2016 USRowing High Performance Report Summary *****

Transcription

1 2016 USRowing High Performance Report Summary ***** March 20, 2017

2 Background and Implementation At its September 2016 meeting, the USRowing Board of Directors (the Board ) voted to appoint a High Performance Task Force to conduct a broad assessment of the U.S. National Team and Training Center programs for the Rio quadrennium ( ). The Task Force was charged with identifying what worked well and what needed improvement, and to make recommendations going forward for the Tokyo quadrennium ( ) and beyond. By mid-october, CEO Glenn Merry had contacted the Board-approved Task Force members to obtain their formal agreement to serve, and the Task Force conducted its first teleconference on October 19, Over the next eight weeks, Task Force members interviewed over fifty individuals, including U.S. and international coaches, current and former National Team athletes, USRowing staff, various key stakeholders and resources including the United States Olympic Committee ( USOC ), FISA and the National Rowing Foundation ( NRF ). In addition, a significant volume of documentation was collected and reviewed by the Task Force. Each Task Force member was part of two to three subject matter working groups. Each working group prepared draft reports for consideration and discussion by the entire Task Force, and then finalized them for submission to the USRowing Board of Directors. The High Performance Task Force Report was presented to the Board of Directors on December 20, In the weeks that followed, the Board of Directors reviewed, discussed each recommendation put forward, and each was approved, sometimes with minor modification. As of the date of this summary, some recommendations have already been implemented. The following High Performance Report Summary summarizes the areas addressed, findings, Board-approved recommendations and overall implementation strategy. There is a substantial list of items, many that have already or will be addressed in the short term, and several that will be prioritized and developed over the long term. The Board of Directors wishes to thank the Task Force for their hard work and dedication. 1

3 High Performance Task Force Members Kris Thorsness (co-chair) : Women s National/Olympic Team and , Olympic gold and multiple World Championship medalist, US Rowing Hall of Fame inductee, US Rowing board member; Christine Collins (co-chair) : Women s National/Olympic Team 1991, , , Olympic bronze and multiple World Championship medalist, US Rowing Hall of Fame inductee, former USRowing board member ( ), High Performance Committee member ; Charlie Cole : men s National/Olympic Team and , Olympic bronze medalist; Megan Cooke-Carcagno : women s National/Olympic Team , multiple World Championship medalist and World Champion 2006, collegiate coach at two Div. I programs and currently Duke University women s head coach; Larry Gluckman : men s National/Olympic Team 1973 and , Olympian, World Championship medalist, National/Olympic Team coach and , U23 National Team coach and 2015, collegiate coach for 19 years (multiple IRA championships); Gregg Hartsuff : long time Univ. of Michigan head men s coach (30 ECAC and Dad Vail Championships), founding member of ACRA, National Team coach 2003 and World University Games coach 2015; Megan Kalmoe : women s National/Olympic Team , Olympic bronze and World Championships medalist, High Performance Committee member (athlete representative) 2009-present; Jamie Koven : men s National/Olympic Team , World Champion and Olympian, National Rowing Foundation board member 2005-present and co-chair 2012 to present; Meghan O Leary : women s National/Olympic Team , multiple World Cup medalist, current US Rowing board member; and Mike Teti : men s National/Olympic Team , Olympic bronze and multiple World Championships medalist, National/Olympic Team coach , collegiate coach since 1982 and currently Univ. of California Berkeley men s head coach (multiple IRA championships), USRowing Hall of Fame inductee. High Performance Review Subject Areas Defining Success USRowing administrative management and governance Coaching Excellence: identification, training and retention Team prioritization strategy Athlete identification, training and retention External relationships and funding Resources:equipment, medical, training centers Other obstacles to success 2

4 Findings and Recommendations A. Defining Success Success for the United States at the Olympic Games can be defined in many ways. At a high level, the USRowing mission statement states in pertinent part that USRowing will continually improve performance at the Olympic Games. By this measure, USRowing has not been successful in the last four Olympics: from 2004 to 2016, the United States won two, three, three, and two total medals, respectively, with both the medals won in the 2016 Rio Olympics garnered by female athletes. During this same time period, the United States ranked 5th, 4th, 6th, and 6th out of all of the competing countries in overall Olympic medals won. At a more granular level, USRowing forecasted in its 2016 High Performance Plan report to the USOC that it had confidence that four of five events (W8+, M8+, M4-, W2- or W4x) would win medals, and the opportunity to achieve medals in seven other events (LW2x, LM2x, W2x, LM4-, W2- or W4x, W1x). By this measure, the United States was also not successful, winning medals in only two events. However, if success is defined by participation levels at the Olympics, the United States would be among the top performing nations, ranking 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, and 2nd amongst its competitors for the total number of qualified boats at the Olympics between 2004 and In establishing expectations for the future performance of the United States rowing team at the Olympic Games, we must be mindful of our historical Olympic performances and those of other nations. While GB, NZ, and AUS have achieved total medal counts of 9, 6 and 5 in the past four Olympiads, these are somewhat atypical results; only GB has been able to surpass 5 medals in two Olympics the previous four cycles. Therefore, even an increase in the U.S. team s average medals from 2.5 medals to 3.5 medals per quad would result in a consistent finish by the U.S. in the top three to four countries measured by total medal count. Based on this historical performance data and assuming recommendations made by this Task Force are adopted, the Task Force believes it is reasonable for USRowing to set the following goals: Consistently winning at least three medals from Princeton Training Center boats (in 2016 defined: the W8+, W2-, W4x, M8+, M4-, M2-, and W4-) and at least one medal from a non-training center boat (in 2016 defined: W1x, W2x, LW2x, M1x, M2x, and M4x) at Olympic Games. All medal target boats make A finals at Olympic Games Crews show positive performance progress in years leading up to Olympic Games Qualify for Olympic slots all Princeton Training Center boats and High Performance Club medal target boats at 2019 World Championships. Provide sufficient development opportunities for athletes in non-medal target events 3

5 B. Administrative Management and Governance USRowing s organizational framework begins with its Board of Directors (the Board ), which is comprised of elected regional representatives and female/male vice-chairs, as well as appointed at-large members from the American rowing community. In 2006, the Board created the position of CEO to oversee the day to day operations of the organization. Pursuant to the Carver Model of management, the CEO is responsible for determining and carrying out the means to execute organizational goals identified by the Board. After the Olympic Games in 2012 and at the suggestion of the USOC, the Board established a new position of High Performance Director ( HPD ) to directly oversee all U.S. high performance team programs. The HPD was also tasked to work with the High Performance Committee ( HPC ), a standing committee of USRowing which was established to define, in consultation with the National Team s director and coaches, the plans and programs for the training and selection of [U.S. National] Teams. Based on the analysis of past cycles successes and shortcomings, the Task Force recommends a clearer identification and definition of the roles and responsibilities as it pertains to National Team oversight, administration and governance. Clearly define the role and duties of the HPD with regard to oversight of National Team operations and coaches, including requiring that he/she: (a) manage the coaching and other training center staff, and provide technical expertise and/or mentoring to the coaches when needed; (b) stay in very close contact with the coaches, including weekly meetings; (c) be present at training squad practices on a regular basis (e.g., at least monthly for a period of several days), and (d) be available to the athletes. Clearly define supervisory and informational reporting structures for the HPD, including that the HPD: (a) is supervised by the CEO and meets at least weekly with him/her; (b) confers with the HPC on a regular basis, keeps it informed about team matters, and attends its meetings; and (c) makes quarterly reports to the Board regarding National Team activities and progress. Clearly define the roles and duties of the CEO with regard to National Team operations, including requiring that the CEO: (a) consult with the HPD, HPC and Board before taking any significant action regarding the National Team; (b) meet with the HPD at least weekly; (c) keep in close contact with the HPC regarding team-related matters and attend meetings periodically; and (d) report monthly to the Board regarding National Team activities and progress. Reconstitute the HPC as a six-member group. Establish performance-oriented criteria for HPC membership and require HPC members to actively monitor National Team operations, attend a certain number of competitions and training sessions, and conduct athlete surveys at least bi-annually. HPC members four year terms should be rolling, to ensure continuity, and replacements prior to end of the term should be chosen by the HPC. 4

6 C. Coaching Excellence: Identification, Retention and Training The Task Force found that the Men s National Team performance was hindered by several structural and administrative lapses. On the women s side, although the continued success of the women s 8+ reflects positively on that program s strengths, the Task Force found that there are areas for improvement. The Task Force concluded that the new HPD job description should include oversight of both programs in order to achieve stronger results across the board. Men s co-head coach arrangement should be evaluated by the HPD in consultation with the HPC. HPD should be tasked with identifying head coaches with approval of HPC. USRowing will commit to provide opportunities for continuing professional development for both men s and women s coaches. The HPD be tasked to identify and develop for both the men s and the women s teams; a concerted program of identification and development of potential future National Team coaches should be undertaken. D. Athlete Excellence: Identification, Retention and Training The work of recruiting athletes to the Training Center was tasked to the coaches during the Rio quadrennium, in addition to their other duties. The Task Force found that primary sources of development for training center boats were the collegiate ranks and the U23 team system. Development of non-training center events (W1x, M4x, M2x, M1x, LW2x, LM2x), occurred mostly in high performing ( HP ) partner clubs. This system proved quite successful for the women s team, but less so for the men, with exception of the LM2x. The Task Force strongly favored further investment in the U23 program, as increasing numbers of National/Olympic Team athletes have U23 team experience. However, the costs of participation in the U23 team system have become an obstacle for participation for many quality athletes. To increase athlete retention during the Rio quadrennium, top athletes were encouraged to train at HP clubs, and Direct Athlete Support (DAS) funds were focused on Princeton Training Center athletes. DAS funding helps with retention by offsetting some training/living costs, but is viewed by both the USOC and the athletes as inadequate to provide a sustainable lifestyle. A final aspect of retention is career development, to ensure that athletes are not penalized professionally for their years of training. 5

7 Dedicate a full-time staff member, under the supervision of the HPD, whose duties include the identification and development of potential National Team athletes, while maintaining National Team coaches involvement, so as to broaden the scope of identification efforts beyond the large collegiate programs. Specific metrics for this position will be defined by the HPD in consultation with the HPC. Within the framework of a balanced National Team budget, work to substantially diminish financial obstacles to U23 participation. Within the framework of a balanced National Team budget, work to increase athlete funding for medal-target athletes/seats training at the Princeton Training Center and High Performance Clubs to enhance our ability to retain high-performing athletes, beginning with a program that supports returning Olympic-boat class medalists and then increasing the DAS pool to provide increased financial support for athletes with A-level final performances in medal-target boats. Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to provide high-performing non-ptc athletes in Olympic boat classes with DAS, physio/medical, logistical and other support. Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to make all efforts to support the NRF job bank and other professional development opportunities for athletes. Establish criteria for, seek applications from, and formalize relationships with: o Select regional high performance clubs/organizations to provide development-level training environments to develop young (post-u23) potential National Team athletes and coaches in all events and disciplines. o Select regional high performance clubs/organizations to provide elite level training environments for returning athletes with high medal potential in non-training Center boats, to increase the United States medal-winning opportunities. E. Team Prioritization Strategy During the Rio quadrennium, various boats received USRowing support (DAS, access to facilities, coaching, and equipment etc.) according to a decreasing priority system of: Level I medal potential training center boats (W8+, W2-, W4X, M4-, M8+, LM4-), Level II non-training center medal potential boats (LW2X, W2X, LM2X, W1X), and Level III non-medal potential boats (M2-, M1X, M2X, M4X). This hierarchy was based on the historical success of each boat class and the requirement of support of at least one boat class from each gender and weight class. With the exception of the W8+, no Level 1 training center boats medaled in Rio, though the 6

8 shortfalls for the W2-, W4X and M4- seemed inconsistent with their records between , and the M8+, W2- and W4x did make the Olympic A Final. The Level II boats performed comparatively well with primarily high performance club support and limited DAS, with a medal in the W1x and Olympic finalists in the LM2x and W2x. Create a four-tiered prioritization/support structure of Group I training center medal targets (2017: W2-, W8+, M8+ and W4-); Group 2 training center development (2017: W4x, M4- and M2-); Group 3 high performance club medal targets (2017: W2x, LW2x, LM2x); and Group 4 club development (2017: W1x, M1x, M2x and M4x). Boats may be moved up or down in this hierarchy during the Tokyo quadrennium, depending upon performance and other factors as determined by the HPD and coaches; The HPD, in consultation with the HPC, will be responsible for overseeing that top-performing athletes and crews from Group 3 medal target (non-training Center) boats are provided support and resources on par with medal potential boats at the Training Center (Group 1 medal target boats). The HPD, in consultation with the HPC, will help facilitate the collaboration of High Performance Partner Clubs; and will encourage the establishment of training and selection systems that produce the top performing crew(s) for National Team selection events. F. Resources: Equipment, Medical, Training Centers The Task Force found that a wide array of USRowing resources were provided for Princeton Training Center ( TC ) athletes, while non-tc athletes relied heavily upon high performance clubs resources. Generally speaking, the Princeton Training Center is well equipped and staffed by highly competent medical, nutritional and physical therapy professionals. Also, the high cost of living in Princeton is somewhat offset for those who live with host families. The recent leasing of the Wall Street gym for land workouts and winter training is viewed as a significant positive addition. However, even within the Training Center, there were resource issues and the U.S. athletes there do not have the level of support enjoyed by their international peers. Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to secure an indoor space that can accommodate the full complement men and women training at the USRowing Training Center, that has sufficient equipment and maintenance, and is big enough to allow expansion of the men s training squad, Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to increase physical therapy and medical staff to handle athlete demand/need. Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to provide dedicated 7

9 office space for coaches. Within the framework of a balanced national team budget, work to establish European-based resources, e.g., equipment and a storage facility, so logistics is not a distraction and getting basic equipment (tools, tents/medical equipment, oars, slings) is not a challenge whenever the team travels to Europe. G. External Relationships and Funding The Task Force found that the United States lack of representation on FISA s Executive Council and Executive Committee, as well as the lack of coordination between USRowing and American FISA representatives hinders its US athletes performance. However, USRowing s relationship with the USOC has improved significantly, which has helped the USOC understand that not only the number of medals, but the boat classes in which those medals are won, is an important measure of success in rowing. A very important domestic relationship is with the National Rowing Foundation ( NRF ), which provides significant funding for the National Teams. This relationship has improved substantially in recent years, which can only benefit the National Teams. The Task Force found that It is important that USRowing work to help the NRF develop a productive message to donors and make athletes reasonably available for NRF donor functions. Sponsorship opportunities are another area of external relationships that are important to the National Teams, and has been an area of positive growth for the organization despite changes in the sponsorship market away from large scale corporate donations. Also, USRowing s membership offers a target audience for potential sponsors who can appeal to the generally active and affluent early adopters involved in rowing. As an organization, increase connection with US and regional FISA representatives, and increase influence in FISA policy and decision making. Develop additional marketing opportunities to identify potential sponsors, and mandate coaching support of athlete involvement in marketing efforts. Continue to improve NRF relations through cooperative messaging and fundraising efforts. H. Other Obstacles to Success The Task Force also examined the presence of obstacles to success that may not neatly fit into the foregoing categories. First is the lack of a clear definition of success. Is it a specific medal count? Medals in certain boat classes? Qualification of certain boats, or a certain number of boats, for the Olympics? Other things? While there necessarily must be some flexibility in order to react to changing circumstances and athlete pool characteristics, the Task Force found that a clear set of goals is needed. Also, the Task Force found that the systems for athlete advocacy 8

10 and marketing need improvement. As an organization, establish clear goals for the National Team program and establish measurable metrics to determine success in achieving those goals. Include athletes in discussions and decisions that directly impact training, competition and selection of the National Team, and ensure that all athletes have access to relevant information. 9