TargetTalk

Ladies and Gentlemen:

What do you think about the current National Rankings system? Is it useful? Could it be made better? Would you prefer a "static annual" average (once a year, when they calculate classification, they use the previous 12 months worth of matches)? Or a "dynamic moving" average (once a month, use last 6 months worth of matches)?

Should the ranking system (once improved as required) be used by USAS for a real purpose, like determining developmental team status etc?

Steve Swartz

I'd keep a qualifications board that was updated at least every other month. Perhaps monthly. Make it available on the Web site.

We're doing this for the U.S. International Muzzle-Loading Team, and it is a pretty good motivator.

Where are the non-Olympic event rankings we were promised a year or more ago by USAS?

I'll have to plead ignorance of how the current system works.

But, given the two choices I'd much prefer a dynamic ranking system. (think how boring NASCAR would be if they waited until the end of the season then posted who the winner was once a year.)

I have to profess ignorance over how the current system works also. After contacting USAS by telephone and EMail a couple of times over the last year, I think I know how they think they are supposed to be doing it; but I'm not sure how they think they are supposed to be doing it is what we think tehy are doing or actually doing.

Anyhow, the current rankings are based on data from 8/2003 to 9/2004 or something like that. Hasn't been updated for quite a while.

I think last time I talked to them they said it was all in a spreadsheet, but wasn't yet "automated" in any way and was a pretty low priority in any case.

Maybe we can get some insight when we are on site for the 3X AP match in a couple of weeks.

Steve Swartz

Using the last six months worth of matches creates a very slim shooter base, don't you think? In Illinois & close-by, there's only about 1 USAS rifle match every six months to begin with. Which already skews the average, since it's not really averaging across a bunch of matches. %^)
Maybe a 12 month, or even an 18 month sliding average would benefit the greater shooting community that can't easily get to more matches, so that we could still compare ourselves with the best.

TRY CONTACTING SHOOTERS THAT POST SCORES ON THE VARIOUS POSTAL MATCHES ON THE INTERNET, IF THESE SCORES ARE NOT DOCTORED YOU WOULD GET A PRETTY GOOD BASE OF SHOOTERS. ,NOT THAT I BELIEVE THAT SCORES ARE DOCTORED.iT WOULD GIVE YOU A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF SHOOTERS AVERAGES.

USAS uses a year of data for the rankings. The rankings are updated quarterly. A shooter needs to shoot 180 shots (3-matches) in order to make it on the list... At least that's what they think they are doing.

Three matches is what it takes to move up in classification (if my memory is still working) so there is some justification for using that number. I can also see justification for using 2 matches, or even one, considering the current lack of available competition.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if they are hand entering the scores into a spreadsheet. It should be built with a real database (a free one) like MySQL), extracted with industry standard SQL and processed in PHP or Perl. That way the match scores get entered once and rankings, classifications, and other kool stuff for the coaches and managers could be available real time.

They don't have the expertise, time, money... all the usual excuses. But they haven't asked for help from their membership either.

Larry

Interesting point, Larry. Last time I dialogued with them I offered to write some VBA macros for them so all they had to do was enter the scores one time, and everything else would be automatic.

On this (and other, more important) issue(s), USAS has a severe case of NIH syndrome.

In private industry, the market would take care of that attitude Toute Suite.

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote:Interesting point, Larry. Last time I dialogued with them I offered to write some VBA macros for them so all they had to do was enter the scores one time, and everything else would be automatic.

On this (and other, more important) issue(s), USAS has a severe case of NIH syndrome.

In private industry, the market would take care of that attitude Toute Suite.

Steve Swartz

Isn't the Internet amazing! So amazing people don't recognize its potential. You don't have to be in Colorado Springs to set up scripts, maintain databases, or even attend meetings. They could have a ranking committee of members from any place in the US. They could have tasked a NC scheduling committee with surveying the membership and volunteers and proposing solutions so that the board could deal with facts. The potential is there if someone wanted to make use of it.

Larry

All:

I think the *main* problem is that the rankings aren't really being used for anything.

Let's say we selected team status (national, developmental tier I, developmental tier II, etc.) . . . or, better yet, travel selection status . . . on a *real* national ranking system

instead of

well, whatever is being used today, you betcha we could have a meaningful system that would be accurate, reliable, and useful.

Hey, how about deciding those "opportunities for non primary team members to travel and compete internationally" idea that was floated at the last competitor's meeting being based on national ranking?

Food for thought.

Steve Swartz