World Shoot Team Selection

[Jim Norman]

Here is what I think may be the base question or questions:

1) Who brought up the initial discussion to make this change?

2) What were the reasons given in the initial pre-motion argument to make this change?

Obviously someone thinks that the current system had serious flaws. I think the membership has a right to know who thought this up. I seriously doubt it materialized out of thin air.

Jim

[uscbigdawg]

All I'll say is this. There's been matches, where on stages I've whooped TGO. Most times, obviously, he's destroyed my score though. However, the opportunity to win is there. Obviously we're not sure how JA is going to select a team. Maybe he states it be selected the same way the last team was. However, the opportunity is there for impropriety and that's what's wrong.

Rich

[George Jones]

The important thing is for the details of the selection process to be published so that shooters KNOW what the selection criteria is going to be.

[rgkeller]

>>The important thing is for the details of the selection process to be published so that shooters KNOW what the selection criteria is going to be.<<

IMO, that is well down on the list below giving all members a full chance at selection through competition, avoiding any appearance of favoritism and/or conflict of interest, and choosing the best team.

[Coach]

The important thing has been removed. Objective competition should decide who makes the team and not a subjective opinion. That is the important thing.

The process being known is important, but it should be earned.

Alway been a distant fan of Shannon Smith, and I am a bigger one now.

[LChico]

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?

It actually doesn't matter if I think JA will pick the best team. It doesn't matter if I think he is a principled and fair individual who has USPSA's best interest at heart. It doesn't matter to me if they substitute my mother for JA. It is STILL one individual making the selection.

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.

. . .

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.

The assumptions about how he will handle the decision is speculative, at best.

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.

We had the 3 IPSC Classifier matches plus the Nationals to draw from for the 2008 teams, because there was a really long, drawn out process using Area matches & Nationals to select the 2005 teams. It didn't work well. The 3 classifier matches drew shooters who really wanted to get to the World Shoot. You did not have to sift through a bunch of data from shooters who were not interested or who had no intention of going. The BoD did not pick JA to compile data. They decided that the Team Manager will select the Teams. Rob's note that the analysis of data "will no doubt be part of the DNROI decision making process," tells me that this is NOT a part of the official process, and simply what he assumes will happen. They are the same assumptions made in other posts. If it was a simple matter of compliling data and stats, we could let the USPSA office staff crunch numbers.

Again, it is NOT about who makes the selection, but rather that the decision will not be based on a competition or series of matches.

Linda Chico (L-2035)

Columbia SC

[George Jones]

The process being known is important, but it should be earned.

Didn't say it shouldn't.

[kgunz11]

Again, it is NOT about who makes the selection, but rather that the decision will not be based on a competition or series of matches.

And where does that information come from? Did John Amidon tell you he would not base his decision on competition and participation?

[dcbfluff]

Going back to Smitty's original Post "I don't normally bitch about things done by USPSA as I think they are generally done for the betterment of the sport. Whether it ends up that way or not, I think the intentions are normally good.

I have to concur: this was clearly a bad decision made by good people. it's not too late for them to unscrew it (please)

From posted minutes:

USPSA 2011 World Shoot Team Selection

Motion: Members of the 2011 USPSA sponsored Handgun Teams will be selected by the Team Manager.

Moved by A4 Seconded by A2 Passed

Roll Call requested by A6

Yes A2, A4, A7, A8, President

No A1, A5, A6

Break 4:04pm

Resume 4:27pm

I don't normally bitch about things done by USPSA as I think they are generally done for the betterment of the sport. Whether it ends up that way or not, I think the intentions are normally good. However it seems we finally get the team selection process figured out, actually simple enough that competitors can understand, fair enough that they have a chance and now they slip this in under the radar.

Any Area directors care to post why they would make a motion, second, or vote for such a stupid idea? Or maybe try and convince me why they think it was a good idea.

I have plenty more thoughts on the subject but am really interested in what the AD's have to say. I just saw Mike and saw/met Alan at SHOT but didn't find this out until today or I would have asked them myself.

[TDean]

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.

You're right Chuck, I'm not up to speed on this subject. The whole thing just seems like a race to see who can attend the most "special" matches.

Most members can't play that game...

My hat's off to those who can. That dedication, along with proven skill, earns a spot on the team.

TD

[BSeevers]

I don't like the idea of one guy deciding. JA, the Pope or me, is good. Its a recipe for trouble and bias. I think if you are azzhat of the universe but are the best shooter(win Nationals) you go to the WS. One man making these decisions can warp this greatly.

I understand that they don't want a repeat of Jerry B missing a World Shoot again but maybe giving JA a couple of wildcards is better than what's going on now.

Bad idea, bad vote.

Edited January 20, 2009 by BSeevers

[Flexmoney]

Again, everyone is putting the cart in front of the horse. Do you think JA will not pick the best available team?

I am nearly positive he won't.

[Charles Bond]

George Jones in a post on page 3 of this thread accurately and completely sets out the reasoning of the BOD when the team selection process was enacted by the BOD for the 2005 team and the 2008 team. I agree completely with his statement that the BOD desired an objective process that gave us the best possible team from the active shooting membership of USPSA. The policy put in place for the 2005 WS team effectively closed the door to any shooter who wanted to ignore every other match, show up and shoot well at nationals and make the WS team. The BOD saw "value" to the membership in the participation of the top guns of our sport in matches other than the nationals.

The unintended consequence of the 2005 process was that while the number of matches the contenders had to shoot was rather small in theory, it was large in reality. If shooter A went to area 1 and won and went to area 3 and won he or she received 100 points for each of those wins. But the reality was that if he received 100 points at an area match he had to go to the other matches to protect that result or his challenger might also get 100 points and be equal to him only because shooter A did not attend that match. The net effect and very unintended was that it effectively made all of the contenders show up at all of the selection matches.

For the 2008 team selection, we cut back the total number of matches. We made it large enough to give us a valid assessment of shooters abilities but small enough to be reasonably affordable. I do not recall any member of the BOD at that meeting saying this reduced amount of matches would be too expensive for someone who desired to be selected to the team. In fact what I recall was a belief that this was little enough to ask of those who desired to represent the USA on a WS team. The teams choosen for our WS team all made time and devoted the energy to participate in this process. Each and every team selected by that process won gold at the recent WS.

One thing that George Jones did while he was on the BOD was to encourage the BOD when they made a decision not to put a "face" on the decision. George and I share great faith in the belief that John Amidon will properly carry out any responsibility vested in him by the BOD. But if we make a decision based on who is the team manager rather than what would otherwise constitute sound judgement, what happens if the person in whom we vested all of that trust is no longer serving in that position? To simply say that we are going to allow ______ to make such a decision because they are wise and wonderful is simply passing the buck.

Of course it is still very early in the 2009 season and barely a tick on the clock in the count down to the 2011 WS. Posting here is a wonderful exercise and I appreciate the opinions I see here on a daily basis. But if you desire the USPSA BOD to revisit the decision made at the last meeting at the next BOD meeting scheduled for March of this year, email, call, write or fax your area director and or USPSA President. If on the other hand you believe the BOD made a wise change in the team selection process, share that with your elected USPSA officers.

Edited January 20, 2009 by Charles Bond

[Chuck Anderson]

By removing the competition aspect it removes the ability to have an open process. Sure JA will probably pick a team that can win the WS in 2011 for us. I can do that now and without a lot of work. We have enough shooters in the US that we can pretty much throw darts at a board and pick a decent team. The problem I have with it is this. Take Limited/Standard for example. Does anyone doubt that there are half a dozen shooters in the US that are capable of WINNING the WS in Standard? Any of these folks would obviously make excellent contenders on a WS team. Each of them work very hard to get to where they are. To say that JA is going to be able to pick from that group and come up with the absolute best 4 shooters at the WS is ludicrous. How many people would have expected Robbie to finish in the top 4 at the Limited Nationals this year. Is there anyone that expected him to finish 7th? I would bet money there isn't. Stuff happens.

If we accept there is no way to predict exactly who will finish up top, then we are setting up whoever picks the team as a scapegoat. If something weird happens, it's going to be blamed on JA and that is not fair to him. There is a very good chance that someone he didn't pick will finish better than someone he did pick. In fact, if this process is used and someone wants to lay a wager on that I'll take your money.

If competition is used we get what we get. I liked the Olympics analogy very much. This is an individual sport. The best people should go. The 2008 process worked excellent. There was a nice low number of matches, turnout was good, and we picked teams that kicked butt.

[badchad]

Of course it is still very early in the 2009 season and barely a tick on the clock in the count down to the 2011 WS. Posting here is a wonderful exercise and I appreciate the opinions I see here on a daily basis. But if you desire the USPSA BOD to revisit the decision made at the last meeting at the next BOD meeting scheduled for March of this year, email, call, write or fax your area director and or USPSA President. If on the other hand you believe the BOD made a wise change in the team selection process, share that with your elected USPSA officers.

Someone should add a poll to this thread. For arguments already made I don't think the new rules sound fair either. My guess is a poll would show that ~85% of shooters are against the new selection process. No nonsense numbers like that might go well with the email to the BOD.

[scirocco38s]

Of course it is still very early in the 2009 season and barely a tick on the clock in the count down to the 2011 WS. Posting here is a wonderful exercise and I appreciate the opinions I see here on a daily basis. But if you desire the USPSA BOD to revisit the decision made at the last meeting at the next BOD meeting scheduled for March of this year, email, call, write or fax your area director and or USPSA President. If on the other hand you believe the BOD made a wise change in the team selection process, share that with your elected USPSA officers.

Someone should add a poll to this thread. For arguments already made I don't think the new rules sound fair either. My guess is a poll would show that ~85% of shooters are against the new selection process. No nonsense numbers like that might go well with the email to the BOD.

Your poll isnt going to matter as the BOD has already made their decision(although no unanimously). Do you really think the BOD give a damn whether we like it or not.

I dont believe that me making the WS team is a possibility but the new system smells, I didnt see a problem with the system we employed.

I also believe that if some of the top shooters that didnt go to WS in 2008 had have wanted to they would have been able to find a way. To say that they didnt go because of the qualification process we had is also disinformative. I believe there were other factors involved.

OH, and 1 other thing NIK, I have read and reread this string and at no time did anyone take a shot at Mike Voight. The did mention his name, but only to prove a point about how competition and equipment could have changed it all for a different outcome. I have yet to read a deroggatory comment about Mike in this thread. You need to quit being so heavy handed about the discussion, and dont threaten us about the topic anymore, just close it if you cant stand what we are discussing. You seem to be the only 1 being emotional about this.(except for Shannon, and I can understand his emotion)

[HSMITH]

The Ryder Cup is 10 in based on merit and 2 captains picks isn't it? That wouldn't be a bad way to go about it....

[Chuck Anderson]

The Ryder Cup is 10 in based on merit and 2 captains picks isn't it? That wouldn't be a bad way to go about it....

Until one of those captains happens to be sponsored, which they most likely would. If Dave was captain and picked Vogel it would still look bad. Even though Vogel would have earned it, there still would be the appearance of impropriety.

[B.J. Norris]

FWIW, I'm with Shannon, I don't recall being asked my opinion about the process, the previous one worked great, the proof is in the pudding. Every single USPSA Sponsored team won the gold medal, why change it up?

Going to WS isn't just about winning the gold, you must also have the desire to do so, and to represent the country. The 08 process weeded out those who, may be great shooters, but didn't have the burning desire to go. Like Shannon, it was a major goal of mine to make not just the Junior team, but the Men's Open team for WS XV. Were there better shooters than me at the time? Probably so, but none showed the desire to be a representative of the US. So, now tell me would made a better Team member?

I'll say this, I have every faith in John to pick great teams based on his opinion of the best shooters at the time. But, what if (god forbid) something happens to John and somebody else is team manager?

Edited for grammar.

Edited January 20, 2009 by B.J. Norris

[Charles Bond]

Of course it is still very early in the 2009 season and barely a tick on the clock in the count down to the 2011 WS. Posting here is a wonderful exercise and I appreciate the opinions I see here on a daily basis. But if you desire the USPSA BOD to revisit the decision made at the last meeting at the next BOD meeting scheduled for March of this year, email, call, write or fax your area director and or USPSA President. If on the other hand you believe the BOD made a wise change in the team selection process, share that with your elected USPSA officers.

Someone should add a poll to this thread. For arguments already made I don't think the new rules sound fair either. My guess is a poll would show that ~85% of shooters are against the new selection process. No nonsense numbers like that might go well with the email to the BOD.

Your poll isnt going to matter as the BOD has already made their decision(although no unanimously). Do you really think the BOD give a damn whether we like it or not.

I dont believe that me making the WS team is a possibility but the new system smells, I didnt see a problem with the system we employed.

I also believe that if some of the top shooters that didnt go to WS in 2008 had have wanted to they would have been able to find a way. To say that they didnt go because of the qualification process we had is also disinformative. I believe there were other factors involved.

OH, and 1 other thing NIK, I have read and reread this string and at no time did anyone take a shot at Mike Voight. The did mention his name, but only to prove a point about how competition and equipment could have changed it all for a different outcome. I have yet to read a deroggatory comment about Mike in this thread. You need to quit being so heavy handed about the discussion, and dont threaten us about the topic anymore, just close it if you cant stand what we are discussing. You seem to be the only 1 being emotional about this.(except for Shannon, and I can understand his emotion)

Before you paint the entire BOD with too large of a paint brush, the proposal the BOD adopted at the last meeting for the WS Tean selection process was not one that had been circulated to the BOD in advance of the meeting and hence there was no opportunity for the BOD to seek member imput. I am rather confident that the BOD will resspond to the type of concerns expressed in this thread. There are many times the BOD has to act and do so immediatedly and each BOD member has to vote his convictions at the time. In hind sight, this is a decision that should have been delayed to seek feedback from the membership.

[Flexmoney]

OH, and 1 other thing NIK, I have read and reread this string and at no time did anyone take a shot at Mike Voight.

You need to read a bit closer then. And, don't take shots at the moderating team on the forum. If you think there is an issue (and there is not here, Nik made the right call at the right time) then bring it to me or Brian.

Kyle F.

Forum Administrator

[Rob Boudrie]

Were there better shooters than me at the time? Probably so, but none showed the desire to be a representative of the US. So, now tell me would made a better Team member?

It depends on what you think the team exists to do - reward the team members or win.

To answer your question: If the US team wins, the person with the desire would be the better member. If the US team loses because we took a pass on someone better able to win the job, it means that person would have made the better team member.

Our members pay for the team, so the real question is "how do we serve the membership best", not "how do we best serve the fraction of 1% of our membership who are actually contenders for a team". With that in mind, I expect our members want to see US teams win. Sure, cosmic justice of having people who "desire" to represent the US would be nice, but when it comes down to it "desire" is not what determines the winners at the WS - the score is.

Put another way - if you are going to be operated on, do you want the doctor who had the most "desire to be a surgeon", or the one who is "the best surgeon".

Of course, if the goal is to serve the 1% of the members on the team with a fair contest, and to reward desire and effort rather than the ability to deliver the goods, the boards decision was not the right one. I believe the current process is the best one to select the optimal team (since the team manager can analyze performance after the fact, rather than be constrained by a predetermined formula).

[jasmap]

Were there better shooters than me at the time? Probably so, but none showed the desire to be a representative of the US. So, now tell me would made a better Team member?

It depends on what you think the team exists to do - reward the team members or win.

To answer your question: If the US team wins, the person with the desire would be the better member. If the US team loses because we took a pass on someone better able to win the job, it means that person would have made the better team member.

I may be wrong but I think you may have misunderstood BJ's meaning. If they don't "desire" to shoot for the U.S. then they probably won't go to the World Shoot or possibly might not care to perform their best if they feel pressured to go.

Edited January 20, 2009 by jasmap

[BritinUSA]

Before you paint the entire BOD with too large of a paint brush, the proposal the BOD adopted at the last meeting for the WS Team selection process was not one that had been circulated to the BOD in advance of the meeting and hence there was no opportunity for the BOD to seek member input.

Why the urgency ? Why was it not circulated prior to the meeting ? It makes it sound like someone was trying to sneak this in without informed debate. This is not good in my opinion.

We have a way to go before the next World Shoot, so there would have been no problem in delaying the decision for a few weeks or even months so the membership would have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

[rgkeller]

>>Our members pay for the team, so the real question is "how do we serve the membership best", not "how do we best serve the fraction of 1% of our membership who are actually contenders for a team". With that in mind, I expect our members want to see US teams win.<<

If that was the "real question," why then did the board not solicit input from the broad membership?

And, of course, it would be impossible to improve on the USA Teams performance at the recent past World Shoot - the team chosen by open and objective competition.