World Shoot Team Selection

[bgary]

a 100% objective selection process, open to all comers, capable of selecting winning teams

We've tried a number of iterations of that, and they all have "unintended consequences". Every one of them.

-- the original approach (tried several different ways) of a two-year series ("odd-numbered Area matches in odd-numbered years, even-numbered Area matches in even-numbered years, plus at least one Nationals, add up to your "series score") was a nightmare. People complained about "having" to travel to that many matches to have a chance, which we expected, but... what we didn't expect was that the approach would get "gamed". Shooters figured out that it was a lot easier to get a 100% score in their standings at a lower-attended match, so they started "cherry-picking" matches and - we "heard" - there were people that were negotiating which matches different ones were going to attend so that they could squeeze out other competitors. Plus the unexpected things. Like the up and coming Junior who everyone agreed *should* have been on the team, but he wasnt on the radar at the first year's nationals, and DQd at the second year's, so didn't qualify. We *all* knew the Junior team was hurt by that, but... there was nothing we could do about it, we were locked into the process.

-- or, the most recent approach, of running a specific "qualifying series", had its own significant set of issues. Hard to find clubs that *want* to run a leveli-III IPSC match. Hard to ensure quality control. Hard to make sure the matches are a reasonable "test" of skill.

-- plus, the "variables". Such as.... if the approach is evenly weighted over the two years, how do you handle the Junior who was not on the radar the first year, but is coming on like gang-busters and looks like he will "peak" right at the WS time? How do you handle the shooter who "wins" the series but loses a step (or gets overtaken) between the series and the WS? Or all kinds of other issues. The simple *fact* is that if we have a process that uses 2009 and 2010 scores to determine the team for a 2011 match, there is no question that by the time the match rolls around, some of the people that did really well in 2009 are no longer "the right ones".

So, I don't have much to add to all the conspiracy theories and poo-flinging in this thread, but I'll ask the (obvious?) question...

If *you* were going to design an objective process for qualification, designed to pick the best shooters *not* throughout the series, but for a match that takes place nearly a year AFTER the series... what would it look like?

If y'all come up with something that I can't find holes in, I'll put it on the table at the next meeting. At the same time, though... I think some of you should man-up and admit that no matter how wonderful an objective process is (and I am a big fan of objective processes), *every* objective process we've tried has had imperfections. It has turned out as well as it has not because the process is so good, but because the depth of talent is so good.

Bruce (not running for re-election, so... effectively, I'm already "voted out" <vbg>)

[rgkeller]

Almost all non-profits and "member owned" organizations eventually become dominated by long time officers/bods and hired managers who come to believe that the organization is theirs rather than belonging to the members'.

The members become thought of as a revenue source rather than a constituency.

Edited January 21, 2009 by rgkeller

[Ben Stoeger]

What about Limited/Standard? How would one pick? Any one of a dozen shooters is worthy. Blake nearly won the WS. Would he get hand picked ahead of Manny or Taran? Would Smitty? How do you "pick"?

What about our past World Champs? Todd, Mike, Robbie...?

What about Phil? On any given day...

Then there are guys like Cheeley and Matt Trout. Those are two guys that probably aren't on the "team pick radar screen", but have the skills to make a run at it. But there is no golden ring to reach for.

This is a great point. There is SOOOO much heat in limited... how does one even decide who goes and who doesn't?

[David Olhasso]

As the only person to be a US production team member at both the last two world shoot matches, I have a unique perspetive on the selection process.

The 2005 selection process was a pain in the butt, was somewhat confusing and required a lot of specific matches be shot. Hence, a couple shooters who could have easily made the team didn't bother trying.

The 2008 selection process was simply and straightforward. Anyone who wanted to "Try" to be on the team had to shoot three matches, one of which was the nationals and would have been shot by all involved anyway.

After the 2005 world shoot I made the decision to try to make the 2008 team. I knew going in that it was a longshot to make the team at all in 2008 but I was going to try regardless. I caught a big break when Dave S. decided not to try for the team and I helped my own cause by putting up good percentages at the qualifying matches. All the same, I knew what I had to do and what the numbers were to make the team.

I think the 2008 selection format was VERY close to being optimal. Rather than having three special selection matches, I feel that the identification of three major matches such as select Area matches or established big matches would be better and easier on shooters & MDs alike.

Do I like the 2011 format? Not at all. I have no doubt that a good team will be selected, but I feel that giving any one person the ability to pick the perceived best hired guns in a given division is not best for the sport. There are just too many questions ---

What about shooters who can compete at the top of various divisions? Are they given a choice?

Sevigny is usually a production shooter, but won Limited-10 last year. Todd was 3rd open and 2nd Limited. What teams slot(s) are they offered?

What about shooters who have just crossed over to a new division? Rumor has it MAX will be shooting production and he finished second in production at 2007 nats. What team slot(s) would he be offered if selecting for a team TODAY?

What about a shooter who stops shooting any USPSA matches at all EXCEPT the nationals? Lets assume the shooter in question finishes top 3 at the nationals in 2009 and 2010. Should this shooter be offered a slot? Does this shooter REALLY represent the US practical shootign community? If this shooter is not offered a slot, why?

A selection process based on simple math is best. It allows any shooter who wants to be on a particular team to shoot the correct matches and then let the numbers fall where they may. By having anyone in particular choose the US teams, opens up soooooo many questions of exactly what criteria went into the selction. I would not want to be the person choosing the team.

Edited January 21, 2009 by David Olhasso

[JThompson]

As the only person to be a US production team member at both the last two world shoot matches, I have a unique perspetive on the selection process.

The 2005 selection process was a pain in the butt, was somewhat confusing and required a lot of specific matches be shot. Hence, a couple shooters who could have easily made the team didn't bother trying.

The 2008 selection process was simply and straightforward. Anyone who wanted to "Try" to be on the team had to shoot three matches, one of which was the nationals and would have been shot by all involved anyway.

After the 2005 world shoot I made the decision to try to make the 2008 team. I knew going in that it was a longshot to make the team at all in 2008 but I was going to try regardless. I caught a big break when Dave S. decided not to try for the team and I helped my own cause by putting up good percentages at the qualifying matches. All the same, I knew what I had to do and what the numbers were to make the team.

I think the 2008 selection format was VERY close to being optimal. Rather than having three special selection matches, I feel that the identification of three major matches such as select Area matches or established big matches would be better and easier on shooters & MDs alike.

Do I like the 2011 format? Not at all. I have no doubt that a good team will be selected, but I feel that giving any one person the ability to pick the perceived best hired guns in a given division is not best for the sport. There are just too many questions ---

What about shooters who can compete at the top of various divisions? Are they given a choice?

Sevigny is usually a production shooter, but won Limited-10 last year. Todd was 3rd open and 2nd Limited. What teams slot(s) are they offered?

What about shooters who have just crossed over to a new division? Rumor has it MAX will be shooting production and he finished second in production at 2007 nats. What team slot(s) would he be offered if selecting for a team TODAY?

What about a shooter who stops shooting any USPSA matches at all EXCEPT the nationals? Lets assume the shooter in question finishes top 3 at the nationals in 2009 and 2010. Should this shooter be offered a slot? Does this shooter REALLY represent the US practical shootign community? If this shooter is not offered a slot, why?

A selection process based on simple math is best. It allows any shooter who wants to be on a particular team to shoot the correct matches and then let the numbers fall where they may. By having anyone in particular choose the US teams, opens up soooooo many questions of exactly what criteria went into the selction. I would not want to be the person choosing the team.

Thank you David...

[Mike Schramm]

A selection process based on simple math is best. It allows any shooter who wants to be on a particular team to shoot the correct matches and then let the numbers fall where they may. By having anyone in particular choose the US teams, opens up soooooo many questions of exactly what criteria went into the selction. I would not want to be the person choosing the team.

+ 1

[Rob Boudrie]

Does anyone else have a problem with this whole "Job" "Hiring" and NFL team comparison? Perhaps the BOD has forgotten who "elected" you and who pays the bills. You act as if there is an owner and the money belongs to them. We are the owners and you are speaking for us. If you want to talk about "hiring" we are the ones who "hire" here. Saying that this does not concern 99% of us is crap. I/We pay for the trip and if there is any "hiring" to be done we should have a say in it, since without us, there is no money to "pay" anyone.

Members are the owners as far as I am concerned. I thought we used the best approach to hire a team to bring back wins for the organization. As I have said before, if members value an objective process over wins, we blew it. No one discussing "suitable formulas" has addressed the issue Bruce Gary pointed out - knowingly sending a sub-optimal team because were were boxed into a formula (yes, it happened). Everyone tries to sidestep this issue pretending it's possible to have both - an objective system and the assurance we won't knowingly send a sub-optimal team.

I have not heard a single person say "I would rather have a sub-optimal team and an objective process than a better team lacking such process". While I would not necessarily agree with that position, I would support if it if there were indications a majority of the membership felt that way.

Not to get to far off the subject, but is the BOD really concerned with what the membership thinks about anything... I'm starting to see a pattern here that started, for me, with the purchase of Steel and the refusal to disclose purchase information, nor discuss the possible purchase with the membership.

If everything could be done by popular vote, we'd put together an on-line voting system and have a system for the automatic introduction of motions, taking votes, and publishing minutes. Give me a couple of months and I could write the entire system and save USPSA the expense of board meetings.

As to the Steel Challenge purchase:

1. The nature of the opportunity precluded polling the membership. The opportunity would have evaporated by then as there were other interested parties.
   
2. Disclosing the price would undermine our negotiating position in any possible future purchases (no, I do not know of any under consideration at the moment). Perhaps you could suggest a manner in which we could tell the price to the membership, but not allow any party attempting to sell us an organization in the future to have that information available when deciding how much they wish to ask for in price negotiations with USPSA. Just call a realtor who just put up a "sold" sign on a house what it went for - the answer will be "I can't tell you until the deal closes because that info could be used against the seller in future negotiations if the deal falls through." Same concept here.
   

As to the comment about revenue source:

Sorry, I do not respect attacks on myself or other board members because you don't agree with a decision. The "revenue source" is used to fund USPSA activities, NROI classes, nationals, and yes, world shoot teams. The only personal benefit I get from the USPSA Board meetings is loss of a few vacation days a year and meals while at the meeting - this is an unpaid position.

[rgkeller]

>>Disclosing the price would undermine our negotiating position in any possible future purchases (no, I do not know of any under consideration at the moment). Perhaps you could suggest a manner in which we could tell the price to the membership, but not allow any party attempting to sell us an organization in the future to have that information available when deciding how much they wish to ask for in price negotiations with USPSA. Just call a realtor who just put up a "sold" sign on a house what it went for - the answer will be "I can't tell you until the deal closes because that info could be used against the seller in future negotiations if the deal falls through." Same concept here.<<

Real estate selling prices are a matter of public record..

And the finances of the the uspsa are supposed to be available to the membership - according to our by laws.

The SC number is already out there.

[rgkeller]

>>The "revenue source" is used to fund USPSA activities, NROI classes, nationals, and yes, world shoot teams.<<

And the purchase of the SC.

>>The only personal benefit I get from the USPSA Board meetings is loss of a few vacation days a year and meals while at the meeting - this is an unpaid position<<

The BOD clearly does not benefit financially from their USPSA positions. That unpaid status does not and should not shield them from criticism from the membership.

[bgary]

That unpaid status does not and should not shield them from criticism from the membership.

Totally agree.

I would only add "and it is far easier to criticize than it is to actually help solve the problem"

But you clearly already know that.

[rgkeller]

In this case, most here do not agree that there was a problem.

[Rob Boudrie]

Real estate selling prices are a matter of public record..

Not before the deal closes - read my comment carefully. The point I was trying to make in that example is that there are times where public disclosure of information is not in the best business interests of the organization.

I rely on the expertise of our Executive Manager and accounting firm as to the level of detail accounting information and expenses are reported. If you accept the premise that every USPSA member is not entitled to know the specific salary of each USPSA HQ employee, you already agree there are limits on the amount of detail reported; the only issue is where is that line to be drawn.

In this case, most here do not agree that there was a problem.

I wonder how many people knew, prior to Bruce Gary's post, that we have already had a case where using a pre-defined formula results in us knowingly sending a team that was not the best one possible.

----

I suggest you write a letter for Front Sight - there is an excellent chance it will be published (chances go down if they get many letters on one topic as the magazine is of fixed size). Criticism is always welcome, and the org will even provide you with a forum in which to do it.

[XRe]

I wonder how many people knew, prior to Bruce Gary's post, that we have already had a case where using a pre-defined formula results in us knowingly sending a team that was not the best one possible.

Only someone exceedingly naive would fall into that trap...

[zhunter]

OK, I read the first few pages, and then skimmed the rest until page 7, which I read, so....

OK, I am appalled at this change.

The system to select the 2008 team worked, the USPSA/USA team kicked the rest of the world's collective butts!!! WHY change something that works??? OK, because someone was either unhappy with the make-up of the WINNING TEAM, or someone did not make the team that the BOD thought should have been on the team?

IF we were a sport based on subjectivity ( diving and gymnastics are two examples ) then the subjective team selection would be fine, but....

USPSA is a score based sport, NUF SAID!!! IF someone has a malfunction or DQ at a qualifying match, that is just bad luck, better luck next time. Those are two elements of our sport.

Time has proven that ( Note: I majored in psychology ) a person can not truly base a decision eliminating subjectivity. ( a perfect example is the lottery, non-computer based lottery choices are often very similar even when choosing 6 numbers with each of the 6 choices having over 50 possibilities )

So, the ONLY true fair way to choose the team is the same as the 2008 team was chosen.

I also think that this discussion is taking place in the WRONG venue, this thread/discussion should be on the USPSA Forums!!!

[AlamoShooter]

I just wish I could keep from looking at this thread. . The thing my Dad taut me young was to try and see and get a feel of both sides. Nether side is completely rite or wrong.

I can see that lines in the sand are getting deeper.

I don't know much , but it seams like the worst that could happen is a "Team" wins the world shoot without acting like a team. I suppose things could be worst but that is how is seams today

[XRe]

If *you* were going to design an objective process for qualification, designed to pick the best shooters *not* throughout the series, but for a match that takes place nearly a year AFTER the series... what would it look like?

Use 2010 Nationals result, plus results from a small subset of matches that will be held as part of the normal USPSA shooting year. Doesn't matter how much like IPSC matches they look - for the sake of argument, say A1 or A2, A3 or A5, A7 or A8, A6 or FL Open (if Frank were willing). Shooters must attend 3 matches to be considered (or 2 + Nats, if you want Nats to be the definitive proving ground). Similar to the last selection process, except that special matches are not required. This is essentially what was suggested above by several others.

Select 3 of 4 in this fashion, if you want, and allow the team manager to pick a wildcard, also suggested above. This allows for certain ... adjustments ... should another rising star appear in the time following the qualification period - say someone who comes out of the woodwork to win the 2011 Nationals or something like that.

Should selected by the process become unable to attend, you go down the list to the next person, etc.

If y'all come up with something that I can't find holes in, I'll put it on the table at the next meeting.

You? The guy who thinks someone is going to gut a Glock and stick a 1911 inside? (poking fun, Bruce ). Being that creative, you could probably find holes in sheet steel

At the same time, though... I think some of you should man-up and admit that no matter how wonderful an objective process is (and I am a big fan of objective processes), *every* objective process we've tried has had imperfections.

You have to understand that I find this rather ironic, given the "I can't find holes in" comment above There's never going to be a process that guarantees that the "right" team will be sent, period, every single time. As I said in my previous post, only a naive person would think so.

However - you seem to have left out a certain principle of human nature - and I don't think I've seen this discussed, yet, in the thread. If you require someone to earn the honor of representing USPSA at the World Shoot, there is a certain amount of prestige that goes along with that accomplishment - and it instills a certain amount of personal responsibility in the competitor to insure that they continue to earn that honor. They'll continue to practice and work to represent the team they earned a berth on. You hand that slot to them through a subjective process - based on match results or not - and there's no ownership in having gotten there. This instills a completely different attitude in the competitor. In other words - we as human beings will care more about being there if we fought for and earned our place, rather than it being handed to us.

I've seen the question asked a couple of times, and not seen an answer (might've missed it - trying to catch up on a lot in the thread) - I think its pretty valid to ask, at least as something to provoke thought. What does USPSA gain by winning the team medal? Is there some reward other than prestige that I'm unaware of? If its solely a game of prestige, why in the heck does it matter if we field a team that might <gasp> not win gold, but is there because they want to be there enough to go earn it?

It has turned out as well as it has not because the process is so good, but because the depth of talent is so good.

We definitely have a gifted set of shooters here.

Bruce (not running for re-election, so... effectively, I'm already "voted out" <vbg>)

And the BoD will be a worse group for it (even if A1 picks a good guy)

[JThompson]

That unpaid status does not and should not shield them from criticism from the membership.

Totally agree.

I would only add "and it is far easier to criticize than it is to actually help solve the problem"

But you clearly already know that.

Hey, was that a shot?

Okay, here's a possible solution... we stomped ass at the world... I heard no complaints, on the internet or otherwise about how the shooters were chosen. This doesn't seem to be the case with the new way.

If it's not broke... If you were trying to make sure someone who you think should have went and didn't, the only possible reason I see for this change, you have a wild card for each division. Then you let the rest of the team, from that division who made it on points, decide who the final member of the team will be. After all, these guys are shooting in the same division and know who the best person to add would be. Also, at that point it is their team and no one man controls the choice.

If it were up to me I would change nothing from last time... Here's an analogy... Nascar points system... you have a guy that should have made the "Race for the chase" he's in the lead going into the last lap blows a tire and hits the wall... does he get a pass because he "should" have made it? No, that's the way it is in a points system and everyone knows it and accepts it, cept maybe the guy that blew the tire. You takes you chances and rolls the dice... if you win you go if not you stay. I don't care if the gun/tire blew or not, and yes, I might not like that #8 didn't make the chase, but I fully understand why he didn't and accepting is in the knowing.

I would ask my AD to make a motion consider going back to what we had to dispel any thought of possible favoritism of one shooter over another. If you have to have a slot open for a blown tire then make it up to the members of the team that made it on points... you can bet your ass those guys know who should be standing with them.

I'm out

JT

Edited January 21, 2009 by JThompson

[XRe]

Anyone point out where I'm supposed to find said agenda, so that I can offer feedback? (and so that I can see how the previous agenda was written)

It was on the member page posted for quite a while. I think it was one of the top couple items. It was taken down after the meeting took place.

So, just right on this page: http://www.uspsa.org/members/ - it doesn't pop up buried under somewhere else? At least I'll know that I need to go check that page every week or so...

[ima45dv8]

Moderator note:

As I read through the last few pages trying to get current with this, I'm disappointed with some of what I've seen. The personal attacks upon and threats towards the members of the Board who post here are an embarassment to this forum. Please bear in mind that it takes only a click of a mouse to lock this thread. It will require something much greater - personal restraint and civility from those commenting - to keep it open. You folks will determine whether this gets closed.

Disagree with the decision all you want, but it's time to knock off the emotion-driven noise.

[zhunter]

..... the only possible reason I see for this change, you have a wild card for each division. Then you let the rest of the team, from that division who made it on points, decide who the final member of the team will be. After all, these guys are shooting in the same division and know who the best person to add would be. Also, at that point it is their team and no one man controls the choice.

JT hit the nail on the head, IF anyone is going to be picking a team or team-member, then this is how it should be done

BTW, HERE is where this dicussion belongs

[Flexmoney]

So, no...I am not bashing John. The question was asked if it was thought that he would pick the best people to be on the team. I don't see how he can decide who is best at any given moment. I don't see how anybody can.

When you put it like that...I apologize.

I apologize. I didn't communicate very well, obviously.

[BritinUSA]

Here's my 2 cents on a process for Team Selection:

In 2010: Determine four Area matches, preferably one in each time zone to reduce the need for too much travel. The best two scores from those matches will count (so you only have to do 2, or you could do 3 or all four, only best 2 count). Add the score from 2010 Nationals.

That determines places 1,2 and 3 in each team.

The fourth place is determined by the Team Manager, possible options:

1. The winner of 2011 Nationals (must be pre-registered with WS by this time).

2. 4th place from qualifier series.

3. Personal Choice - must provide written documentation to back up the decision.

[Charles Bond]

Here's my 2 cents on a process for Team Selection:

In 2010: Determine four Area matches, preferably one in each time zone to reduce the need for too much travel. The best two scores from those matches will count (so you only have to do 2, or you could do 3 or all four, only best 2 count). Add the score from 2010 Nationals.

That determines places 1,2 and 3 in each team.

The fourth place is determined by the Team Manager, possible options:

1. The winner of 2011 Nationals (must be pre-registered with WS by this time).

2. 4th place from qualifier series.

3. Personal Choice - must provide written documentation to back up the decision.

To just adjust your idea a tab I would do two area matches and the nationals in 2009 and the same in 2010. That way if you break your leg this year and miss the entire year, you are not out or if you do well this year but have an unfortunate event next year you are not done in. I would pick just two area matches each year, one west coast and one east coast, since if you shoot 100% at one, you are likely going to want to go to the other to protect your score which was the unintended consequence attached to the 2005 team selection process. Also if there is one each year on each coast, you could choose to shoot the two closest matches to you over the two years saving a lot of travel. Of course the best score from either the 2009 or 2010 nationals would also count.

[moverfive]

Rob is right that 99.9% of the membership could really care less about the actual selection process. And I also don't think that whatever selection process is used, USPSA will not only send a competitive team but also one that represents this country and USPSA well.

So why are the BOD's getting a lot of backlash on this topic? Very simple - you guys need to play the PR game a little better for issues like this particular topic. Not saying that if you had done things a little better that the underlying logic, opinions, and thus votes would not have changed.....but the process and reasons being given have a lot to be desired.

I have to admit, the comments about the only way to pick a true winning team requires this new team manager approach are beyond comical.....especially after the US teams dominated. So if you are keeping count 2008 WS team members - your team was actually the junior varsity and because of the selection process in 2008, we weren't able to send our "A" team. But we will sending that winning team in 2011!!!

So what better process could have been used to vote on this issue? Simple - if a proposal is not secretive in nature or one of extreme urgency but yet may have far reaching effects across the organization, why does the issue have to be voted on at the meeting in which it was proposed? Yes the Steel Challenge, HQ personnel issues, and etc., are definite examples of the need for secrecy and urgency and thus should not be a part of this question.

However, in this particular example - why couldn't the details have been spelled out in the Nov BOD meeting with a final vote scheduled for the next BOD meeting (online or in-person)? Having some agenda posted somewhere without any real notification of its posting doesn't do a lot of good. Plus, when an issue is proposed, I am sure that a lot of discussion could be had at that time that would help refine the proposal and/or give each AD some talking points for the membership.....so that the time between BOD meetings would be available for informed discussion and feedback.

Now most members do not question any of the BOD's ethics or motivations, but when topics that are near and dear to many members seem to come out of the blue (whether it is in reality or the announcements were not reasonably made), it makes some decisions appear questionable. Obviously the opinions of the 2008 team were not sought, some of you are professing to know of the only way to produce a winning team, and more importantly - the vote was obviously not known to most of the membership until after-the-fact. Whether those comments are accurate or not is not material at this point.....they are now perceived and thus reality. And it wouldn't have taken a lot of effort to address those potential questions before any vote was taken.

THAT is the issue that everyone is really complaining about.....when you get down to the nuts and bolts of this discussion.

[Flexmoney]

I am trying to get caught up on this thread. I am not there yet.

One thing I can say is this...calling for voting people out of office has no place on Brian's Forum. Knock off that talk. Expect that any such posts along those lines will be removed.

{eidt to add} Steel Challenge is not on topic and doesn't belong in this conversation...and, I believe we shut down all past threads on that subject. It is off-limits.

- Admin.