World Shoot Team Selection

[Flexmoney]

They can't even get all the right people on the proper "Super Squad" at the Nationals.

Bob, Ben, Nils and Danny (if you don't know who those guys are, well that makes my point) would likely never get a chance to be on the Team if "somebody" is picking "names". Base it on match performance...like was done for this last WS...and you get those that deserve to be there based on doing the work, showing up, and putting it on the line.

[rgkeller]

Does this also mean that the IPSC rules "qualifying matches" will no longer be held?

[Flexmoney]

The downside is that the result of the formula does not necessarily product the optimum results, particularly if an unusual occurrence such as an atypical DQ by a big name, or personal reason preventing a name shooter from making an important qualifying match, skews the statistics.

I've seen a "big name" DQ at a nationals by catching his gun and having it tumble thru a port. Same 'big name" had shot well enough to win a fairly recent Area match, but failed to make it to chronograph and had to be disqualified. Same "big name" seems to have had gun problems that keep him back from the last years WS team...even though he has rather unrestricted access to guns and parts. Same "big name" didn't bother to make all 3 of the IPSC qualifying matches...which might have secured him a post on the team.

At some point, those unusual occurrences become systematic and not atypical at all.

The people that WANT it bring gun, gear, dedication and mindset to complete the task. Those are our best representative. They have the eye of the tiger.

[XRe]

The people that WANT it bring gun, gear, dedication and mindset to complete the task. Those are our best representative. They have the eye of the tiger.

I don't know about the eye of the tiger part... but +1...

[chuckbradley]

How is the "Team Manager" selected?

Traditionally the director of NROI, but it' ultimately a board appointment. Feedback from the last WS seems to validate we made a good decision.

Yes and the results validate the process for the team selection as well.

[Flexmoney]

The people that WANT it bring gun, gear, dedication and mindset to complete the task. Those are our best representative. They have the eye of the tiger.

I don't know about the eye of the tiger part... but +1...

LOL...yeah you do. I almost didn't put that part in there, but you know it's true. (cheesy be damned)

[Joe4d]

It's a good thing our BOD doesnt run the NFL, or the Cardinals wouldnt even have been allowed in the Playoffs. For that matter why have a Nationals at a shooting range, just have a party in Vegas and the BOD can appoint someone to pick the National Division and class champs. Think of all the ammo we'll save.

I'll never be good enough to be competitve, however I cant fathom how anyone can think a selection process that doesnt involve shooting performance is a reasonable choice.

This is not I repeat not a sport of or for hired guns. We do not Hire a team of pro shooters. This is a sport of the masses of C class B class old young masters and novices that show up week in and week out to build stages officiate etc. Smuckatelly Bob from Podunk backwater who brings his A game should have every oportunity to make the team that a pretty face from a gunrag cover does. Or happens to be somebodies, buddy, neighbor, cousin etc. Even if the selection is fair and unbiased the perception will still be there.

[chuckbradley]

The downside is that the result of the formula does not necessarily product the optimum results, particularly if an unusual occurrence such as an atypical DQ by a big name, or personal reason preventing a name shooter from making an important qualifying match, skews the statistics.

I've seen a "big name" DQ at a nationals by catching his gun and having it tumble thru a port. Same 'big name" had shot well enough to win a fairly recent Area match, but failed to make it to chronograph and had to be disqualified. Same "big name" seems to have had gun problems that keep him back from the last years WS team...even though he has rather unrestricted access to guns and parts. Same "big name" didn't bother to make all 3 of the IPSC qualifying matches...which might have secured him a post on the team.

At some point, those unusual occurrences become systematic and not atypical at all.

The people that WANT it bring gun, gear, dedication and mindset to complete the task. Those are our best representative. They have the eye of the tiger.

I agree totally.

In other words, yes it should be hard to qualify. Those that set making the team their goal and do what it takes to achieve that goal are the ones who should go.

Yes there is/was a convincing argument and presentation made. Why question it? Cant really say those that voted yes got duped. Why this group would revert to a method that takes away achievement and replaces it with the good ole boy network or even politics at its worst is beyond me. All i can do is take my hat off to those that got it pushed through. They did a marvelous job of diversion and persuasion as I know many of the members and they are a pretty smart group.

[Jake Di Vita]

Ryder cup works the same way - and works pretty good.

That being said, I still think it should be done by match performance.

[Sharyn]

Under the new criteria, in addition to Smitty, would Blake Miguez have been "chosen" for the team? How about Bob Vogel?

When are the selections going to be made? After the 2011 Nationals, 5 weeks prior to 2011 World Shoot? (that'll help the ammo situation... )

Why was the selection process changed? I think the '08 WS Team selection process was a success to build upon... not to dissolve and negate. How could a better team have been chosen? Would they have won more better?

[chuckbradley]

Why was the selection process changed?

The real reason is not what was presented. The presentation was the diversion.

Obviously somebody didnt make the TEAM that somebody wanted on the TEAM. So they changed the rules. Couldn't be done by using that as a reason so something had to be concocted to get it passed. Been done before by the same somebody. The same somebody who has changed formats of certain big matches to better that somebody's chance at the evasive title.

[Chuck Anderson]

That's the part that gets me. Should Shannon, or anyone else interested in representing our country at the WS, have to give up so much? If 1st OA at Nationals doesn't attend the required amount of "qualifier" matches, he's not eligible for team USA?

I don't know what Shannon does for a living, but normal working stiffs get 2-3 weeks vacation/year? Shannon was somehow able to devote the time required to reach his goal...amazing! (does your company have a Seattle division ) I don't know how anyone, outside industry supported shooters, would be able to sustain that level of commitment for more than 1 year.

I guess what I'm saying is the qualification process should be easier, not watered down, but easier for quality shooters to qualify. Would order of finish at Nationals do the trick?

Sorry Tom, not sure if you're familiar with the last qual process. First at Nationals the year of did get a slot on the team. If you wanted to shoot the minimum qualifiers, you could shoot two qualifiers and a Nationals and get all the possible points. And one of the qualifiers was immediately after the Nationasl. Travelling to two locations and shooting is not that big of a committment. The most available was a total of 5.

How does the Team Manager make his selection. I've never seen JA at a match I've shot besides Nationals. Is it going to be based solely on Nats performance, or will shooters closer to JA have a better shot because he will see their skills and abilities more.

Also, I hate to say it but USPSA shooting doesn't automatically equate to IPSC shooting. The stages are different, the equipment is different in just about every division (I think Revolver may be the only one that is the same and USPSA couldn't be bothered to send a team in Revo) and the rules are different. The last process worked well. The reason some shooters with potential to win didn't go was because they didn't want to.

[Nik Habicht]

Oh Rob you used M.V.'s name the Moderators said we would get a demerit for doing that

Jamie,

go back and read what I Wrote Here. Now tell me if demerits should still apply at the mere mention of Mike's name.....

I'm not interested in seeing blame apportioned to USPSA officials, especially in the absence of conclusive and contextual supporting material.....

[kgunz11]

Why was the selection process changed?

The real reason is not what was presented. The presentation was the diversion.

Obviously somebody didnt make the TEAM that somebody wanted on the TEAM. So they changed the rules. Couldn't be done by using that as a reason so something had to be concocted to get it passed. Been done before by the same somebody. The same somebody who has changed formats of certain big matches to better that somebody's chance at the evasive title.

Would that be a 3-gun title?

[chuckbradley]

Oh Rob you used M.V.'s name the Moderators said we would get a demerit for doing that

Jamie,

go back and read what I Wrote Here. Now tell me if demerits should still apply at the mere mention of Mike's name.....

I'm not interested in seeing blame apportioned to USPSA officials, especially in the absence of conclusive and contextual supporting material.....

Nik, be easy on him. He doesn't realize we don't get demerits, its straight to the guillotine. He will learn. Have mercy please.

[Rob Boudrie]

Why this group would revert to a method that takes away achievement and replaces it with the good ole boy network or even politics at its worst is beyond me. All i can do is take my hat off to those that got it pushed through. They did a marvelous job of diversion and persuasion as I know many of the members and they are a pretty smart group

It does not take away achievement, just the way we measure it. A post-performance analysis of 2+ seasons worth of data will no doubt be part of the DNROI decision making process, and he will be doing his best to select the most capable of winning team.

I respect disagreement and the fact that opinions may very will differ on this issue. I do not respect clever statements that bury a position in an argument as if they are "established fact" any more than I respect questions like "do you still beat your wife". "Takes away achievement" is not an established fact, just your opinion. Likewise, assumption you bury into your statement that the board had to be "diverted" to vote for this since smart people obviously would vote as you would if they were not diverted, does nothing to add to the substance of the discussion at hand.

Also, I fully expect DNROI to involve the board if he encounters any team selections that would present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

[Catfish]

Slots should be earned, not given.

The system clearly worked for the latest WS.

[AlamoShooter]

Oh Rob you used M.V.'s name the Moderators said we would get a demerit for doing that

Jamie,

go back and read what I Wrote Here. Now tell me if demerits should still apply at the mere mention of Mike's name.....

I'm not interested in seeing blame apportioned to USPSA officials, especially in the absence of conclusive and contextual supporting material.....

My Bad again I had to get a dictionary to look up "Contextual"

I just wish I could keep my mouth shut and fingers off the keybourd

Edited January 20, 2009 by AlamoShooter

[chuckbradley]

Why this group would revert to a method that takes away achievement and replaces it with the good ole boy network or even politics at its worst is beyond me. All i can do is take my hat off to those that got it pushed through. They did a marvelous job of diversion and persuasion as I know many of the members and they are a pretty smart group

It does not take away achievement, just the way we measure it. A post-performance analysis of 2+ seasons worth of data will no doubt be part of the DNROI decision making process, and he will be doing his best to select the most capable of winning team.

I respect disagreement and the fact that opinions may very will differ on this issue. I do not respect clever statements that bury a position in an argument as if they are "established fact" any more than I respect questions like "do you still beat your wife". "Takes away achievement" is not an established fact, just your opinion. Likewise, assumption you bury into your statement that the board had to be "diverted" to vote for this since smart people obviously would vote as you would if they were not diverted, does nothing to add to the substance of the discussion at hand.

Also, I fully expect DNROI to involve the board if he encounters any team selections that would present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Rob, not many people disagreeing with those that are in disagreement with the decision.

When the selection process is changed from being based on performance (achievement) only and the door is opened to allow selection by one individual as they see fit its really hard to not come to the conclusion that the decision "takes away achievement". It obviously opens the door for just as I said, the good ole boy network or politics. I am sorry but if you dont like that label then maybe the decision shouldn't have been made as it was. Again i don't blame anybody for voting yes, the presentation and reasoning of the position was flawless. In fact reading the reasoning you posted almost had me turning on myself. It was good. Bottom line is most believe it should be performance related and there should be no room for politics. So why did our BOD do something contrary to such popular belief?

There has to be a reason.

This takes us to the other issue of what is the truth behind why the change was made. Who initiated the discussion and who steered it in the direction it went. This is the matter where the discussion about the diversion is relevant but not appropriate to take it any farther here.

The other problem now Rob is that any decision will have the appearance of a conflict. Before we did not have that , it was black & white, it was about who performed the best.

The decision is a mistake.

[SmittyFL]

Well, I guess everybody knows where I stand.

Again, I appreciate your input Rob. I guess we just disagree in the fundamental aspect of one guy picking the team. Nothing against John, I don't have a problem with him personally; I have a problem with one guy doing the picking.

You think it will be an informed subjective decision from someone who knows who's who, who's hot, and who's not.

I don't.

This is a competitive sport, this should be decided on competition. I don't think it will with someone picking.

[dogdoc]

It does not take away achievement, just the way we measure it. A post-performance analysis of 2+ seasons worth of data will no doubt be part of the DNROI decision making process, and he will be doing his best to select the most capable of winning team.

So, JA is going to spend 2 years going over ALL major matches (state, area and national level) to determine the team. Through no fault of his own, he can't help but choose a team based on name recognition, he is only human. There is no way he can remember someones name popping up in the top percentages of several state or area level matches.

I'm not interested in seeing blame apportioned to USPSA officials, especially in the absence of conclusive and contextual supporting material.....

Me either, so lets have someone that voted for it step up and and give some "conclusive and contextual supporting material..." Because if they are reading this thread, they can see that the general USPSA membership is vehemently against this decision. Most to the point of being suspicious of the motives behind the decision.

I would hate to be in JA position and feel for him. But, there are people out there that have never shot and WS and deserve to, or at least will by 2011, and these people deserve evaluation whether the manager knows them or not.

[joseywales]

It does not take away achievement, just the way we measure it. A post-performance analysis of 2+ seasons worth of data will no doubt be part of the DNROI decision making process, and he will be doing his best to select the most capable of winning team.

That's the first information I've seen in this thread that suggest this process will have a measure of objectivity.

Maybe an elaboration as to the specific criteria that the TEAM MANAGER will use to select the team is warranted here?

Also, I fully expect DNROI to involve the board if he encounters any team selections that would present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Why not just remain above even the suspicion of conflict of interest? Leave selection of the team to be determined on the playing field.

I found this a touch ironic...(I don't normally go perusing the USPSA Bylaws, but recalled this specific paragraph from researching a fair way to award slots in our section a couple of years ago)

USPSA ByLaws Section 12.1 (regards USPSA HQ giving the Sections guidance for slot distribution)

"The Section bylaws shall be subordinate to these bylaws and shall set forth a means for distribution of national championship slots. The distribution shall always consider placement in practical shooting events and may additionally consider club membership and assistance at the events. Slots may never be awarded by lot."

[BritinUSA]

The success or failure of any selection process has to be the final results. If the results of 2008 World Shoot are examined it is hard to see how a change in any of the team structures would have improved the outcome. As I mentioned before the teams performed superbly ! The process used for 2008 worked. There is simply no denying this. It is a fact.

Once the acceptance of this fact is made, we are left with the question. Why change a process that clearly works ?

I have not seen an explanation of how the new method will improve our Team results at the next World Shoot. Perhaps someone can tell me.

The official USPSA funded teams, were OPEN, OPEN LADY, OPEN JUNIOR, STANDARD, PRODUCTION.

WE WON TEAM GOLD IN ALL OF THE ABOVE

Now someone explain how the new process will improve on this....

[kgunz11]

Again, everyone is putting the cart in front of the horse. Do you think JA will not pick the best available team? Do you not think he is wise enough in all his years to let performance be a very important factor in his selection?

Yeah the way it was worked fine, now the BoD has just picked someone to compile all the data. No need to dawn the tin foil hats just yet.

Edited January 20, 2009 by kgunz11

[Jaxshooter]

Why do we start topics like this on this board. Just post the subject here and ask that replys be made on the USPSA board. I agree with Smitty, he did the work to make the team thru practice, participation in the qualifier matches and obviously had better equipment than other shooters and did not get DQed.