World Shoot Team Selection

[badchad]

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.

Ok, so here's a question since I'm relatively new here. It seems that the BOD is making/made an unfair decision that is overwhelmingly unpopular. So what can we, as members, do about it?

[XRe]

I appreciate the strong BoD participation on this thread!

I've not responded to Mr. Meek on the USPSA forum, at this point, but may... Frankly, using the economy as a reason to not hold qualifier matches???

By removing the competition aspect it removes the ability to have an open process.

This is the absolute most salient point in this entire thread.

When team selection process (which Rob equated to being a "prize") is boiled down to one person making the decision, rather than using an established, openly published performance metric, you will always have accusations of favoritism, incompetence, greed... and perhaps other less savory behaviors. Even if the person doing the selecting is 100% above board, open and completely honest with the discussion of their thoughts, demonstrably has zero ulterior motives, doesn't know any of the selectees on a personal basis.... you will have those accusations.

I don't in any way shape or form think the furthering of these sorts of accusations does anything positive for USPSA. You can see by the reaction on this forum that many of us feel this way. You had a 100% objective selection process, open to all comers (whether or not all comers would have any sort of chance in hell of making it), and obviously very capable of selecting winning teams (hard to beat 100% successful). You've replaced it with a 100% subjective solution that requires one person to somehow know the most competitive shooters on the year leading into the match, and somehow select them while avoiding any pitfalls mentioned above.

You've essentially told me and many other shooters that we have nothing to work for over the next three years - because in order to reach a goal of being on a World Shoot team, not only do we have to perform well, we also have to kiss someone's ass and hope we do it well enough that he thinks about us when he's doing the selecting.

Further - the objective selection process provided a means to award World Shoot slots, should it be necessary... but now we don't even have that, either. Right back to subjective handing out of slots there, too.

[Alan Meek]

One point of order for everybody.

The Agenda item for the discussion of the WS Teams was not added as an addendum to the last agenda. Therefore it was posted on the USPSA Members area prior to the Nov Board meeting. I did not receive any input from any members on that item.

Frankly the more I read this thread, and the accusations of good ole boy, and back room deals and other insinuations becomes disheartening. This was posted on the agenda, it was discussed at length during the Board meeting and a decision was made. Are some members unhappy with the decision, absolutely, as evidenced by this thread.

For clarification, I am not blaming the economy for my decision but is was one of the points that I considered. That was based on discussions that I have had in my own Area with concerns of MDs of dropping participation levels. Currently there are in the handgun arena, 2 Nationals, 8 Area matches and a host of other Major Matches that have great match reputations. So how do we fit into that schedule a series of qualifier matches into an already fairly active season of major matches, and not conflict or pull participation from the other established matches, especially when no clubs/individuals have shown an interest to host these qualifier matches.

I am confident that the Team Manager will make the decision based on members participation in Major Matches, Area Championships and the Nationals. So how is that not basing a decision on match performance?

[Rob Boudrie]

There have been assertions it takes performance out of the process.

My view of how the process would work:

• The team manager will gather performance statistics on all the persons who are contender and compare them
  
• He will use his judgment, while looking at the stats. If there is something that is not reflected in the stats (unusual event at a single match, injury that prevented top performance at a match, etc.)
  
• If any selection involves a potential conflict of interest, the board would be advised and asked to approve the appointment
  

There are two approaches:

"Hiring decision" vs. "Competition". I thought we hired a team to win, and as such, believed that treating it as a hiring decision would be the way to go. In reference to an earlier comment, I view the team as something akin to a professional sports franchise - you NEVER see them publishing a competitive metric and telling all baseball or football players "try to make the team, we'll look at your stats and pick from the top of the list". I don't see the team as the apex of personal competition - that's what individual entries are for.

If the membership wants team slots to be a prize, we on the board blew it. If goal #1 is a winning team, we didn't. You can't have it both ways by claiming a formula can be determined in advance that will always select the best team, and that we won't knowingly omit a better candidate because of the way the numbers cranked through the formula. If you're willing to take that risk to make a team berth a competition, fine - but it's factually inaccurate to argue that such risk does not exist.

The manager based selection approach is similar to the private sector hiring practice. The formula based approach is more like civil service.

The issue of slots to the WS is a valid one. In the past this has been handled by the president, and the location was such that there was not an overwhelming demand. I expect we will need to address this issue prior to the next WS due to its location.

You've essentially told me and many other shooters that we have nothing to work for over the next three years - because in order to reach a goal of being on a World Shoot team, not only do we have to perform well, we also have to kiss someone's ass and hope we do it well enough that he thinks about us when he's doing the selecting.

This gets back to the fundamental question "job" vs "competition". If it's a competition, you are absolutely right. If it's a job, then my response would be that there are few, if any, jobs outside civil service that tell you "This is the formula by which you can be assured you will beat out other candidates".

[XRe]

The Agenda item for the discussion of the WS Teams was not added as an addendum to the last agenda. Therefore it was posted on the USPSA Members area prior to the Nov Board meeting. I did not receive any input from any members on that item.

Alan, can you provide a link to the agenda, or specify where such things are posted, pre-meeting? Its not intuitively obvious by going to the USPSA Members page...

especially when no clubs/individuals have shown an interest to host these qualifier matches.

So, its just after the 2008 World Shoot. The next one is 3 years from now. We already see that its difficult to find clubs one year out to host a Nationals, and you're expecting to have clubs lined up out the door now, in the afterglow of the most recent WS, 2+ years before those qualifier matches are going to happen? Really? Now is really the time to assess interest in holding those matches? How did you go about determining there would be interest in the first place? Was there an ad in Front Sight that we all missed, or something? A letter sent around to all clubs?

I am confident that the Team Manager will make the decision based on members participation in Major Matches, Area Championships and the Nationals. So how is that not basing a decision on match performance?

Alan, I have no illusions that you already know the answer to this question. Unless the team manager publishes a formula by which he will make selections, and demonstrably sticks to it, there will be a subjective decision made. Not a single one of us will know how much match performance had anything to do with it.

[Charles Bond]

And to further the post of XRe above, as Chuck Anderson pointed out very plainly, winning the WS while it is nice to have the pride that comes with it does absolutely nothing for USPSA. Having an open competition where anyone can aspire to work hard and shoot their way on the team encourages participation at matches and lifts the spirits of all of our members. Like many others who post here, there are going to have to be an avalanch of broken extractors before I make the WS team but I benefit from going to matches other than the nationals where the WS Team contenders are shooting.

An undercurrent to this thread is the idea that there are shooters who are "Better" than the last team we named. But whether that is or is not true is not directly relevant to this disussion even if the only goal of our team selection process is choosing the best possible team. That idea is relevant if and only if those "Better" shooters would even desire to be on the team. They have not so indicated that they would. They did not participate in the last two selection processes. Most of them did not even go to the the last WS and why should they? Almost without exception all of them are locked into dream jobs with shooting industry employers who are glad to list them as the World Champion for 200__. What are they going to gain by putting their past title on the line for a subsequent WS? Absolutely nothing.

Under the earn a position on the team approach, it is an open competition to which anyone can aspire. If a former WS champion desires to try and repeat his performance, he has that opportunity. If an undiscovered junior wants to devote his or her next 3 years to representing the US on our team, they can devote themselves to that task. And of course if a 50 year old C shooting out of shape member wants to make the same run in the hopes of massive extractor failure of all of those in front of him, he can roll those dice.

[Chuck Anderson]

One point of order for everybody.

The Agenda item for the discussion of the WS Teams was not added as an addendum to the last agenda. Therefore it was posted on the USPSA Members area prior to the Nov Board meeting. I did not receive any input from any members on that item.

Frankly the more I read this thread, and the accusations of good ole boy, and back room deals and other insinuations becomes disheartening. This was posted on the agenda, it was discussed at length during the Board meeting and a decision was made. Are some members unhappy with the decision, absolutely, as evidenced by this thread.

For clarification, I am not blaming the economy for my decision but is was one of the points that I considered. That was based on discussions that I have had in my own Area with concerns of MDs of dropping participation levels. Currently there are in the handgun arena, 2 Nationals, 8 Area matches and a host of other Major Matches that have great match reputations. So how do we fit into that schedule a series of qualifier matches into an already fairly active season of major matches, and not conflict or pull participation from the other established matches, especially when no clubs/individuals have shown an interest to host these qualifier matches.

I am confident that the Team Manager will make the decision based on members participation in Major Matches, Area Championships and the Nationals. So how is that not basing a decision on match performance?

I don't think anyone looked at the agenda item on WS Team Selection and expected the BOD to change the process that just selected the Gold winning USPSA teams for every category. I know I sure didn't. I thought last years process worked great. I also thought it served more than one purpose. It prepared USPSA shooters for IPSC. Most USPSA shooters (we'll just use Chris' number) 99.9% don't shoot IPSC. The rules are different and it was good to have a match or three run under those rules to prepare for the World Shoot. I didn't see Tulsa's match so I can't speak to that one. Arizona's was not impressive to be honest. But I thought the one in Michigan was awesome. It also reflected the stages I saw in Ecuador fairly well. In fact it ALMOST made me want to go back, but not quite. Taking the matches because the first time they were run is not the answer. Give them feedback and see if they fix them. Heck if you want I'll run one here in Portland. I'll find a weekend and make it work.

I'm not making any accusations against the BOD. I have no problems with Mike or anyone else on it and I think everyone voted the way they felt was best for USPSA.

I don't think it's possible for the Team Manager to base his decision on ALL major matches, Area Championships and Nationals. Sure he's going to go to the Nationals, and probably a couple Area matches, and maybe a few other major matches. But what about the other ones. He'll have to look at paper and the match results. That won't give him any better of a picture than someone at the main office compiling numbers.

The reason some of the big names didn't shoot the qualifiers this year was not because they couldn't afford to, they just didn't want to go to Bali. I don't think that will be an issue with Greece. One of the things I've always thought was great of USPSA is it allows every shooter a chance at the top. We compete directly with National Champions and the occasional World Champion. There is always the chance that one of the several very talented folks could run away with it and pull out an upset. That to me is cool. With this new format, we might get a better team (one that will win by 500 points instead of 400?) But we take away one of the great things about USPSA.

Seems like one of the previous issues was that a top shooter may have a gun problem or screw something else up and take them out of the running. Or in the case with 2005, have the gun they were shooting at the beginning of the qualifiers ruled illegal by IPSC to only be allowed back in before the match.

How about this. Run the previous qualifier system for the three designated team members. The 4th slot is a wildcard for the Team Manager. If he wants to give it that years National Champion (and that person is not already on the team) we end up with last years system. But there may be someone else out there that could be a better fit. That would cut back on the amount of work he has to do, allow competition to be the deciding factor for the majority of the slots and still allow some room for that OOPS factor.

[driver8M3]

I am confident that the Team Manager will make the decision based on members participation in Major Matches, Area Championships and the Nationals. So how is that not basing a decision on match performance?

if it's OK for the manager to use the results from these matches to pick the team, why wouldn't it be OK to just make some of these matches actual WS qualifier matches...pick a few of them...tell everyone...then let the shooters show up and actually compete for a spot on the team.

[badchad]

"Hiring decision" vs. "Competition". I thought we hired a team to win, and as such, believed that treating it as a hiring decision would be the way to go. In reference to an earlier comment, I view the team as something akin to a professional sports franchise - you NEVER see them publishing a competitive metric and telling all baseball or football players "try to make the team, we'll look at your stats and pick from the top of the list". I don't see the team as the apex of personal competition - that's what individual entries are for.

If the membership wants team slots to be a prize, we on the board blew it.

Again I'm new here so correct me if I'm wrong. The USPSA is a non-profit organization, and it is not paying a salary to the world team members. Also much of the appeal from the USPSA is that it is that Joe Schmoe can work hard compete with and beat the pros. Now it sounds like Joe Schmoe also needs an agent.

With that in mind, and the fact that the old objective system does bring home the gold, I vote you blew it (big time).

[George Jones]

I said it earlier....

"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".

Without that, no matter how objective the process might really be, the lack of information only leads to uncertainty and suspicion on the part of the shooters.

I understand difficult decisions when you're on the BOD. You can't ever please everyone. But just saying "someone is going to choose the team" appears flippant and less than thoughtful. Flesh it out as it should be and publish it in plain sight. Once that happens, even those who disagree with the process will at least know exactly what's expected.

[Charles Bond]

I said it earlier....

"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".

Without that, no matter how objective the process might really be, the lack of information only leads to uncertainty and suspicion on the part of the shooters.

I understand difficult decisions when you're on the BOD. You can't ever please everyone. But just saying "someone is going to choose the team" appears flippant and less than thoughtful. Flesh it out as it should be and publish it in plain sight. Once that happens, even those who disagree with the process will at least know exactly what's expected.

+100

[Alan Meek]

I said it earlier....

"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".

Without that, no matter how objective the process might really be, the lack of information only leads to uncertainty and suspicion on the part of the shooters.

I understand difficult decisions when you're on the BOD. You can't ever please everyone. But just saying "someone is going to choose the team" appears flippant and less than thoughtful. Flesh it out as it should be and publish it in plain sight. Once that happens, even those who disagree with the process will at least know exactly what's expected.

I agree 100%

[TRNinTX]

I don't think anyone looked at the agenda item on WS Team Selection and expected the BOD to change the process that just selected the Gold winning USPSA teams for every category. I know I sure didn't. I thought last years process worked great.

I actually spoke to JA in Bali about the selection process for 2011. I was told that the BOD would discuss the selection process at their next meeting and it was felt that the current system worked pretty well, but might need some tweaking. I knew that it was on the agenda, but based on my conversation with DNROI, I assumed that there would be no major changes. I guess I was wrong!

[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)

[Charles Bond]

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 is typically posted on the members only home page 30 days before the meeting. I am not sure how many days in advance of the last meeting it was posted and I think it is no longer up.

[JThompson]

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. We are the owners and you are speaking for us. 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.

Whenever I hear excuses why we have to change something that worked very well, I have to ask myself why it would be changed. Did we not win enough gold with the process? Why is it when an entity starts to get larger, it feels less and less need to pay attention to its members?

Those that are set on this course would do well to remember who "hired" you. You don't hire us.... We award based on merit. Please keep this in mind when making these types of decisions. We would like to have input on these types of decisions and if that's too much to ask from the ones we "hire" well, we can always hire new people.

I understand what you guys give up and I know that you love the sport or you wouldn't take the time away from family and friends to do it. But you need to remember we are the owners not the BOD. We thank you for your service, but you were elected to represent us... does this thread look like you are doing so? Elected officials are supposed to listen to what their constituents want and vote accordingly... did that happen here? Or maybe us poor dumb members are too ignorant to know what is best? Be careful going down that road. You see how well that's been working for the economy and..... well, you get my drift.

JT

EDIT I would like to thank my AD Gary Stevens, for keeping the faith, and also the others that voted no.

Edited January 21, 2009 by JThompson

[Chuck Anderson]

[*]He will use his judgment, while looking at the stats. If there is something that is not reflected in the stats (unusual event at a single match, injury that prevented top performance at a match, etc.)

There are two approaches:

"Hiring decision" vs. "Competition". I thought we hired a team to win, and as such, believed that treating it as a hiring decision would be the way to go. In reference to an earlier comment, I view the team as something akin to a professional sports franchise - you NEVER see them publishing a competitive metric and telling all baseball or football players "try to make the team, we'll look at your stats and pick from the top of the list". I don't see the team as the apex of personal competition - that's what individual entries are for.

\

Ok, these two got me. First how is he going to know something happened if he's not at the match, is he going to go them all. Should we come with a special form to email to DNROI when we have a bad match? Maybe: I performed poorly because: A.) My gun broke B.) My ammo sucks C.) I was out drinking last night and have a killer hangover or D.) I didn't properly prepare and blew it.

You may liken this to a professional sports team but it's not. USPSA is a membership organization and not set up to make a profit. USPSA is an individual sport where every couple years we form up as a team. If you were going to compare it to a Pro Sports team, they all have scouts and go out and actually see everyone they're looking at.

Rob, what benefit does USPSA gain from "hiring" this team as you put it. Does USPSA derive any benefit from winning the gold?

[Chuck Anderson]

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.

[Sandro]

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.

+1

The only thing we can do now is take names and vote them out next election!

[chendersby]

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.

Ok, so here's a question since I'm relatively new here. It seems that the BOD is making/made an unfair decision that is overwhelmingly unpopular. So what can we, as members, do about it?

You can always vote us out if you feel we are not representing you properly. (not meant to be a smartass answer or a challenge)

[Matt Cheely]

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?

This is exactly my problem with the "new" system.

[Mike Schramm]

Does anyone else have a problem with this whole "Job" "Hiring" and NFL team comparison?

+1

Even if the Team Manager can avoid the pressure, there is almost zero chance of at least one vendor not pushing for their hired gun to be on the team.

"Sorry Mike, you have to stay classified as a 'U', you haven't been selected yet."

[badchad]

The only thing we can do now is take names and vote them out next election!

So who's idea was this, and who voted in favor of it?

[BritinUSA]

So who's idea was this, and who voted in favor of it?

First post in this topic has the agenda votes.

[JThompson]

The only thing we can do now is take names and vote them out next election!

So who's idea was this, and who voted in favor of it?

Moved by A4 Seconded by A2 Passed

Roll Call requested by A6

Yes A2, A4, A7, A8, President

No A1, A5, A6

Edited January 21, 2009 by JThompson