arabiandoublefront
Member
- Feb 5, 2021
- 1,573
- 2,039
Yeah, and I know they're still working on that.USAG isn’t known for transparency unfortunately.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yeah, and I know they're still working on that.USAG isn’t known for transparency unfortunately.
Regardless of what happens with WAG, people will whine and make a big deal (justified or unjustified). That's just the way things are now with social media.I’m just worried if WAG doesn’t take the exact highest scoring team for TF no matter what that there will be undue outcry. The Washington Post team calculator thing is not helping.
The selection criteria for WAG is completely different than MAG. It’s picking a team for qualification lineups specifically, not TF, it’s looking at both D scores and E scores, consistency and percentages of hit routines at all events since ‘23 Worlds, and composite strength of the team as a whole.
MAG looked at Nationals and Trials scores together as one competition, used math to pick the team, and absolutely nothing else.
Then men didn't want subjective criteria. Scores and only scores, and only recent scores. Even qualifying to Trials was very score-driven, just see how Tate Costa figured out that throwing loads of difficulty on night 1 of nationals was his ticket to Trials (and the national team and all the valuable feedback that comes with that.) Stephen Nedoroscik probably identified that a slightly less difficult routine that he could hit over both nights of Trials was his ticket to Paris. I don't begrudge either of those gymnasts for reading the selection criteria and working within the rules to maximize their chances.The question is why has the men’s programme decided on this selection criteria
I do think that taking Paul Juda and Asher Hong means no more event medals. Taking Yul meant a possible parallel bars medal.
The selection criteria for WAG is completely different than MAG. It’s picking a team for qualification lineups specifically, not TF
The question is why has the men’s programme decided on this selection criteria
Seeing a lot of tweets about the USMAG selection criteria where I don’t think the authors have the correct information so I thought I’d clear some things up
Criteria document for reference:
The criteria took Trials AND Nationals scores, combined and unweighted. That is essentially 4 meets of data. This criteria was decided on by the USAG staff in consultation with the athletes and coaches, which is what we as fans have also requested for years.
I think a lot of people don’t follow MAG and so don’t realize that this system came about in large part due to USAG’s issues of the past. In previous quads, athletes were often chosen based on favoritism and racial bias. This system was created to eliminate that possibility.
There were multiple different mathematical scenarios where the team would select itself, without any committee input. Once again, this is what fans have been asking for for years: an unbiased, objective selection system free from the potential of favoritism.
I’ve also seen many asking why the criteria was not written to exclude a single-event specialist and the answer is that it would utterly unfair. These procedures were written after the conference at 2024 Winter Cup.
Stephen was the only realistic single-event specialist prospect for this team. Patty was always a big “maybe possibly” and didn’t really factor in until relatively recently.
If the committee had done what many are saying they “should” have? That would mean writing the selection criteria, at the very end of an Olympic cycle mind you, to purposefully exclude a singular athlete. It would be categorically unfair to target a specific athlete in this way.
I am 1000% against putting single-event specialists on teams, as anyone who’s followed me for any amount of time knows. But I also STRONGLY disagree with the idea of changing selection procedures within 6 months of an Olympics to exclude a specific athlete.
The committee also agrees with me. In the minutes from their selection meeting for the Olympic Trials, they discussed whether to bring more AAers vs specialists to Trials/NT and agreed that it would be unfair to change course and exclude specialists at this late juncture.
What I would like to see, and what I fully expect to, is for USAG to correct their public procedure for this coming quad to say “no single event specialist will be considered for any international team competition assignments.” That would be the time to make changes to procedure.
For ppl saying they shouldn’t have gone highest scoring team, what do you want them to do? Choose a worse team? The singular goal for this program this quad, as agreed to by staff, coaches, and athletes, is a team Olympic medal. Period. The highest scoring team is the only way.
USMAG is not USWAG. They do not have the luxury of not sending the highest scoring team. Japan and China are essentially unbeatable and GB, despite not making the best team decisions themselves, are still extremely competitive for a bronze along with Ukraine.
This system was objective, created with the athletes’ input, and for the explicit team goal agreed upon by anyone associated with the program. This is what we have been asking for for years. If you’re upset your faves weren’t chosen, that’s ok! But don’t blame the system.
All Khoi had to do was hit pommel horse. He only hit 2 for 4. The other athletes had to hit PH as well to knock Stephen out, they didn’t. Yul only needed to execute his normal, he didn’t. Shane didn’t place high enough on specific key events to beat out Paul.
Would I have chosen this team strategy? No. But do I want to go back to the old days where USAG was choosing teams based on favoritism and racial bias? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I will take an objective score-based selection over that any day of the week.
In my opinion, based on a long history of following this sport, USMAG simply hasn’t yet earned back the right to choose a team based on discretion. And if you want any more information on that, ask any of the Black athletes from the last 2 decades or read what they’ve said.
I'm VERY skeptical about this.Asher still has a chance of a vault medal. Just hasn't competed his 2nd vault domestically because it was irrelevant to selection.
Aeris is saying if you went solely by each of their highest scores.@Aeris the highest scoring team 4/4 had Juda on it, same as 3/4
Oh ok. But no one selects a highest scoring team with just one score. Which is why they did the average.Aeris is saying if you went solely by each of their highest scores.