New USA Dance proficiency point system

JudeMorrigan

JudeMorrigan

Forum Master
Hot off the presses, looks like there'll be a new system from 2017 Nationals on. In a nutshell and as I understand it, if you place in the top 12.5% of an event at an NQE, you earn a PP in that level/style/age. If you place in the top 12.5% of an event at Nationals, you earn two. 12.5% isn't as random as it seems. The breakpoints are at 8/16/24/etc. couples in an event - so it ties in with the number of rounds danced. So in an event with 8 or more couples, the winners earn a PP. In an event with 16 or more couples, the top 2 couples earn a PP, etc. Also note that you can only earn one PP per year at NQEs. So you don't risk being penalized for doing a bunch of different NQEs.

If you've earned two or more PPs in a level/style/age combination in the past three years, you lose eligibility for that level/style/age combination as well as lower levels and older age groups in that style. (Younger age groups for the youth and younger crowd.) They have eligibility being calculated after each year's nationals.

Seems pretty ok to me.

(Apologies if this should have gone into another thread such as the mammoth "USADance questions" thread.)
 
I also read it thru, the short and long docs. I agree, it seems fair. This points system has a lot in common with the Collegiate Dancesport Association's system. Though there are differences. In CDA's Fair Level Certification you can point out within a season whereas with USA Dance you can stay one level a whole year even if you win everything (if I read it correctly.) And in CDA one style can affect your level in another style. And CDA has a provision for a new partnership, allowing one level down if the difference is 2 levels.

I appreciate that both point systems acknowledge that a placing matters more given a larger initial field.
 
At max 1 PP per year (winning all NQEs you dance and skipping Nationals), won't it take 2 years of competing (and winning all for ex.) to point out?

Dunno, coffee hasn't kicked in yet, so brain fuzzy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: s2k
My one concern is that I'm not sure there are completely adequate protections for couples with precipitously divergent experience levels. For example, had the lady I danced with at Derby City in 2014 and I kept dancing past that comp, I think there's good evidence that we would have pointed out of gold smooth in fairly short order.

But the newcomer I danced with at Gumbo in 2015 and I were a very mediocre bronze couple. Granted, had we kept dancing, I'm sure we could have progressed out of bronze relatively quickly with sufficient motivation, but it would have taken ages for us to have belonged in novice+. Unless I'm missing a rule (entirely possible!), I think we simply would have been unable to dance together had I picked up that extra gold PP.

Of course, in fairness, I had been recruited to dance with that newcomer in T/S. I had only insisted on am-am because I wasn't sure how the NDCA would feel about my dancing in an event as the "teacher" half of a T/S partnership. Even though I wasn't doing any actual teaching, I was afraid that would negatively impact my pro-am student dancer standing. But maybe USA Dance would consider getting the odd couple with large experience gaps filling up the T/S fields to be a feature.
 
JudeMorrigan said:
Of course, in fairness, I had been recruited to dance with that newcomer in T/S. I had only insisted on am-am because I wasn't sure how the NDCA would feel about my dancing in an event as the "teacher" half of a T/S partnership. Even though I wasn't doing any actual teaching, I was afraid that would negatively impact my pro-am student dancer standing. But maybe USA Dance would consider getting the odd couple with large experience gaps filling up the T/S fields to be a feature.
Click to expand...

The USA Dance rulebook provides for "Mixed Proficiency" events, in which neither partner including the unjudged one may be a professional. As to the reason Gumbo doesn't offer mixed proficiency, the reason may be that they don't see any demand for it. And if they had, you probably would have been uncontested.
 
JudeMorrigan said:
My one concern is that I'm not sure there are completely adequate protections for couples with precipitously divergent experience levels. For example, had the lady I danced with at Derby City in 2014 and I kept dancing past that comp, I think there's good evidence that we would have pointed out of gold smooth in fairly short order.

But the newcomer I danced with at Gumbo in 2015 and I were a very mediocre bronze couple. Granted, had we kept dancing, I'm sure we could have progressed out of bronze relatively quickly with sufficient motivation, but it would have taken ages for us to have belonged in novice+. Unless I'm missing a rule (entirely possible!), I think we simply would have been unable to dance together had I picked up that extra gold PP.
Click to expand...

That's how it works here for am-am. If you're pre-champ in a style because you've pointed-out of gold, you're pre-champ... your options are dancing in pre-champ or champ. If your new partner is bronze, your options as a couple are pre-champ or champ. I've heard of people applying to drop down a level because of a new partnership, but I've never heard of it being granted. So you sometimes see someone in a level that they are so not ready for, or see new partnerships take a year or more to be ready to compete... or people who don't partner up because the level discrepancy is too large.
 
Loki said:
At max 1 PP per year (winning all NQEs you dance and skipping Nationals), won't it take 2 years of competing (and winning all for ex.) to point out?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how I'm reading it too. Only way to win more than 1 PP in a year is to gain the PP at Nationals. Also some categories almost never have 8+ couples, even at nationals, so you might never point out of them.
 
From the rules: "No points are earned in a heat with less than 8 couples dancing regardless of placement."

Using my past three years of attending NQEs and Nationals as a guide, this is really disappointing. If we're in a heat with two other couples we consider that a win!
 
Are you saying you want a PP for say a 3/3 final placement?

Sidenote - wonder if any sandbaggers will drop out of heats if they see 8 or more couples registered. Meh, maybe I'm being too cynical.
 
I say the actual thing is Misnamed. It's not about proficiency. It's about being clever and choosing events where you will win. The fact that XY and Z competitor are in your heat determines your placement as much as your "proficiency".

If you have a good day and another competitor has a bad day, that's not proficiency. If you wind up in a final against three strong competitors as compared to a final where you are the strongest, that's also not proficiency. If you have a good day and another competitor has a bad day, that's not proficiency. If you wind up in a final against three strong competitors as compared to a final where you are the strongest, that's also not proficiency.
 
Bailamosdance said:
I say the actual thing is Misnamed. It's not about proficiency. It's about being clever and choosing events where you will win. The fact that XY and Z competitor are in your heat determines your placement as much as your "proficiency".

If you have a good day and another competitor has a bad day, that's not proficiency. If you wind up in a final against three strong competitors as compared to a final where you are the strongest, that's also not proficiency. If you have a good day and another competitor has a bad day, that's not proficiency. If you wind up in a final against three strong competitors as compared to a final where you are the strongest, that's also not proficiency.
Click to expand...

Did you read the new system? No points for heats of less than 8 couples. With 8 different couples, how likely is it that all are having bad days except you? How likely is it that all are strong or weak? It is possible, but that sure decreases the odds.

And it also means that folks in lightly contested events (some age/level/style combos never seem to see 8 couples in a heat) can decide for themselves when to move up.

Seems like a good start. At least the folks consistently winning big heats in lower levels will need to move up and let someone else have a shot at it.
 
Loki said:
Are you saying you want a PP for say a 3/3 final placement?
Click to expand...

What I said (poorly) is that I'm disappointed because we compete in events where we're regularly uncontested, or at NQEs where there's only a small number of other competitors (we're working on this for 2017).

And then there's my jealousy that there are dancers who are able to have quarter-finals or even semi-finals! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Dance Ads

Advertise on Dance Forums Reach dancers, teachers, studios, event organizers, and dance-friendly brands. View ad options
Back
Top