Justin Freeman??

After making my initial comment, it was obvious I didn't have the basic
knowledge of the selection process. The additional comments made on
this thread and at teamtoday.org have somewhat educated me.

With that said, there are a two common issues that periodically
surface.

1) We want our fastest skiers on the team so we can be competitive and
periodically win a medal on the world cup and at the olympics.
2) We need to support the team (i.e. send $'s) because money is needed
to support the athletes. Money is needed so #1 can happen (the old
chicken vs. the egg)

I'm not remotely qualified to comment on #1. As for #2, I feel I've
got enough experinece in business development to throw in my 2 cents
worth.

When trying to raise money, the primary objective is to focus on the
funding sources and develop a product that inspires their involvement.
My guess (I haven't done any research into this) is the funding sources
for the ski team would be corporations that could use the teams
exposure for advertising purposes. The only way to get the exposure
required to get corporate funding, some aspect of the team (probably
the selection process) must create a level of drama for general
population interest.

That's the tricky part ... if the selection process was encapsulated
into a dramatic / captivating 1 hour television show (edited is
probably better than live), what would it be? The process can take 6
months to complete (i.e. American Idol), but it must have a very
intuitive conclusion that is captivating. The reality is, many people
only watch the final show / Nationals.

Drama isn't the issue. This sport is full of drama. Athletes dedicate
8-12 years of their lives to reach this goal. Lives are put on hold and
life changing opportunities are skipped to pursue a dream. If in one
moment the dream can be realized or lost, the general public will have
an intuitive understanding of the personal risk at stake and interest
can be generated.

The current system is just the opposite. There is no final / telling
event to draw general public interest. The process is hardly intuitive
(I still don't understand it) and very complex / confusing. The focus
is not on the athletes. It's on the process and ski team organization.
From a sponsors / investor perspective, this is a non-starter.

To make a long story short, if a new selection process is going to be
develop (or if this one is to be modified) don't loose sight of one of
the primary objectives (and maybe the most important objective) for a
successful team, sponsorship funding.

The Itasca Supertour should be interesting tomorrow, Justin Freeman is
bib # 1 and David Chamberlain is #2.

I have never met either of these guys and I would guess that there is
no animosity between them but I would also bet that David will be fired
up and try to demostrate why he believes he should have been selected.
Justin probably feels he has to prove something too. Should be a
great race.

When I saw the list I had images of the 1st Time Trial of the 05 Tour
de France going through my mind.

If there were coverage of this it would play right into what Craig said
in his previous post.

Dave

wrote:
After making my initial comment, it was obvious I didn't have the basic
knowledge of the selection process. The additional comments made on
this thread and at teamtoday.org have somewhat educated me.

With that said, there are a two common issues that periodically
surface.

1) We want our fastest skiers on the team so we can be competitive and
periodically win a medal on the world cup and at the olympics.
2) We need to support the team (i.e. send $'s) because money is needed
to support the athletes. Money is needed so #1 can happen (the old
chicken vs. the egg)

I'm not remotely qualified to comment on #1. As for #2, I feel I've
got enough experinece in business development to throw in my 2 cents
worth.

When trying to raise money, the primary objective is to focus on the
funding sources and develop a product that inspires their involvement.
My guess (I haven't done any research into this) is the funding sources
for the ski team would be corporations that could use the teams
exposure for advertising purposes. The only way to get the exposure
required to get corporate funding, some aspect of the team (probably
the selection process) must create a level of drama for general
population interest.

That's the tricky part ... if the selection process was encapsulated
into a dramatic / captivating 1 hour television show (edited is
probably better than live), what would it be? The process can take 6
months to complete (i.e. American Idol), but it must have a very
intuitive conclusion that is captivating. The reality is, many people
only watch the final show / Nationals.

Drama isn't the issue. This sport is full of drama. Athletes dedicate
8-12 years of their lives to reach this goal. Lives are put on hold and
life changing opportunities are skipped to pursue a dream. If in one
moment the dream can be realized or lost, the general public will have
an intuitive understanding of the personal risk at stake and interest
can be generated.

The current system is just the opposite. There is no final / telling
event to draw general public interest. The process is hardly intuitive
(I still don't understand it) and very complex / confusing. The focus
is not on the athletes. It's on the process and ski team organization.
From a sponsors / investor perspective, this is a non-starter.

To make a long story short, if a new selection process is going to be
develop (or if this one is to be modified) don't loose sight of one of
the primary objectives (and maybe the most important objective) for a
successful team, sponsorship funding.

Gene Goldenfeld wrote:
Andrew, It sounds like you understand the FIS point system, so would
you mind going a step back and explaining how these points are set up,
and how specifically it's determined within a race so that some count
more than others. Perhaps a simple example of two. I'd finally like to
understand this system and probably others would too. Thanks,

I think that you've already got the first part: The average of a skier's
four lowest FIS/NRL points in the past year is that skiers points used in
the ranking.

For the individual races: points in a race = race penalty + race points.

The race penalty is the same for all the skiers in a race. It is obtained
by looking at the ranking points of the top five finishers in the race.
Throw out the high and low and then add up the middle three and divide by
3.75. That is the same as averaging the middle three of the top 5 finishers
and then multiplying by 0.8, a fudge factor which theoretically allows high
ranking/low point racers opportunity to improve their points a bit (not
always). Example: If the top 5 finishers had ranking points going into the
race of 50, 45, 177, 37, and 55, the race penalty would be 40. An exception
is that all World Cup races have a race penalty of zero. There is also a
minimal penalty for certain races if the calculated penalty is too low. As
I mentioned in my previous post, the races that were in reality the most
competitive ones for the women at Nationals had penalties of over 90.

The race points is just a scaled percent back from the winner. The scaling
factor is called the F-factor, and attempts to account for things like mass
starts having closer finishes than individual starts. F-factor for mass
starts are generally 1000, sprints 800, and individual starts 600, but there
might be some tweeking for reasons I don't understand. (The men's 10K skate
had an F-factor of 800). Race points = time fraction back x F-factor.
Example: A skier who finishes a mass start race in 33:00 in a race won in
30:00 has race points of 100 (10 percent back or 0.1 fraction back x 1000 =
100).

The race penalty as the best that you can do and that's your points for the
race if you win. Since the penalty and race points are added together, you
can think of the penalty as equivalent to percent back multiplied by 10 (or
8 or 6 depending on the F-factor). Kikkan Randall's points in those very
competitive weekend races, races so competitive that they left high ranking
skiers like Wagner and Weier out of the top 5, were only 90 and 93, the same
as if she were 9 or 9.3 percent back in a World Cup race. Arguably, it is
more likely for top ranked skiers to finish out of the top 5 at nationals
than slightly less competitive races like the Supertours because everyone is
there and wanting to step it up and make the Olympic team and that's what
happened.

For the points system to work fairly, it would require that high ranking/low
point skiers do well in the important races and it would require that no
more than one low ranking/high point skier (up and comers!) place in the top
5. That doesn't happen in reality so it results in a lot of weird things
like Dave Chamberlin having lower points than many people that he had
greatly outskied. Overall, it's not that bad for the men, since there are a
lot of low pointers (which breeds even more low pointers) so no one who was
in contention for an Olympic spot was anywhere near the FIS requirement of
100, though the relative rankings are not good at resolving real
differences.

For the women, it was a different story, much worse. Except for those on
scholarship or the few with good sponsorship, it seems like women get less
support. It's expensive to fly around and "chase points", and if you look
at the ages of the female skiers at nationals, someone only 25 would be very
old for the group, everyone else having quit racing after college. My best
friend (age 25) wanted to go to nationals but she couldn't justify the cost
of travel, housing, entry fees if she didn't feel that she could give it a
real good go. After seeing Liz Stephen being left off the team, it just
showed her that you can't ski your way onto the team. My friend said that
she was glad to save her money not going to nationals. The 100 point
requirement is an FIS one, so maybe there was nothing that the USSA could
have done for Stephen, but the problem remains. The reason that NMU was
mentioned so often on teamtoday is a consequence of this penalty system, not
that people dislike them. Weier and Williams have good points, so their
teammates, who always do the same races as them, also get good points if
they are reasonably close. Yes, those races are open to all, but the point
is that it is nice to have racers in your home region with good points, not
everyone can travel that much.

Now here's an argument for overhauling the points system, at least for
women. If the point, as many have said, is "you knew the rules ahead of
time, do things necessary to get the points, go to all the Supertours,
Spring Series, etc.," besides bankrupting many, it would require some
creative racing. If you are in a position like Stephen or Arritola, high
points, need lower points, but skiing better than Wagner, Weier, Williams,
etc. you need to be aware of who the top ranking skiers are and try not to
knock them out of the top 5 in races. If you are about to finish 1-5 in a
mass start race, and high ranked skiers are on your tail, it would be to
your advantage to wait with your boots 1 cm before the finish line and let
Wagner, et. al pass you to finish in the top 5 before crossing the line.
Letting them finish ahead of you will lower the race penalty and this might
be a lot better than finishing higher/lower the percent back depending on
how long you have to wait. Better yet, a coach could do some simple
calculations and hold you a bit before crossing the line if necessary,
especially in individual start races if you are near the back of the start
list. If racing for points is the thing to do, then mass start racing for
the women could evolve into people hanging back in a pack behind the four
top ranked skiers in the race (remember they through out the high and low of
the top 5) and letting them cross the line in the first 5 places. Skiers
with good points would not use this tactic, but it would be beneficial for
many.

Another way around the FIS rules might be to hold some "training races", say
before the main races at nationals. The idea would be for everyone to ski
easily in a big pack and let the four highest ranked skiers in the field to
finish in the top 5, with everyone else finishing shortly thereafter. (Or
"predicted time races" with individual start with someone "helping" people
wait at the line if necessary.) Everyone would get low points for the
races. Repeat once or twice and a large fraction of the women racers would
have low points. Then they can do some races for real. Afterwards, they
can go back to their home regions and lower the points in their region by
lowering the penalties in their regions. Racers carry their points with
them for better or worse. The reason that NMU was mentioned so often on
teamtoday is a consequence of this penalty system, not that people dislike
them. Weier and Williams have good points, so their teammates, who always
do the same races as them, also get good points if they are reasonably
close. Yes, those races are open to all, but the point is that it is nice
to have racers in your home region with good points, not everyone can travel
that much.

I've thought of a lot of other weird things that should happen if people
would really start racing for points, but I think my point has been made.
There's also the issue that the most important races are not weighted any
more than a local race with little at stake. It makes it hard to know what
to focus on.

A suggestion for change if a points system is to be used for women (probably
can't change FIS rules, as opposed to USSA rules though?): Average the
points of the 5 top ranked skiers in the field, not 3 of the top 5
finishers, adding a fudge factor if necessary.

I like the suggestions for a head to head comparison system with races
weighted according to their importance, announced ahead of time so it makes
it clear which races are the ones that matter. Combine it whatever waivers
for those who make the red group, make sure that the selected meet FIS
requirements, etc., but basically, make it head to head in the important
races!

Thanks, Andrew, that's really helpful. You use the terms low and high
points in the usual sense when, as I understand your explanation, the
goal is actually to have fewer (low) FIS points. The system seems
to depend on the low points skiers doing well and one or two moving up
to join them. The idea being that process repeats itself and can spread
out geographically and generation to generation. OTOH, from the
standpoint of the system (FIS) and competition, if the top skiers in a
country don't do so well in national races, then that means they aren't
so hot and it presumes to grade others accordingly. To break out of that
vicious circle, the up and coming faster skiers need to get their points
in other competitions, such as international, in effect to prove their
mettle to the system. That's from the overall standpoint. At the
national level, in a country that's second to third rate
internationally (e.g., U.S.), the system tends to break down as a means
of picking teams, due to the lack of skier (and thus statistical)
consistency. Your point about the financial side of it in a country as
geographically large as the U.S. is then well taken.

You mention the FIS 100 pts rule. Isn't the rule that skiers with
100 can compete in one event at the Olys (and World Champs?), but need
100 to do more races?

Gene


"Andrew Lee" whatsupandrewathotmaildotcom wrote:

I think that you've already got the first part: The average of a
skier's four lowest FIS/NRL points in the past year is that skiers
points used in the ranking.

For the individual races: points in a race = race penalty + race
points.

The race penalty is the same for all the skiers in a race. It is
obtained by looking at the ranking points of the top five finishers
in the race. Throw out the high and low and then add up the middle
three and divide by 3.75. That is the same as averaging the middle
three of the top 5 finishers and then multiplying by 0.8, a fudge
factor which theoretically allows high ranking/low point racers
opportunity to improve their points a bit (not always). Example: If
the top 5 finishers had ranking points going into the race of 50, 45,
177, 37, and 55, the race penalty would be 40. An exception is that
all World Cup races have a race penalty of zero. There is also a
minimal penalty for certain races if the calculated penalty is too
low. As I mentioned in my previous post, the races that were in
reality the most competitive ones for the women at Nationals had
penalties of over 90.

The race points is just a scaled percent back from the winner. The
scaling factor is called the F-factor, and attempts to account for
things like mass starts having closer finishes than individual
starts. F-factor for mass starts are generally 1000, sprints 800,
and individual starts 600, but there might be some tweeking for
reasons I don't understand. (The men's 10K skate had an F-factor of
800). Race points = time fraction back x F-factor. Example: A skier
who finishes a mass start race in 33:00 in a race won in 30:00 has
race points of 100 (10 percent back or 0.1 fraction back x 1000 =
100).

The race penalty as the best that you can do and that's your points
for the race if you win. Since the penalty and race points are added
together, you can think of the penalty as equivalent to percent back
multiplied by 10 (or 8 or 6 depending on the F-factor). Kikkan
Randall's points in those very competitive weekend races, races so
competitive that they left high ranking skiers like Wagner and Weier
out of the top 5, were only 90 and 93, the same as if she were 9 or
9.3 percent back in a World Cup race. Arguably, it is more likely
for top ranked skiers to finish out of the top 5 at nationals than
slightly less competitive races like the Supertours because everyone
is there and wanting to step it up and make the Olympic team and
that's what happened.

For the points system to work fairly, it would require that high
ranking/low point skiers do well in the important races and it would
require that no more than one low ranking/high point skier (up and
comers!) place in the top
5. That doesn't happen in reality so it results in a lot of weird
things like Dave Chamberlin having lower points than many people that
he had greatly outskied. Overall, it's not that bad for the men,
since there are a lot of low pointers (which breeds even more low
pointers) so no one who was in contention for an Olympic spot was
anywhere near the FIS requirement of 100, though the relative
rankings are not good at resolving real differences.

For the women, it was a different story, much worse. Except for
those on scholarship or the few with good sponsorship, it seems like
women get less support. It's expensive to fly around and "chase
points", and if you look at the ages of the female skiers at
nationals, someone only 25 would be very old for the group, everyone
else having quit racing after college. My best friend (age 25)
wanted to go to nationals but she couldn't justify the cost of
travel, housing, entry fees if she didn't feel that she could give it
a real good go. After seeing Liz Stephen being left off the team, it
just showed her that you can't ski your way onto the team. My friend
said that she was glad to save her money not going to nationals. The
100 point requirement is an FIS one, so maybe there was nothing that
the USSA could have done for Stephen, but the problem remains. The
reason that NMU was mentioned so often on teamtoday is a consequence
of this penalty system, not that people dislike them. Weier and
Williams have good points, so their teammates, who always do the same
races as them, also get good points if they are reasonably close.
Yes, those races are open to all, but the point is that it is nice to
have racers in your home region with good points, not everyone can
travel that much.

Now here's an argument for overhauling the points system, at least
for women. If the point, as many have said, is "you knew the rules
ahead of time, do things necessary to get the points, go to all the
Supertours, Spring Series, etc.," besides bankrupting many, it would
require some creative racing. If you are in a position like Stephen
or Arritola, high points, need lower points, but skiing better than
Wagner, Weier, Williams, etc. you need to be aware of who the top
ranking skiers are and try not to knock them out of the top 5 in
races. If you are about to finish 1-5 in a mass start race, and high
ranked skiers are on your tail, it would be to your advantage to wait
with your boots 1 cm before the finish line and let Wagner, et. al
pass you to finish in the top 5 before crossing the line. Letting
them finish ahead of you will lower the race penalty and this might
be a lot better than finishing higher/lower the percent back
depending on how long you have to wait. Better yet, a coach could do
some simple calculations and hold you a bit before crossing the line
if necessary, especially in individual start races if you are near
the back of the start list. If racing for points is the thing to do,
then mass start racing for the women could evolve into people hanging
back in a pack behind the four top ranked skiers in the race
(remember they through out the high and low of the top 5) and letting
them cross the line in the first 5 places. Skiers with good points
would not use this tactic, but it would be beneficial for many.

Another way around the FIS rules might be to hold some "training
races", say before the main races at nationals. The idea would be
for everyone to ski easily in a big pack and let the four highest
ranked skiers in the field to finish in the top 5, with everyone else
finishing shortly thereafter. (Or "predicted time races" with
individual start with someone "helping" people wait at the line if
necessary.) Everyone would get low points for the races. Repeat
once or twice and a large fraction of the women racers would have low
points. Then they can do some races for real. Afterwards, they can
go back to their home regions and lower the points in their region by
lowering the penalties in their regions. Racers carry their points
with them for better or worse. The reason that NMU was mentioned so
often on teamtoday is a consequence of this penalty system, not that
people dislike them. Weier and Williams have good points, so their
teammates, who always do the same races as them, also get good points
if they are reasonably close. Yes, those races are open to all, but
the point is that it is nice to have racers in your home region with
good points, not everyone can travel that much.

I've thought of a lot of other weird things that should happen if
people would really start racing for points, but I think my point has
been made. There's also the issue that the most important races are
not weighted any more than a local race with little at stake. It
makes it hard to know what to focus on.

A suggestion for change if a points system is to be used for women
(probably can't change FIS rules, as opposed to USSA rules though?):
Average the points of the 5 top ranked skiers in the field, not 3 of
the top 5 finishers, adding a fudge factor if necessary.

I like the suggestions for a head to head comparison system with
races weighted according to their importance, announced ahead of time
so it makes it clear which races are the ones that matter. Combine
it whatever waivers for those who make the red group, make sure that
the selected meet FIS requirements, etc., but basically, make it head
to head in the important races!