World Shoot Team Selection Process

[chuckw]

Well if the classification system is not a true barometer of competitor rankings in the USA, what's the point of having it? So people can win prizes? To raise money for the USPSA?

[BritinUSA]

Well if the classification system is not a true barometer of competitor rankings in the USA, what's the point of having it? So people can win prizes? To raise money for the USPSA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect the latter... I'm not criticising the policy of having classifiers, I'm saying that the design of them and the fact that you can shoot them over and over causes people to end up with a classification level that is above their ability.

There is no mechanism - short of appeal - to move down, so everybody eventually moves up.

[Nik Habicht]

Well if the classification system is not a true barometer of competitor rankings in the USA, what's the point of having it? So people can win prizes? To raise money for the USPSA?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes -- to both. Most people can't shoot their classification percentage at the Nationals.....

[hopalong]

I agree with Nic, proof to the point....

I do not practice classifiers, don't pick and choose through them, just shoot them as they come up..... Have yet to shoot my percentage at Nationals, but just did shoot my percentage at Area-6.(one of the few)

USPSA gets 3 dollars a match I shoot a classifier (3 times a month) for 12 months a year.....around 108 dollars a year just for my shooting..... how many members do we have??????

Now on picking the world shoot team.....

I'd say go back two nationals and two Area matches a year for the last two for a total of 6 matches. throw the worst out and take the best percentage of the remaining 5. the 3 with the best % make the team and one by choice of the other 3 team members. (maybe that will get the "HOT" shooter in on the world shoot).

FWIW.

HOP

[gmshtr]

We tried the Area match concept, and now we don't have Rob or Todd on either team. We used the Nationals finishes for WSXIII, and the US Standard team finished 1,2,3,4....proof that it works.

Phil

[Schutzenmeister]

We tried the Area match concept, and now we don't have Rob or Todd on either team.  We used the Nationals finishes for WSXIII, and the US Standard team finished 1,2,3,4....proof that it works.

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Phil

I strongly suspect that the real reason Rob and Todd are not on the teams is that they either chose not to shoot the prerequisit matches to qualify, or they simply weren't paying attention to the widely announced selection process. I really couldn't tell you which. As I know you see Todd and shoot with him regularly, perhaps you could inquire.

[gmshtr]

Well, Rob's reason was a bit more involved, but as far as Todd goes, he just doesn't have the time to shoot the matches needed. He makes his living from teaching, and it's just not feasible for him to spend $500-$1000 to travel to match, when he could be making money teaching a class.

Is it right to assume that because he can't make 4 required area matches, that he shouldn't be on the US Open team? I think not.

I really don't understand why the team should be selected using smaller match results. I suppose in this case we must agree to disagree.

The best competition is at the Nationals...hopefully no one will argue with that.

Phil

[cliffwalsh]

I have an idea. Lets pick a shooter from each division and let him or her pick the team using any criteria they see fit???

[Schutzenmeister]

Well, Rob's reason was a bit more involved, but as far as Todd goes, he just doesn't have the time to shoot the matches needed.  He makes his living from teaching, and it's just not feasible for him to spend $500-$1000 to travel to match, when he could be making money teaching a class. 

Is it right to assume that because he can't make 4 required area matches, that he shouldn't be on the US Open team?  I think not. 

I really don't understand why the team should be selected using smaller match results.  I suppose in this case we must agree to disagree. 

The best competition is at the Nationals...hopefully no one will argue with that. 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not at all preaching that the selection methodology is the holy grail, or is in any way better or worse than using say the best 2 0f 3 of the preceding Nationals. It is what it is.

Nevertheless, you confirm (indirectly) what I thought. Todd made a conscious decision not to attend the proper mix of matches in order to be competative for an official team slot. Most of us work. And for virtually all of us, time essentially is money. Todd made the decision that the income he would lose was more important to him than being named again to the official team. (NO condemnation intended here. Just a statement of the obvious.)

What was explained to me by more than one member of the BoD was they wanted people on the teams who supported (the word they used, not mine) the sport. This was about 2 years ago ... before anyone knew who would or would not be on the teams. I think there was some resentment on the BoD of a couple of shooters who would show up ONLY for the Nationals, place first or second just about every year, then expect to be named to the USPSA National Team when the only matches they had shot with USPSA in the past 2 years were 2 Nationals. Hence, the new selection criteria became somewhat of a "participation" test, for lack of a better term. (Again, I'm NOT judging ... This is just as it appears to me.)

I'm glad that both Todd and Rob (as I understand it) are still going to WS XIV ... I'm sorry they're not on the official teams ... Hopefully we can still take gold on those 2 teams without their contributions. (Come to think of it, consider the statement THAT will send to the rest of IPSC!) I expect to see both of their names very high on the final list when the dust settles ... Each with medals for individual placement!

[Rob Boudrie]

The main consensus of the board was that we felt we needed an "objective formula". When Michael Voigt proposed the formula, the board understood that if selecting the "winningest team" was the goal, manual selection would work the best. But, we are dealing with the allocation of corporate resources to the benefit of selected individuals, so the feeling was that the process had to be documentably "fair."

I offer the thought to the membership:

Any "fixed formula" can generate unexpected results. The only way to make sure we have the "winningest" team is for the board to say "We will arrange for the team with the best chance of winning the world shoot. We will not publish a formula, and we are not making 'documentable fairness' a goal. Our goal is fielding a team to win the team event for the US."

I wonder what the result would be if we asked the members to choose between "documentably objective and fair" vs. "best chances of winning" on team selection.

The question cannot be avoided simply by declaring "find a selection process which is documentably fair and always picks the most likely to win competitors."