How can USFS better develop the sport? | Page 9 | Golden Skate

How can USFS better develop the sport?

concorde

Medalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Maybe they could use results/scores from summer competitions to drive the seeding, especially if some of them become part of an official series?

If they had looked at the "unseen skater" results, they would have seen that 3 of the girls in that SA initial round group had the top 4 summer competition scores.

I think the concept of a "Challenger Series" is great.
 
Last edited:

concorde

Medalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
What the planned content can tell you is who's planning to try a double axel, which is the big trick allowed at that level. Even so, planning and successfully executing are two different things.

In that crazy SA initial grouping, not only did 3 of the girls PLAN to do a double axle, but all three DID do at least one double axel in the initial round. Some even successfully completed a double axel in combination.

The seeding for regional qualifying groups is a "zigzag" seed. Skaters are ranked according to last year's results if they got as far as final round at their regionals (with the level they competed last year factored in starting at intermediate -- for juvenile, either they competed juvenile last year or they didn't compete at a qualifying level). Then the top-seeded skater in the region goes in group A, the 2nd seeded in group B, etc. If their are 6 groups, then the 7th skater joins the 6th in group F, the 8th skater goes into group E, and so on back to A and turn around again until all the seeded skaters are assigned. Then the unseeded skaters are assigned by random draw.

At juvenile level, only a handful of skaters in each region might be seeded, so for practical purposes the draws are random for the whole field.

The "zigzag' seeding was use for SA juv last year that this gave the "crazy" group. That process put 1 final round girl from the previous year into the "crazy" group. That final round finisher from the previous year finished 5 in the initial round and only made it to the final round due to the "extra 4 girls" rule (which was just introduced last year). That final round finisher from the previous year finished 7th in the final round.
 

concorde

Medalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
The way the seeding is done, most of the skaters at juvenile level are unseeded because it's their first year in qualifying competitions, and the group assignments end up being random.

Since juvs can progress at very unpredicatable rates, using last year's results makes the groups seem random even when they are not. At Easterns, the discussion was the juv whose score when up 20 points during 1 season which in insane progress at that level. The norm is probably 10 points max, 5 would be closer to average.

Since a double axel now gives a skaters a bonus point, is now needed to place high at the juv level. As a result, a good number (probably over 50%) of skaters opt to remain in juv until they have that particular trick. From what I have observed, 2 years in juv in now the "norm." I know a couple of girl that just opted to remain in juv for a third year.
 

Abraxis12345

Final Flight
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
I agree and there are way more issues in figure skating than just the debate of whether it is 'sport' enough. These are currently two of my major interests and I have been to both MSG for League of Legends and Boston for Worlds Figure Skating, so I thought I'd add in some of my thoughts regarding the similarities and differences between these two that might explain the differenc

One other thing Twitch does is that people can subscribe or donate to their favorite streamers. According to this article, this guy makes about 5K a month from subscriptions.

https://dotesports.com/general/twitch-streaming-money-careers-destiny-1785

If the Shibutanis monetized their videos and live streams, I wouldn't begrudge them that, if the price was reasonable ($5/month).

Another thing that is helping eSports is that the traditional sports, like soccer, have been supportive. Clubs like AS Roma and Paris St Germain have invested in "FIFA" teams and see it as an extension rather than the enemy. On the other hand, the ISU seemed to view pro skating as the enemy rather than something that helped promote the sport.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
In that crazy SA initial grouping, not only did 3 of the girls PLAN to do a double axle, but all three DID do at least one double axel in the initial round. Some even successfully completed a double axel in combination.

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).

The "zigzag' seeding was use for SA juv last year that this gave the "crazy" group. That process put 1 final round girl from the previous year into the "crazy" group.

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.
 

concorde

Medalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
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.
 

matscol

Rinkside
Joined
Jan 10, 2014
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.
 

k2summit

Rinkside
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Country
United-States
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:
Top