on the department, jurisdiction, and industry.) For my both of my tech jobs so far (at separate city departments), I'm absolutely sure that I was not the best "checklist" candidate. Someone else must have had more experience, more education, more this or that. But both times, the managers knew they had to hire me when I walked out of the interview. I had compelling relevant experience (the little of it I had), and I could clearly explain how I'd solve their problem. That's hard to say no to.

Sometimes it's not as simple as tallying up a matrix. For employment, and admissions at elite schools, there's always something else that can't easily be quantified.

I actually think/hope the USFSA process is MORE quantifiable than employment and college admissions! The USFSA isn't building a culture or community that's supposed to last for years - they should just want medals.

 

[Seerek]

Jason Brown was second in 2014 so the Olympic selection was based on Nationals results.

Had BOW criteria been applied, Jason Brown's overall resume would still have been decent: 1 Grand Prix medal, 1 Senior B medal (albeit it was Nebelhorn, the Olympic qualifier, so not as top heavy a field) and a Junior Worlds medal.

Not to mention the margin between Jason/Max at 2014 US Nats was ~10 pts (a more clear 2nd then say, Ross' 2nd).

 

[kwanfan1818]

Maybe instead of quitting altogether, it might be worth it for them to go to Europe, at least temporarily, to coach, give seminars, or do a summer training program there. Swedish boys and men could use the help.

 

[misskarne]

I agree with the men's team selection but would also say the USFS did a poor job prepping for the situation after what happened with Ashley / Mirai four years ago. They really should have made the criteria clearer and advertised way in advance that the Olympic Nationals is not the sole decider (if everyone wasn't already extremely clear).

They made it clear four years ago, too. I remember several interviews to the tune of the USFS telling the skaters at Champs Camp that they were going to use body of work. (Mind you, they also told the men you'd need a quad to be considered, too.) The words "body of work" have been flung around since well before Champs Camp this time. It was abundantly clear that the USFS was going to use more than US Nationals. If Mark Mitchell didn't know that, he had his head in the sand, especially since Ross was at Champs Camp where presumably a discussion to this effect took place.

The USFS made it clear. People chose to stick their fingers in their ears and choose not to hear it.

 

[her grace]

Some of y'all are being very harsh about what everyone had to know ahead of time. For the Olympic team, a silver medalist has never been dumped before the bronze medalist, and never for a non-medaling GP finalist. I agree with the committee's Olympic team decision (but not the alternates) but I could see how a former world team member like a Miner or Hochstein could have thought there was hope coming into nationals. Particularly hope for if a silver medal was earned.

How many of you predicted Aaron would get 4CC over Hochstein? Hochstein and Aaron split the Tier 3 criteria. Aaron wins tier 2 criteria by a lot and Hochstein wins tier 1 criteria by a lot. I thought this was a surprising selection, and I'm pretty aware that selections have moved away from nationals and to the nebulous wishes of the committee.

 

[rfisher]

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.

Actually, you don't EARN GP events at all. Federations can pick as they wish and often deliberately select skaters ranked lower so they are less competitive with their skaters. GP selection is entirely variable and they can pretty much do what they want. You might qualify for 2, but that doesn't mean you'll get 2 offers. In addition to competing with Federation athletes, the organizers often invite skaters that live close, don't have visa issues, are popular and might sell tickets and so forth. In fact, using GP scores are really unfair because not all skaters have the same opportunities to get points.

 

[Deleted member 221]

I obviously disagree with Mark Mitchell, and I agree with many of the comments on this thread, especially that (1) skaters and their coaches need to adapt and evolve for new systems and ways of operating, and (2) the silver medal was the reward for the excellent skate.

All of that said, I understand Mitchell's point of view (even if I disagree with it), and I don't think his comments are unreasonable or unprofessional. I agree with "her grace" that some of the comments toward Mitchell are harsh, e.g., I don't think he should retire or find something else in life. I think he's perfectly entitled to express frustration and disappointment, and (to me) his comments have been completely civil and sportsmanlike.... unlike, say, Ashley Wagner's (though she later walked them back).

I don't think there's a pattern re: Mark Mitchell and his skaters being passed over, but rather an unfortunate series of coincidences. I recognize that's very easy for me to say, though, and I'd probably feel differently in his shoes.

 

[rfisher]

I agree. Mark Mitchell has said nothing about other athletes or expressed any sense of entitlement. In fact, he stresses hard work is what is required. The fact that on three separate occasions circumstances have been such that he or one of his students have been impacted by decisions made over which they had no input or control, would be a hard pill to swallow. It's not as if his students slack off all year. I don't know any coach who wouldn't be upset.

 

[Tavi]

Actually, you don't EARN GP events at all. Federations can pick as they wish and often deliberately select skaters ranked lower so they are less competitive with their skaters. GP selection is entirely variable and they can pretty much do what they want.

That’s not strictly true. The top 12 skaters at the prior season’s Worlds are guaranteed 2 GP spots, and there are rules about where the top 6 can be assigned. Skaters who don’t qualify that way are guaranteed 1 spot if they place 1-24 in ISU World Standing or ISU SB. So those skaters earn those spots. You’re correct to the extent that to fill any remaining spots, the feds have leeway to pick anyone who has a SB score in top 75, as well as to decide who gets their host picks. But even the top 75 earn the possibility of qualifying through their prior season scores - they’re just not guaranteed a spot.

See Section 2 of the attached for details.

http://www.isu.org/docman-documents...33-gp-general-announcement-2017-18-final/file

 

[soogar]

Can't say for men, but in ladies they can't peak at nationals anymore. The Russian girls ace every event and build up momentum and pcs throughout the season.

So to beat them, you have to do the same.

And the Russian girls are continuously getting injured and replaced by younger models. All those jumps and competitions are hurting their bodies. Every sport builds to a peak; no one continuously trains and performs on a high level all the time.

 

[morgan rye]

According to posts in other threads here, he has quit coaching, or at least announced on Facebook that he is doing so. Satisfied?

I will believe that when it is proven out. Will he just leave all his students in the lurch. I understand his frustration but as others have mentioned one performance does not equal an Olympic assignment. We all know / knew that. So does mark.

 

[ZilphaK]

except my experience today with family and friends was: no one paid attention to the men's selection, none of them knew the controversy over sports. No one actually cared. They only talked about Ashley's comments and that because it was reported and heard.
I don't think if Adam doesn't perform that anyone will give 2 thoughts about it. The only meltdown I foresee is the only on FSU.

I was paying attention on social media channels throughout the competition, and here's my 10-point takeaway:

1. No casual viewer/potential new fan understood why Starr Andrews wouldn't be selected for the Olympics this year, even with extended explanation.

2. The red/yellow/green boxes were more confusing than helpful.

3. People automatically equated "falls" with "sucks" no matter how many times the scoring system was explained. There is no explaining why someone who fell at all on any jump would be given a medal.

4. Overwhelmingly, people disliked Tara and Johnny and their mean commentary. It was way out of line with the "anti bullying" and "don't feed the trolls" messaging among young people today.

5. People just don't consider skating a sport. It's a "feminine" pursuit (which much could be said about that), but part of that "feminine" characterization comes, I think, with the subjective scoring on artistic components. And only figure skating wonks are going to ever take the time to try to understand PCS scores. With new fans, they go by the gut feeling, and it can't be discounted how much that counts for -- people may not understand edge calls and footwork, but they know what they like and when they feel moved. Ross, Starr, Bradie, Jimmy Ma -- they killed it with casual viewers. It's something to think about for the future, I suppose. How to let the artistry "count" more in scoring so it's in line with the gut reaction of the audience. That would make outcomes more understandable, to everyone, I think, without a term-paper's worth of explanation.

6. A lot of people are watching just to see skaters fall. :/

7. People think all skaters are preternaturally gorgeous.

8. Skating is a sport only an elite few take part in. Which is true, but the vibe I as getting was not "and me or my kid could be part of that" but more "this is completely inaccessible as a sport for me or my family."

9. People get pissed off then skating pre-empts football or hockey.

10. A good 3/4 of viewers thought they were already watching the Olympics.

 

[bardtoob]

I think there is merit to a couple of ideas:

1) Announcing the Olympic team before US Nationals.

2) The USFSA reimburses skaters that medal at Nationals but do not get an Olympic berth for the cost of travel to Nationals, including accompanying coaching, if the USFSA wants to continue giving the perception US Nationals is relevant.*

* It has long been generally accepted that scores at US Nationals are inflated and do not represent what a skater can expect at an international competition. Moreover, this happens because it is not in the interest of National Federations to underscore their own skaters but it is potentially beneficial to overscore their own skaters.

 

[ZilphaK]

I think there is merit to a couple of ideas:

1) Announcing the Olympic team before US Nationals.

2) The USFSA reimburses skaters that medal at Nationals but do not get an Olympic birth for the cost of travel to Nationals, including accompanying coaching, if the USFSA wants to continue giving the perception US Nationals is relevant.*

* It has long been generally accepted that scores at US Nationals are inflated and do not represent what a skater can expect at an international competition. Moreover, this happens because it is not in the interest of National Federations to underscore their own skaters but it is potentially beneficial to overscore their own skaters.

Agree with these, but then you'd think the judges could do a better job laying fingers on the scales to inflate or deflate the "right" people. If the agreed perception is that Nationals judging is internationally meaningless (essentially), then do the score-fudging the right way. (ETA: I'm being more than a bit tongue in cheek here, so no one freak out. )

 

[bardtoob]

Agree with these, but then you'd think the judges could do a better job laying fingers on the scales to inflate or deflate the "right" people. If the agreed perception is that Nationals judging is internationally meaningless (essentially), then do the score-fudging the right way.

This pretty much describes selecting the US Olympic Team under the 6.0 System based on US Nationals results.

It is much harder to do coordinated favoritism using the IJS because so many individual elements are being scored by such a large number of people.

 

[Seerek]

1. No casual viewer/potential new fan understood why Starr Andrews wouldn't be selected for the Olympics this year, even with extended explanation.

In the Reality TV Era, casual/non-regular viewers have been heavily influenced with the "Applause-O-Meter" method of analyzing anything and everything, from political speeches to singing shows.

 

[soogar]

I think there is merit to a couple of ideas:

1) Announcing the Olympic team before US Nationals.

2) The USFSA reimburses skaters that medal at Nationals but do not get an Olympic berth for the cost of travel to Nationals, including accompanying coaching, if the USFSA wants to continue giving the perception US Nationals is relevant.*

I like the idea of the medalists being reimbursed. I'm sure most of the top skaters receive funding and am not sure how much funding Ross received this year from the federation.

What if he skates the same at 4CCs and Adam/Vincent don't skate well at the Olympics. Would they reconsider sending him to Worlds?

 

[bardtoob]

In the Reality TV Era, casual/non-regular viewers have been heavily influenced with the "Applause-O-Meter" method of analyzing anything and everything, from political speeches to singing shows.

I feel like figure skating somehow pioneered the "Applause-O-Meter" method.

 

[ZilphaK]

In the Reality TV Era, casual/non-regular viewers have been heavily influenced with the "Applause-O-Meter" method of analyzing anything and everything, from political speeches to singing shows.

I'll partially agree with that. But there is also a disconnect for people who are watching a competition happen in the moment, and immediately being told that what they are seeing is not "for real" when it comes to the judging. In other sports, slo-mo replay and judging is reserved for very special circumstances, and there is even argument in sports like hockey and football as to the overuse of "some guy in Toronto making the call from a video screen" instead of some ref in the building. In skating, slo-mo replay seems the default at times.

People watch sports because it is the ultimate reality TV, before there was reality TV. They want to be able to be a part of the action, in the moment, and want judging and rules that allow them to be a part of the game or competition. I get the feeling that, for as much as there were problems with 6.0, the IJS is like asking viewers to take an AP Calculus test without prepping.

I just think we need to be careful not to make the sport so esoteric that we are pushing away more potential fans -- and participants -- than we are drawing in.

 

[gkelly]

Also, if the Fed already had the team in mind, they just need to do some work on the calls and PCS (like they did in the ladies to Ashley) to ensure their preferred three make the podium and so there will be no/less drama. I said this before Nationals and am disappointed that they didn't procure this to happen.

So you think that the federation should instruct the technical panels and judges to fudge the results of the competition in order to make the skaters they want to send to the Olympics come out on top? That sounds like a terrible idea to me. And very unfair to all the skaters who aren't in the running for Olympic spots but competing against each other (and any Olympic hopefuls who bomb Nationals) for a top-5 placement or a Four Continents or Junior Worlds assignment or good fall assignments next season.

I say judge the competition fairly on its own merits, and then select the team based on whatever criteria have been established and clearly communicated before the season began.

Maybe going into Nationals, after the fall results are all known, skaters (and the media/public?) could be informed exactly which skaters have already established enough Body of Work to be considered for the Olympic team if they finish top 5 at Nationals, with no guarantees because all of those five would be balanced against each other considering both Nationals results and results from the fall season and the previous year's ISU championships.

(The above is pretty much what they were told in principle, without naming names.)

Maybe skaters who have some track record but not enough to guarantee themselves consideration should be informed of that fact, essentially being told that the only way they will be considered is if they win Nationals convincingly.

And anyone else who isn't among those groups would know that they have no chance at the Olympic team, not even if they win.

 

[Seerek]

People watch sports because it is the ultimate reality TV, before there was reality TV. They want to be able to be a part of the action, in the moment, and want judging and rules that allow them to be a part of the game or competition. I get the feeling that, for as much as there were problems with 6.0, the IJS is like asking viewers to take an AP Calculus test without prepping.

Many of the style-based events for both the Summer and Winter X Games certainly took that potential disconnect into consideration, and have kept their scoring methodology to a rather simplified "out of 100", this despite that fact that these X-Games events have just as a wide array of technical elements as skating does.

In addition, X-Games audiences tend to have a more casual disposition when in comes to competition, and are more interested in seeing the "risk" and the "innovation" of the moves than the actual order of result. There will not be a 1000 post thread if, say Chloe Kim "loses/wuzrobbed" the snowboard halfpipe gold medal in Pyeongchang.