World Shoot Team Selection

[davecutts]

2005 in Ecuador Rob, Todd, and Travis were not on the team, and they all finished in the top three in their divisions, two chose not to go to Bali.

One perception is that only those who can afford (time/$) to go to the qualifier matches get a chance to be on the team, and that may not be an objective selection criteria. This is problem for the junior team; do the best shooters have the means to travel? That said is the manager going to pull names out of his hat, or will he devise a calculation method to decide the best shooters to represent the USA?

Those shooters who desire to represent USA at the world shoot still have incentive to be the best, so they rise to the top by winning matches. No one who sits at home "WISHING" they could be on the team will get on the team, the team members are still going to be the best shooters in the country. Right now I’m in the wishing camp, so later I’ve got to go practice.

[Charles Bond]

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.

Those who supported the measure can better answer that since I failed to see the urgency and voted "no" with 2 others.

[North]

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.

But the score can't be trusted to produce the best team? If the top dogs can't beat the "local" competition, why should they be expected to beat the "out of town" pros? Come on, your argument is full of holes to put it politely.

[Gwhiz]

As a life member of USPSA I would rather loose with a team from an open competition than win with "hired guns". I do not have the time or burning desire to earn a position on a WS team, but I have great admiration for those who do. I have emailed my AD to ask that this mater be reconsidered.

[Jaxshooter]

This item could have been tabled until the next meeting inorder to get feedback from the members. Since we are paying the bills and salaries it would be nice to have some input.

[Chuck D]

I'd be wary of a system in which performance plays second fiddle to being "selected".......

I'd had always thought that earning a spot on a World Shoot Team would (and should) justify traveling to the various Area Championships and the Nationals and "putting the work in"

so to prove yourself worthy of the honor of representing the USA in International Competition.

I was obviously wrong again....

[Chuck Anderson]

I hear a bunch of talk about the expense of travelling to all the qualifier matches. There were a grand total of 5 matches for the 2008 qualifier, you could max out points by only attending 3 and two of them were held the same week in Tulsa. How expensive do you think it will be to travel to random matches hoping to catch the eye of the Team Manager who may or may not be there. This is not a cheap sport. If you can't afford to go to a couple one day matches and Nationals, you're not going to make the team. The team manager will probably have never heard of you.

As far as what is best for USPSA. Do we receive any benefit at all from fielding a gold medal winning team. Do we get more votes on the GA? Do we get our money back? Nope, it's all about prestige. I think it's better for USPSA in the long run to reward the folks who are attending and supporting our matches, rather than the folks who show up only at the World Shoot.

[rgkeller]

Methinks this new system will turn out to be more about rewarding gun companies that sponsor shooters and bring dollars to USPSA than anything else.

[kgunz11]

Does someone have an email address for John Amidon so they can ask him how he decides to make a WS team selection? A lot of speculation going on.

[atbarr]

What I don't understand, is why NO ON at http://www.uspsa.org/forums/index.php?act=idx has answered this!

A.T.

Edited January 21, 2009 by atbarr

[Sandro]

Methinks this new system will turn out to be more about rewarding gun companies that sponsor shooters and bring dollars to USPSA than anything else.

Naturally0 some may argue, that is the way it should be done anyway.

I would prefer to see the qualifying system instead of the good old boy network system.

[pjb45]

FWIW: I really do not like the Ryder Cup analogy. I believe the members of the Ryder Cup are professionals who make more in a year than most of our membership makes in a lifetime.

Our team is financed by the membership. The membership should not have this presented to them a fait accompli. It stinks from the get-go of backroom politics with someone trying put a fastone over on the membership.

[chendersby]

Wow miss a couple days here and things can get away from you.

Time to weigh in. First let me say my vote was for the same reason as Rob explained in his post. We are hiring a team not creating a prize.

There are so may posts I want to address.

As to the process we had and why change it. When I joined the board we came up with the process for the last WS. At that time I was of the opinion we should just name a team and be done with it. It is pretty obvious who should be on the teams. The previous process for Ecuador obviously had flaws as Rob Leatham who was the current national champ and defending world champ was not on the team. So we came up with the qualifier match process partially to show IPSC we were running IPSC matches in the US. If you remember this was the time we split the rule books apart. The qualifier matches were far from what a real IPSC match or world shoot are like. While I was not at any of them, my opinion come from feedback from those who were. It as not easy to get these qualifiers produced and based on participation it seems like it will be even harder to get them done again.

Now for a reality check. There are realisticaly 5 to 10 shooters in each division capable of making a team. The idea that we need a process that is fair so all USPSA members have a shot at being on a team is crazy. I am not delusional enough to think I have a shot and I hope that is not the reason you think we need a objective method. This is a small sport, we all know who are qualified to be on a team. It seems like we are putting a lot of energy into something that in reality affects a very small part of our membership.

I read all the posts here and some of them implied some negative stuff about Michael Voigt which I take exception to. Mike was not the one who pushed this though. We had the same discussion when I first came on the board about the previous process. I never had the impression Michael wants this because he wants to be on a team. In fact I think this actually hurts his chances because of how it may look if he is put on a team.

To Flexmoney: I know that bashing USPSA officials is not permited on this forum. I thought your shot at John's ability to pick the best teams was out of line especially for a Moderator.

Why is this discussion not happening on the USPSA Forums? We have a USPSA forum? Seriously though our forum is not as popular as this one so this has in reality has become the USPSA forum IMO.

John's email is vp@uspsa.org or dnori@uspsa (he's going to kill me).

I am certain he will be picking the teams based on current performance.

OK I have a headache now. Before I go remember that we on the board are here because, well no one else wanted the job, but really because we care about this sport and organization. It is hard sometimes not to take stuff written here personally.

[SmittyFL]

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).

Man I was just about to let this go too.

First off, thanks to everyone who has supported me through posts, pm's, and email. But this ain't about me, it's about what the members feel the "right" thing to do is and why they feel that way.

Second, Chuck Anderson has a lot of good points. His posts are worth re-reading.

Rob, With all due respect, you don't know anything about what it takes to win a world shoot. I'm sure you are a smarter man than I am, as I had to look up "cosmic justice" but I guaranphuckintee you it takes "desire" to win. More of it than most people will ever know. Ask Travis if he would be National or World Champion without desire!

In fact, that is a key part of our paramount difference of opinion. You don't think the best team would be gained from competition and I think that is our best way of fielding the best team. My reason is not fairness, my reason largely centers around desire. As Chuck mentioned, three to five matches is not a big deal for anyone who shoots that seriously. Certainly not for a hired gun. If you don't have desire enough to put forth the effort to qualify for our WS team why would you have desire enough to put in the time to prepare for the match? That is my point of view.

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).

I had to re-quote your quote. I'm not sure if you are tying to get under my skin or if you really have no idea what competition is about. Maybe you don't proof read your posts, let me tell you how I read part of that sentence: "The team manager can analyze performance instead of just looking at how they performed."

Since I'm back in the conversation and even though you and I disagree on this issue, you have a history of shooting straight with the members on this forum. In earlier posts there were references to someone on the BOD at the meeting stating that they had talked to the 2008 team members and they desired the future teams to be selected by the team manager. Was this actually stated at the BOD meeting and if so, which director made that statement?

Edited January 21, 2009 by SmittyFL

[SmittyFL]

Chris, thanks for letting us know where you stand. "Just name a team and be done with it" says a lot and is pretty much what I figured the attitude was.

[BritinUSA]

Chris, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this topic. My main concern with all of this was the lack of opportunity for the members to provide feedback to their respective Area Directors prior to a vote being taken. I agree that we need to have the team locked down by the start of 2011 to make sure we can get all the permits sorted out etc. But this still leaves 23 months to pick a team.

I would have liked the BOD to offer a period of time where we could provide feedback and perhaps even propose other alternatives. A few weeks or even a month would not have harmed the process. There are few big matches at this time of year anyway.

The qualifying matches were not much like IPSC matches, I agree on that point completely. I did two of them and although they were well run, the stages were not the kind of thing we normally see in IPSC. I shot purely IPSC for 10 years before coming to USA so I know what IPSC stages look like. But the teams selected by that process kicked ass big-time, so it clearly worked.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post.

[Flexmoney]

To Flexmoney: I know that bashing USPSA officials is not permited on this forum. I thought your shot at John's ability to pick the best teams was out of line especially for a Moderator.

I wasn't bashing John. I don't think anybody has the ability to pick. Let's look at Production.

Has he even seen Nils shoot?

What about Ben Stoeger? Ben has only shot a few majors...along the lines of the area match that was at his home club and the Nationals. Yet, he has finished 3rd at the Nationals and 5th (finishing 5th, he wasn't even on the super-squad). Does Ben get consideration? Can anybody objectively place him ahead of Angus or Mink? Do Nils and Ben get a shot? Is there anything in the new process that would motivate them to take a shot?

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.

Smitty reached for that golden ring. It worked!

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.

[tad]

How can one person be expected to take on the task of picking all of the team members for all the divisions to represent USPSA at the World Shoot!! People come and go, their schedules change, they may not have the time to train for a match of this magnitude! Did anyone ask John if he would like to take on such a huge task before the Board threw him under the bus? No one would question John's integrity, he has always been unshakable, BUT it would be impossible for anyone to subjectively evaluate the possibilities for members of our world shoot team. It is not as simple as that anymore. There are to many up and coming shooters for that to be an effective method of choosing our world shoot team. With the membership growing, the pool of really good shooters grows as well, even if that number is a small percentage as some would suggest. USPSA has made an effort to expand it's membership, with that comes change. The system of picking a world shoot team needs to evolve with the needs of the membership not the needs of the good ole boy system. The system used to pick the 2008 team seemed to work pretty well, it may need a little tweak here and there but the results speak for themselves! As for selection to the team being a prize, Please!! If you really believe this you have no idea of the commitment, dedication, heart and desire (not to mention the financial commitment) of what it takes to be a winner. All of the members of the 2008 world shoot team made a commitment to support USPSA by competing in the qualifier matches to EARN a spot on the team!! CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR 2008 WORLD SHOOT TEAM!!! WE ARE PROUD OF YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tad

Edited January 21, 2009 by tad

[chendersby]

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.

[chendersby]

Chris, thanks for letting us know where you stand. "Just name a team and be done with it" says a lot and is pretty much what I figured the attitude was.

Shannon

I probably did not word that well. I type so slow somethmes I forget what I was going to say as I type.

Let me put this in perspective in USPSA over all. The world shoot is every 3 years. We have 17000 members of which maybe 150 will ever go to a WS unless it is here. And an even smaller percentage of those members could qualify to be on a team. We are working with very small numbers. Not enough numbers for USPSA to run qualifier matches as they would be $ losers. Hell it is hard enough to just get our nationals together every year. So we have to farm out the qualifiers which resulted in matches that weren't exactly "qualifying" shooters for a WS other than those were the ones we named qualifiers. So do we forge ahead with the whole thing again for something that has no benefit for 99.9% of our menbership?

Now do I think the best way to pick a team is by performance? Absolutely. The problem is how do we do that and balance the needs of thee 99.9% with you in the .01%? It made more sense to have John pick the teams. I wish the pool was big enough to support a qualifier match system. If you can come up with a system to do it I would be happy to take it to the board. We have until 2011 for the next WS.

[chendersby]

How can one person be expected to take on the task of picking all of the team members for all the divisions to represent USPSA at the World Shoot!! People come and go, their schedules change, they may not have the time to train for a match of this magnitude! Did anyone ask John if he would like to take on such a huge task before the Board threw him under the bus?

Tad

Actually John volunteered. And offered 3 years ago when we were coming up with the last system.

[chendersby]

Chris, thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts on this topic. My main concern with all of this was the lack of opportunity for the members to provide feedback to their respective Area Directors prior to a vote being taken. I agree that we need to have the team locked down by the start of 2011 to make sure we can get all the permits sorted out etc. But this still leaves 23 months to pick a team.

I would have liked the BOD to offer a period of time where we could provide feedback and perhaps even propose other alternatives. A few weeks or even a month would not have harmed the process. There are few big matches at this time of year anyway.

The qualifying matches were not much like IPSC matches, I agree on that point completely. I did two of them and although they were well run, the stages were not the kind of thing we normally see in IPSC. I shot purely IPSC for 10 years before coming to USA so I know what IPSC stages look like. But the teams selected by that process kicked ass big-time, so it clearly worked.

Again, thanks for taking the time to post.

The talent pool here in the US is deep enough to field at least 2 teams in each division that would easily go 1,2 if IPSC allowed it. I think the system had less to do with our teams success than the fact we have a lot of great shooters.

[chendersby]

FWIW: I really do not like the Ryder Cup analogy. I believe the members of the Ryder Cup are professionals who make more in a year than most of our membership makes in a lifetime.

Our team is financed by the membership. The membership should not have this presented to them a fait accompli. It stinks from the get-go of backroom politics with someone trying put a fastone over on the membership.

Mind explaining how this is pulling a fast one on the membership when 99.9% of the membership are unaffected?

[SmittyFL]

Now do I think the best way to pick a team is by performance? Absolutely. The problem is how do we do that and balance the needs of thee 99.9% with you in the .01%? It made more sense to have John pick the teams. I wish the pool was big enough to support a qualifier match system. If you can come up with a system to do it I would be happy to take it to the board. We have until 2011 for the next WS.

If you really felt performance was the best way to decide a team you never would have voted for the change. An easier system? Simple, the 2009 Area 6, Area 1, and Wisconsin Sectional are your qual matches plus the best of 2008 or 2009 Nationals. It isn't the fact that a match is run under IPSC rules so much as there is a competiton for it.

I appreciate you and the other AD's responding, Alan responded on USPSA forums also. He made no sense to me either, blaming in on the economy, but he responded with his position.

I don't disagree that picking a team is a way to go....as has been mentioned other sports do it with success. I also think a winning team can be picked by someone who doesn't really know what's going on. That doesn't mean it is the best way.

I guess to me it just boils down to competition .vs who you know........but then, I'm a competitor.

[Ben Stoeger]

I think I should throw in here.

I know a few guys that made it their goal to make the team in Bali. A couple of them made it, most of them didn’t.

However, they had something to work toward. NONE of these guys would have been selected. Their only shot was to earn it. Now USPSA has decided that they aren’t going to give the no name guy a chance. They aren’t even going to pretend he has a chance.