US World/Oly Team Selection Style (Threads Merged)

[haribobo]

I think the Olympic and World Team selection could use a bit of an update. Personally I find the current system a bit overdramatic and harsh, really for no good reason. I think they want to give off the impression that anyone could come in out a la Rudy Galindo 96 and crush the competition and storm their way to a World medal. That magic time seems to be over and we've now decided, for whatever reason, that just going with Nationals results is too risky or whatever. I personally loved the old winner-take-all Nationals but I can see arguments for other systems as well. I think emotionally, the current system is probably the worst of all options, but others may disagree. It feels sloppy and too secretive even when they choose the right team. Points system would require all contendors to have international events but I think that is achieveable. It would essentially render half the Sectionals skaters ineligible for selection but ultimately they would be anyway...

 

[Marco]

I support clearer criteria, but it isn't as simple as it sounds.

Perhaps they could do a point system:

X% ISU World Standings (which takes into account results from last 2 season plus current season) + Y% ISU Seasons Best total score for current season + Z% US Nationals total score [+ bonus points for winning / medaling at certain competitions or for qualifying for the Olympic season GPF etc] where X + Y + Z = 100%

This way the ISU points systems and international competitions are dragged into the formula. This will encourage skaters to not skip fall or spring internationals or 4CCs, and will make sure skaters cannot only rely on one single performance to make the team. I don't like certain Federations using just TES to be the decider and feel it is unfair to skaters like Ashley and Carolina.

The flaw with such a prescriptive set of criteria of course is that there is little room for flexibility, esp for otherwise strong performing athletes who happened to be sick or injured at a key competition, or returning athletes like a Sasha in 2010.

 

[tylersf]

Hi Marco - I had my version of the point system as well. I kinda modeled it after the "body of work" philosophy but tried to give more weight to the most Tier 1 recent competitions and give credit for Tier 2 and previous competitions. Trying to use a model similar to the current criteria tends to favor more experienced skaters and not the athletes who are performing their best closest to the Olympics. Please take a look at what I did (everyone else too) and let me know what you think. My point system bumped off Bradie in favor of Ashley, then placed Jason, Adam, and Nathan on the Olympic team. Personally, I don't agree with the results of my own system. Nevertheless, I think we need a point system.

In the US, National Figure Skating Championships are perceived as and considered the Olympic Trials as well. The "body of work" criteria right looks like an afterthought, when athletes like Ross Miner who finished in the top 3 but have to stay home makes it look like these fine performances are dismissed for the committee's "favorites". I remember in 2014 when they started to make it clear that a National Championship doesn't guarantee a trip to the Olympics. I still feel like that the USFSA had a feeling that Mirai was going to perform well at the 2014 Nationals, but even if she won the 2014 US title, they weren't going to put her on the Olympic team despite her previous 4th place Olympic finish in 2010. So when Mirai got 3rd in 2014 and Ashley got 4th and bumped Mirai out of contention, the selection looked 100% political (it was partially political).

The 2018 bump of the Ross Miner's 2nd place finish in favor of Adam Rippon's 4th place finish also angered many coaches and fans. Even USFSA's decision to send the US Ladies' podium finishers (1. Bradie 2. Mirai 3. Karen) is still considered a controversial decision.

I think that a point system that measures performance over a period of time will manage the skaters' AND the fans expectations of who should go to the Olympics.

 

[Vagabond]

I voted for the old system.

The current system actually favors skaters on the downswing over skaters on the upswing. For example, a skater who finishes first at the previous season's Nationals, first at the previous season's Worlds, third at a Challenger Series competition, third at his first Grand Prix of the season, fourth at his second Grand Prix, and fourth at Nationals would apparently be favored over someone who finished seventh at the previous Nationals, didn't go to any subsequent competitions that season, finished sixth at his first Grand Prix and second at his second, and finished first at Nationals. Why?

The system also penalizes skaters who are coming back from injuries.

As if that weren't bad enough, driving skaters to do well at competitions before Nationals is likely to increase burnout and injury.

Yes, I know I sould like an old fogey. Now, get my the lawn, you d****d kids!

 

[Bellanca]

I cannot help but at the fact current system - criteria w/smoke-filled backroom voting has received two votes - up to this point.

 

[chapis]

I cannot help but at the fact current system - criteria w/smoke-filled backroom voting has received two votes - up to this point.

And I think that just means that those officers come to this forum, at least 2 of them.

 

[VGThuy]

I voted for the old system.

The current system actually favors skaters on the downswing over skaters on the upswing. For example, a skater who finishes first at the previous season's Nationals, first at the previous season's Worlds, third at a Challenger Series competition, third at his first Grand Prix of the season, fourth at his second Grand Prix, and fourth at Nationals would apparently be favored over someone who finished seventh at the previous Nationals, didn't go to any subsequent competitions that season, finished sixth at his first Grand Prix and second at his second, and finished first at Nationals. Why?

The system also penalizes skaters who are coming back from injuries.

As if that weren't bad enough, driving skaters to do well at competitions before Nationals is likely to increase burnout and injury.

Yes, I know I sould like an old fogey. Now, get my the lawn, you d****d kids!

One could argue that a similar scenario played out with Adam v. Jason though the results weren't the same as the ones you used for your example.

 

[Rob]

Once I saw the check marks next to Adam/Vincent in the criteria, I thought it was pretty clear. I think they could formalize this a little better, maybe with points or weightings.

I don't like "planned" TES being a criteria because many don't deliver on that.

 

[gkelly]

Whatever criteria you come up with, if you establish a hard-and-fast formula, there will always be some situations where the results of applying the formula will seem to contradict common sense.

So do you want to allow for some discretion and common sense and consideration of reasons for lower or lacking results? Or apply a strict numerical criterion whether it's as simple as straight Nationals results or as complex as formulas incorporating placements and total scores and TES alone and margin of victory etc. etc. and stick to those results no matter what?

 

[shady82]

Whatever criteria you come up with, if you establish a hard-and-fast formula, there will always be some situations where the results of applying the formula will seem to contradict common sense.

This is why I support the 'Current system', because it is better able to accommodate nuance in making decisions for who to send to the Olympics. This 'nuance' might result in politically motivated decisions that don't make sense, but in general I trust the USFSA's decisions and so far I stand with the USFSA's decision to send Rippon and Wagner to the Olympics. What's worth reassessing is what criteria to weight more, and what to include

My interpretation of the system is not that decision-makers go with cold, hard placements from the various tiers, but rather that they account for the placements as well as a sensible assessment of the skater's ability to deliver at moments important to the federation and other important considerations. I actually think this qualitative system works in the favor of skaters recently disrupted by injury. I DON'T agree with Brown as 1st alt or Hochstein being shafted off the 4CC team, that is going too far. For Worlds I'd probably prefer to just send the top finishers..

The points-style criteria, IIRC, was responsible for some pretty bad decisions regarding Olympic team selection (Nakano being off the team in 2006) and also slighted So-youn Park's chances this year due to return from injury.

 

[gkelly]

Maybe the #1 mission of the selections committee should be medals, but #2 should probably be building a team long-term as well as short-term.

That includes making skaters feel respected as individuals and not just cogs in a medal-winning machine, and making them feel that they have some control over their opportunities.

I certainly would not want a system where skaters could threaten to quit/represent another federation unless they get the assignments they want. But I would want decision makers to be aware that they need skaters to continue to feel supported by the federation even when they don't get the prize assignments. Details about how to do that might be worth discussing.

With skaters earlier in their careers, there may be future opportunities to make up for previous disappointments. That might have been one part, however small, of the considerations not to pass over Zhou a second year in a row.

With skaters who are ready to retire, especially those who wanted one last shot at the Olympics and did enough to be seriously considered for a spot but ultimately weren't chosen, there may not be other sufficiently attractive assignments to ease the disappointment. But there should be some way to minimize the chances that skaters will walk away from the sport bitter.

 

[Skittl1321]

I cannot help but at the fact current system - criteria w/smoke-filled backroom voting has received two votes - up to this point.

The person who made the poll clearly has some biases.

They forgot "Old system-Top nationals finishers with occasional injury bye, where judges manipulate the results to get the finishers they want"

 

[Skittl1321]

I don't like "planned" TES being a criteria because many don't deliver on that.

Planned TES is a bizarre metric.
I'm only an adult bronze skater, but I can plan a program full of quads! I can write anything on my program content sheet.

 

[Willin]

(Probably will devolve into Trash Can material, but I hope we can have a great civil discussion about this)

Obviously people were upset about Ross not making the team this year and Mirai not making the team in 2014. There seems to be confusion about what constitutes Body of Work and concern that skaters may not have a clear idea of where they stand before going into Nationals.

So what should USFSA do? Should there be an objective scale or criteria for the committee to go by? Should earned scores or potentials scores be weighted more heavily? Should Nationals be the only deciding factor or only a very minor factor? Does USFSA need a Marta Karolyi figure to be a public face of the selection process?


I also think it's interesting to see how US Teams for other judges sports are selected. Personally I like the system USA Ski & Snowboard uses, but I think it's simply impossible with the figure skating competition schedule. USA Gymnastics has the system closest to what USFSA is using right now. Diving has a system like what people are advocating for: Olympic Trials.

For reference, this is what I've found from some cursory googling/TV watching:
Gymnastics
-Team is selected by committee
-Athlete's performance/potential is determined by Body of Work, Olympic Trials (Winner gets guaranteed spot on the team), and Training Camp
-Specific factors are considered (Team needs, Consistency, Competitive readiness, Maximum potential score, Ability to follow training plan, Positive Attitude/Ability to work as a team)

Synchronized Swimming
-Team is selected by committee and team coaches
-Based on results of Nationals prior to the Olympic year, the top 50 swimmers are sent to a training camp in Colorado
-After the initial training camp, the 20 best swimmers are sent to a final training camp where they are whittled down to the final 12-member team to be sent to the Olympics/Qualifying competitions based on skill and fit with the team

Diving
-Team is determined strictly through Olympic Trials
-In order to qualify for the team, competitors must meet a minimum level of difficulty for their dives
-USA Diving has a "High Performance Squad" with three tiers to denote athletes they are watching for the 2020 Olympic team (presumably for funding/training support reasons); based on results and surveillance of training athletes may or may not be shuffled among tiers or removed from the squad entirely

Freestyle Skiing/Snowboarding
-Team is determined through competition results
-A series of qualifying competitions are held for US hopefuls (4 events in 6 weeks), intending to test both physical ability and psychological strength; Competitions have international competitors entered (Grand Prix/Dew Tour)
-Snowboarding- A podium finish qualifies for a spot on the team
-Skiing- Athletes must get two podium to qualify for a spot on the team
-For both teams (4 spots on each team), if more than four US athletes get the required amount of podium finishes, 3 spots are determined by world cup ranking and one spot is chosen by the coaching team

 

[tylersf]

Bottom line is that USFSA can send anyone they want. Let's just say that we had a defending OGM, defending World Champ, winner of current National Champ, GPF Winner, 2 wins on the GP season, BUT the committee didn't like him or her, or was tired of the skater, you know they would come up with an excuse not to send this athlete to the Olympics.
I could see this happening at the next Olympics.

I cannot help but at the fact current system - criteria w/smoke-filled backroom voting has received two votes - up to this point.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

BOW of current season ONLY 50% (If you're not a reigning medalist I dont care what happened at last years Worlds. That was a year ago. Gurrlllll...)

Nationals 50% (I really dont think Oly selection should be determined from just one competition. Gurlllll....)

^^^^ I actually think my criteria is perfection! You're welcome. tee-hee

 

[tylersf]

Gurrlll...I like you better already!!!

BOW of current season ONLY 50% (If you're not a reigning medalist I dont care what happened at last years Worlds. That was a year ago. Gurrlllll...)

Nationals 50% (I really dont think Oly selection should be determined from just one competition. Gurlllll....)

^^^^ I actually think my criteria is perfection! You're welcome. tee-hee

 

[Marco]

BOW of current season ONLY 50% (If you're not a reigning medalist I dont care what happened at last years Worlds. That was a year ago. Gurrlllll...)

Nationals 50% (I really dont think Oly selection should be determined from just one competition. Gurlllll....)

^^^^ I actually think my criteria is perfection! You're welcome. tee-hee

Do you mean scores or placements? Someone might win a weak senior B with a low score, and someone else might come second in a competitive senior B with a huge score. Which one will you prefer?

And someone might win Nationals with 0.5 point margin over 2nd place, or could have a run away win like Nathan did. Do you still give the winner the same advantage in points over 2nd place finisher?

 

[giselle23]

The "old" system was that the gold medalist at National was automatically on the World/Olympic team but the silver and bronze medalists were not guaranteed to go. The USFSA rarely departed from sending the top three. As for the current system, I agree that what happened a year ago at Worlds or Nationals may not be relevant,
but limiting it to the current season means a skater who skips the Grand Prix, like Michelle used to do, but is clearly a medal contender could be left off. So I think the winner at Nationals at least should continue to be guaranteed a spot. I would probably keep the current criteria but the committee should be left some amount of discretion in selecting the other two (or one). I would also
make the committee smaller--maybe 4 people, including an international (American) judge or technical caller. The President of the USFSA would break any tie votes.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

Do you mean scores or placements? Someone might win a weak senior B with a low score, and someone else might come second in a competitive senior B with a huge score. Which one will you prefer?

And someone might win Nationals with 0.5 point margin over 2nd place, or could have a run away win like Nathan did. Do you still give the winner the same advantage in points over 2nd place finisher?

Scores!!

It means more to me you came in 5th place at Finlandia with a total score of 205, versus getting the silver at US Classic with a score of 180. (this would hurt Ash though because her bronze as SC wouldn't hold water at some of the others. but, yeah.... scores)

But for sure, your B's and GPs have to determine the selection in an Oly year, not just one competition (Nationals).

Also the previous Worlds shouldnt have that great of consideration. That was a year ago.

 

[Marco]

Also the previous Worlds shouldnt have that great of consideration. That was a year ago.

Last season Worlds would have been 10 months ago from Nationals and 11 months ago from the Olympics. It still would have been the biggest international championship event that any US skater could participate in 12 months before the Olympics. 4CCs is too late, and they can't count the WTT/TCC.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

Last season Worlds would have been 10 months ago from Nationals and 11 months ago from the Olympics. It still would have been the biggest international championship event that any US skater could participate in 12 months before the Olympics. 4CCs is too late, and they can't count the WTT/TCC.

Yeah but for me I wouldn't care how you skated 10 and 1/2 months ago. I more interested in how has your skating been the past 8-12 weeks if I am considering putting you on an Oly team.

But thats just me.

My BOW would be just that. I wouldn't factor in Karen's 4th at a worlds from the year before. Because since that 4th placement its been all downhill skiing since then. Too risky. way too risky.

 

[VGThuy]

I don’t feel right not counting Worlds considering it is the only fully international event in the criteria and it’s clearly the biggest competition to be considered. It also can be telling. For all the talk of Marta and how she only cares about a gymnast’s conditioning and scoring potential weeks before the big events, the previous season’s Worlds isn’t the biggest thing they look at but I do know they for sure consider it.

 

[slipchuk]

I think going a bit beyond National results to a minor degree is ok. However this years mens picks were ridiculous on many levels that stem out to the overall process being flawed and I will explain how.

1. What body of work is good enough- Some people in 2014 complained about Ashley making it by body of work when she was not even a world medalist yet. However she had medaled at the previous 3 grand prix finals and won international events. Adam Rippon and even moreso Vincent Zhou (who in a sense was put onto the team since while he finished top 3 he bypassed a higher finisher) have far less so called Body of Work than that. It is silly putting people who dont even have outside shots of a medal or even marginal elite contenders internationally like Ashley in 2014 on the team based on body of work.

2. Inconsistency. By what they did to Miner and between Miner and Zhou, then Nagasu should have made it over Edmunds in 2014 without question. It was almost the exact same thing, including the small margin of points between 2nd and 3rd. Heck, that is even being generous to Zhou vs Edmunds since Miner in fact has been to multiple worlds which Zhou never has. Yet unlike Edmunds Miner is not on the team, not even 1st alternate, 2nd alternate, LOL! No consistency at all. That is clearly based on Edmunds being 15 and thought to have a future, and Miner wasnt, which goes to bias more than some so called criteria and agenda driving which is applies with any consistency. Plus Nagasu not exactly being a USFSA favorite at that time. The USFSA already has enough fudging to support their own personal agenda and biases with the lets face it we all know slanted scoring of Nationals, they need not and cannot carry it further with their muddled and inconsistent critiera.

3. Lack of transparency. The critiera is not clearly defined, it is very subjective, and there is nothing even approaching some kind of points system or way to quantify it. Even if a points system were too complicated and potential problem filled, they need to be more transparent and clear to the skaters on what the exact standards are, how much exactly Nationals count and doesnt, especialy as the above shows they are not being consistent and clear in different instances anyway.

 

[Karen-W]

I don't have a problem with considering the previous year's Worlds. After all, the results at that event directly determine how many spots we have at the Olympics and Worlds the following year.

 

[olympic]

I think assigning a value is an important factor in determining placement on a team but any competitions considered IMO should generally be within the subject season. Change has become more dramatic in this sport making previous years less relevant (but maybe not altogether irrelevant). Although, I wouldn't protest if the previous year's Worlds was thrown in there.

I support these competitions being assigned a value from highest to lowest - 1. Nationals, 2. GPF, 3. GP, 4. Previous Worlds, 5. B Challenger Series.

 

[Willin]

I would like to know exactly what they mean by GPF and Worlds - does that mean just making it (as it can be an achievement all on its own, especially for the GPF) - or the placement/scoring there? I would assume for competitors that made it to both that they would compare placement/scores, but as we saw this year, there were skaters in contention that only made one (Adam was only at GPF) or made neither (Vincent). Obviously almost all "true" contenders - those USFS is considering most strongly - do two GPs, Nationals, and at least one Senior B (not Ashley, but that was her choice, not USFS's), so it's a bit easier to put everyone on a level playing field there.

 

[Marco]

I think the latest Worlds should be considered because it shows how a skater stacks up against the full field whom s/he will face again at the Olympics, under an international panel and caller. Whereas at Nationals and GPs/GPF, you are facing a reduced field and/or only a National panel. I think it should also matter whether the skater contributed to keeping / obtaining spots at that previous Worlds.

As for consistency, the decision of Edmunds over Nagasu in 2014 seems consistent with their BOW up to that point: Edmunds beat Nagasu at the recent Nationals and won Jr Nationals the year before vs Nagasu placing 7th at seniors. Neither of them went to Worlds/Jr Worlds/4CCs in 2013. Edmunds won her JGPs and made JGPF in 2014 whereas Nagasu medaled in one GP but didn't skate so well in the other. I think the BOW was close enough that they let Nationals results decide. It is probably the same for Nagasu vs Chen vs Wagner in 2018. For Miner vs Zhou / Brown, the BOW wasn't close enough to let Nationals results be the sole deciding factor.