When is the new USADance Proficiency Point Limit Becoming Effective?

[Lorelei]

Just saw an email from USADance with a link to the new Rulebook. Proficiency points are lowered to 200 from 300. Does anyone know if it is effective immediately, or is there some grace period?

[19DancerBabyLin]

I dunno the answer to that, although I'm sure someone will come along soon enough to do so... but IMHO if this will actually affect you or if you might have to worry about that, then it's time to move on up!

~~moving on up, you're moving on out, time to break free, nothing can stop me yea!~~ (that's my crappy singing)

[Casayoto]

Good call Lin. The point cap is still pretty high.

[Bailamosdance]

Daphne, where is the point database? It's been promised by USA Dance for over a year... were you able to ask about it? You mentioned that you would ask after the New Year...

[Joe]

Just saw an email from USADance with a link to the new Rulebook. Proficiency points are lowered to 200 from 300. Does anyone know if it is effective immediately, or is there some grace period?
My guess is effective immediately. It is January 2010.

[Lorelei]

I believe that in our specific case, my partner and I will point out faster that we would have under the old system. I would agree it is time to move up when you are at the top of the final in your division, or are making finals at large competitions. Partner and I have danced 5 competitions in our division, 2 of which were very large (about 40 couples) and we were in the quarter final. I would respectfully disagree that someone with that result has the right proficiency to move up to the next level...

[Lorelei]

I should clarify that by the "old system" I meant the point system USABDA used for placement in finals, and not the 300 point limit that existed for the last 2 years.

[Casayoto]

If you win a 40 couple event, you will probably get about 12 points each. With a 200 point couple limit, that means you would have to do this 9 times before you point out. If you made it to the quarterfinal you would only get 1 point, which means you can do this 100 times before you point out. I don't think that's too restrictive.

[Lorelei]

Went back and read the rule. You are right. I was mistakenly counting proficiency points for placement in quaterfinal, which results in a much higher point count.

[Casayoto]

It's a pretty complicated description of how to determine your points. I wonder how many people have no idea how many points they have, but think they do.

Yet another reason that there should be a points database that's easily accessible...

[Chris Stratton]

Simply mandating reporting of all results in a common file format as a condition of sanctioning and dumping them on an ftp server would have been enough. Those maintaining scruitineering packages would have had to spend a day or so writing export backends, and we'd likely have several open source solutions for processing the data by now - probably one way linked to college comp calculations and popping up automatic warning flags in some of the registration systems.

[Joe]

Sounds like we have a volunteer!

[Ithink]

In WCS, there is also point system and every competition organizer has a certain amount of time to report the comp results back to whoever keeps the database of points. You can go online at any time and check out anyone's points (and call them out on it when they register for the wrong division;)). Perhaps someone who understands these things can contact World Swing Dance Council (www . swingdancecouncil . com) and see how they do/did it. Seems to me, with an appropriate computer program, it would only be marginally more difficult to do this with ballroom (given that there are more dances/competitors in ballroom).

[syncopationator]

Without a points database on the USADance site that is available to the public, this rule is impossible to enforce.

Even if you show up to dance bronze and someone complains that you should be dancing silver or gold, I would put it to them to prove it. And even then they would have to allow for an appeal due to possible errors in reported results, etc...

[Meagan]

I wonder how many people have no idea how many points they have, but think they do.


I dunno but I'm in the camp of: no idea how many points I have, but I know I have no idea.

Not sure this is any better :p But at least I'm preeetty sure I'm not dancing in any levels I'm even close to getting kicked out of ;)

ballroomregistrar used to have a point tracker for the comps it was used for (maybe still does)...was only mildly helpful cause it didn't have all the comps but back when a lot of college comps used it, it was good for YCN syllabus to some extent...some day...

[Bailamosdance]

Without a points database on the USADance site that is available to the public, this rule is impossible to enforce.

Even if you show up to dance bronze and someone complains that you should be dancing silver or gold, I would put it to them to prove it. And even then they would have to allow for an appeal due to possible errors in reported results, etc...

USA Dance? Anyone from USA Dance that can commit to a timeframe for this database?

[SpinTurn]

I just did some studying of the system and computed points totals for my partner and I. The change to 200 points is a big deal. Keep in mind that means 200 points total for the couple, or 100 points per individual, before you should move up (assuming you're in a consistent partnership). I was quite surprised to see how close we are to pointing out of some of our "regular" age/proficiency categories (we've only been competing about a year).

Assuming I really do understand the system, if you typically compete in consecutive levels (bronze and silver, for example) and consecutive age categories, you could point out of the lower level at the higher age quickly ... conceivably with just 'okay' finishes in just two or three well-attended competitions. For certain, if you compete in 3 or 4 NQE's plus nationals each year and regularly make the finals, you're probably going to point out of your current levels in 12-18 months or less.

I actually like the way the points system works (yes, I'm a geek ;)). There's logic to the way the points double into lower proficiencies and flow up to higher age categories. But it is a complex system and the change to 200 points has almost certainly pushed a lot of competitors up a level overnight.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I really wonder how many competitors know where they stand. (I do now, and I can testify that it takes some effort!) Without a central database, it appears we're on the honor system for now.

I have hope that a central system is on the way. USA Dance's decision to go from 300 points to 200 certainly included research into the point distribution among current competitive couples and an evaluation of how it would affect entries in upcoming comps. So perhaps this announcement itself is a sure sign of progress?

[Chris Stratton]

It could be argued that for comps with a hundred distinct couples entered overall in a style, to be regularly seeing overlap between the finalists of consecutive levels means that the points system has not been aggressive enough in moving them along.

But under the collegiate system thats a little bit better at spreading people out, you start to get complaints from coaches upset that their "bronze" students have been pushed into silver or higher. Which raises the question if the levels are really about abstract elements of dancing or mastery at all, or simply intended as a scheme of dividing up the entries.

[Casayoto]

Spinturn, I'd say that if you're making the finals regularly at NQEs and nationals in two consecutive levels, then you probably shouldn't be doing the lower level any longer. As far as what it does for different age groups, I don't think the point system works quite as well there.

[Joe]

Without a points database on the USADance site that is available to the public, this rule is impossible to enforce.

Even if you show up to dance bronze and someone complains that you should be dancing silver or gold, I would put it to them to prove it. And even then they would have to allow for an appeal due to possible errors in reported results, etc...
The way it's set up, it's basically an honor system. Just like it was before the new system was put in place...

[19DancerBabyLin]

Spinturn, I'd say that if you're making the finals regularly at NQEs and nationals in two consecutive levels, then you probably shouldn't be doing the lower level any longer. As far as what it does for different age groups, I don't think the point system works quite as well there.


I second that!

[Lorelei]

I agree with SpinTurn's opinion that people may point out without realizing it, and it can happen fast, e.g. for someone who has been unpartnered but still taking lessons (level grows, but no points since the person is not competing). The system is certainly less obvious then the old one.

It would be a good idea given the coming nationals for people to try and figure out where they stand. If nothing else, to avoid costly financial mistakes, because if someone is pointed out and need to move up, the next level's event might be on a different day.

[Lorelei]

The way it's set up, it's basically an honor system. Just like it was before the new system was put in place...

that in practice is peer-enforced

[and123]

that in practice is peer-enforced

But it is up to the comp organizers to do something about any potential infractions that have been reported. I know I've called out people in the past and more often than not, the organizers don't force the offenders to make things right. They may be informed of the situation, but are expected to "do the right thing" on their own.

[19DancerBabyLin]

e.g. for someone who has been unpartnered but still taking lessons (level grows, but no points since the person is not competing).

How is that a bad thing? I don't understand... Isn't the whole point of the points system to encourage people to dance at their "correct" levels? That unpartnered someone in your example is still improving despite not competing... which means if and when he finds a partner and competes, he should be dancing a higher level anyway, not dancing at the lower level to sweep the competition. Am I misinterpreting something?

Being partnerless should not be an excuse for anyone to stay in a level that they don't belong in. I feel like that's almost saying one can't possibly improve on their own, that improvement only comes in pairs. Or that both partners in a couple have identical rates of improvement. The thought that one's dancing is solely, or even mostly, dependent on one's partner makes me a sad puppy :(

[Ithink]

I have no clue how many points I have but something tell me that we probably got a lot of points at this last MAC and with the new point total, we may be kinda close. But I have no idea how to figure out my total and USA Dance not coming up with a database for over a year since the system has been instituted just tells me that they don't really give a darn about enforcing it or having well-informed competitors who know what level they should be dancing.

[Lorelei]

How is that a bad thing? I don't understand... Isn't the whole point of the points system to encourage people to dance at their "correct" levels? That unpartnered someone in your example is still improving despite not competing... which means if and when he finds a partner and competes, he should be dancing a higher level anyway, not dancing at the lower level to sweep the competition. Am I misinterpreting something?

19DancerBabyLin,

I have not said it was a bad thing. I suggested that people check where they stand before nationals, as 200 or 300 points can go by much faster than people might have guestimated, particularly in my example (which is not unheard of), and especially now that the point quota has just been lowered by a third. This was my only point.

To respond to your other questions, I agree people should dance at their level, and my guess is it is one of the premises of the point system. There are other considerations, however. To name a few, outside competition one's level is rather subjective (i.e. a bronze dancer may think they are gold, but that does not mean they are competitive in gold, etc.). Another is that people tend to lose proficiency when they are off the floor, whether due to injury, or not as many practice hours (if any) or lessons when unpartnered, or not having a body to practice with, etc. Sure one can impove without a partner, question is at what rate? Suppose you were bronze and were unpartnered for 2 years, would you be ready to jump into gold right away if your peers from back then are now in gold?

My understanding is that the USADance rules recognize these considerations, as people who have been off the floor for any reason are entitled by the rules to compete at the level where the partnership have points remaining. USADance moreover has a procedure for applying for reduction of points when an athlete was away from competition. What a particular couple does within the rules is their call.

[Chris Stratton]

I agree with SpinTurn's opinion that people may point out without realizing it, and it can happen fast, e.g. for someone who has been unpartnered but still taking lessons (level grows, but no points since the person is not competing). The system is certainly less obvious then the old one.

Im not sure I see how not competing is an example of pointing out fast.

If they come back and suddenly start placing well, the limited number of competitions likely means it will be many months if not a couple years to placing out. I forget if winning nationals is still an instant place out, but if it is, at least its one that comes with some obvious conclusions about position in the field.

[Casayoto]

Winning nationals is no longer an instant place out. It's just counted like any other comp. Something I agree with at the syllabus level, since sometimes nationals isn't even the most competitive comp of the year below pre-champ.

Ithink, if you want me to figure out your points from MAC, pm me your name. I'd be happy to help.

[Lorelei]

When they come back

Lots of people compete two levels. You multiply the number of points by two for all lower levels, no? Suppose couple dances bronze and silver and places in final where a 12-couple semi is danced, so in each level they can get 11 points. So, after one comp, the points in bronze could be 33 (11 plus 11x2). One can point out after 4 comps. If they are bottom of both finals, it could still be say 18 points in lower level, so 6 comps and you're out.

I initially thought it can happen even faster, because I was mistakenly counting points by number of entrants minus placement, but Casayoto corrected me that only placement in final or semi that counts.

[Mengu]

I can see that if you are dancing 2 levels (say bronze and silver), you will probably place out of the lower level pretty fast with 100 points per partner. When you place out of bronze, you might decide you're going to do silver and gold. And in this case, you might place out of silver rapidly (especially considering you probably racked up some points while doing bronze/silver).

I think the point reduction may discourage people from dancing two levels, and instead just stick to the lower level, giving themselves time to develop into the higher level. With this approach, you have to place top 6/12+ in about 10(!) competitions, before the couple must move on to the next level. These numbers seem reasonable.

Question is, is it a good thing to discourage dancing 2 levels or not?

[SpinTurn]

When they come back

Lots of people compete two levels. You multiply the number of points by two for all lower levels, no? Suppose couple dances bronze and silver and places in final where a 12-couple semi is danced, so in each level they can get 11 points. So, after one comp, the points in bronze could be 33 (11 plus 11x2). One can point out after 4 comps. If they are bottom of both finals, it could still be say 18 points in lower level, so 6 comps and you're out.



And it actually can happen more quickly. Add multiple age categories to your scenario, Lorelei. If the couple danced both levels at say, Senior 1 and Senior 2, and (for simplicity sake) had identical results at both ages, each partner would have Senior 2 bronze totals of 66 points -- 2/3 of the way to pointing out after one competition.

Granted, with those results they OUGHT to move up!

But most scenarios are not as dramatic as the example above. The occasional 2nd or 3rd mixed in with mostly 4ths and 5ths over a series of comps and you'll be nearly pointed out. If you don't calculate your points, you're not going to know when to move on.

USA Dance has a document online that shows how to calculate your points. (http : // www . usadance . org / dancesport / forms-and-resources / rules-policies-and-bylaws /) It takes some time, but it can be done.

The USAD rulebook clearly says that it's the athlete's responsibility to know his/her point totals. The lack of a central database doesn't remove that responsibility. Yes, it would be grand if USAD would publish up-to-date point totals. But until that happens, don't we each have a responsibility to do our best to understand and comply with the rules, including the point system?

Casayoto has the right idea. Until USAD comes through shouldn't we try to help each other. I've been playing with some ideas in Excel for computing a single competitor's points. Anyone else got some ideas? Perhaps we could collaborate and post a spreadsheet that anyone could download and load in his/her own results?

[19DancerBabyLin]

Wait, now I'm thinking I don't have the scoring system down right. Can you guys help me through this example?

Suppose we have a couple dancing usually dancing silver + gold.

Formula is: number of couples in semi - placement = points.
So, if you place 12th in the 12 couple semis, points = 12 - 12 = 0 pts
If you place 1st, then 12 - 1 = 11 pts

Said couple places 1st in gold latin in a 12-couple semi, didn't do silver this time.
4.6.2.9 - 11 pts for adult gold latin
4.6.2.10 - N/A
4.6.2.11 - 11 pts for all senior gold latin
4.6.2.12 - 11 pts for pre-teen thru youth silver all styles
4.6.2.13 - I took it to mean 22 pts for all senior pre-bronze through silver...(instead of 22 pts in adult silver + 22 pts in all senior all styles, because otherwise the stuff in red will contradict.)
4.6.2.14 - 22 pts in pre-teen thru youth pre-bronze (same rationale as 4.6.2.13)

I'm mostly just confused about 4.6.2.13+4, because from the way I interpret it, 11 points in adult silver does NOT give you 22 pts in adult bronze.


But anyway. Even if the counting was so that the bronze + silver couple will indeed get 22 points in bronze for placing 1st in silver... If someone placed 1st in silver in 5 different competitions, wouldn't you say it's time to stop dancing bronze?
In fact, just consistently making finals, not even placing 1st, already says to me "probably time to move up".

[SpinTurn]

...
I'm mostly just confused about 4.6.2.13+4, because from the way I interpret it, 11 points in adult silver does NOT give you 22 pts in adult bronze.
...


Looks like you're working out of the rulebook itself? Sorry, I gave the Web page location, but didn't say which document. You'll get a better picture of how it works by downloading the document titled "Guide to Proficiency Point System." It's two links down from the rulebook.

[Lorelei]

I think the point reduction may discourage people from dancing two levels, and instead just stick to the lower level, giving themselves time to develop into the higher level. With this approach, you have to place top 6/12+ in about 10(!) competitions, before the couple must move on to the next level. These numbers seem reasonable.

Question is, is it a good thing to discourage dancing 2 levels or not?

New Rules also would soon require qualification for nationals in a specific event. See rule 4.2.5 re: eligibility requirements for Nationals:


2. have competed in the same partnership and in the same event (style/age/proficiency level) in the aforementioned NQE that the Athlete Couple intends to enter in the USADance National DanceSport Championships (effective for the 2011 Nationals and
beyond)
3. have placed in the top 75% of Athlete Couples in that event at an NQE (effective for the 2012 Nationals and beyond)

It seems to me this rule further discourages dancing two levels.

[Chris Stratton]

I dont see vwhy it would discourage dancing two levels, unless someone wants to preserve the ability to enter nationals below their obvious proficiency.

However, I could see it making nationals less competitively interesting than the northeast, etc regional, especially in non championship divisions.

It also means that a spring nationals will cause difficulty for those aging into a new category since they will have only a few months to do a regional after becoming elgible on January 1.

[Lorelei]

If I understand correctly, you cannot dance in the higher level unless you point out of your own, as you had to dance the same level as NQA, and for later years be top 75% of it. Looks like only those who qualify in both levels and still have points in both can dance both levels.

[Lorelei]

For aging into new category, rule 4.2.5.3. says adults that qualify for higher age divisions will be qualified for both age divisions, and per rule 4.2.5.4, young folks will be qualified for their new age category

[Mandicraft]

I dont see vwhy it would discourage dancing two levels, unless someone wants to preserve the ability to enter nationals below their obvious proficiency.

However, I could see it making nationals less competitively interesting than the northeast, etc regional, especially in non championship divisions.

It also means that a spring nationals will cause difficulty for those aging into a new category since they will have only a few months to do a regional after becoming elgible on January 1.

Actually I'm not sure if it made it into the wording there but it's my understanding that there will be flexibility for those that either place out of their level or age up.

[Casayoto]

I believe the wording did say that if you age into a new category, you will still be considered qualified for it. The same for placing out of a level.

And I don't think people are either encouraged, or discouraged to dance at two levels. You are allowed to dance one level above your actual level. I see way too many comps where the bronze and silver, or silver and gold finals are many of the same couples. If you're finalling in silver, then you're probably a silver dancer, not a bronze dancer and I would hope that a useful point system would kick you out of bronze pretty quickly.

Lin, 11 points in adult silver does give you 22 points in adult bronze.

[Chris Stratton]

If I understand correctly, you cannot dance in the higher level unless you point out of your own, as you had to dance the same level as NQA, and for later years be top 75% of it. Looks like only those who qualify in both levels and still have points in both can dance both levels.

More often than not, someone who finals in a large nqe will be in the top 75% of the placements in the next level up, if they also enter it. And unless theyve done those levels at quite a few comps they will probably still be elgible in both.

[SpinTurn]

I believe the wording did say that if you age into a new category, you will still be considered qualified for it. The same for placing out of a level.

I went back and read these sections -- both circumstances are addressed specifically.

Rule 4.2.5.2 addresses proficiency level and says if you "...lose eligibility in the proficiency level at which they qualified, they will be considered to be qualified for that USA Dance National DanceSport Championships in the next higher proficiency level ..." . So if you qualify at an NQE in bronze, and then point out of bronze before Nationals, then you could compete in silver (but not bronze) in Nationals.

Rule 4.2.5.3 addresses age level and says if you "... gain eligibility into a higher age category (as of January 1), they will be considered to be qualified for that USA Dance National DanceSport Championships in both the age category they actually danced at an NQE and the higher age category for which they are newly eligible ...". So if you are 44 years old and qualify at an NQE in Senior I in December, you would be qualified in both Senior I and Senior II for the Nationals held the next April.

Of course, these two rules do not affect the April 2010 Nationals. The come into effect for 2011.

And as for the discussions of what proficiency levels you are allowed to dance in ... The only rules I see are the ones that prevent you from dancing in levels that you've pointed out of. I don't see a thing that prevents a first-time competitor from dancing pre-champ and championship in their first competition. They just can't dance in non-consecutive levels (i.e., bronze and novice).

I don't think I've misinterpreted anything here, but it is a long rulebook. Kinda reminds me of when I played golf ... actually very similar in that competitors are held responsible for knowing and being able to interpret fairly arcane language. Works for golf. Oughta work for us also.;)

[SpinTurn]

One clarification ...

Rule 4.2.5.4 handles the age change situation for Preteen/Junior/Youth couples and notes that if they qualify for Nationals in a particular age category, and then move out of that age category before Nationals, they can not compete in the lower age category in Nationals (but would be considered qualified at the next category up).

I'm quite a ways from those ages ;), so I hadn't read that far.

[Joe]

I've been playing with some ideas in Excel for computing a single competitor's points. Anyone else got some ideas? Perhaps we could collaborate and post a spreadsheet that anyone could download and load in his/her own results?
It's actually very simple, it's just a question of managing to record all your results. I created a Google docs spreadsheet for myself (just so I wouldn't have to be at a single location to examine it, like an Excel file).

[skwiggy]

Everyone seemed confused enough by the last, much simpler, point system. People were claiming that they couldn't keep track of their points, didn't know what placements counted to earn them points, and people danced seemingly out of category pretty frequently.

Now this new point system, while potentially more fair, is MUCH more convoluted and confusing. It hurts my head just thinking about trying to figure it out. While I'm sure I'm technically eligible for pre-champ under the new system and admittedly tempted to dance it after so much time off the floor, it honestly seems like more of a headache than it's worth to try to keep track of it all so ultimately easier to just dance championship.

It's also easy enough for people to either choose or claim ignorance, which would place a lot of burden on anyone protesting a level choice and/or the organizers to dispute that choice.

And the rule about placing in the top 75% at any NQE, I imagine will just serve to even out attendance at NQEs across the country. Someone who would not qualify under that rule in a very competitive region, will have incentive to travel to a less competitive region to qualify. I'm sure that will happen a lot.

[Casayoto]

I think it may also encourage people to dance down a level. While I normally do Gold latin, I'm techically still allowed to do bronze at a USA Dance comp. If I wanted to be sure to make the 75% cut, I could compete at a NQE in bronze or silver.

[scotttocs]

I think it may also encourage people to dance down a level. While I normally do Gold latin, I'm techically still allowed to do bronze at a USA Dance comp. If I wanted to be sure to make the 75% cut, I could compete at a NQE in bronze or silver.

My understanding is that the 75% cut would have affected only a very few dancers at the previous 2 nationals, and that is why it was selected.

Nationals seem to be at least a little bit self-selecting, in that people who aren't doing at all well when competing tend not to go compete.

Also, as of 2011, if you did the NQE in Bronze, you would have qualified for nationals at Bronze - so if you wanted to compete where you usually do, i.e. Gold, you would not be allowed.

[Bailamosdance]

Where is the UDA Dance database? I've been asking for it for over a year.

[SpinTurn]

It's actually very simple, it's just a question of managing to record all your results. I created a Google docs spreadsheet for myself (just so I wouldn't have to be at a single location to examine it, like an Excel file).

Good idea on the Google doc! Is your spreadsheet something you'd be willing to share ... not the data, of course, but the logic/formulas? I've tried several different spreadsheets and database programs and am not finding an easy way to auto-calculate USAD points.

[Joe]

Where is the UDA Dance database? I've been asking for it for over a year.
We know.

[Chris Stratton]

My understanding is that the 75% cut would have affected only a very few dancers at the previous 2 nationals, and that is why it was selected.


That however suggests that those caught on the wrong side of it are as likely to loose out for trivial reasons as for proficiency ones, so its worth asking why bother with the rule?

Deserving couples are occasionally overlooked by judges. Recalls get mistranscribed, misannounced, or misheard. Couples get stuck in traffic and miss their prime event but do manage to dance another.

[Ithink]

This new points thing began with last year's Nationals, correct? Or are we expected to tabulate our points pre-Nationals 2009 as well? Going back that far may be difficult. How far back is the supposedly-upcoming USA Dance Points Database counting?

[Lorelei]

if I recall correctly, it actually began January 2008

[Casayoto]

The current point system was to begin counting at the 2008 Nationals in April of 2008. All dancers had zero points going into that comp.

And Chris, I believe the placement eligibility rule was designed somewhat to keep registration numbers down at Nationals.

[Chris Stratton]

And Chris, I believe the placement eligibility rule was designed somewhat to keep registration numbers down at Nationals.

But we were just told it would have hardly impacted anyone, so that cant be a substantial result.

My concern is that whatever net impact it does have is more likely to be random than constructive - great frustration to occasional individuals for little perceivable common benefit.

[Mandicraft]

But we were just told it would have hardly impacted anyone, so that cant be a substantial result.

My concern is that whatever net impact it does have is more likely to be random than constructive - great frustration to occasional individuals for little perceivable common benefit.

Currently Nationals is basically at the capacity that the 3 day event can handle. This past year two of the days had to start at 7am and didn't end until after midnight. This becomes extremely taxing on the organizers and volunteers. So this is a first attempt to try to keep the numbers manageable, but hopefully have the least amount of impact to dancers (unlike adding a day to the schedule or making 2 separate Nationals would do). This also makes NQEs actual Qualifiers then, even if you don't have to qualify that high.

I'm sure that just as the proficiency point limit was reviewed, once it is seen the effect or lack of effect the policy will be reviewed.

But like with every problem, you have to start somewhere to find a solution...

[Ithink]

FWIW, I am fairly certain a West Coast-based Nationals is not going to be nearly as large as the Baltimore ones have been in the last two years so a 7am start is unlikely to be necessary this year or any year when Nationals isn't held on the East Coast. Baltimore was in close proximity to the most dancer-rich area of the country. Yes, there are a lot of CA/West Coast competitors but there are way more NY/NJ/Mid-Atlantic ones who may or may not travel to CA to compete.

[Chris Stratton]

We are told it would impact few people, and we are told it is done to contain the size. One of these statements is flawed...

What I'm saying is dont put such a complication on the books unless its stiff enough to have a real impact, such as 50% placement or higher. Or look at other solutions, such as prohibiting or charging substantially more to enter the same dance at multple levels/ages.

More generally it might be asked if nationals is intended to be a festival or a championship or a compromise of both.

[Another Elizabeth]

We are told it would impact few people, and we are told it is done to contain the size. One of these statements is flawed...

It could be to contain the growth, rather than just the size. It also makes it a little easier to plan if you know what the universe of permitted competitors for every event is - you can at least put an upper bound on the number of rounds in every event.

[Chris Stratton]

If it presently effects few people, theres no sound reason for assuming it will affect more than a negligable percentage of the potential growth.

[Casayoto]

I'm torn on whether I like the change or not. I always thought it was dumb to make people go to a NQE prior to a National since I could qualify in bronze smooth and do nationals in champ latin.(not really) But I am concerned that the change will encourage dancing down, or make people travel to other NQEs that are less competitive, raising costs for the dancers.(as if Nationals isn't rediculously expensive enough).
It can also cause problems for newer partnerships. Our 10 dance champs from last year were a newer partnership, and if I remember correctly, hadn't competed in Standard together before Nationals. Would that have prohibited them from competing in 10 dance under the current rules?

[Joe]

if I recall correctly, it actually began January 2008
The current point system was to begin counting at the 2008 Nationals in April of 2008. All dancers had zero points going into that comp.
Actually, the old system ended sometime in February, and the new one began in April, at Nationals. There was a "free" period in between.

Our 10 dance champs from last year were a newer partnership, and if I remember correctly, hadn't competed in Standard together before Nationals. Would that have prohibited them from competing in 10 dance under the current rules?
No. See 4.2.5.1.

[syncopationator]

I had a thought about wether lowering the proficiency points to 200 would cause couples to enter less competitions in order to preserve their points so they can dance nationals at their prefered level? This could impact attendance at several of the comps that lead up to nationals.

I think this would not impact too many couples and most couples want to dance at the higher level if they can be competitive in it, but there are sure to be couples who have set goals for themselves at their respective level at Nationals and the last thing they want is to have to dance up a level that they are not comfortable dancing at.

Just a thought.

[Casayoto]

Interesting sync. That's a point I hadn't thought of.

[Oversway]

While I'm sure I'm technically eligible for pre-champ under the new system and admittedly tempted to dance it after so much time off the floor, it honestly seems like more of a headache than it's worth to try to keep track of it all so ultimately easier to just dance championship.

Do you mean that even though you had already placed out of Pre-Champ under the old system (and therefore were not allowed to dance Pre-Champ anymore at that time), now you would be allowed to dance Pre-Champ again?

Now that can't be right... I would have assumed that if you placed out under the old system, you can't "un-place out" because the system has changed, what is done is done. Or can you? Are all previous results "erased" by the new system? If X placed in Champ Latin at Nationals 2007 and hasn't danced since, *could* X dance Bronze Latin again today? Does anyone know?

[Chris Stratton]

You are still placed out of a level you were previously placed out of, but points / results short of that are forgotten rather than recalculated under the new system.

[SpinTurn]

Very interesting discussion here over the last several days, and clearly there are some strong opinions. Question for any or all: At check-in of the next USA Dance competition you attend, if the registrar were to ask you how many proficiency points you have in the style/age/proficiency categories you've entered, how might you respond?

As I've mentioned before I computed mine as soon as I heard about the reduction to 200 per couple. Has the change made you more aware of your standing?

(And no, I've never been asked about my points at a comp and have no reason to believe that I would be. However, it looks to me like the rules would give a comp organizer every right to ask.)

[Casayoto]

Actually Oversway and Chris, when the new points system started, all dancers were asked to declare their current proficiency level. If they didn't declare one, they would be placed in one based on what level they were competing in. It was a complete reset, so if you felt that you had been bumped up by the old system and shouldn't be there, you could designate yourself at a lower level. I think there was a caveat about USAD being able to evaluate whether someone was in the correct level, so if you were doing champ and tried to call yourself bronze, there may have been a stink. But you definitely could move from champ to prechamp at that time, and begin accumulating points from there.

[skwiggy]

Do you mean that even though you had already placed out of Pre-Champ under the old system (and therefore were not allowed to dance Pre-Champ anymore at that time), now you would be allowed to dance Pre-Champ again?



No, that's not what I mean. Had the system not changed in the beginning of 2008, then my placements shortly thereafter would have placed me out under the old system. Since the system changed, I did not place out.

[Joe]

Right. The new system did a complete reset of any points gained at your (then-) current level under the old system.

[Lorelei]

Very interesting discussion here over the last several days, and clearly there are some strong opinions. Question for any or all: At check-in of the next USA Dance competition you attend, if the registrar were to ask you how many proficiency points you have in the style/age/proficiency categories you've entered, how might you respond?

As I've mentioned before I computed mine as soon as I heard about the reduction to 200 per couple. Has the change made you more aware of your standing?

(And no, I've never been asked about my points at a comp and have no reason to believe that I would be. However, it looks to me like the rules would give a comp organizer every right to ask.)

I guess I will tell them the number according to my calculations, but I doubt they would ask because it will probably create a huge traffic jam at check-in. Especially if they want to see the record of points that we are supposed to keep... :rolleyes: The new rule definitely helped me realize I was WAY off base calculating points before (Thanks again to Casayoto!)

[Casayoto]

Happy to help! :)

[syncopationator]

Here's another thought, or question rather.

Some competitions have multiple single or 2-dance syllabus events at the same level such as bronze Cha Cha as one event and bronze rumba as another, etc. So essetially a bronze competitor could place 1st in four separate bronze latin events at the same comp in the same level. Assuming there is a 12 couple semifinal in each of those four events, that would be 20 proficiency points (12-1 * 2)for the couple in each dance for a total of 80 proficiency points which would put the couple almost at the midway point in just one competition. Whereas, if it was just one multi-dance event with the four dances it would just equal a total of 20 proficiency points for that comp.

Maybe this is a question for someone from USA Dance to clear up.

[Chris Stratton]

It used to be that you would track points seperately for each dance, so for example if you got a third in *** you would apply the appropriate points for third in parallel to your totals for each of those dances. You couldn't enter a multidance event unless you were elgible for each of its dances.

Did this change?

[Chris Stratton]

*** is wrong with a WaltzTangoFoxtrot ?

[19DancerBabyLin]

*** is wrong with a WaltzTangoFoxtrot ?

:uplaugh:

I too was under the impression that you can and should track each dance separately... Although does USA Dance even do single dance events anymore? As far as I can remember they only do multi-dance events. Single dance events are mostly prevalent in collegiate comps or other non-sanctioned events, so points don't matter :)

[Chris Stratton]

Those competing in two levels would still have to track per dance as the multi dance offerings might grow consistent between competitions but are often different between levels at the same comp.

[syncopationator]

:uplaugh:

I too was under the impression that you can and should track each dance separately... Although does USA Dance even do single dance events anymore? As far as I can remember they only do multi-dance events. Single dance events are mostly prevalent in collegiate comps or other non-sanctioned events, so points don't matter :)

The Triangle comp in Raleigh this weekend has one-dance bronze events and two-dance silver events and they award proficiency points.

I just want some clarification. Maybe I will call USA Dance.

[SpinTurn]

The Triangle comp in Raleigh this weekend has one-dance bronze events and two-dance silver events and they award proficiency points.

I just want some clarification. Maybe I will call USA Dance.

Agree that this is one area not clear in the rules. At the High Point NQE last October there were bronze standard Waltz/Quickstep and bronze standard Tango/Foxtrot heats. They each started from a semifinal in Senior I. I've been counting the points earned in both, but it would be nice to know for sure if that's correct.

[ACtenDance]

Agree that this is one area not clear in the rules. At the High Point NQE last October there were bronze standard Waltz/Quickstep and bronze standard Tango/Foxtrot heats. They each started from a semifinal in Senior I. I've been counting the points earned in both, but it would be nice to know for sure if that's correct.

Just a note that both of those competitions, the Triangle Open and High Point, grew out of collegiate competitions... actually I guess Triangle still is a collegiate competition that happens to be sanctioned. That could be one reason that the dances are split up like they are.

[Chris Stratton]

Adding the points for the dances or parallel multis is surely not correct.

If theres really nothing specified, the old track each dance is probably the answer.

[Mengu]

USA Dance will award proficiency points from all sanctioned USA Dance DanceSport competitions, including YCN competitions; from all NDCA sanctioned Amateur Multi-Dance Events, awarding the points in the age, level and style most approximate to the one actually danced; and from all IDSF or IDSF-affiliate sanctioned events. Student/Student events danced as single dance events at the same time as Pro/Am events at NDCA sanctioned competitions will not earn points.

While this doesn't answer the question directly (and leaves it completely up in the air as to what to do with USAD single dance events - assuming there is such a thing), I think we can glean the intent. If dancing single dance events, I wouldn't count them toward proficiency points. If dancing multi-dance events, find the closest approximation. So if you danced bronze W/Q and bronze T/F, I'd only count either W/Q for the proficiency points or the higher ranking result, but not both.

[Ithink]

Wait, this includes YCN events?! So like MIT, DCDI, etc. count into the proficiency points as well? I thought it was only NDCA and USAD-sanctioned events.

Shoot...

[Chris Stratton]

The mention of YCN is gone from the 2010 rulebook... wise as it would have been unworkable given the existence of huge college comps with far lower level translation points.

(Incidentally, many college comps need to fix their rules to explcitly specify how they want to import USAD results - score as college comps still works, but the ones that say import USAD points 1:1 are obviously broken now, unless they want to use USAD proficiency and ignore other college comps)

[SpinTurn]

Wait, this includes YCN events?! So like MIT, DCDI, etc. count into the proficiency points as well? I thought it was only NDCA and USAD-sanctioned events.

Shoot...

The current rulebook (2010, 12th edition) states in 4.6.2.8:
"Proficiency points are accumulated in all sanctioned USA Dance and NDCA amateur events, including USA Dance Mixed Proficiency events."

Mengu's quote is from the Guide to the Proficiency Point System published in April 2008. I would believe the new rule book is authoritative.

On the issue of multiple heats in a single level (i.e., bronze WQ and TF), I can't find a place where there's any indication that one overrules the other (except in NQEs for qualifying for nationals, which is a different matter entirely). So until we get a different answer from USA Dance, I believe it would be unwise for me not to count points earned from both.

[Lorelei]

There was a discussion here http://www.danceforums.com/showthread.php?t=22702&highlight=%22proficiency+points%22&page=12 , where Chris advised that most collegiate comps are not YCN sanctioned or NDCA sanctioned

[Mengu]

Mengu's quote is from the Guide to the Proficiency Point System published in April 2008. I would believe the new rule book is authoritative.

I realize that, but the 2010 rule book didn't have any further explanations or examples like the proficiency point guide from 2008, that's why I grabbed the quote from there to try and glean intent. I don't think there is a definitive answer we can be certain of. And yes, to be perfectly safe, you could count every single dance event at an NDCA comp for proficiency, but I can't believe that would be the intent. With one or two comps you could theoretically rack up enough points to place out of a level if that were the case.

[Casayoto]

As far as the YCN/USAD issue, I believe you can ignore collegiate comps when calculating USAD points, but you should count USAD comps when calculating YCN points. I don't know for sure if that is the official rule for either, but it seems to follow the intention of both without artificially inflating your points for either.

[19DancerBabyLin]

I have a question; it's not about proficiency points per se, but it is proficiency and eligibility related, so here goes:

I was looking at the entry list for an upcoming USA Dance regionals, and I noticed that a couple who usually competes at my level is missing (yes I always know who my competition are and aim to beat them). Then I found them but noticed something weird about their registration. It looks like this:
Boy A and Girl B (the original partnership) usually dance in Silver Latin and Gold Standard. At said upcoming competition, they are registered to dance Novice Standard.
Girl B is also registered with Boy C to dance Silver latin and Bronze Standard.

Does this look weird to anyone else? Whether you "should or should not" do this is one thing, but I do want to know if it's actually legal by USA Dance rules. I tried looking it up, but I got confused by the charts on pg 39, the "enterable events..." vs the "maximum enterable events..." .... what's the difference between the two?

[Chris Stratton]

Is the question can she be elgible for bronze, or can she do both bronze and novice.

Theres also the possibilty of two different dancers with the same name (actually know such a pair in the same area even) or some kind of mistake such as a mixed proficiency entry mixed in with the regular ones.

[19DancerBabyLin]

Is the question can she be elgible for bronze, or can she do both bronze and novice.

The latter. I don't know her proficiency points so she could well be eligible for bronze. The latter is what I was confused about, since:

4.6.2.6 A Partnership may compete in any proficiency classification level higher than the minimum proficiency level for they are eligible, except that:
c) An individual athlete may not compete in more than two consecutive proficiency level classifications and in a particular style which are held at any given competition.
4.6.2.7 There are six consecutive proficiency levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold are closed syllabus levels, incorporating all syllabus steps; Novice, Pre-Championship and Championship are open levels

I thought (and I may be totally wrong) that you used to be able to do one/two syllabus level, PLUS novice if you so choose. But these rules suggest differently


Theres also the possibilty of two different dancers with the same name (actually know such a pair in the same area even) or some kind of mistake such as a mixed proficiency entry mixed in with the regular ones.

I highly highly doubt it's a name mix-up; she has a really unique last name. All 3 are from the same college (where my new partner is from, so although I don't know them, I do know of them and am not just scouring the entry list for random people), and the college handles the registration.
It may very well be a mixed proficiency mix-up, but I don't think that college, or the collegiate scene in general, talk about or encourage mixed proficiency much...

[and123]

That's what I was told for MAC - only 2 levels, and they had to be consecutive. Masters of Syllabus was open to anyone, but I don't think that event is common at USAdance comps.

[Chris Stratton]

A lot has changed in the past few years with the rules surrounding novice - but people may still have memory of the old ones.

[Casayoto]

The current rules are that the six consecutive levels are bronze, silver, gold, novice, pre-champ, champ, in that order. Novice used to be separate from the others, so entering bronze and novice was allowed, and entering silver and novice was fairly common(that I was aware of at least). With the current rules, you can't enter bronze and novice. You could do bronze and silver, silver and gold, gold and novice, novice and pre-champ, or pre-champ and champ.

[Joe]

Boy A and Girl B (the original partnership) usually dance in Silver Latin and Gold Standard. At said upcoming competition, they are registered to dance Novice Standard.
Girl B is also registered with Boy C to dance Silver latin and Bronze Standard.
Neither boy is in violation, but Girl B is.

[Joe]

FWIW

From the 2007-2008 rulebook (with the 5-point placeout rule):

4.5.4.9. In the Syllabus Categories, Proficiency Points are accumulated independently for each dance since one-dance events are allowed. It is therefore possible to be at a Gold level in one dance and at a Bronze level in a different dance. Competitors wishing to enter in a Syllabus event consisting of 2 or more dances which are judged as one event must be eligible to compete at the given level for ALL of the dances involved. (For example, consider a competitor who is ineligible to dance at the Bronze Syllabus level in International Waltz due to his or her placement in past one-dance or multi-dance competitions, but who is eligible to dance at the Bronze Syllabus level in International Quickstep. That competitor would be ineligible to compete in a 2 dance Bronze Syllabus Waltz / Quickstep event.)

From the 2010 rulebook:

4.6.2.18 Proficiency points are earned in each style of dance separately from all other styles.

2010 has no mention of tracking each dance separately, so I would say that individual dances no longer matter for level computation. However, USA Dance probably still needs to clarify how many points are earned for multiple events at a single level (e.g. W/Q and F/T at the same comp). That is, if you place 1st out of 12 in Bronze W/Q and F/T, do you get 11 Bronze points, or 22 Bronze points? Although that issue is moot for Qualifying Events and Nationals. But the occurrence could happen at an NDCA comp frequently.

[Chris Stratton]

What I find interesting with the question of how to handle differing single or multi dance events is that nobody seems to have discovered such a basic practical issue until this week.

Remember that points are earned from NDCA comps too, so even if USA Dance bans multiple events per level, there will probably still be the occasional competition having a WQ and TF with a field large enough to count.

[Joe]

Probably because the people on the rules committee either don't compete, or dance Championship.

[syncopationator]

Probably because the people on the rules committee either don't compete, or dance Championship.

I sent an e-mail to USA Dance and someone responded by forwarding my question to someone else because they didn't know the answer. Haven't heard back from that someone else, but my guess is they don't have an answer either because they never thought about this issue when they came up with the rules.

[syncopationator]

Although that issue is moot for Qualifying Events and Nationals. But the occurrence could happen at an NDCA comp frequently.

Triangle this weekend in Raleigh has multiple two-dance events in silver and single dance events in bronze and is a NQE.

[Another Elizabeth]

I sent an e-mail to USA Dance and someone responded by forwarding my question to someone else because they didn't know the answer. Haven't heard back from that someone else, but my guess is they don't have an answer either because they never thought about this issue when they came up with the rules.

I cannot comment on what anyone was thinking about when this version of the rules was drafted, but I know that when the rules were redrafted in the mid-90's, primarily by Californians, no one was aware of the default competition formats for amateur competition on the East Coast: WQ, FT, V in bronze, silver, and gold; WFQ, T, V in prechamp, so they hadn't written the rules in a way that accommodated them. It was very fortunate that my partner and I got into a conversation with one of the drafters at Nationals before the rules were issued and I was able to bring some of this up.

That said, the Rules Committee is a seriously thankless task, or at least it was until I dropped out (more than ten years ago). You are answerable to many people, with different and conflicting agendas, and rarely appreciated for doing things right - just condemned for doing them wrong, or even just "wrong" in the eyes of the complainer.

[syncopationator]

I cannot comment on what anyone was thinking about when this version of the rules was drafted, but I know that when the rules were redrafted in the mid-90's, primarily by Californians, no one was aware of the default competition formats for amateur competition on the East Coast: WQ, FT, V in bronze, silver, and gold; WFQ, T, V in prechamp, so they hadn't written the rules in a way that accommodated them. It was very fortunate that my partner and I got into a conversation with one of the drafters at Nationals before the rules were issued and I was able to bring some of this up.

That said, the Rules Committee is a seriously thankless task, or at least it was until I dropped out (more than ten years ago). You are answerable to many people, with different and conflicting agendas, and rarely appreciated for doing things right - just condemned for doing them wrong, or even just "wrong" in the eyes of the complainer.

Well all they would have to do then is make a new rule for competition organizers that you can't have multiple one or two dance syllabus events in any one level.

I'm sure its a thankless task and not a job that I would probably like (although wouln't mind doing). Nevertheless, its good that the DF exists to voice these concerns that otherwise could go unoticed. And hopefully, changes are already being planned based on the feedback/criticism.

[wooh]

Well all they would have to do then is make a new rule for competition organizers that you can't have multiple one or two dance syllabus events in any one level.


But then organizers lose out on money (if they charge per event) and dancers lose out on choices and options.
It's easy to say "Well all they would have to do." At least until you have to answer for all the contingencies and loopholes. (If it was easy to write rules, lawyers wouldn't make all the money they do writing contracts without loopholes and then finding more loopholes so they can break those same contracts. :) ) Most of the rules that are complained about here on DF came about because someone found loopholes in the previous rules.
Although I do have to believe, that there comes point where one needs to give up on filling the pothole and just pave a new road.

[Joe]

there comes point where one needs to give up on filling the pothole and just pave a new road.
Well, the new (300-point, now 200-point) system was supposed to be new pavement! I guess it's more just mill-and-overlay than full-depth though...

[Chris Stratton]

USA dance can't directly make rules about event combinations at NDCA comps.

However, if most USAD comps (for which proficiency is being evaluated) are unified multis, it might be a workable approximation to say that in the multiple events case, only the event with the most dances should count, while if there are two two dance events only the one with higher points should count. That would leave the question of single dance only comps.

[Joe]

I would say (if I were able to issue a ruling on the matter) that if you dance a 2-dance (e.g. W/Q and F/T) at a particular syllabus level (e.g. bronze), you get points based on your highest point placing in either event. So if you would get 10 points for your placement in W/Q and 8 points for your placement in F/T, you are officially issued 10 points in Bronze Standard.

But that's just me.

[conniet523]

I was just on the USADance website - they have a beta version of their points tracker linked to the website now. They counted points for all heats (i.e., each 2-dance event in a given level counts as points for that level).

[Casayoto]

Hopefully that's an oversight, and not an intention. Beta does mean beta after all.

[Bailamosdance]

Any idea what is up with the list? Seems there are only 30 names on it.

[syncopationator]

Any idea what is up with the list? Seems there are only 30 names on it.

I found myself on it and its accuarate as of comps prior to Mid-Atlantic last weekend.

its probably already been answered, but do QF or R1 entries affect the overall proficiency score or is it just based on # of couples in SF?

[Bailamosdance]

ok, I got in, but there seems to be individ. points per comp etc but no 'grand total'? Can someone explain what I am looking at?

[syncopationator]

ok, I got in, but there seems to be individ. points per comp etc but no 'grand total'? Can someone explain what I am looking at?

you have to look your partner separately and add the points.

maybe they should add a feature so you can look up a partnership by selecting two people from the database. that would be a cool option because it could be used to assess potential partnerships.

[Bailamosdance]

so, the total is for the PARTNERSHIP??? So, if each partner has 1 point, then the total is 2 points? (for instance)?

[syncopationator]

so, the total is for the PARTNERSHIP??? So, if each partner has 1 point, then the total is 2 points? (for instance)?

yes -once you have 200 points between the two of you, then you go to the next level.

[jerseydancer]

i have just checked the beta, and the events are not listed correctly for 2008, we have not competed in Pre-Champ yet. Out first comp in pre-champ was in 2009, what does it mean the point not resolved in the memo for that year?

[jerseydancer]

it really looks strange, like we have points in adults, and senior 3, when we only competed in S1 and S2

[jerseydancer]

yes -once you have 200 points between the two of you, then you go to the next level.

what is you compete in 2 age categories? also, is this year national still 300 points or it is already 200 points. anyone knows?

[middy]

Points filter through to other age categories, see the guide to proficiency points (http://www.usadance.org/dancesport/forms-and-resources/rules-policies-and-bylaws/jxpj3swauz/) for a thorough (and thoroughly confusing) explanation.

[jerseydancer]

Points filter through to other age categories, see the guide to proficiency points (http://www.usadance.org/dancesport/forms-and-resources/rules-policies-and-bylaws/jxpj3swauz/) for a thorough (and thoroughly confusing) explanation.

i see. thank you.

[Casayoto]

Sync,

You get points for placement withing the semifinal, plus a point for each advanced round, up to and including the quarterfinal.

[Casayoto]

I just checked the database, and it has my points wrong. It seems to be off by a couple points in each category. For example, for getting 10th out of 12, it gave me 4 points instead of 2.

[syncopationator]

I just checked the database, and it has my points wrong. It seems to be off by a couple points in each category. For example, for getting 10th out of 12, it gave me 4 points instead of 2.

are you sure there werent 14 couples in the semi? I had the same issue (I thought) where it said on the database (Semifinalist +12) and it gave me 12 points for placing 2nd (instead of 10). But I went back to the comp results and saw that there were 14 couples in the semi which would result in 12 points assessed.

[Casayoto]

I am. I double checked the results on o2cm to be sure.

[Joe]

Points filter through to other age categories, see the guide to proficiency points (http://www.usadance.org/dancesport/forms-and-resources/rules-policies-and-bylaws/jxpj3swauz/) for a thorough (and thoroughly confusing) explanation.
Right. RTFM, people.

[jerseydancer]

Right. RTFM, people.
That reply was a little rude, do not you think so

[Meagan]

Interesting!

Looks like it counts 2009 Nationals as 2008 Nationals?? Anyone else notice this?

[conniet523]

Looks like it counts 2009 Nationals as 2008 Nationals?? Anyone else notice this?

I saw the same thing, Meagan. We had not yet started competing at the 2008 Nationals, but we have database points. I assume these will get fixed. In our case, it's not really enough points to really worry about one way or the other.

[wonderwoman]

That reply was a little rude, do not you think so
I don't think he meant it to be.

[Joe]

Aside from the issue of multi-dance events, everything that has been questioned, or claimed that "I didn't know that" is right in the rule book, if you read it. Maybe literacy rates are on the decline or something.

Does anyone have any personal results from a multi-event syllabus event (e.g. bronze W/Q and F/T) that would indicate which way that type of event is being scored for points? According to the 2010 rulebook, dancing in bronze F/T wouldn't qualify you for Nationals, since the "official" bronze event is W/Q. Perhaps that is the metric to use when determining point scoring?

[Joe]

I saw the same thing, Meagan. We had not yet started competing at the 2008 Nationals, but we have database points. I assume these will get fixed. In our case, it's not really enough points to really worry about one way or the other.
Do you have database points listed from the 2008 Nationals?

[jerseydancer]

Interesting!

Looks like it counts 2009 Nationals as 2008 Nationals?? Anyone else notice this? yes. same for us. we danced gold and novice in 2008, and it shows that we did pre-champ and novice, that actually was in 2009. looks like 2008 and 2009 Nationals are the dups. Otherwise I am very impressed with the database application. Very simple search and results are organized well.

[jerseydancer]

Aside from the issue of multi-dance events, everything that has been questioned, or claimed that "I didn't know that" is right in the rule book, if you read it. Maybe literacy rates are on the decline or something.

Does anyone have any personal results from a multi-event syllabus event (e.g. bronze W/Q and F/T) that would indicate which way that type of event is being scored for points? According to the 2010 rulebook, dancing in bronze F/T wouldn't qualify you for Nationals, since the "official" bronze event is W/Q. Perhaps that is the metric to use when determining point scoring?

why do you always have to add snotty remarks, thank you for the information and all, but your comments about literacy rates absolutely unnecessary. i thought all dancers are nice people, at least the ones on this site. have you ever considered that english may be a second or even third language for some of us? BTW when the 200 point instead of 300 come in effect

[SpinTurn]

Does anyone have any personal results from a multi-event syllabus event (e.g. bronze W/Q and F/T) that would indicate which way that type of event is being scored for points? According to the 2010 rulebook, dancing in bronze F/T wouldn't qualify you for Nationals, since the "official" bronze event is W/Q. Perhaps that is the metric to use when determining point scoring?

Joe, we competed at High Point in Bronze W/Q and Bronze F/T. Points from both are counted in the beta database.

I see your point about using the "official" bronze event (W/Q -- the one that in an NQE could qualify you for nationals) as a way to mitigate the 'double-counting' of bronze points like this. But, as I read the rulebook (and I have ;)), I think the database is correct. Both should count according to the rules.

The database looks pretty solid to me. I've done some Web application programming in the past and, other than needing a friendlier interface (which may well be in the developer's plans), I like what I see.

Like others have reported, our 2009 Nationals points are duplicated as points in 2008 Nationals when we didn't compete in 2008. But that's a data input glitch that should be easy for them to fix.

[latingal]

ummm...Joe, could you turn it down a notch?

[conniet523]

Do you have database points listed from the 2008 Nationals?

Yep - we have points listed as having been earned in 2008 Nationals. They are listed in the same events for which we are listed for the 2009 Nationals, with the same number of points for each class as earned in 2009. I've looked up several people, and if you look at points listed as 2008 Nationals, and then look at points listed as 2009 Nationals - they are always the same (but frequently listed in a different order). I'm convinced it's a database glitch of some sort. I'm sure it will get resolved - as someone pointed out earlier, this is a beta version of the database....

[Joe]

Connie, so you basically have (identical) points listed from the 2008 and 2009 Nationals?

For some reason neither I nor my partner appear to be listed in the database, so I can't check what they have for us.

[Joe]

BTW when the 200 point instead of 300 come in effect
The "200 points" rule is new for 2010. The new/modified rules are listed in the rulebook in bold, and you should have received an e-mail from National describing them. If you did not receive the e-mail you should confirm what address they have for you on file. I suspect many people have incorrect addresses on file due to being out of date, or just being fatfingered when entering them.

[skwiggy]

For some reason neither I nor my partner appear to be listed in the database, so I can't check what they have for us.

We are there. Just for some reason we only come up in the drop down search, not in searching by name.

[Meagan]

Connie, so you basically have (identical) points listed from the 2008 and 2009 Nationals?


Yes points are listed twice for all the events you did at 2009 Nationals...once under 2009 and once under 2008. No other competitions seem to have this problem (at least not from what I can tell based on my own page).

I'm not sure if people that actually danced at 2008 Nationals have this same problem or if it lists their correct points...for me I didn't dance Nationals in 2008 so there shouldn't be any points at all (not just incorrect ones)

I'm sure they'll fix the glitch though...otherwise nice to see there was some follow through with the idea!

[jerseydancer]

The "200 points" rule is new for 2010. The new/modified rules are listed in the rulebook in bold, and you should have received an e-mail from National describing them. If you did not receive the e-mail you should confirm what address they have for you on file. I suspect many people have incorrect addresses on file due to being out of date, or just being fatfingered when entering them. just curious, what was the reason to push people up the proficiency ladder so fast?

[Casayoto]

So fast? I think in the couple of years since they instituted the new proficiency point system, no one has placed out of any level. Based on my own competition results, 200 points is pretty much perfect for kicking me out of a level right after I've moved up.(Points based on collegiate comps calculated using the USA Dance system. I know they don't actually count, I was just curious how they would add up.)

[Joe]

We are there. Just for some reason we only come up in the drop down search, not in searching by name.
Interesting that they have our result for Champ Standard at the 2008 Nationals but not the one for Prechamp.

[jerseydancer]

So fast? I think in the couple of years since they instituted the new proficiency point system, no one has placed out of any level. Based on my own competition results, 200 points is pretty much perfect for kicking me out of a level right after I've moved up.(Points based on collegiate comps calculated using the USA Dance system. I know they don't actually count, I was just curious how they would add up.) not true. we have placed out of novice within 4 month, and we were only dancing 1 year silver and one year gold, and we are going to place out of pre-champ after this year nationals after dancing pre-champ a little over a year. if u compete a lot, placing out is too fast. i feel that dancers should spend at least couple of years on one level.

[Casayoto]

I'd be very interested in seeing your results. 4 months? Under the 150 point system, even if you won every comp with 14 couples in the semi, and 5 rounds of heats, you would have to win 10 times before you placed out. Under the 100 point system, you would have to win 7 times before you placed out. I find it hard to believe you did that in 4 months.

[jerseydancer]

I'd be very interested in seeing your results. 4 months? Under the 150 point system, even if you won every comp with 14 couples in the semi, and 5 rounds of heats, you would have to win 10 times before you placed out. Under the 100 point system, you would have to win 7 times before you placed out. I find it hard to believe you did that in 4 months. Your system works only if you compete in one level during each comp. Keep in mind, we can compete in 2 age categories and in two levels, so every comp was actually 4 for us, we have started to dance our gold routine in novice when still competing in gold. Then when moved to all open, we competed in novice and pre-champ, and pre-champ counts as double for novice. And we have competed every 2-3 weeks back then doing us dance and ndca comps, so you figure how fast you can point out. Now we scaled down on competitions, and competed only every 1-2 month still dancing pre-champ and champ, but only in one age category, this did allow to stay in pre-champ for a year.

[Chris Stratton]

Personally, I have long suspected that different level transitions may need different point thresholds.

You could argue that this is because the levels arent ideally distributed and will correct itself under the influence of the points system with time, but I doubt it - real world demographics have a more powerful influence than the points system. And in the case where ndca comps are a substantial source of points, their differing system means that couples may have to dance different levels there than they would at usad.

[Casayoto]

Were you finalling in Pre-champ, or just semi-finalling? If you were actually making finals somewhat consistently, I think placing out of Novice pretty quickly would make sense.

[jerseydancer]

Were you finalling in Pre-champ, or just semi-finalling? If you were actually making finals somewhat consistently, I think placing out of Novice pretty quickly would make sense. we were placed first or third consistently in pre-champ, so double-points from pre-champ toward novice pointed us out of novice fast. There is another couple this year who just started dancing pre-champ, because they do champ and pre-champ in both age categories, they will be pointed out of pre-champ right after, or with 200 points may be even before nationals. This will be less than one year in pre-champ for them.

[Meagan]

If you were placing first through third in prechamp every comp, probably shouldn't have been doing novice anyhow so seems to me the points system is working in that case.

Personally I think there should probably be a little more time spent in prechamp since there is such a big gap to champ but it does also seem harder to place out of...

[Casayoto]

I'd agree that the system worked in your case. If you were top 3 in prechamp, you shouldn't be doing novice.

[Joe]

I agree with Casayoto.

[syncopationator]

I'd agree that the system worked in your case. If you were top 3 in prechamp, you shouldn't be doing novice.

Maybe the competition they were up against was not up to par. Further, Just because you win a bronze level competition, doesn't mean that you have mastered the technique and syllabus in bronze. It just means that you were better at it than those you competed against. and the same applies to every level after that.

I think that if the proficiency point system is forcing dancers to a higher syllabus levels, then it is at the same time discouraging people from focusing on really learning the basics.

[Casayoto]

But the point is, if you are better than the people you are competing against, you should be dancing at a higher level. Just because you place out of bronze doesn't mean you should stop working on basic technique. Every good dancer of every level works on their basic technique. And if you only win once, at a smaller comp, against lower level competitors than you would normally face, you don't place out. If you are however, regularly placing at the top of your group, it's time to move to a new group.
Mastering technique and syllabus steps takes your entire life, and realistically, is never completely accomplished.

If you had to wait until mastery to move up, bronze would be full of champ level dancers that are still trying to get their rumba walks and natural turns perfect.

[wyllo]

I think that if the proficiency point system is forcing dancers to a higher syllabus levels, then it is at the same time discouraging people from focusing on really learning the basics.

Does competition proficiency level really dictate what you focus on during your lessons? Also, don't opinions as to what skills a dancer should exhibit at a different level vary quite widely? The purpose of the proficiency point system seems less about ensuring a dancer reaches some subjective skill level and more about ensuring that dancers progress through the levels so that one couple does not dominate any certain level. Of course, ideally dancers that point out of a level will meet most people's definition of proficiency for that level.

[jerseydancer]

I'd agree that the system worked in your case. If you were top 3 in prechamp, you shouldn't be doing novice. but we just switched from gold, are you recommending skipping the levels. This way we have everyone pushed to champ, what is the point. I believe that couples should be spending some time transitioning from level to level. Not sure 200 point is the good number. I agree with some of the posts that it should be different amount of points for different levels.

[jerseydancer]

Maybe the competition they were up against was not up to par. Further, Just because you win a bronze level competition, doesn't mean that you have mastered the technique and syllabus in bronze. It just means that you were better at it than those you competed against. and the same applies to every level after that.

I think that if the proficiency point system is forcing dancers to a higher syllabus levels, then it is at the same time discouraging people from focusing on really learning the basics. Agree, sometimes you just do not meet strong couples until you hit Nationals, and that does not mean that you have mastered the skill.

[jerseydancer]

Does competition proficiency level really dictate what you focus on during your lessons? Also, don't opinions as to what skills a dancer should exhibit at a different level vary quite widely? The purpose of the proficiency point system seems less about ensuring a dancer reaches some subjective skill level and more about ensuring that dancers progress through the levels so that one couple does not dominate any certain level. Of course, ideally dancers that point out of a level will meet most people's definition of proficiency for that level. why do not we have the system like in Europe, where the dancers actually have to gain points to progress to different level, it seems to work fine out there.

[Casayoto]

Depending on the level of your dancing, and the level of your competitors dancing, yes, I may be saying to skip Novice, or if not skip, move through it rather quickly. I've only been doing gold for a little over 4 months, and am pretty close to placing out of it. I don't look at that as being forced out of gold too early, I look at that as an accomplishment, and as a mark of how quickly my partner and I have improved. We have been in the finals consistently and took 2nd at our last two comps. I'm not disappointed because I "need more time to master gold", I'm excited that I've progressed past my competition so quickly and am looking forward to a new and muuuuuuuch greater challenge in Pre-champ.

[syncopationator]

If you had to wait until mastery to move up, bronze would be full of champ level dancers that are still trying to get their rumba walks and natural turns perfect.

Agree that you should not be at a certain level forever, but at the same time, someone should not have to be forced up to a higher level if they have been at one level less than one year.

The rule would be fair if it forced dancers to move up a level only after a combination of accruing a certain amount of points and being at one level for a maximum period of time.

[syncopationator]

why do not we have the system like in Europe, where the dancers actually have to gain points to progress to different level, it seems to work fine out there.

Agree - Here in the USA anyone can dance at any level they want without having to qualify for that level. No one earns the right to dance pre-champ or champ. couples just decide to sign up for whatever level they feel they are at.

If the rules were stricter on moving up a level, then there would be better competion at the syllabus levels and no one would have to be forced into dancing up just because there is no one to challenge them.

[Casayoto]

I don't see what time and skill have to do with each other. People learn at different rates. I've seen people stay in bronze for 5 years and still barely make the finals consistently, and I've seen people come in, get top coaches, train their butts off, and dominate after just a couple months of work. Do you really want that dominant couple to stay in bronze until they reach some arbitrary time goal? I don't. And I wouldn't want to if I was that couple. They should move up to a level where they can face stronger competition as soon as they're ready, while also making room in their old level for different couples to win.

[Casayoto]

So in Europe, if you win every bronze comp(I know the levels are different, but just for hypothetical consistency), you're allowed to move up to silver, but if you want you can just keep doing bronze as long as you want?

[syncopationator]

I think most people, including myself, generally want to dance at the highest level possible. But I also don't want anyone to tell me I should dance at a certain level because I placed high at a couple of comps. I want to do when I (and my coaches) feel that I am ready.

[Casayoto]

The problem with that is that not everyone has the same idea of when they are ready. I remember being in bronze and watching one couple win every comp for about two years straight. When they finally moved up, they did silver and gold, and won both their first time doing it. I can't say whether it was them, or their coaches that kept them in bronze(although I wouldn't have allowed a coach to keep me in bronze if I was doing as well as them), but whatever the reasons, it was frustrating to watch a couple that clearly was dancing below their level, yet refused to move up.

There has to be a system to prevent people from overstaying their welcome in a level.

[and123]

yeah, it's called a CONSCIENCE.
Unfortunately some people refuse to listen to it.

[Glasswren]

So in Europe, if you win every bronze comp(I know the levels are different, but just for hypothetical consistency), you're allowed to move up to silver, but if you want you can just keep doing bronze as long as you want?

I don't know about the rest of Europe, but here at least it doesn't work that way. We have a point system. Everyone starts from the bottom and must gain 50 points before moving up a level. They also must move once the points are full.

In theory, if we take a hypothetical couple that is truly better than anyone else in their level, they could move to the next level in as little as five weeks. That would, however, mean that there'd have to be a competiton every Saturday and Sunday for those five weeks and they'd have to win them all. It doesn't happen.

Most people take about a year/level, if they compete once a month. Some do it in half the time, but they really put a lot of work (and travel time) into it. And some take years. :)

[Chris Stratton]

I think most people, including myself, generally want to dance at the highest level possible. But I also don't want anyone to tell me I should dance at a certain level because I placed high at a couple of comps. I want to do when I (and my coaches) feel that I am ready.

The problem is that if you hang around where you no longer belong, you gum up the works for everyone else. Moving on to a new level of opposition does not need to change what your coach works on with you.

[jerseydancer]

I think most people, including myself, generally want to dance at the highest level possible. But I also don't want anyone to tell me I should dance at a certain level because I placed high at a couple of comps. I want to do when I (and my coaches) feel that I am ready. I feel the same, I want to move up, but when I am ready.It is not fun to compete against weaker couples, but it is not fun to be forced moving to open, when you know you have not mastered certain level of basics.

[jerseydancer]

The problem is that if you hang around where you no longer belong, you gum up the works for everyone else. Moving on to a new level of opposition does not need to change what your coach works on with you. unfortunately moving in syllabus required changing our routine

[Casayoto]

Moving up doesn't require changing anything. The lone exception being when you move from bronze to silver smooth. For any other style or level, you can keep it the same. You can dance bronze material in champ, and if your basics are good enough, you'll still place. Of course, you'll probably want to change choreography, but it's because you're free to and have more options, not because you have to.

So if in Europe, once you have enough points you're forced to move up, then I don't understand why it's any different from our system. Point in, or point out. They're pretty much the same thing.

[jerseydancer]

So if in Europe, once you have enough points you're forced to move up, then I don't understand why it's any different from our system. Point in, or point out. They're pretty much the same thing.

it would be different from our system because couples would have to earn their level, not just move to any level that they desire. This would eliminate pointing out too early as well as staying in the level too long ( couple still have to move out after certain amounts of wins) issues, because the couples you would compete in every level would have place very high few times in the previous level, and that makes all couples in each level very competitive. For example, we would not be able to place high in pre-camp when we just moved to novice... if this works in other countries, why did we have come up with something different

[Casayoto]

I honestly don't think people moving up too fast is causing a problem. The point of the current system is to kick people out of a level if they're doing well. The European system apparently does the same thing. Of course there's always some people that are dancing above their level, but I've found them to be the exception...at least in International. In American style, the silver finalists could frequently wipe the floor with the gold dancers, but that's a rant for a whole different thread. Besides, there are enough competitors in International on the East Coast(I assume that's where you are Jerseydancer) that the small number of couples that are dancing over their level don't really affect your points very much.

I'm not saying our system is better than the European system. I think that their system is better suited to a large competitive environment where dancers train from a young age, while ours is suited to an environment in which some competitors don't start dancing until their 20s, 30s, 40s, or older. It's a different environment here and the system has to reflect that.

[Chris Stratton]

There's actually not that much evidence that it does work in other countries, except for the same youth-young adult demographic which unless you have vastly larger numbers would be dancing in the highest proficiency for their age group anyway.

The whole proficiency ladder in the us is largely irrelevent to the strength of our top couples, because they climb the age categories ladder instead.

[Joe]

I can see jerseydancer's point that not-very-good couples who arbitrarily decide to dance a level they aren't really ready for can theoretically force people who belong in that level to point out sooner, but I don't really think it's all that big of a problem. If you get pushed up and out of Novice quickly, you'll linger a while longer in Prechamp. No big deal.

If you feel you need to dance multiple age categories and as a result you point out faster, that's not the fault of anyone else. If you are eligible for Adult and Sr I, and dance both, it's like you're going to comps twice as often as someone who is only eligible for Adult.

[Mengu]

If you feel you need to dance multiple age categories and as a result you point out faster, that's not the fault of anyone else.

Is dancing multiple age categories a fault then? Should one's strategy be to dance one age category and one level at every comp? It seems this would dilute the pool of competitors at each category, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing for a competition.

[scotttocs]

So if in Europe, once you have enough points you're forced to move up, then I don't understand why it's any different from our system. Point in, or point out. They're pretty much the same thing.

The difference is that in Europe you can't self-declare higher than you have pointed to.

I have never earned a point in an IDSF event. In Europe I'd be starting at the bottom, and have to place out. If I were to dance bronze in the US I think people would be upset with me.

There is also a difference in Europe about the syllabus rules at the various levels as I understand it, but I've never danced in Europe.

-Scott

[19DancerBabyLin]

Is dancing multiple age categories a fault then? Should one's strategy be to dance one age category and one level at every comp? It seems this would dilute the pool of competitors at each category, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing for a competition.

I'm not going to say it is a fault to be dancing multiple age categories in multiple levels. It is one's prerogative and decision to do so, as long as that person understands and abides by the implications of doing so, including possibly placing out earlier. Most people don't do the multiple-age-and-level thing, and understandably rules are made to cater to the majority, not the minority.

I am all for dancing at two levels, IF and only IF I think I am legitimately ready to move up.
For instance, when I was consistently finaling in Bronze, I started dancing both Bronze and Silver to transition over. If I did well in Silver at that time to point out earlier than I expect, that only means I truly should be dancing in Silver and stop dominating in Bronze.
Now, I only dance Silver. I don't think I am diluting the Gold competition pool, because I can hardly be considered their competitor at this point... more so a roadblock and annoyance for increasing their rounds of heat :D Even if I choose to dance gold too, it should not affect me pointing out earlier, because it is unlikely I will be doing well enough to get that many points. Should the highly unlikely situation comes up that I am actually doing well in gold that I am risking pointing out of silver, well, then maybe I should have been dancing gold anyway.

[syncopationator]

The problem is that if you hang around where you no longer belong, you gum up the works for everyone else. Moving on to a new level of opposition does not need to change what your coach works on with you.

The same could be said for couples that are dancing in a level higher than they should. The lack the experience and floor craft to maneuver around more experienced dancers, which can lead to accidents on the floor.

[Chris Stratton]

The same could be said for couples that are dancing in a level higher than they should. The lack the experience and floor craft to maneuver around more experienced dancers, which can lead to accidents on the floor.

It can, however first rounds are often crowded enough to prevent much movement anyway.

And generally a couple that has placed out of a level will have a pretty good idea of typical behavior expected in the next level up.

[syncopationator]

It can, however first rounds are often crowded enough to prevent much movement anyway.

And generally a couple that has placed out of a level will have a pretty good idea of typical behavior expected in the next level up.

Hey Chris, are you ever wrong???

[Casayoto]

I have to agree with Chris(I'll try not to make it a habit). The first round is pretty crowded no matter who's on the floor. And most couples that are dancing over their heads don't make it to the next round.

[Joe]

Hey Chris, are you ever wrong???
Never! :D

But Casayoto is right about crowded first rounds being self-selecting.

[jerseydancer]

how often the points database is updated on usadance.org?

[Lorelei]

don't know how often it is updated, but it does not have all of the old comps yet, for instance none of the NJDSC comps for the last two years are on my report

[Chris Stratton]

Apparently some of the recent ones have not been fully sanctioned, and so don't feed into the points system.

[Joe]

Isn't it still basically beta anyway?