Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Results 166 to 168 of 168

Thread: How can USFS better develop the sport?

  1. #166
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Country: United States of America

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Out of curiosity, I looked up who attempted 2A in juvenile at South Atlantics last year.

    Group: Placement(s)
    A: 3rd
    B: none
    C: none
    D: 1st, 19th
    E: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 10th
    F: 1st, 2nd

    Final (28 skaters): 1st, 2nd, 6th, 14th, 15th, 20th, 28th

    I.e., it definitely helps, but it's not the determining factor.

    If there is to be better seeding for juvenile than just using last year's results, it would be helpful to know who's planning 2A, but that alone won't guarantee spreading out the best skaters much better than spreading out last year's returning finalists. What we really want to know is who has shown the ability to rotate and land most of their jumps with positive GOE and who has show the potential for good component scores (say, high 3s-4s for juvenile).

    But how many other girls in that group were seeded?
    If, for example, there are 10 seeded skaters returning from last year and 6 qualifying groups, then every group is going to have either 1 or 2 seeded skaters. The rest are randomly assigned. It's the random assignment part that produces the unbalanced groups.

    The solution would be to get more information about the skaters who didn't compete juvenile or didn't finish in the final round last year, so they could be spread out through seeding too. One approach would be to consider initial round placements the previous year: the skater who just missed the cut last year is probably better than the one who finished last in her group last year. But more recent information (e.g., from summer competitions) would be better.

    There will still always be some surprises. Especially at juvenile.
    Two years ago at SA, they gave out the groupings to all skaters competing at the juv level. If you looked closely at the skaters, they used the "zigzag" rule. The first girls to get placed were the ones that had made it to Sectionals the previous year, then those that made it to Juv finals at Regionals the previous year, then those that skated as a Juv at Regional the previous year, and finally the newbies.

    For this past year, they did not distribute a similar form so it was much trickier to determine seedings. But I did notice that only 4 or 5 girls who made it to juv finals returned for a second year and those girls were each in seperate groups. I did not try to figure out who was a returning Juv (but did not make it to the final round) vs who was the newbie. But my assumption was they followed the same process as the year before.

    Current summer standings should used in juv (and probably intermediate) seedings.

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2014

    0 Not allowed!
    In response primarily to gkelly's posts throughout this thread, which seem particularly thoughtful and give at least the impression of having some personal knowledge, either now or in the past, of the inner workings of USFS:

    One of the things that the database/video program shown to USFS last year did was allow research in line with the sort of thing that would better determine seeding for regionals. You could, for example, retrieve a list (and watch the skates) of the juv girls who landed a fully rotated 2A but didn't make it out of the qualifying round (1), regionals (16), or sectionals (25), together with the count of exactly how many clean 2A's they performed (one girl managed to do 6). Likewise with any level and any jump or collection of jumps (e.g., Int ladies + any triple). All of that information could easily have been added for summer comps, it simply would have taken USFS telling the clubs to provide protocols at the end of the events. Video would have been even better, though less simple to collect (although the judges' feed, separate from the event video, might have been available, particularly at the major competitions - Dallas, Broadmoor, Detroit, Glacier, Philadelphia, etc.).

    It's one thing to say it's complicated and many decisions have to be made about who will do what and what it all might cost, but the reality is that the structure had been built and was being offered - for free - and the developer expressed willingness to add the summer comps and ongoing new data - for free - and the whole thing could have been paid for with subscriptions from coaches - those who had seen it had themselves suggested a price point they'd be willing to meet - which would subsidize a free component to help grow the sport (or not, at the USFS' discretion), and the ENTIRE response from USFS was to ask the developer to show the work to a company that was getting paid to develop a judging game that nobody wants.

    THAT'S where impressions of incompetence and/or cronyism come from.

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraxis12345 View Post
    Out of boredom, I went on MRI (a tool used by many involved in deciding where to spend marketing dollars) and looked at gymnastics and skating in terms of viewership and participation and despite the hype, gymnastics still is no more popular in the US than skating and any boost from the olympics was not sustainable. The gymnasts are winning but it still isn't translating into popularity.
    Yea, the recent NCAA Women's College Gymnastics Championships were relegated to the lowly ESPNU channel and the TV ratings were awful.
    Last edited by k2summit; 04-28-2017 at 12:39 PM.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Posting Permissions

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