When is the new USADance Proficiency Point Limit Becoming Effective?

[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.