Proposal to Adopt the Championship System Used by USA Fencing (with Appropriate Modifications for Curling)

Author’s note: This blog is the third in a series discussing how USA Curling qualifies athletes for major events and suggesting changes for the qualification processes to increase participation and heighten the level of competitiveness of U.S. curlers.

The present championship system that USA Curling uses leaves a lot to be desired. As such, I propose adopting an approach like USA Fencing’s system, which largely uses a points system to qualify for events in conjunction with a centralized event registration platform that also tracks team and individual fencer rankings. With a few modifications, I believe that a similar system could be used within U.S. curling.

When it comes to the qualification of athletes for USA Fencing national championships, fencers can receive points for placing well in certain sanctioned tournaments such as Regional Open Circuit competitions (ROCs) and North American Cups (NACs). Aside from earning a certain amount of points, fencers can also qualify by placing well in certain events and upping their ranking (NOTE: Fencers are assigned rankings from “A” through “E” and “U,” with “A” being the highest ranking, “E” being the worst, and “U” being unranked). This approach ends up functioning as a two-tiered system where the average fencer is able to achieve success and, if they actually do really well, would then be eligible to compete at an elite level. It also encourages the average fencer by providing meaningful achievements that are within their reach, which (may) ultimately lead to bigger and more prestigious achievements as skill level increases – to the ultimate goal of representing the USA at the highest level: the Olympics.

In fencing, there are different weapons (i.e., foil, epee, and saber) that fencers can compete in. Fencers are also divided into divisions for each weapon based on skill level. Fencing divisions include: I (elite level), IA, II, and III. Within the divisions are age categories. The different weapons divisions are an apt comparison to the different disciplines of curling (men’s, women’s, mixed, mixed doubles, etc.). With the exception of Division I (which is held in April), all national championships are held at the same time in the summer (at “Summer Nationals”). This assists fencers in knowing when major competitions are going to be held each year and allows for proper planning. It also allows fencers who qualify in multiple divisions to only need to make one (or two trips at most) over the year in order to attend national championships. The Academy of Fencing Masters has created an amazing diagram, which gives a great rundown of how the qualification process for fencing Summer Nationals actually plays out: CLICK HERE FOR THE DIAGRAM.

Aside from having centralized National Championships across the divisions, “[t]he Regional Open Circuit (ROC) is designed to promote and develop strong regional tournaments for the Open/Division I-A fencer who seeks competitive opportunities beyond the local and division levels but below the NAC Division I level. Other competitive opportunities in the ROC tournaments are provided for Veteran (40 & Older) and Division II (C, D, E or U) fencers.” (http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Fencing/Events/About-Tournaments/ROC-Tournament-Organizer-Resources). There are similar regional competitions for younger fencers (Regional Youth Circuit (RYC), Super Youth Circuit (SYC)), as well as the North American Cup (NAC) tournaments, which are “a series of tournaments organized by USA Fencing (Y10, Y12, Y14, Cadet, Junior, Div I, Div II, Div III, Vet Open, Vet Age, Wheelchair, and Cadet/Y14/Junior/Senior Team). For Div I NACs, athletes must meet the criteria for a “C” or better classification at the time of their entry. For Div II NACs, athletes must meet the age and classification criteria (“C” or lower classification) at the time of their entry. For Div III NACs, athletes must meet the age and classification criteria for a (“D” or lower classification) at the time of their entry.” (2017-2018 USA Fencing Handbook, pg. 17).

If we were to apply this system to curling teams, a hypothetical team, the “Smith Rink,” could start out unranked and work their way up to Division III. Even with lineup changes, once they earn enough points as a team, they could attain a level where they could either choose to remain in Division III, or move up to Division II where they could begin to challenge for higher level events. This would continue to progress until the Smith Rink is ready for Division I play.

Another takeaway from fencing that could benefit curling is the use of individual rankings. While the ranking of teams is vital, tracking individual performances would also be beneficial in curling. For instance, when the Smith Rink enters USA Curling sanctioned events, they could be tracked as a team and individually in a way that is similar to the way that CurlingZone.com and the World Curling Tour track player statistics and use Order of Merit points for teams. These rankings would fluctuate based on competitions so that individual teams and players will be cognizant of the events and skills required to be successful. Thus, if the Smith Rink were to beat the #1 team at a regional division tournament, they would gain a higher ranking, but the #1 team may or may not take a tumble in the rankings depending on how well they did overall at the event in question.

When it comes to individual rankings, the members of Team Smith may or may not have outside accomplishments that would influence their rankings. For example, if Sebastian Smith, the hypothetical skip of Team Smith, had competed in juniors at a high level and/or had success playing a different position on another team prior to skipping the Smith rink, he would have a higher ranking than Seth Second, the hypothetical second of Team Smith, who had limited success at local club funspiels prior to joining the Smith rink. Additionally, the top four ranked individuals in a division may be able to comprise a team, but if they do not have any team chemistry, they would likely not be able to perform as well and all of their team and individual rankings would suffer.

Additionally, under the suggested ranking system, only USA Curling sanctioned events would count as ROC events. Clubs and/or regional/state curling associations (e.g., MOPAC, GNCC, etc.) would be able to register their events for this status and that would, in turn, encourage more participation and spieling throughout the regions. All events would not award the same number of points, however; instead, the number of points awarded would be dependent upon the strength of field of each event. By doing this, curlers could decide if it was worth participating in certain events where it may cost prohibitive. This would also allow the lesser events to be bypassed in favor of events with a higher strength of field. Moreover, there would likely be events were the field was limited to teams of at least a certain ranking or within specific divisions. Such events would allow elite curlers to face off against each other, and others would allow lower ranked teams to obtain higher rankings.

While a full review of USA Curling’s selection process will take place again in the summer of 2018, the intention is that the qualifying criteria will be tightened up again as USA Curling looks ahead to preparing teams for future world championships and the 2022 Olympic Games (see USA Curling’s Press Release, "USA Curling relaxes the World Team Qualification Process for 2018" [last accessed Dec. 30, 2017]). As such, this article proposes a new way to better elevate the sport of curling through more focused merit based selections and increase the level of competition. With the end result of USA Curling’s tightening the qualifying criteria, it is my hope that they consider this proposal in their role as elevating the sport of curling within the U.S. Additionally, this proposed system would fulfill the desire of USA Curling, and the U.S. Olympic Committee for both growing the sport and continuing to sustain international competitive excellence.

To be continued….

*            *            *

The next blog in this series will suggest alternate uses for High Performance Program funds. Part 1 of this series, Changes to USA Curling World Team Qualification Process, a Step in the Right Direction, discussed the recent changes that USA Curling made to the World Team qualification process and the disconnect between what those who play the sport and those who are responsible for governing the sport see as being necessary to compete at a high level. Part 2, Problems with USA Curling’s Championship Qualification Processes, discussed the unclear requirements for USA Curling national championships.

-           -           -

This article was prepared by the author in her personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the views of any organizations that the author is affiliated with.

Problems with USA Curling’s Championship Qualification Processes

Presently, the current USA Curling system has multiple national championships, including, U18 Nationals, Junior Nationals, U.S. Nationals, Wheelchair Nationals, Club Nationals, Senior Nationals, Mixed Nationals, Mixed Doubles Nationals, Arena Nationals, and the Curling College Championship.

On September 11, 2017, USA Curling sent out an email with the subject line “Volunteers needed in Vegas for 2018 World Men's Championship” to its membership. (See Email from USA Curling to Membership (Sept. 11, 2017)).  Towards the end of the email, there was a section about upcoming playdowns where it asked “Are you ready for playdowns? Sign up today!” and provided links about how to register for 2017-2018 playdowns. Going to the registration page in the email (hereafter, “Registration Page”) takes you to a page that explains qualifications for all national championship events (except Arena Nationals). Arena Nationals will not be discussed here as it was not listed on the registration page.

Until this email, I had never looked intently at the registration requirements for championships. I found it interesting that the qualification systems varied so widely when all events are national championships in their respective fields. For example, Club Nationals, U18 Nationals, and Mixed Nationals require playdowns based on geographic regions (i.e., teams must win a playdown for the region that their club belongs to—Mountain Pacific, Dakota Region, etc.). (See Registration Page). However, Junior Nationals use a qualification system that involves four events (which take place in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Massachusetts). “Four (4) qualifying events will be held (Berth bonspiels), with two women’s and two men’s teams advancing from each event. . . . Teams may enter as many events as they wish. Teams (and individual players) will be ineligible to play in any successive qualifying event if they have secured a berth in a previous berth qualifier to Junior Nationals. Teams do not need to have the same team members for each event. Teams may reconfigure with different players for each event.” (Registration Page).

For Wheelchair Nationals, “all wheelchair curling athletes who have demonstrated the ability to play regulation curling games are encouraged to register . . . Athletes will register into the bonspiel as individuals (no team entries). Size of teams will be determined based on the total number of event registrants. All teams will be developed using a draft system in which current members of the National High Performance Program will serve as skips and select their teams.” (See Registration Page). And, the Curling College Championship “is designed to find the best college curling school in the nation. Sixteen schools will be invited to participate in a split round robin followed by a championship round, and one will take the single national title.” (Registration Page).

The qualification process for Mixed Doubles Nationals “depends on the number of entries. The USCA format formula described in Section II (7) of the Championship Rules will be used. As soon as possible after the sign-up deadline, teams will be notified of the specific format, and the beginning and ending dates for the competition.” (Registration Page). But, unlike in some of the other qualification overview sections which link to the 2016-2017 Rules of Curling and Competition handbook, there is no link to the “Championship Rules.” As such, I ran a search for the phrase “championship rules” on the USA Curling website, and the results brought up this page: http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Curling/Features/2016/October/25/Championship-Rules-Book-now-available which suggests that the Championship Rules book is the same as the Rules of Curling and Competition (see also http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Curling/Events/Championships-microsite/Inside-the-Championships/Rules). However, when one views Section II (7) of the handbook, that section deals with uniforms. (see Rules of Curling and Competition, pp. 23-24 [last accessed Oct. 4, 2017]), so it is unclear exactly how Mixed Doubles Nationals are run. With many of the high performance athletes showing sudden interest in participating in Mixed Doubles, it is odd that the requirements or qualification are, as of yet, unpublished.

Lastly, for U.S. Nationals, the qualification process involves a combination of awarding spots based on Order of Merit points and the use of a “Challenge Round” playdown. “[The National Championship Team selection playdown system is not geographically based. The National Championships field will be ten teams providing there are at least fourteen entries. If there are thirteen or fewer entries then the National Championships field will be eight teams.” (Registration Page). In the event that there are ten teams, “[f]ive Nationals spots will be awarded to the top five Order of Merit (OOM) teams. . . . Four National Championship spots will be determined at a single Challenge Round event. The remaining Nationals spot will be awarded to a High Performance Program Discretionary Selection.” In the event there are eight teams, then “[f]our Nationals spots will be awarded to the top four Order of Merit (OOM) teams. . . . Three National Championship spots will be determined at a single Challenge Round event. The remaining Nationals spot will be awarded to a High Performance Program Discretionary Selection.” (See Registration Page).

As we saw with 2017 U.S. Nationals, there is a serious lack of participation in the U.S. Nationals Challenge Rounds. The women’s Challenge Round only had six (6) teams competing, and the men’s Challenge round had thirteen (13). (see http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Curling/Features/2016/December/30/Nationals-Challenge-Rounds-begin-next-week). Why is this? Why do more curlers not want to compete at U.S. Nationals? Is it because winning Nationals no longer guarantees that the team will represent the USA at World Championships? Or, is it because, even if a team has a strong showing (like winning silver) at U.S. Nationals, they still may get overlooked for a HPP team when it comes to deciding who goes to Olympic Trials? (see, e.g., how Team Birr was overlooked for an Olympic Trials spot, but ultimately won a spot at the Trials after filing a right-to-play grievance).

It is clear that the current system leaves a lot to be desired and can be confusing to curlers given the amount of dissimilarity amongst the various national championships. Therefore, I propose adopting the system used by USA Fencing in order to determine what curlers qualify for national championships as such an approach would likely satisfy the goals of increasing participation in the sport up to, and including, the highest levels as well as growing the sport and continuing to sustain international competitive excellence.

(To be continued….)

Author’s note: This blog is the second in a series discussing how USA Curling qualifies athletes for major events and suggesting changes for the qualification processes to increase participation and heighten the level of competitiveness of American curlers.

The next blog in this series will discuss specifics of my proposed changes to the current curling system based on the one used by USA Fencing and Part 4 will suggest alternate uses for High Performance Program funds. Part 1 of this series, Changes to USA Curling World Team Qualification Process, a Step in the Right Direction, discussed the recent changes that USA Curling made to the World Team qualification process and the disconnect between what those who play the sport and those who are responsible for governing the sport see as being necessary to compete at a high level.

- - -

This article was prepared by the author in her personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the views of any organizations that the author is affiliated with.

Team Birr Wins Hearing, Headed to USA Curling Olympic Trials

The first article of this blog, A Tale of Three Teams: Clarity Needed in USA Curling's Discretionary Pick Process, was about the slight against Team Birr wherein they were not given a discretionary pick to participate in the upcoming Olympic Trials and how that decision appeared to be nonsensical given the recent history of USA Curling's use of the process. It also discussed the upcoming hearing that Team Birr was going to have, appealing the decision.

Well, that hearing was held on September 21st, and Team Birr announced via their Facebook page that the decision is in and they are headed to Olympic Trials! For all the reasons discussed in my previous post dealing with the issues involved, I am pleased at this outcome and that justice was done! Congrats to Team Birr, and best wishes to all the teams attending the Trials!

A Tale of Three Teams: Clarity Needed in USA Curling’s Discretionary Pick Process

What does it actually take for American curlers to represent USA Curling at an elite level? Given recent occurrences at the 2017 National Championships (“Nationals”) and the announcement of the teams selected to compete at the upcoming 2018 U.S. Olympic Team Trials (“Trials”), there have been some questions among curlers regarding this process. One of the major sources of confusion is that of the discretionary pick process used by USA Curling. The discretion exercised by USA Curling in selecting teams to compete at an elite level has produced much uncertainty. A shining example of the issues with the discretionary pick process can be seen by comparing the cases of Team Birr (Blaine, MN), Team Wood (Parker, CO/California), and Team Leichter (Boston, MA).

USA Curling recently announced the teams who would be competing at Trials. The men’s teams included the John Shuster, Brady Clark, Craig Brown, and Heath McCormick rinks. Noticeably absent from the list was the Todd Birr rink. Team Birr, with the lineup of Todd Birr (skip), Rich Ruohonen (vice), John Benton (second), and Tom O’Connor (lead) earned a silver medal at the 2017 Men’s Nationals, losing in the final game to Team Shuster—the only men’s team who automatically qualified for Trials. At Nationals, Team Birr also claimed victories over some of USA Curling’s High Performance Program (HPP) teams, including the three teams aside from Team Shuster selected to attend Trials. Team Birr also had a respectable number of Order of Merit (OOM) points for the 2016-2017 season. However, despite all of this success, Team Birr did not receive a discretionary pick to compete at Trials.

In comparison with Team Birr, Team Wood, which, at the time of 2017 Nationals, consisted of Becca Wood (skip), Auria Moore (vice), Porsche Renae Stephenson (second), and Donna Umali (lead) was granted a discretionary pick to attend the 2017 Women’s Nationals. This was a remarkable choice for USA Curling given that Team Wood attended the tournament with no OOM points and zero games won in the Nationals Challenge Round or at any World Curling Tour competition prior to Nationals and its Challenge Round. While both Team Birr and Team Wood are talented, the granting of a discretionary pick for Team Wood, but withholding its use for Team Birr in their respective venues displays a perplexing standard that may not support Team USA’s quest for international competitive excellence.

I had the pleasure of speaking with the skips of Team Birr and Team Wood, and they were both surprised by the discretionary pick process, albeit, for very different reasons. In the case of Team Wood, Becca Wood admits she was surprised by Team Wood’s receipt of the discretionary pick, but did not question it as she believes, though their team did not win any games or have any OOM points, their dedication and desire shone through when they competed during the playdowns.

Paradoxically, Todd Birr admits his team was surprised at not receiving a discretionary pick to attend Trials, despite Team Birr’s outstanding silver medal performance against the 2014 U.S. Olympic Curling Team (Team Shuster) at the 2017 Nationals as well as their solid season prior to Nationals (which included wins against some of the top teams on the World Curling Tour). Because the standard is so vague, Team Birr’s attorney, Marcus Beyer, sent a letter to Rick Patzke, CEO of USA Curling, requesting reconsideration of Team Birr’s exclusion from Trials; but, the reconvened Trials selection committee upheld their decision to refuse Team Birr’s request, relying on a provision in the Selection Procedures that stated the committee “reserves the right to not add any discretionary selections if they feel it is in the best interests of international excellence” as long as the minimum number of required teams has been met. No other reasoning for not allowing Team Birr to compete at Trials was given.

This situation is also odd given that when the Alex Leicther rink (Boston, MA; Alex Leichter (skip), Martin Sather (vice), Nate Clark (second), Ryan Hallisey (lead)) was given a discretionary pick to participate in the men's field at 2017 Nationals despite not qualifying through the Challenge Round, the USA Curling press release announcing the decision stated that the pick was “awarded to Alex Leichter (Boston) as the next highest ranked OOM team that competed in the Challenge Round.” Like Team Leichter, Team Birr is the next highest ranked OOM team that competed at Nationals (where they won silver) and yet they did not receive a discretionary pick although a spot still remains available.

With the response from the Trials selection committee to Attorney Beyer and Team Birr, confusion has only increased. Many curlers, including myself, are wondering how it could not be in the best interests of international excellence to have the Nationals runner-up who (as per Todd Birr) had a winning record against two teams that were selected (Brown and Clark), and an even record against a third (Team McCormick) during the 2016-2017 season, be included as the allowed fifth team for Trials. It is especially strange given the documented conflicts of interest within the Selection Committee that Attorney Beyer noted in Team Birr’s official complaint with regard to the matter.

Even some of USA Curling’s own board members have recognized that there is a problem with team selection. According to the minutes of the USA Curling Board of Directors meeting held on July 10, 2017 via teleconference, “[f]ive board members indicated concerns regarding the Olympic Trials selection process.” (July 10, 2017 Board Meeting Minutes, page 1, section 2a.) The July 10th board meeting was held in response to the “chatter, both via emails and social media” regarding the Trials selection process. . . . All of this is directly related to the Team Birr request to be included as a discretionary selection in the upcoming Olympic Trials.” (Board Meeting Minutes, page 1, section 2a.)

At this meeting, “The Board spent a significant amount of time debating specifics of the matter and potential implications of what has been on social media by Team Birr’s attorney versus what was considered by the selection committee. It was noted several times that the committee had significantly more information to consider than has been included in the Team Birr letter, and the committee’s deliberations are considered confidential.” (Board Meeting Minutes, page 2, section 4 (emphasis added).) While the deliberations may be considered confidential, the information to be considered when making discretionary selections for Trials is straightforward and set by Section 2.2 of the Selection Procedures. Further, it should be noted that a failure to comply with its own Selection Procedures disseminated to the athletes is highly problematic for USA Curling and could ultimately result in Team Birr’s bid for a Trials spot being successful, even if their current challenge under Article 15 of USA Curling’s bylaws failed. All of this is due to Team Birr’s option to file a grievance with United States Olympic Committee (USOC) under section 9 of the USOC’s bylaws. (See USA Curling Bylaws, pg. 48, Section 15.11).

Whether or not Team Birr will take that step remains to be seen. Fortunately, this step is not without precedent. There have been many challenges to national governing body (NGB) decisions regarding selection for Olympic Trials and other major events. While it is a difficult path to pursue and many of these challenges are unsuccessful, the ones that tend to result in change are the ones where the NGB did not follow its own selection procedures (See Komanski v. USA Cycling, AAA 01 15 0004 9907 (Nov. 15, 2015) (Jeffrey G. Benz, Arb.), where USA Cycling was forced to substitute Lauren Komanski in place of another athlete as a discretionary selection). Although, this is a lengthy process for Team Birr, their cause is worthy, and hopefully, will spark change and more transparency in the processes used by USA Curling to determine who competes at a national level, and ultimately who has earned the right to represent the U.S. on the international stage in our sport. Team Birr is not asking to be named America’s Olympic team for curling in 2018; they’re merely asking for the chance to show that they’ve got what it takes to rightfully win and be named that team—similar to how both Team Wood and Team Leichter were given the chance to show that they were capable of competing at a national level.


This article was prepared by the author in her personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the views of any organizations that the author is affiliated with.