# CubingUSA Nationals 2017 - Fort Wayne, Indiana (July 7-9)



## ToastyKen (Nov 4, 2016)

CubingUSA Nationals 2017 (formerly known as US Nationals) will take place in *Fort Wayne, IN*, from* July 7-9, 2017*.

Details on the event page:
*https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/*

Registration will open on *January 8, 2017*, until June 1, 2017 or when we reach an *800-competitor limit*, whichever comes first. If we reach the competitor limit, we will open a waiting list.

We will have qualifying times in all events. You may only register for events in which you have already qualified, but you will have until May 8 to qualify, and you may add events that you newly qualify for if you have already registered.
Qualification details:
https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/qualifying.php

Our Facebook page will be the most up-to-date place to follow any additional announcements:
https://www.facebook.com/CubingUSA/


----------



## Matt11111 (Nov 4, 2016)

People have always asked me if you have to qualify to enter competitions. I guess this would be the first yes as far as I know.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Nov 4, 2016)

It's pretty sad that once again feet is left out


----------



## YouCubing (Nov 4, 2016)

guess I'll have to practice Multi a lot before December


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 4, 2016)

I'm going to be pretty mad if I can't do 4Bld because of an r2 from last year


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 4, 2016)

Wait, this means Brandon Mikel can't do FMC!


----------



## ender9994 (Nov 4, 2016)

I really hope upcoming competitions change their cut offs to be in line with the qualification times

For example, it would be frustrating if someone failed to get a 4x4 avg at a competition because they didn't get below a 1:15 so they only got (2)solves


----------



## ToastyKen (Nov 4, 2016)

Updated OP with a list of "qualifier" events.


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 4, 2016)

Feet is a WCA event right?
Then why is it not at US Nationals?
It has been at Nats from 2010-2015.
I am confused.


----------



## h2f (Nov 4, 2016)

Matt11111 said:


> I guess this would be the first yes as far as I know.



There were qulifiying times to register during this comp: https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/competitions/KaskadaOpen2016

Only in 3x3 there were no qulification times.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 4, 2016)

IMO this is not fair for everyone, not everyone in the US is lucky enough to have comps in their area with the events they want to qualify in, the increased effort to hold more side events will reduce this ofc, but it won't totally make it fair across all regions, it's sad we have to sacrifice one of the goals of the WCA (fairness) to accommodate bigger competitions

why not include singles too with cutoffs, what if someone got barely above 2 minutes in megaminx, but didn't make the soft cutoff and didn't get an average (lets say the soft cutoff was 1:45 or 2:00), and I know of someone who got a 10.47 clock single but DNF avg, she has a 7.444 ao12 unofficially, is it fair that we shouldn't let this person compete even though they could even go and podium?


----------



## genericcuber666 (Nov 4, 2016)

QUALIFYING TIMES FOR EVERYTHING????
this is the end of the nice speed cubing community we have this isnt good


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 4, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> QUALIFYING TIMES FOR EVERYTHING????
> this is the end of the nice speed cubing community we have this isnt good


How would this be the end? Nats is getting out of hand with the amount of people we are accepting, and to accept more people with the same events we need to have some limits. These cutoffs are far from unreasonable.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 4, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> QUALIFYING TIMES FOR EVERYTHING????
> this is the end of the nice speed cubing community we have this isnt good


nats is not the only speedcubing competition tho


----------



## Tycubing (Nov 4, 2016)

genericcuber666 said:


> QUALIFYING TIMES FOR EVERYTHING????
> this is the end of the nice speed cubing community we have this isnt good


It gives people the motivation to practice and get better


----------



## newtonbase (Nov 4, 2016)

I'm planning on going to the World Championships next year but if there's qualifying times then it may not be worth it. 

There's some qualifying for the UK Championships starting today but nothing that affects me .


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 4, 2016)

newtonbase said:


> I'm planning on going to the World Championships next year but if there's qualifying times then it may not be worth it.
> 
> There's some qualifying for the UK Championships starting today but nothing that affects me .


sadly there is qualifying times for some events for worlds


----------



## newtonbase (Nov 4, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> sadly there is qualifying times for some events for worlds


If it's the same as the US qualifying then I'd only get to do 2 events based on my current times. I don't get enough practice time to get good at many more.


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Nov 4, 2016)

I can understand the reasoning for this. but it dissapoints me as my plan to go to nationals was to compete in events that are normally not held (like 4bld and such) and there is no feet to which is disappointing as well. as much as I would love to go to bigger in Texas and nationals, it has took away one of my biggest Incentives to go.
Maybe I'll see if If there will be another comp with all events that I could go to (I remember that Michigan holds comps like these and some relatives live there too).


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 4, 2016)

Can't wait for the venue to come out in December. This year put feet in the unofficial events!


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 4, 2016)

I couldn't either spare the time to go to nationals or make pretty much any of these cutoffs (except 2 and 3), but this is the way it should be done. With one exception: can cubingusa mandate that cutoffs for cubingusa authorized events be not more strict than these limits? I can imagine it would be incredibly frustrating to someone who averages 1:20 on 4x4 but all their local comps have a 1:10 or a 1:15 cutoff, for example.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 4, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I couldn't either spare the time to go to nationals or make pretty much any of these cutoffs (except 2 and 3), but this is the way it should be done. With one exception: can cubingusa mandate that cutoffs for cubingusa authorized events be not more strict than these limits? I can imagine it would be incredibly frustrating to someone who averages 1:20 on 4x4 but all their local comps have a 1:10 or a 1:15 cutoff, for example.


or they could just include singles as well as averages to meet cutoff


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 5, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> or they could just include singles as well as averages to meet cutoff



Averages are a better indicator because of the possibility of a lucky single. And ultimately that's what they're looking for: an indicator of how fast somebody actually is.


----------



## biscuit (Nov 5, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Feet is a WCA event right?
> Then why is it not at US Nationals?
> It has been at Nats from 2010-2015.
> I am confused.



It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.

These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule. 

That being said, some of the less held events (like big bld) I don't think should have qualification times. Even then, I can see why you would though. I think this is a big step in the right direction for the WCA. I'm strongly opposed to making local comps hyper competitive, but bigger comps should be more competitive. 

Eventually, I'd love to see cubing get to the point where you have to attend a regional comp before you go to nationals. We're not close to that though.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 5, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Averages are a better indicator because of the possibility of a lucky single. And ultimately that's what they're looking for: an indicator of how fast somebody actually is.


its less luck on bigger puzzles, and you would likely have it quite lower than the average, for example 2:30 megaminx avg, sub 2:05 single would be enough imo


----------



## ender9994 (Nov 5, 2016)

Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what percentage of people who have ever attempted multi blind get eliminated due to the 5 point cuttoff?

Edit: I would actually like to see this data for every event. it would help show how competitive the chosen cuttoffs really are


----------



## turtwig (Nov 5, 2016)

I don't think this is the best way to do it. I'm not planning on going, but if I were, I would not be able to compete in a lot of the events that I'm good at purely because I haven't competed in them in comp, even though I'm easily twice as fast at home. A lot of these events, like MBLD, is something that a lot of people only get a chance to do at really big comps like Nats, since small comps don't hold them a lot.

I think we should just put strict cut-offs during the comp, like if your first solve isn't sub-x, you can't finish your average. This way a lot of beginners they're trying to filter out will be out after the first solve but people who have improved from their last comp of people who haven't competed but are fast can still compete.



aybuck37 said:


> Can't wait for the venue to come out in December. This year put feet in the unofficial events!



Why would they do that? If they were to hold it at all, it might as well be official.


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 5, 2016)

ender9994 said:


> Out of curiosity, can anyone tell me what percentage of people who have ever attempted multi blind get eliminated due to the 5 point cuttoff?
> 
> Edit: I would actually like to see this data for every event. it would help show how competitive the chosen cuttoffs really are



Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
4x4 Cube: 64.19%
5x5 Cube: 53.12%
2x2 Cube: 70.235%
3x3 blindfolded: 98.53%
3x3 one-handed: 74.229%
3x3 fewest moves: 27.2% single, 72.1% mean
Megaminx: 61.87%
Pyraminx: 60.911%
Square-1: 56.06%
Rubik's Clock: 47.76%
Skewb: 52.97%
6x6 Cube: 63.11%
7x7 Cube: 69.03%
4x4 blindfolded: 85.8%
5x5 blindfolded: 76.0%
3x3 multi blind: 28.0%

Note that this is the percentage that would be able to compete as of now, not the percentage that would be eliminated. Also, the reason for inconsistent decimal places is that I used significant figures.


----------



## YouCubing (Nov 5, 2016)

turtwig said:


> Why would they do that? If they were to hold it at all, it might as well be official.


Pretty sure that was a joke


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 5, 2016)

biscuit said:


> It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.
> 
> These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule.
> 
> ...


perfectly said


----------



## ender9994 (Nov 5, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
> 4x4 Cube: 64.19%
> 5x5 Cube: 53.12%
> 2x2 Cube: 70.235%
> ...




Perfect, thank you. I was right in thinking Multi was much more restrictive than other events. Surprised at how high 6x6 and 7x7 are. I would have thought they would have been around 40%, guess I need to stop sucking at big cubes.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 5, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> Rubik's Cube: 64.603%
> 4x4 Cube: 64.19%
> 5x5 Cube: 53.12%
> 2x2 Cube: 70.235%
> ...


do something with last year's nats results, pretending that this system was in place that year?


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 5, 2016)

biscuit said:


> It's a huge logistical nightmare. No many people care about feet too. It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet, when not many people care, it's a huge drain on resources, and they already have quite a jam packed schedule.
> 
> These are VERY reasonable cutoffs. Sure some people won't be able to go because of them, and that sucks, but that's the point. If you aren't fast enough to make these cutoffs, then you're slowing down the schedule.
> 
> ...



What is logistically nightmarish about holding Feet? I have yet to hold a comp, but when I do, I will have Feet. What else is there too it besides putting the timers and mats on the ground? At Michigan 2016, I didn't notice any logistical nightmares when they held it.
Besides, if so few people care about Feet, which isn't a viable reason at all [because less people have a single in 4BLD and 5BLD combined than a Feet mean 641<993], then the only competitors would be the "fast" (~sub 2:30) people, right? So you could literally just buy four extra timers and use those for feet as there would be less than 30 people [based off the 21 sub-2:30 ao5s from nats 2015] who could pull off a sub 2:30 average.

Here is a little time distribution/average time chart that I made based of nats 201[5].


Spoiler



Like on cstimer,

120-150s : 5
90-120s : 7
60-90s : 5
28-60s : 4

Even if all the competitors got the worst average according to their time rank, with 4 timer stations it would only take ~28 minutes of pure solve time, and with ~15 minutes of scramble/judge writing/running time, it would only take 45m.
And this is if everyone's times where rounded _up_ to a 30 second bracket.

I don't see how Feet can be a logistical nightmare anymore than BigBLD.

You also said "It just doesn't make sense with their limited resources to devote so much of it to feet". Looking at the time schedule from Nats 2015, Feet was only given 30m on _the side stage_. Doesn't quite sound like they are draining lots of their funds into Feet.

Again, most of this data is based off US Nationals 2015, and of course, I may be mistaken in some areas.
Please point out any errors that I may have made.


----------



## Y2k1 (Nov 5, 2016)

Dumb question is cubingusa a subdivision of WCA or separate event holders?


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 5, 2016)

ender9994 said:


> Perfect, thank you. I was right in thinking Multi was much more restrictive than other events. Surprised at how high 6x6 and 7x7 are. I would have thought they would have been around 40%, guess I need to stop sucking at big cubes.



It probably has something to do with the strict cutoffs employed for big cubes. cutoffs of around 4:00-4:30 for 6x6 and 5:30 for 7x7 aren't uncommon. I don't think I'm all that unusual, and I run about 35s on 3x3, 1:55 on 4x4, 3:45 on 5x5, and 7:00+ on 6x6. I don't have a 7x7. It might be more realistic to run those numbers with single times to get the people who can make a hard cut but not a soft cut.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Nov 5, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> At Michigan 2016, I didn't notice any logistical nightmares when they held it.
> 
> [/SPOILER]



You must not have been paying very close attention then


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 5, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> I have yet to hold a comp, but when I do, I will have Feet


Awww You for real should host a comp near St. Louis


----------



## biscuit (Nov 5, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> What is logistically nightmarish about holding Feet? I have yet to hold a comp, but when I do, I will have Feet. What else is there too it besides putting the timers and mats on the ground? At Michigan 2016, I didn't notice any logistical nightmares when they held it.
> Besides, if so few people care about Feet, which isn't a viable reason at all [because less people have a single in 4BLD and 5BLD combined than a Feet mean 641<993], then the only competitors would be the "fast" (~sub 2:30) people, right? So you could literally just buy four extra timers and use those for feet as there would be less than 30 people [based off the 21 sub-2:30 ao5s from nats 2015] who could pull off a sub 2:30 average.
> 
> Here is a little time distribution/average time chart that I made based of nats 201[5].
> ...



You forget that there's setup and take down time for feet. You have to take away the tables, pack up the stack mats and set up more stackmats (which you had to buy specifically for feet, and can't be used for anything else). Don't forget that this is going to take a few staff members, which just a few can slow down everything a good deal (think not having enough judges.) Lets assume 1:15 to run feet (which is very conservative in my estimate.) Plus 2:30 is fairly strict qualifying time, which seems to not be what they're going with. That's the equivalent of 1 round of clock, over 1 attempt of FMC, 3x3 round 2 +7x7 finals, etc. For the amount of people that care about it, it's just not worth it. That's not even all the problems with feet.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 5, 2016)

Buying new timers for feet is so stupid and unnecessary.


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 5, 2016)

1973486 said:


> Buying new timers for feet is so stupid and unnecessary.


Not really, with all the weird stuff people can have on their feet, and the sweat, i know I wouldn't be happy using the timers that someone else just had their feet on


----------



## Rcuber123 (Nov 5, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> Not really, with all the weird stuff people can have on their feet, and the sweat, i know I wouldn't be happy using the timers that someone else just had their feet on


Or u can just put a peice of paper or a plastic bag on the timer during feet


----------



## TheCoolMinxer (Nov 5, 2016)

Rcuber123 said:


> Or u can just put a peice of paper or a plastic bag on the timer during feet


shown here, with cling film:


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 5, 2016)

cubeninjaIV said:


> You must not have been paying very close attention then


Well, considering I was DNFing my FMC attempt and warming up for Feet, I didn't have much time to notice all that logistical chaos .



biscuit said:


> You forget that there's setup and take down time for feet. You have to take away the tables, pack up the stack mats and set up more stackmats (which you _had to_ buy specifically for feet, and can't be used for anything else).


Why do you _have to_ buy different stackmats for Feet? I don't see that in the regulations under Feet solving. Or is this just strongly suggested to not gross people out? Whats wrong with wiping down the timers afterwards?



biscuit said:


> Don't forget that this is going to take a few staff members, which just a few can slow down everything a good deal (think not having enough judges.)


But with so few people able to compete, why would you need more than five or six judges? And if you can't even muster that many people,


> 1e) Each event must have one or more judges.
> 
> 1e1) A judge is responsible for executing the procedures of the event.
> 1e1a) A judge may judge multiple competitors simultaneously at the discretion of the WCA Delegate, as long as the judge is able to ensure that all WCA Regulations are followed at all times.
> ...


Just call up people; they _have to come_ according to the regulations.



biscuit said:


> Lets assume 1:15 to run feet (which is very conservative in my estimate.)


US Nationals 2016 gave the _only_ round of Feet _thirty minutes_. 1:15 is a bit high for less than thirty people + set up/take down.



biscuit said:


> Plus 2:30 is fairly strict qualifying time, which seems to not be what they're going with.


Erm not really. Sub 2:30 isn't hard at all.


Spoiler: Here is some proof



https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/race-to-sub-x-3x3-w-feet.61459/


GenTheThief said:


> ... I recently picked up feet (~30 solves ever), and just got my first sub 2 (1:56.91). ...
> Round: 1, Race to Sub: 2:00, Cube: QiYi Thunderclap, Method: ZZ. *Mean: 2:34.18*
> 1. 2:17.64, 2. 2:59.43, 3. 2:25.47
> ... But this is the first time I've really done feet, so progress should be fast ... Well, off to do an ao100 w/f ...


4 days later...


GenTheThief said:


> Round: 2, Race to Sub: 2:00, Cube: QiYi Thunderclap, Method: ZZ. *Mean: 1:46.01*
> 1. 1:41.92, 2. 1:47.05, 3. 1:49.06
> The Ao100 clearly helped a lot. I hope I can get my mean to sub-1:30 before I graduate from sub-2. Progress has been fast, but I feel like it's going to slow down soon.


6 days later


GenTheThief said:


> Round: 3, Race to Sub: 2:00, Cube: QiYi Thunderclap, Method: ZZ. *Mean: 1:28.58*
> 1. 1:21.61, 2. 1:34.81, 3. 1:29.33
> Yay! Sub-1:30. This was pretty good; I don't normally get many sub-1:30 solves. Also, I don't have an accurate ao100 because most of the solves are still in the 1:50-2:30 range, but progress is so fast that I'm basically sub-1:40. But I actually haven't done a lot of feet lately, got caught up in doing some OH.


Over the course of a little more than a week, I dropped quite a bit.





biscuit said:


> That's the equivalent of 1 round of clock, over 1 attempt of FMC, 3x3 round 2 +7x7 finals, etc. For the amount of people that care about it, it's just not worth it. That's not even all the problems with feet.


Again, the amount of people who care about an event is no reason not to hold it. More people compete in Feet than both BigBLDs, so by that logic, Feet should be held and not BigBLD. I'm not saying to not hold BigBLD though.

I don't know why Nationals is held, or what it's motto is. I assume it has something to do with fair and equal condition, competitive atmosphere and the national titles.
Why then wouldn't someone be allowed to be called US National Champion in 3x3x3 With Feet?


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 6, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Again, the amount of people who care about an event is no reason not to hold it. More people compete in Feet than both BigBLDs, so by that logic, Feet should be held and not BigBLD. I'm not saying to not hold BigBLD though.
> 
> I don't know why Nationals is held, or what it's motto is. I assume it has something to do with fair and equal condition, competitive atmosphere and the national titles.
> Why then wouldn't someone be allowed to be called US National Champion in 3x3x3 With Feet?



Competitors for each event the past few years (when feet was held):

US Nationals 2015: 35 feet, 27 4BLD, 24 5BLD, 49 MBLD
US Nationals 2014: 39 feet, 39 4BLD, 26 5BLD, 59 MBLD
Worlds 2013: 65 feet, 59 4BLD, 52 5BLD, 106 MBLD
US Nationals 2012: 34 feet, 25 4BLD, 12 5BLD, 43 MBLD

Hard to claim that more people participate in feet than BigBLD when the unique number of competitors in BigBLD beats feet in MBLD alone. It may be true that feet is more popular than 4BLD and 5BLD events individualy, but taking into account how restrictive these events are by their difficulty, it would seem that there is likely a far larger proportion of people that compete in BigBLD among those who are "able" compared to feet. 

But yes, without taking these considerations, the amount of people isn't exactly the best argument for holding/not holding the event for many reasons. However, there is a significant lack of competition for the event -- national champions from 2014 and 2015 had a time more than double the world record average, and were even more than 10 seconds above the NR average. When an event like this also has significant costs unique to that event and is an event our staff dislike judging/scrambling for, it doesn't seem necessary for our country to hold. US Nationals has no responsibility to name national championships in every event. We saw the logistics too much to bear for the lack of competitiveness in feet in the USA for it to be worth titling a national champion.


----------



## Torch (Nov 6, 2016)

Comments on Feet logistics:

We held Feet at Marietta Mystery today. It was certainly not a "logistical nightmare"; all we had to do to change from normal setup to Feet setup was move the chairs from one side of the table to the other and put the timers on the ground. With the help of all the staff it took less than 60 seconds.

To change from Feet to normal setup, we only had to reverse the process and wipe down everything with Clorox wipes. I'm not going to get all "OMG but feet have less bacteria than hands guyz" on you, but regardless of your opinions on the cleanliness of feet, everything was cleaned thoroughly.

The logistical hassle of Feet is massively overblown. Clock is harder to hold because of lack of accurate, quick scramblers and keeping the puzzles from falling over.


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 6, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> Competitors for each event the past few years (when feet was held):
> 
> US Nationals 2015: 35 feet, 27 4BLD, 24 5BLD, 49 MBLD
> US Nationals 2014: 39 feet, 39 4BLD, 26 5BLD, 59 MBLD
> ...


Ahh, my mistake.


GenTheThief said:


> More people compete in Feet than both BigBLDs


I was only looking at ranking numbers from WCA successes. It is correct, but irrelevant information.
Also, I referred to BigBLD as 4BLD and 5BLD, not MBLD. It seems that is the incorrect terminology.



Kit Clement said:


> When an event like this also has significant costs unique to that event and is an event our staff dislike judging/scrambling for, it doesn't seem necessary for our country to hold.


Do people not like scrambling Feet cubes because they have touched feet? Solution=buy a box of 100 disposable gloves for <$5. This could probably last for another Nationals.
Idk why people don't like judging feet. If they don't want to touch the cube, they can also wear gloves when they check to make sure the cube is solved.
Problem solved?



Kit Clement said:


> US Nationals has no responsibility to name national championships in every event.


In the most respectful way possible, what exactly is the official point of holding US Nationals?


----------



## biscuit (Nov 6, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Ahh, my mistake.
> 
> I was only looking at ranking numbers from WCA successes. It is correct, but irrelevant information.
> Also, I referred to BigBLD as 4BLD and 5BLD, not MBLD. It seems that is the incorrect terminology.
> ...



The biggest thing is the big comp, but an official national champion is crowned in the events.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 7, 2016)

Yeah, at Exeter which had all WCA events, it wasn't hard to hold, especially since there was few people doing it, I think it could definitely be held at Nationals, but I guess you guys want to sacrifice it for more time which is kinda understandable.

I strongly believe it should be held, it is US Nationals and it should have all WCA events, I can't help but feel like the organization team just decided okay feet is stupid and smelly lets not hold it. It can be easily be done during spare time like BigBLD in a seperate room spread out across the day, and with strict cutoffs.


Torch said:


> The logistical hassle of Feet is massively overblown. Clock is harder to hold because of lack of accurate, quick scramblers and keeping the puzzles from falling over.


^ agreed, best thing to do in my experience is to go and get a sheet of paper folded in half and put that over the puzzle, and grasp the puzzle and paper by the top and just carefully put it on top of the mat, also getting as many scramblers as possible is a good thing to do, at Exeter it was kinda slow but with concurrent events and not that many people doing clock, it wasn't that bad

someone make a robot clock scrambler pls


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 7, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Do people not like scrambling Feet cubes because they have touched feet? Solution=buy a box of 100 disposable gloves for <$5. This could probably last for another Nationals.
> Idk why people don't like judging feet. If they don't want to touch the cube, they can also wear gloves when they check to make sure the cube is solved.
> Problem solved?
> 
> In the most respectful way possible, what exactly is the official point of holding US Nationals?



We've done this each of the years we've done feet at Nationals. It's still an event our staff always complain about when we assign jobs to them for it. Given the amount of trouble this event caused us (especially in 2015) along with the lack of competitiveness and general sense of apathy toward feet in the US for this event as of late, our team decided to not run this event. That's not to say that it's gone forever -- if we see that the popularity and/or competitiveness for this event increases significantly, we could consider having it again as an event. But as it stands, we feel that the time we have in our schedule for US Nationals is being well allocated to the desires of our competitors in the USA.


----------



## tx789 (Nov 7, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> We've done this each of the years we've done feet at Nationals. It's still an event our staff always complain about when we assign jobs to them for it. Given the amount of trouble this event caused us (especially in 2015) along with the lack of competitiveness and general sense of apathy toward feet in the US for this event as of late, our team decided to not run this event. That's not to say that it's gone forever -- if we see that the popularity and/or competitiveness for this event increases significantly, we could consider having it again as an event. But as it stands, we feel that the time we have in our schedule for US Nationals is being well allocated to the desires of our competitors in the USA.



Lack of competitiveness is a much better reason not to hold an event than the officials don't like running it. However I do think larger National and, Continental Championships, and Worlds should host every event. Smaller countries may not have the interest or people. 



Spoiler



New Zealand Nationals is holding every event this year a first (in Oceania).



I feel that big comps are going to have to have qualifications soon since comps can't get bigger and bigger. How likely is it having a comp outside in the countryside, where people are camping? That seems the only place that could host a 3000 people comp.

These qualification times aren't that restrictive.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Nov 7, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> In the most respectful way possible, what exactly is the official point of holding US Nationals?



There was a discussion just like this one on the Australian Nationals 2016 thread where clock was not held as an event. Someone asked the exact same question as you did and if I remember correctly, Dene has an answer for that 

Edit: The argument starts on post #117 on page 6, Dene has some things to say.

Edit 2: I shouldn't be lazy: https://www.speedsolving.com/forum/threads/australian-nationals-2016-sydney.61580/page-6


----------



## GenTheThief (Nov 7, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> We've done this each of the years we've done feet at Nationals. It's still an event our staff always complain about when we assign jobs to them for it.



Is staff volunteer or hand picked? Either way, by joining staff, you should know that you might have to judge or scramble for Feet. Complaining about something you agreed to do seem very childish.
Do you at least assign the jobs for Feet based on how well they tolerate the event or just who is available?
Wouldn't you be able to create the schedule so that those tolerating staff members are free?



Kit Clement said:


> Given the amount of trouble this event caused us (especially in 2015)


Aside from staff complaints and "logistics", can you elaborate on the trouble that Feet has given the team?



Kit Clement said:


> That's not to say that it's gone forever -- if we see that the popularity and/or competitiveness for this event increases significantly, we could consider having it again as an event.


Specifically, how significant a "popularity and/or competitiveness" increase would be needed to bring Feet back to US Nats?



Kit Clement said:


> stuff


You didn't answer my last question: What exactly is the official point of US Nationals?
Does this answer not exist, or did you just forget to address the question?


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 7, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Is staff volunteer or hand picked? Either way, by joining staff, you should know that you might have to judge or scramble for Feet. Complaining about something you agreed to do seem very childish.
> Do you at least assign the jobs for Feet based on how well they tolerate the event or just who is available?
> Wouldn't you be able to create the schedule so that those tolerating staff members are free?



We invite people to volunteer. I agree that it's a bit annoying to complain, but calling it childish doesn't make organization any easier.

But again, this is a minor reason -- the popularity/competitiveness was a much stronger one in our decision, as well as apathy for the event even among many top feet cubers in the US.



GenTheThief said:


> You didn't answer my last question: What exactly is the official point of US Nationals?
> Does this answer not exist, or did you just forget to address the question?



"But as it stands, we feel that the time we have in our schedule for US Nationals is being well allocated to the desires of our competitors in the USA."


----------



## Torch (Nov 7, 2016)

Number of sub-2:30 Feet competitors in the US per year:

2009: 1
2010: 7 (600% increase)
2011: 12 (71% increase)
2012: 13 (8% increase)
2013: 28 (115% increase)
2014: 35 (25% increase)
2015: 42 (20% increase)
2016 (so far): 60 (43% increase)

Number of US competitions holding Feet:
2009: 1/45 (2%)
2010: 4/48 (8%)
2011: 2/52 (4%)
2012: 4/53 (8%)
2013: 9/54 (17%)
2014: 5/66 (8%)
2015: 9/99 (9%)
2016 (so far): 16/114 (14%)

While the data is pretty fuzzy pre-2013, looking at the last 4 years, it's pretty clear that the more Feet is held as an event, the more people get competitive times in it. Despite the fact that Nationals did not have Feet this year, the increase in local competitions holding Feet was enough to give us the largest increase in "fast" Feet competitors (by the gross numbers, not percentage wise) ever.

*I believe that holding Feet at this first Nationals with qualifying times is very important to the future of the event.* Previously, many competitors/organizers might have said, "I'll get my Feet solves in at Nats", and never hold it themselves in their regions. It's not good or healthy for any event to be considered a "Nationals-only" event. (A lot of people think about BigBLD the same way, which is why I'm glad more competitions will start to hold that as well for Nats qualifying.) If Nationals were to hold Feet with a 2:30 qualifying time, this would be a big incentive for competitions across the country to hold Feet, and for competitors to put some serious practice into it.

There would not be a significant burden on the Nationals schedule by doing this. Since all competitors would be sub-2:30, everyone would get through their means quickly (scrambling time for Feet is negligible, another plus for holding it). The top 16 would probably be sub-1:20, meaning the final could be a quick, 15 minute affair.

The prizes should be on par with the other side events, and there should be a 16 person final like the other side events. (A higher registration fee is justifiable however.) *If the organizers of Nationals continue to treat Feet like a fourth-class event, it is no surprise that the competitors will do so as well.*

Additionally, there is the problem alleged that the staff of Nationals do not like to do jobs related to Feet. The solution to this is very simple: *Only assign staff who compete in Feet to scramble, run and judge for it.* Over 25% (16/60) of the US Feet competitors who are sub-2:30 were staff at least one of the last 2 years at Nationals. Since they will do their solves during the staff rounds, they will be able to run the event themselves. This also means that less time will need to be scheduled for Feet Round 1, since so many of the competitors will be staff, who have already done their solves in the staff rounds.

There are some other minor reasons to hold Feet. It is a big hit with spectators, who are always an important part of any Nationals. I do feel it is also important for the organizers of Nationals to try their hardest to include every event, whether they like it, hate it, think it should be removed, or any other opinion. For example, I do not like Clock at all, I think it is logistically difficult to hold, and there are legitimate arguments that it should be removed entirely as an event. If you put me in charge of Nats, however, I can guarantee you that Clock would be an event, with the same prizes and number of rounds as comparable events.

Again, I repeat my main point: *As Nationals is taking this new leap forward, it is vital that all events be given the same opportunity to succeed*. As organizers begin to hold different events to allow competitors from their region to compete at Nats, Feet is currently being left behind in the dust. Please give Feet the chance to stand on a fair playing field with the rest of the events.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 7, 2016)

Torch said:


> Number of sub-2:30 Feet competitors in the US per year:
> 
> 2009: 1
> 2010: 7 (600% increase)
> ...



Historically 2:30 is probably good for comparison, but I'm inclined to think it's a little high for a "competitive" threshold. I average a little over 3:00, my pb single is 2:24, and I only stand a chance of being competitive because there are few competitors. I think if you want really competitive you'll have to set the limit at 2:00 or even 1:45. And if it gets to be a popular event it will have to move down further, to 1:30 or even 1:15.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 7, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> "But as it stands, we feel that the time we have in our schedule for US Nationals is being well allocated to the desires of our competitors in the USA."


so if we have a huge demand for unofficial "pen" then you would hold it?


----------



## Torch (Nov 7, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Historically 2:30 is probably good for comparison, but I'm inclined to think it's a little high for a "competitive" threshold. I average a little over 3:00, my pb single is 2:24, and I only stand a chance of being competitive because there are few competitors. I think if you want really competitive you'll have to set the limit at 2:00 or even 1:45. And if it gets to be a popular event it will have to move down further, to 1:30 or even 1:15.


I don't think the purpose of the Nats cutoff is to restrict it only to the most competitive solvers; 40 seconds is not very competitive for a 3x3 average! I think 2:30 is a reasonable cutoff for Nationals, because it's not so high that someone could do 5 practice solves and instantly be sub-cutoff, but it also doesn't require you to pour weeks upon weeks of practice into it. As long as Feet remains a mean of 3 event, there will be a much higher chance of messing up your mean and getting a lot slower than what you average at home, so I think it's good to make the cutoff rather lenient.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 7, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> so if we have a huge demand for unofficial "pen" then you would hold it?



Perhaps more significantly: is there an empirical standard that could be met to demonstrate sufficient interest in feet to warrant holding it as an official event at nationals 2018? e.g. a certain number of competitors signing a petition, or volunteering to scramble and judge for feet, or something like that.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 7, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> nationals 2018?


 Oh wow I almost forgot that nationals is next year


----------



## Torch (Nov 7, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Perhaps more significantly: is there an empirical standard that could be met to demonstrate sufficient interest in feet to warrant holding it as an official event at nationals 2018? e.g. a certain number of competitors signing a petition, or volunteering to scramble and judge for feet, or something like that.


I sure hope it's not too late for Nationals 2017! Otherwise I've been wasting my time here.


----------



## biscuit (Nov 7, 2016)

Torch said:


> I sure hope it's not too late for Nationals 2017! Otherwise I've been wasting my time here.


He's actually asking about 2018...


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 7, 2016)

Torch said:


> I sure hope it's not too late for Nationals 2017! Otherwise I've been wasting my time here.


I'm guessing it is too late for 2017, but that doesn't mean you've been wasting your time. I think the issue is that the organizers don't believe there is enough interest to warrant the extra work. You showed in your previous post that there is interest, the question is proving there is sufficient interest. I'm not privy to the planning process, but I strongly suspect that by the time anything was made public it was too late to change any of that. Which is why the focus should be on a productive conversation about next year.


----------



## Torch (Nov 7, 2016)

biscuit said:


> He's actually asking about 2018...


I may be misunderstanding something here, but here's what I think he was saying: "I know Feet is already guaranteed to not be an event in 2017, so what can we do for next year?". To which I replied: "I sure hope it's not too late for Nationals 2017! Otherwise I've been wasting my time here."


----------



## Torch (Nov 7, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I'm guessing it is too late for 2017, but that doesn't mean you've been wasting your time. I think the issue is that the organizers don't believe there is enough interest to warrant the extra work. You showed in your previous post that there is interest, the question is proving there is sufficient interest. I'm not privy to the planning process, but I strongly suspect that by the time anything was made public it was too late to change any of that. Which is why the focus should be on a productive conversation about next year.



I'm somewhat worried that may be true, but my argument is that it is very important that Feet be held the *first *year that there are qualifying times, and that it would not require a massive reallocation of time, manpower or resources if we do it right.


----------



## biscuit (Nov 7, 2016)

Torch said:


> I may be misunderstanding something here, but here's what I think he was saying: "I know Feet is already guaranteed to not be an event in 2017, so what can we do for next year?". To which I replied: "I sure hope it's not too late for Nationals 2017! Otherwise I've been wasting my time here."



Looks like I was the one misunderstanding


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 7, 2016)

Torch said:


> I'm somewhat worried that may be true, but my argument is that it is very important that Feet be held the *first *year that there are qualifying times, and that it would not require a massive reallocation of time, manpower or resources if we do it right.




I may be wrong, but I don't think qualifying times are quite as significant as you think they are. The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, feet is a second- class event, and needs rehabilitation, not maintenance.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 7, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> feet is a second- class event



How are you defining second-class?


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 7, 2016)

1973486 said:


> How are you defining second-class?


Public perception and organizer priority. It's not exact, but it's very hard to argue that feet gets anywhere near the attention of, say, 4x4. Feet just doesn't matter as much to the people whose opinions actually matter.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Nov 7, 2016)

I think there's an important distinction to make with regards to Feet. At 2:30, which is what most people would call a reasonable cutoff, you are 7_ times slower than the world record. _In 8 years, only 60 people in the US have achieved a time which is roughly 7.5 times slower than the current world record. I agree that the logistics argument is pretty weak. There are other things that create problems with feet at local comps, but I still don't feel like they are significant enough to exclude it from Nat's. 
The issue is that no one takes the event seriously. Of the top 60 people in the US, 23 of those times were set in 2014 or before. The US record hasn't been broken in 3 years and its 50% slower than the world record. 
If people so desperately want feet to return at Nat's, they should practice and make it a competitive event. As it stands, looking at the 2016 results only you can see how (not) competitive it is and I don't find it at unreasonable to exclude it from Nat's on those grounds.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 8, 2016)

The NR mean is ~39% slower (assuming 28.16+39% is the right calculation).



> make it a competitive event



How do you make an event competitive when you don't get to compete in it?


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 8, 2016)

The point has been made elsewhere that the barrier to offering feet might be lowered if it was changed to an Ao5 format and stricter cutoffs were employed. What we really need is a north American WR to make feet cool. Maybe a foot solver on AGT or something would help.

You could also make an ADA argument: think of all the poor kids without functional arms. If feet isn't offered, they can't really compete. Other than using feet in a regular 3x3 round, which you could really only legally do if you were as fast with feet as with hands.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 8, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> The point has been made elsewhere that the barrier to offering feet might be lowered if it was changed to an Ao5 format and stricter cutoffs were employed. What we really need is a north American WR to make feet cool. Maybe a foot solver on AGT or something would help.
> 
> You could also make an ADA argument: think of all the poor kids without functional arms. If feet isn't offered, they can't really compete. Other than using feet in a regular 3x3 round, which you could really only legally do if you were as fast with feet as with hands.


lmao rami did feet on AGT a while back

and there's only one case I know of an armless person doing feet, and that is Will Arnold who had the feet WR way back

As an organizer, if there was an armless kid who wanted to do feet but it wasn't offered around here, I would just give the option of dong regular 3x3 or doing feet,


One Wheel said:


> Perhaps more significantly: is there an empirical standard that could be met to demonstrate sufficient interest in feet to warrant holding it as an official event at nationals 2018? e.g. a certain number of competitors signing a petition, or volunteering to scramble and judge for feet, or something like that.


brb making petition for unofficial pen to be held at US Nationals


----------



## biscuit (Nov 8, 2016)

1973486 said:


> How do you make an event competitive when you don't get to compete in it?



You have enough interest for it to be held at local comps, and people start competing. Right now there's no reason to believe many people care about feet at all.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 8, 2016)

IME holding events make them more popular, not other way around.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Nov 8, 2016)

1973486 said:


> The NR mean is ~39% slower (assuming 28.16+39% is the right calculation).



Yeah, my bad. The point stands though. 



biscuit said:


> You have enough interest for it to be held at local comps, and people start competing. Right now there's no reason to believe many people care about feet at all.



This. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that you take feet seriously if the only time you compete in it is at Nat's.


----------



## 1973486 (Nov 8, 2016)

cubeninjaIV said:


> This. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that you take feet seriously if the only time you compete in it is at Nat's.



I'm not really sure what you mean. It's not like the people who want to do feet have nearby comps with it but decide to sign up for everything except feet. They don't compete in it because they have to travel a long way or organise a competition (which is a decent solution that I believe some people have used).


----------



## biscuit (Nov 8, 2016)

1973486 said:


> I'm not really sure what you mean. It's not like the people who want to do feet have nearby comps with it but decide to sign up for everything except feet. They don't compete in it because they have to travel a long way or organise a competition (which is a decent solution that I believe some people have used).



Organize your own comp or petition your local organizer. If enough people want to do it (the point of this conversation) then it will eventually happen.


----------



## Torch (Nov 8, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> I may be wrong, but I don't think qualifying times are quite as significant as you think they are. The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, feet is a second- class event, and needs rehabilitation, not maintenance.


I do think qualifying times are very significant, and here's why: The organizers of Nationals are now coordinating with and encouraging local organizers to hold less popular events significantly more, for the express purpose of getting more people to achieve competitive times. Feet is already less popular than bigcubes and BigBLD, and this could be the golden opportunity to change that.

As James brought up (and I agree with this), what is considered "competitive" in the US is pretty slow compared to the rest of the world. *This won't change overnight, but we have to start somewhere. *Of course we can say "people should hold it more often in competitions", but without an overarching reason to do so, that might go nowhere. Having a qualifying goal to reach towards will motivate many people who never would have tried the event to give it a shot, and they may find that they like it and want to push further and faster. There could be hundreds of potential fast American Feetsolvers out there, they just need a catalyst and a goal to shoot for.

I would like to add one other thing re: the fact that American Feet times aren't on par with the rest of the world. Since Rami Sbahi set the current NR mean, he has done 9 official Feet solves. In that same period of time, Yuhei Takagi has done 60, Gabriel Pereira Campanha has done 90, and Jakub Kipa has done *142 *official Feet solves. Feet is a high variance event, both because is it a mean of 3 event, and because movecount/skips can make or break your solve. Obviously the people who get the most chances to compete in it will have a better chance of getting an good official mean.
(Note that I am not denigrating the skills of those Feetsolvers at all or saying they don't deserve their official times.)


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 8, 2016)

I'm going to wait until they post the venue to say anything


----------



## shelley (Nov 13, 2016)

Y2k1 said:


> Dumb question is cubingusa a subdivision of WCA or separate event holders?



CubingUSA is basically the organizer team that has organized US Nationals every year (and maintained the website that many US competition sites have been hosted on). We've finally incorporated as a non-profit organization this year, so we actually exist as a legal entity now.


----------



## Joel2274 (Nov 24, 2016)

So there is a qualifying time for each event...well I've only been to one other comp with 4 events in it and I believe I made the qualifying time in those. But if I go to worlds, I would like to compete in more than 4 events but there aren't any of those "mini" comps in my area to give me a chance to get a qualifying time...will there be another way for people like me to qualify for additional events? Such as at the comp, since I already qualify in 3x3 and know I will be able to compete in that at nats, will there be a way to "try out" for the rest of the events? I just think that since I already qualify in some events that I should be able to try out for other since I qualify for those too, just not officially.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 24, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> So there is a qualifying time for each event...well I've only been to one other comp with 4 events in it and I believe I made the qualifying time in those. But if I go to worlds, I would like to compete in more than 4 events but there aren't any of those "mini" comps in my area to give me a chance to get a qualifying time...will there be another way for people like me to qualify for additional events? Such as at the comp, since I already qualify in 3x3 and know I will be able to compete in that at nats, will there be a way to "try out" for the rest of the events? I just think that since I already qualify in some events that I should be able to try out for other since I qualify for those too, just not officially.


From the other comments in the thread I don't think there is another way. I'm pretty sure you have to get an official time.


----------



## bobthegiraffemonkey (Nov 24, 2016)

ToastyKen said:


> Everything's Bigger in Texas, Austin, TX, Sat Nov 19
> (no 5BLD)


I came by out of curiousity for the qualifying times, but that's too hilarious to not mention. Everything's bigger in Texas, but not BLD apparently.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 24, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> I would like to compete in more than 4 events but there aren't any of those "mini" comps in my area to give me a chance to get a qualifying time...will there be another way for people like me to qualify for additional events? Such as at the comp, since I already qualify in 3x3 and know I will be able to compete in that at nats, will there be a way to "try out" for the rest of the events? I just think that since I already qualify in some events that I should be able to try out for other since I qualify for those too, just not officially.


This is exactly why I disagree with this qualification system. It is simply not fair for people in areas which don't have comps with these events there. Cutoffs are fair since with this, it doesn't matter if you are lucky enough to have competitions in your region with the events you want to qualify in. I would definitely support a measure to be able to hold a huge scale competition such as nationals if it was actually fair on all competitors like cutoffs are. I am disappointed that we had to resort to something that literally goes against the mission of the WCA.

"The goal of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, *under fair and equal conditions.*"


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 24, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> This is exactly why I disagree with this qualification system. It is simply not fair for people in areas which don't have comps with these events there. Cutoffs are fair since with this, it doesn't matter if you are lucky enough to have competitions in your region with the events you want to qualify in. I would definitely support a measure to be able to hold a huge scale competition such as nationals if it was actually fair on all competitors like cutoffs are. I am disappointed that we had to resort to something that literally goes against the mission of the WCA.
> 
> "The goal of the World Cube Association is to have more competitions in more countries with more people and more fun, *under fair and equal conditions.*"


I think there should be some way to qualify for events by doing others, like if you are sub X for 3bld you can do 4bld and mbld, mainly for big blds where it is hard to even find a comp, and then have a good chance of a dnf.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 24, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> I think there should be some way to qualify for events by doing others, like if you are sub X for 3bld you can do 4bld and mbld, mainly for big blds where it is hard to even find a comp, and then have a good chance of a dnf.


that's a great idea, it makes this unfair system a bit more fair so thats good i guess
also include the option of a single too for all the events, sometimes some comps could have super harsh soft cutoffs


----------



## mDiPalma (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> I am disappointed that we had to resort to something that literally goes against the mission of the WCA.



welcome to the WCA post 2014.

hopefully they'll bring in significantly less revenue and drop this from the next US Nats


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 25, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> welcome to the WCA post 2014.
> 
> hopefully they'll bring in significantly less revenue and drop this from the next US Nats


They don't do this for the revenue, and the registration cap will fill up no matter what. And to keep nats alive, I think it is neccasary.


----------



## efattah (Nov 25, 2016)

I'm not sure I like the idea of qualifying times, but if you *had* to do it, why not make it much more simpler and fair, and just give each entrant a single solve of the cube in question with a generous cut off time. For example for 3x3 you get one solve and it needs to be sub-30 (for example). This isn't really part of the 3x3 competition but landing the sub-30 qualifies you to actually enter the 3x3 competition. During the qualification technically they could line up 5 cubes of different types (2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, sq1 etc.) and you get once chance at each (right after each other), with generous cut offs. This quickly qualifies you or disqualifies you from the various events. Turn slowly and be careful not to screw up, and if you are good enough to enter the competition it would be obvious.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

mDiPalma said:


> welcome to the WCA post 2014.
> 
> hopefully they'll bring in significantly less revenue and drop this from the next US Nats



Not likely. It's a simple problem of supply and demand. There are more people who want to compete than there are available slots. Something had to be done to reduce the demand or increase supply of slots. It was evidently determined to be prohibitively costly to increase supply, so you have to reduce demand by increasing the cost. That could have been done by increasing registration fees, but I believe a wise choice was made to discriminate on the basis of talent and dedication rather than on socioeconomic status.


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Nov 25, 2016)

efattah said:


> I'm not sure I like the idea of qualifying times, but if you *had* to do it, why not make it much more simpler and fair, and just give each entrant a single solve of the cube in question with a generous cut off time. For example for 3x3 you get one solve and it needs to be sub-30 (for example). This isn't really part of the 3x3 competition but landing the sub-30 qualifies you to actually enter the 3x3 competition. During the qualification technically they could line up 5 cubes of different types (2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, sq1 etc.) and you get once chance at each (right after each other), with generous cut offs. This quickly qualifies you or disqualifies you from the various events. Turn slowly and be careful not to screw up, and if you are good enough to enter the competition it would be obvious.


That sounds like a logistical nightmare if I've ever heard one. You won't know whose competing in what toll you are in the middle of the competition. This affects printing, the schedule, and overall seems unfair to many people.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

efattah said:


> I'm not sure I like the idea of qualifying times, but if you *had* to do it, why not make it much more simpler and fair, and just give each entrant a single solve of the cube in question with a generous cut off time. For example for 3x3 you get one solve and it needs to be sub-30 (for example). This isn't really part of the 3x3 competition but landing the sub-30 qualifies you to actually enter the 3x3 competition. During the qualification technically they could line up 5 cubes of different types (2x2, 3x3, 4x4, 5x5, sq1 etc.) and you get once chance at each (right after each other), with generous cut offs. This quickly qualifies you or disqualifies you from the various events. Turn slowly and be careful not to screw up, and if you are good enough to enter the competition it would be obvious.


 When and where would this single solve take place? At the venue, immediately prior to the competition? that would seem to make the most sense, but for most people the cost of travel to the venue is the biggest obstacle.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 25, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> That could have been done by increasing registration fees, but I believe a wise choice was made to discriminate on the basis of talent and dedication rather than on socioeconomic status.


you forgot the mention they are also discriminating on whether you have competitions in your region with the events you want to qualify in


WACWCA said:


> They don't do this for the revenue, and the registration cap will fill up no matter what. And to keep nats alive, I think it is neccasary.


I think this will definitely influence registration fees if people are competing in less events, we could see even higher registration fees.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> you forgot the mention they are also discriminating on whether you have competitions in your region with the events you want to qualify in.



Yes, but the idea is that nationals is not just another competition; you should go to another competition before nationals, and if you have to travel to get to another competition first, so be it.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 25, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Yes, but the idea is that nationals is not just another competition; you should go to another competition before nationals, and if you have to travel to get to another competition first, so be it.


Yeah, but even in areas with lots of comps like the northeast, comps for events like MBLD or 5BLD or clock can be quite scarce, if you're saying if they live in a region like colorado with few comps, they have to fly to somewhere else to prove themselves worthy to compete in that event? this is pretty much kind of contradicting yourself, as this is kinda discriminating on socioeconomic status, someone who lives in a region with few comps or wants to compete in an event that isn't offered at comps in their region would have to travel the far distance to an additional comp to even get the chance to compete in nationals, at this point it would be worth it to just not go to nats and compete in a comp without qualifiers if you are interested in doing wca events you haven't had the chance to compete in


----------



## biscuit (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> Yeah, but even in areas with lots of comps like the northeast, comps for events like MBLD or 5BLD or clock can be quite scarce, if you're saying if they live in a region like colorado with few comps, they have to fly to somewhere else to prove themselves worthy to compete in that event? this is pretty much kind of contradicting yourself, as this is kinda discriminating on socioeconomic status, someone who lives in a region with few comps or wants to compete in an event that isn't offered at comps in their region would have to travel the far distance to an additional comp to even get the chance to compete in nationals, at this point it would be worth it to just not go to nats and compete in a comp without qualifiers if you are interested in doing wca events you haven't had the chance to compete in


No one is saying it's perfect, but it is better than the alternative. For some people, yes, they will have to travel or not compete in that event (or, you know, put in the work to host your own comp) but that's way better than the alternative.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 25, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> I think there should be some way to qualify for events by doing others, like if you are sub X for 3bld you can do 4bld and mbld, mainly for big blds where it is hard to even find a comp, and then have a good chance of a dnf.



This style of qualification is something we wanted to do, but we were informed by the WRC that this is not allowable by the current regulations.


----------



## biscuit (Nov 25, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> This style of qualification is something we wanted to do, but we were informed by the WRC that this is not allowable by the current regulations.



8a8? That seems to say pretty explicitly that the board can approve restrictions to registration.


----------



## mark49152 (Nov 25, 2016)

biscuit said:


> 8a8? That seems to say pretty explicitly that the board can approve restrictions to registration.


Z4 is the optional regulation that allows numbers to be limited by qualification, but there's nothing there that says explicitly that the qualification criteria for an event must be based on prior results in the same event.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> I think there should be some way to qualify for events by doing others, like if you are sub X for 3bld you can do 4bld and mbld, mainly for big blds where it is hard to even find a comp, and then have a good chance of a dnf.



The problem I see with that is specialization: it's likely that somebody who is really good at 3BLD would also be good at 4BLD, but not necessarily. somebody who is really good at 4BLD but doesn't practice 3BLD could be bumped by somebody who does exclusively 3BLD but thinks it would be fun to try 4BLD. everybody knows Feliks is a fantastic cuber, does that mean he should get an automatic qualification for skewb?


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> I think this will definitely influence registration fees if people are competing in less events, we could see even higher registration fees.


*Gasp*!! I didn't even think about that! Especially for smaller events too


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> *Gasp*!! I didn't even think about that! Especially for smaller events too



You could see this at nationals, but I suspect the opposite would be true, if there's any difference at all, for local comps. If anything there's going to be more demand for big blind because organizers and other competitors will be looking for opportunities to get qualifying times. and the times are lenient enough that they will still almost certainly fill all available slots, meaning that there is no reason for registration fees to change.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 25, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> You could see this at nationals, but I suspect the opposite would be true, if there's any difference at all, for local comps. If anything there's going to be more demand for big blind because organizers and other competitors will be looking for opportunities to get qualifying times. and the times are lenient enough that they will still almost certainly fill all available slots, meaning that there is no reason for registration fees to change.


Ohhh so you're saying that the small events, that are usually small, won't be because they will be popular


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 25, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> Ohhh so you're saying that the small events, that are usually small, won't be because they will be popular


 popular might be an overstatement, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of a shift. At least they might show up at more competitions.


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 25, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> The problem I see with that is specialization: it's likely that somebody who is really good at 3BLD would also be good at 4BLD, but not necessarily. somebody who is really good at 4BLD but doesn't practice 3BLD could be bumped by somebody who does exclusively 3BLD but thinks it would be fun to try 4BLD. everybody knows Feliks is a fantastic cuber, does that mean he should get an automatic qualification for skewb?


20 min for 4x4 Bld isn't fast at all, and is very reasonable to achieve, if your fast at 3bld you are not automatically fast at 4bld but I would bet you can at least make the cutoff. And you wouldn't get bumped by someone who is faster at 3 Bld and not 4 Bld, because there is not limits on people per event, only people overall, so they would've signed up anyway and get to compete in all events they can.
To the skewb question, no, I just longer events that were related, like qualifying for 7x7 by doing 6x6 and 4bld by doing 3bld, because the skills transfer over a lot. If you are good at 3x3, no you don't automatically qualify for things like clock or pyra because they are completely different.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 25, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> This style of qualification is something we wanted to do, but we were informed by the WRC that this is not allowable by the current regulations.



Z3) The organisation team may select competitors who directly qualify for certain rounds of certain events based on the results of specific previous competitions.
I don't see exactly why it would not be allowed, it says based on results on specific previous competitions, it doesn't say you have to base on the same event.

Also I really think this style should be allowed or implemented in a future version of the regulations if they think the regulations currently does not allow for it. Lets say the 2x2 qualification was sub 20 average, I think it would be fair to allow a cuber who has a sub 20 3x3 average be able to compete in 2x2 (the competition they went to might've not had 2x2), as they have solved the corners of the 3x3 (equivalent to a 2x2) plus 12 edge pieces and 6 centers in less than 20 seconds, I believe we can safely assume if you're sub 20 on 3x3 you are sub 20 on 2x2 as well. Could also be implemented for big cubes.


biscuit said:


> No one is saying it's perfect, but it is better than the alternative. For some people, yes, they will have to travel or not compete in that event (or, you know, put in the work to host your own comp) but that's way better than the alternative.


I'm guessing you are kind of right, but I believe that we are capable of the alternative (expanding the capacity of competitions).


----------



## biscuit (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> I'm guessing you are kind of right, but I believe that we are capable of the alternative (expanding the capacity of competitions).



To a point, but it'll have to happen eventually, so experimenting with it to find the best way sounds better than having to implement it when we have no other options. I haven't been to a Nats, so I don't know how much the staff can handle, but that may be a bigger concern then venue size.

Plus I think qualifications are a good thing for something called nationals. It makes it a more serious competition. I think Nats and Worlds should be a different atmosphere from most competitions. Other comps should not be focused on the competing for most people, but I think Nats and worlds should be more focused on the competition. Maybe that's just me though.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 25, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> Z3) The organisation team may select competitors who directly qualify for certain rounds of certain events based on the results of specific previous competitions.
> I don't see exactly why it would not be allowed, it says based on results on specific previous competitions, it doesn't say you have to base on the same event.
> 
> Also I really think this style should be allowed or implemented in a future version of the regulations if they think the regulations currently does not allow for it.



That's how I interpreted it as well. I agree though that this should change.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 25, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> That's how I interpreted it as well. I agree though that this should change.


Wait that just means that organizers can have qualifying times right?


----------



## Joel2274 (Nov 26, 2016)

Well...I'll be flying to Paris from the US so I would kinda like to be able to compete in more than 4 events. I don't really agree with the qualification times at all. Nor do I see why they did it. To save space for faster people to be able to attend would be a reason for debate, and comps are always fun being able to hang out with other cubers anyway, but I would just rather not have to go to a previous comp just to go to nats. If I have to pay to get in, I think I should be able to compete in whatever I want, even at additional costs.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 26, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> Well...I'll be flying to Paris from the US =


Wait but US nationals is the United States. The world championships is there. I'm not sure if world's will have cutoffs? Maybe?


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 26, 2016)

I have heard worlds will have qualifications in some events (not 100% confirmed), I'll ask Ron for more details.


----------



## Heart_Johnson (Nov 27, 2016)

Kinda disappointed that I can't even compete in 4bld/5bld because my only attempts have been dnf's from a total of two competitions ever :/ Would be nice if the dnf times were accounted into the cutoffs


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 27, 2016)

Heart_Johnson said:


> Kinda disappointed that I can't even compete in 4bld/5bld because my only attempts have been dnf's from a total of two competitions ever :/ Would be nice if the dnf times were accounted into the cutoffs


if that was the case then we would all just hold 5bld with 1 second cutoffs just so people could qualify in it for nats


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 27, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> if that was the case then we would all just hold 5bld with 1 second cutoffs just so people could qualify in it for nats


Heart_Johnson's Is a valid complaint, just an unfortunate consequence. holding 5bld with 1 second cutoffs won't help anything.


----------



## Joel2274 (Nov 27, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> Wait but US nationals is the United States. The world championships is there. I'm not sure if world's will have cutoffs? Maybe?



Nevermind I was talking about worlds in Paris.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 27, 2016)

One Wheel said:


> Heart_Johnson's Is a valid complaint, just an unfortunate consequence. holding 5bld with 1 second cutoffs won't help anything.


if a DNF was required to qualify, then yes, 5BLD with 1 second cutoffs would help


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 27, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> if a DNF was required to qualify, then yes, 5BLD with 1 second cutoffs would help


It would make it easier to qualify, but it wouldn't do anything to help address the problem of more people wanting to compete than there is room for, and it makes a mockery of the event, which if you take seriously is probably the coolest WCA event. The problem I am talking about is not the fact that there are qualification times, but the problem that qualification times are intended to address.


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 27, 2016)

Oh yeah, in 2008 or something, they used this system, why was it used then and why was it ditched at that time?


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Nov 28, 2016)

Hey folks,

Thanks for all the interest. I want to give some background on the current situation and why we have qualification times.

This year we had a competitor limit of 600 competitors, which would have been the largest WCA competition ever at the time. Registration was only open for a month before we filled up, and in another 1.5 months we had 200 competitors on the waiting list, which was way more than we could accommodate. If we didn't have a competitor limit, it's likely we'd have 1200-1500 competitors in 2017. There are a number of reasons we can't take that many people. To name some of them:

-Venues that large tend to be very expensive. We're near the limit of the amount of space that hotels have. Convention centers are typically much more expensive.
-Organizing a team of 77 staff members is challenging and adds a lot of work. Organizing a team of 200 staff members would be much harder.
-One of the difficult parts of Nationals has always been keeping the N stages in sync. If one stage gets behind, then either the entire competition gets behind, or you get called for two events at once. Increasing N makes this harder.
-We're still figuring out how to make our planning scale. I still assign competitors to heats on paper and using a big spreadsheet. All the organizers have full-time jobs.

We will be increasing the competitor limit in 2017, and I hope we'll increase the competitor limit in 2018 as well. However, regardless of whether we have qualifying times, there will likely be ~500 competitors who want to compete at Nationals who can't. The question then is how to figure out which 500 competitors not to accept. 

I don't think that first-come, first-serve is the right way to go moving forward. This year registration filled up in a month. If it filled up in a week, or 3 days, a possible event winner might miss registration, and that is something we definitely want to avoid. Since this is the national championships, we want to ensure that the top competitors are able to compete. There are many more local competitions now than there were in the past, so we're hopeful that everyone who wants to be able to attend competitions will be able to do so, even if they can't compete at Nationals. We'll also continue to work to make sure that happens.

My hope is that we'll be able to increase the number of competitors we're able to accept every year, although I doubt we'll be able to grow at the same rate that our community is growing. We get better at this every year, but we need to make sure that we're still able to hold a good competition.

There's a lot of stuff in this thread and unfortunately I don't have time to reply to everything right now. To quickly reply to Alex's question about qualifying times in the past: we had qualifying times in 2007 - 2009, and qualification rounds for people who weren't qualified. This counted as one of the rounds in that event and took up a lot of time in the competition. In 2010 we realized we had time to let everyone compete in round 1. Nationals is a very different competition now than it was then. We only had 135 competitors in 2009, the last year we had qualifying times. We've had 16 local competitions in the US this year with at least that many people. The staff competition in 2017 might have almost this many people.

Thanks,
Tim


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 28, 2016)

Very good response!
It is nice to know the reasoning for why this had to be done, at first I was very opposed to qualifications but now I am much less opposed to it because of your response, you should post this or link to it on the Nationals website/qualifications website. I hope you will continue to scale up Nationals and some year be able to catch up to the scale of the community.

Just my 2 cents, I feel like it is worth considering having volunteers judge like at local competition and having the staff scramble and take care of organizational matters, with plenty of oversight, I think it could be quite ensured that these volunteers would know what they are doing and not be a bad judge.


----------



## DGCubes (Nov 28, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> Very good response!
> It is nice to know the reasoning for why this had to be done, at first I was very opposed to qualifications but now I am much less opposed to it because of your response, you should post this or link to it on the Nationals website/qualifications website. I hope you will continue to scale up Nationals and some year be able to catch up to the scale of the community.
> 
> Just my 2 cents, I feel like it is worth considering having volunteers judge like at local competition and having the staff scramble and take care of organizational matters, with plenty of oversight, I think it could be quite ensured that these volunteers would know what they are doing and not be a bad judge.



I don't know, I've seen waaaayyyy too many examples of terrible judges. It would save a lot of staff power at Nationals if we could have volunteer judges, but it also seems like too much of a risk (what if you can't get enough judges, or what if they do end up being really bad?).


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 28, 2016)

DGCubes said:


> I don't know, I've seen waaaayyyy too many examples of terrible judges. It would save a lot of staff power at Nationals if we could have volunteer judges, but it also seems like too much of a risk (what if you can't get enough judges, or what if they do end up being really bad?).


That's why I said plenty of oversight, we could have 1 or 2 people at each stage closely watch the judges to make sure they are doing things right. Also a judge training and certification system could work out very well.

Also about the potential risks of shortages, it would be wise to take this slowly and safely, for example at one nationals try this out on a small scale to see if there is enough willing volunteers.


----------



## Joel2274 (Nov 28, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> That's why I said plenty of oversight, we could have 1 or 2 people at each stage closely watch the judges to make sure they are doing things right. Also a judge training and certification system could work out very well.
> 
> Also about the potential risks of shortages, it would be wise to take this slowly and safely, for example at one nationals try this out on a small scale to see if there is enough willing volunteers.



A judge training system might be a good idea. I've only been to 1 competition myself and it was a very small one, but it had a lot of younger judges due to a lack of volunteers. Most of them were maybe 12 years or younger, and not saying that young people shouldn't be able to judge, but there should be some sort of way to make sure they know their stuff. At the comp one of the younger ones almost gave me a +2 on a pyraminx solve which clearly was not a +2. I had to call the delegate over because he was being a little stubborn which wasn't really a big deal because I don't really care about pyraminx, but something like that will most likely not be allowed at something as big as nationals.


----------



## One Wheel (Nov 28, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> A judge training system might be a good idea. I've only been to 1 competition myself and it was a very small one, but it had a lot of younger judges due to a lack of volunteers. Most of them were maybe 12 years or younger, and not saying that young people shouldn't be able to judge, but there should be some sort of way to make sure they know their stuff. At the comp one of the younger ones almost gave me a +2 on a pyraminx solve which clearly was not a +2. I had to call the delegate over because he was being a little stubborn which wasn't really a big deal because I don't really care about pyraminx, but something like that will most likely not be allowed at something as big as nationals.



I've only been to one competition, and I never had a problem myself, but I did observe one case where a judge simply left in the middle of a 7x7 solve. I believe that another judge stepped in and the solve was counted. most likely it should be sufficient to require delegates to approve any judges, but if making that a point of emphasis in training delegates is not sufficient then implementing a WCA-wide judge training protocol may be required.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 28, 2016)

Heyy I just thought of a good idea! Since there are qualifications and stuff. That means everyone has been to at least one comp. So shouldn't most people know how to judge?


----------



## Cale S (Nov 28, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> Heyy I just thought of a good idea! Since there are qualifications and stuff. That means everyone has been to at least one comp. So shouldn't most people know how to judge?



There are a lot of kids at competitions I wouldn't trust as judges, especially at Nationals


----------



## AlexMaass (Nov 28, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> A judge training system might be a good idea. I've only been to 1 competition myself and it was a very small one, but it had a lot of younger judges due to a lack of volunteers. Most of them were maybe 12 years or younger, and not saying that young people shouldn't be able to judge, but there should be some sort of way to make sure they know their stuff. At the comp one of the younger ones almost gave me a +2 on a pyraminx solve which clearly was not a +2. I had to call the delegate over because he was being a little stubborn which wasn't really a big deal because I don't really care about pyraminx, but something like that will most likely not be allowed at something as big as nationals.


Yeah, I'm thinking a quiz of some sort that tests everything a judge should know should be implemented, maybe online or in person. 


aybuck37 said:


> Heyy I just thought of a good idea! Since there are qualifications and stuff. That means everyone has been to at least one comp. So shouldn't most people know how to judge?


Good point, especially since the regulations requires everyone to know how to judge https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/regulations/#1e2.


----------



## Kit Clement (Nov 29, 2016)

The main reason we use a full staff of judges rather than working on volunteers is not so much in part due to our lack of trust in volunteers, but more due to the fact that we run a very strict, calculated schedule, and having volunteer judges means that we don't have full control over whether we can actually fill a station at all times. Volunteers are free to leave their station at will, and so losing a judge and having to call up more volunteers is a hassle and wastes time of the staff when they should be tending to their own jobs. It's a nice consequence that our staff typically will be a higher quality judge than a volunteer.

Rather than having a volunteer system, the better way moving forward may be to look into part-time staff members who help only on the days where we need the extra help the most -- say, 2x2 and 3x3 round 1. It does create a bit of a hassle in scheduling though, and we'll see how our staff recruitment goes this year (and in future years!) to determine if we need to look into this.


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 29, 2016)

Kit Clement said:


> The main reason we use a full staff of judges rather than working on volunteers is not so much in part due to our lack of trust in volunteers, but more due to the fact that we run a very strict, calculated schedule, and having volunteer judges means that we don't have full control over whether we can actually fill a station at all times. Volunteers are free to leave their station at will, and so losing a judge and having to call up more volunteers is a hassle and wastes time of the staff when they should be tending to their own jobs. It's a nice consequence that our staff typically will be a higher quality judge than a volunteer.
> 
> Rather than having a volunteer system, the better way moving forward may be to look into part-time staff members who help only on the days where we need the extra help the most -- say, 2x2 and 3x3 round 1. It does create a bit of a hassle in scheduling though, and we'll see how our staff recruitment goes this year (and in future years!) to determine if we need to look into this.


Aw that's true. Haha I'm just throwing ideas out there. How about having Nats at many venues like FMC usa. Crazy idea and I know alot of you won't agree but just trying to brainstorm lol


----------



## Cale S (Nov 29, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> Aw that's true. Haha I'm just throwing ideas out there. How about having Nats at many venues like FMC usa. Crazy idea and I know alot of you won't agree but just trying to brainstorm lol



Finding multiple Nats venues sounds horrifying


----------



## aybuck37 (Nov 29, 2016)

Cale S said:


> Finding multiple Nats venues sounds horrifying


Haha I knew people wouldn't like it lol. Also I just figured out that I could like posts. I thought you had to link up a facebook.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Nov 30, 2016)

Joel2274 said:


> A judge training system might be a good idea. I've only been to 1 competition myself and it was a very small one, but it had a lot of younger judges due to a lack of volunteers. Most of them were maybe 12 years or younger, and not saying that young people shouldn't be able to judge, but there should be some sort of way to make sure they know their stuff. At the comp one of the younger ones almost gave me a +2 on a pyraminx solve which clearly was not a +2. I had to call the delegate over because he was being a little stubborn which wasn't really a big deal because I don't really care about pyraminx, but something like that will most likely not be allowed at something as big as nationals.


In 5x5 second round of Aus Nats, the kid that judged me didn't call 12 seconds, when I asked why, he said he was watching Feliks, do we want something like that happening at US Nats Finals?


----------



## WACWCA (Nov 30, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> In 5x5 second round of Aus Nats, the kid that judged me didn't call 12 seconds, when I asked why, he said he was watching Feliks, do we want something like that happening at US Nats Finals?


In US nats finals there are only 2 stations and they solve one at a time


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Nov 30, 2016)

WACWCA said:


> In US nats finals there are only 2 stations and they solve one at a time



Oh yeah true, but for any other event as well


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 1, 2016)

It's December! Venue should be announced soon?


----------



## Mattster (Dec 3, 2016)

Where should it be comment down below


----------



## Tycubing (Dec 3, 2016)

KC


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 3, 2016)

Sticking to my prediction of boston


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 3, 2016)

FastCubeMaster said:


> In 5x5 second round of Aus Nats, the kid that judged me didn't call 12 seconds, when I asked why, he said he was watching Feliks, do we want something like that happening at US Nats Finals?


Yeah I totally think that cubers with over a decade of experience like Bob Burton or Tim Reynolds will do this and therefore we can't trust them to judge US Nats finals as they have done many times in the past. /s


----------



## biscuit (Dec 3, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> Yeah I totally think that cubers with over a decade of experience like Bob Burton or Tim Reynolds will do this and therefore we can't trust them to judge US Nats finals as they have done many times in the past. /s



??? He was saying Volunteers might do this, as opposed to a dedicated staff.


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 3, 2016)

biscuit said:


> ??? He was saying Volunteers might do this, as opposed to a dedicated staff.


they would never let unqualified volunteers do important finals, so it won't be an issue at all


----------



## tacgnol (Dec 13, 2016)

I have one question, and it may be a dumb one, but I feel the need to ask: When you say the qualifying times can be set at any WCA comp, does that mean any comp EVER? Like as long as you have a result in that event that is applicable, you can compete?

I ask because I haven't competed in 5 years, and I would like to know that if I'm able to attend, I'd be able to compete in clock, which is rarely held. 

Otherwise, I guess I just gotta #gitgud


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Dec 13, 2016)

tacgnol said:


> I have one question, and it may be a dumb one, but I feel the need to ask: When you say the qualifying times can be set at any WCA comp, does that mean any comp EVER? Like as long as you have a result in that event that is applicable, you can compete?
> 
> I ask because I haven't competed in 5 years, and I would like to know that if I'm able to attend, I'd be able to compete in clock, which is rarely held.
> 
> Otherwise, I guess I just gotta #gitgud



Yes, any official result from before May 8th 2017 will qualify you to compete.


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 14, 2016)

CubingUSA Nationals will be held July 7-9, 2017. The venue and location will be announced very soon.


----------



## biscuit (Dec 14, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals will be held July 7-9, 2017. The venue and location will be announced very soon.



So... No clues this year?


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 15, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals will be held July 7-9, 2017. The venue and location will be announced very soon.


That is scary close to the fourth :'(


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 15, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals will be held July 7-9, 2017. The venue and location will be announced very soon.


date edit, now very exciting really t e x a s


----------



## Tycubing (Dec 15, 2016)

im guessing Georgia


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 15, 2016)

Tycubing said:


> im guessing Georgia


yes please

my guess is colorado honestly


----------



## tacgnol (Dec 15, 2016)

my guess is rio de janero


----------



## EntireTV (Dec 15, 2016)

tacgnol said:


> my guess is rio de janero


 lol


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 15, 2016)

california plssss


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Dec 15, 2016)

Daniel Lin said:


> california plssss


probably not


----------



## Charles Jerome (Dec 15, 2016)

guessing Hershey, PA, in hershey lodge or Chicago in mccormick place


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 15, 2016)

Oooo I almost forgot about this. What do you think the new logo will be


----------



## Skyacinth (Dec 15, 2016)

Somewhere in the midwest would be preferable, but as long as it's a nice venue I'll be happy. Chicago sounds good xp.


----------



## GenTheThief (Dec 15, 2016)

Skyacinth said:


> Chicago sounds good xp.


Unfortunately, Chicago seems too be a dead spot. iirc Chicago Open 2010 was the last comp there and it wasn't even in chicago, it was in arlington heights.

I'm guessing Michigan, because MCC.


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Dec 15, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Unfortunately, Chicago seems too be a dead spot. iirc Chicago Open 2010 was the last comp there and it wasn't even in chicago, it was in arlington heights.
> 
> I'm guessing Michigan, because MCC.


yeah I agree


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 15, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> Oooo I almost forgot about this. What do you think the new logo will be


Tim Reynolds's face


----------



## Skyacinth (Dec 15, 2016)

GenTheThief said:


> Unfortunately, Chicago seems too be a dead spot. iirc Chicago Open 2010 was the last comp there and it wasn't even in chicago, it was in arlington heights.
> 
> I'm guessing Michigan, because MCC.


Still works great for me, wouldn't mind visiting Michigan.


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 15, 2016)

YouCubing said:


> Tim Reynolds's face


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q-6pD9UkgzM/maxresdefault.jpg new logo here


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Dec 16, 2016)

Who here is checking for the location of nats every 4 seconds?


----------



## Kian (Dec 16, 2016)

TheRubiksCombo said:


> Who here is checking for the location of nats every 4 seconds?



Not happening tonight, if that saves you some checking.

Also when it's posted either Tim or I will update this thread, I'm sure.


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 16, 2016)

Kian said:


> Not happening tonight, if that saves you some checking.
> 
> Also when it's posted either Tim or I will update this thread, I'm sure.


ohai kian, haven't seen you on the forums for a while

back on topic, are you allowed to tell us when it will be announced? a countdown to the announcement of the venue location would be pretty hype stuff


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Dec 16, 2016)

Kian said:


> Not happening tonight, if that saves you some checking.
> 
> Also when it's posted either Tim or I will update this thread, I'm sure.


ok thanks!


----------



## Tim Reynolds (Dec 17, 2016)

CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held in *Fort Wayne, Indiana *on July 7 - July 9, 2017.. Please see the competition site for details: https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/index.php. Hope to see you there!


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 17, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held in *Fort Wayne, Indiana *on July 7 - July 9, 2017.. Please see the competition site for details: https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/index.php. Hope to see you there!


woah wasn't expecting that
that's a lot closer to me than last year, I'll sign up as soon as registration opens


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 17, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held in *Fort Wayne, Indiana *on July 7 - July 9, 2017.. Please see the competition site for details: https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/index.php. Hope to see you there!


Indeed a wise choice


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 17, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held in *Fort Wayne, India*


omg its in india.


----------



## Tycubing (Dec 17, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> omg its in india.


Dang, why do we have to travel all the way there


----------



## DGCubes (Dec 17, 2016)

HYPE!!!!! Gonna really try to go to this one!!!


----------



## Skyacinth (Dec 17, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held in *Fort Wayne, Indiana *on July 7 - July 9, 2017.. Please see the competition site for details: https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017/index.php. Hope to see you there!


Ay, that's only 3 hours away, easy travel. Nice venue xp.


----------



## TheRubiksCombo (Dec 17, 2016)

woohoo! its only 6 hrs away!


----------



## EntireTV (Dec 17, 2016)

eH, Indiana's a good choice for most, but unfortunately I live in California so it's a long ride there. And indiana isn't exactly the most exciting place...


----------



## EntireTV (Dec 17, 2016)

The venue looks great, and I'm glad the maximum competitor limit has been raised once again!


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 17, 2016)

EntireTV said:


> The venue looks great, and I'm glad the maximum competitor limit has been raised once again!


I completely forgot to look at the limit. But thats pretty cool


----------



## DanpHan (Dec 17, 2016)

Pretty far for me but my nice mom thinks we should be able to do it. I have family in Indiana, too. Hype party!

This was so much more boring without the clues ;-;


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 17, 2016)

DanpHan said:


> Pretty far for me but my nice mom thinks we should be able to do it.


pretty far for me but my nice dad thinks we should be able to do it  see you there


----------



## Daniel Lin (Dec 18, 2016)

EntireTV said:


> eH, Indiana's a good choice for most, but unfortunately I live in California so it's a long ride there. And indiana isn't exactly the most exciting place...


same, i'm sad


----------



## ToastyKen (Dec 18, 2016)

We have announced that CubingUSA Nationals 2017 will be held at Fort Wayne, IN from July 7-9, 2017.

Registration will open on January 8, with an 800-competitor limit.

The original post and title on this thread has been updated.

So has the event page: https://www.cubingusa.com/nationals2017


----------



## tacgnol (Dec 18, 2016)

Tim Reynolds said:


> *Fort Wayne, Indiana*


THE HYPE IS REAL BOIS.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 18, 2016)

I've updated the thread title. Woo!


----------



## Torch (Dec 18, 2016)

DanpHan said:


> Pretty far for me but my nice mom thinks we should be able to do it. I have family in Indiana, too. Hype party!
> 
> This was so much more boring without the clues ;-;






YouCubing said:


> pretty far for me but my nice dad thinks we should be able to do it  see you there


GA/SC roadtrip guys let's do it


----------



## Jaysammey777 (Dec 18, 2016)

Torch said:


> GA/SC roadtrip guys let's do it


I'm still 50/50 for plane/car


----------



## YouCubing (Dec 18, 2016)

Jaysammey777 said:


> I'm still 50/50 for plane/car


samee


Torch said:


> GA/SC roadtrip guys let's do it


if we go by car then we can have a car party


----------



## uyneb2000 (Dec 19, 2016)

I have a chance of going this year, which would be super hype!!!


----------



## Torch (Dec 19, 2016)

Jaysammey777 said:


> I'm still 50/50 for plane/car



I'm like 10/90 on that metric


----------



## cuberkid10 (Dec 19, 2016)

Torch said:


> GA/SC roadtrip guys let's do it


Orrrrr we can all take a plane together.


----------



## Torch (Dec 19, 2016)

cuberkid10 said:


> Orrrrr we can all take a plane together.



But but but driving is more fun!


----------



## Jbacboy (Dec 19, 2016)

Omg I might be able to go this year. The hype is real!


----------



## Cale S (Dec 19, 2016)

I'm definitely able to go, and this year it's a "short" drive instead of flight 

only a week after school ends though...


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 19, 2016)

Cale S said:


> I'm definitely able to go, and this year it's a "short" drive instead of flight
> 
> only a week after school ends though...


Same! But it's still kind of far for me. Excited that it's in the Midwest


----------



## Mattster (Dec 19, 2016)

South tehas is 1,100 miles so im like 40/60 for plane/car


----------



## WACWCA (Dec 19, 2016)

I will probably drive there and fly back or they other way around because we are already going to beach that week starting on that Sunday, so we're leaving right as it ends


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> IMO this is not fair for everyone, not everyone in the US is lucky enough to have comps in their area with the events they want to qualify in, the increased effort to hold more side events will reduce this ofc, but it won't totally make it fair across all regions, it's sad we have to sacrifice one of the goals of the WCA (fairness) to accommodate bigger competitions
> 
> why not include singles too with cutoffs, what if someone got barely above 2 minutes in megaminx, but didn't make the soft cutoff and didn't get an average (lets say the soft cutoff was 1:45 or 2:00), and I know of someone who got a 10.47 clock single but DNF avg, she has a 7.444 ao12 unofficially, is it fair that we shouldn't let this person compete even though they could even go and podium?



Yeah, I wanted to compete in FMC at nats, but I have never competed in it before


----------



## AlexMaass (Dec 19, 2016)

MASTERMIND2368 said:


> Yeah, I wanted to compete in FMC at nats, but I have never competed in it before


where do you live?


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

AlexMaass said:


> where do you live?


In VA


----------



## aybuck37 (Dec 19, 2016)

MASTERMIND2368 said:


> In VA


You still have time!! I think its until like march?


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Dec 19, 2016)

aybuck37 said:


> You still have time!! I think its until like march



Yeah, I might be going to a comp in Feb that has it, hope my mom will drive me.


----------



## Charles Jerome (Dec 23, 2016)

Indiana... I would definitely go to Nats!


----------



## aybuck37 (Jan 7, 2017)

What would be the cost for each event this year?


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 7, 2017)

aybuck37 said:


> What would be the cost for each event this year?


we'll have to wait and see lol


----------



## aybuck37 (Jan 7, 2017)

AlexMaass said:


> we'll have to wait and see lol


ah what about from last year. I'm just doing some price research. Also, could you guys think of some pros and cons for me.
EDIT: So if you're thinking of going I made a list of pros and cons so if you're interested in it I could tell you. Also I could use more bc my list of cons outweight pros..


----------



## EntireTV (Jan 7, 2017)

aybuck37 said:


> ah what about from last year. I'm just doing some price research. Also, could you guys think of some pros and cons for me.
> EDIT: So if you're thinking of going I made a list of pros and cons so if you're interested in it I could tell you. Also I could use more bc my list of cons outweight pros..



I would be interested


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aybuck37 (Jan 7, 2017)

EntireTV said:


> I would be interested


Sure thing! 
Pros: The hotel is discounted, Everything is fancy, and there is other stuff around. Cons: Driving, Midwest weather...., prices, and it'll be loud everywhere. Also It's still really iffy for me but I found a good discount code for the hotel. I doubt they'd accept it but its worth a shot


----------



## AlexMaass (Jan 8, 2017)

registration about to open in less than 15 minutes; hopefully the website doesn't crash xD


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 8, 2017)

AlexMaass said:


> registration about to open in less than 15 minutes; hopefully the website doesn't crash xD



It might now that you reminded people -_-


----------



## EntireTV (Jan 8, 2017)

1 minute!


----------



## Cale S (Jan 8, 2017)

Within 20 minutes, over 100 people had signed up


----------



## weatherman223 (Jan 8, 2017)

I qualified but cant go! Noooo!


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 8, 2017)

3 hours in, and 200 people have signed up.

That includes myself. So hyped!


----------



## EntireTV (Jan 8, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> 3 hours in, and 200 people have signed up.
> 
> That includes myself. So hyped!


Nice, I see you are only doing Pyra...

I might not go, but I'm registered


----------



## GenTheThief (Jan 8, 2017)

Well.
40$ + ~4$ per event is not worth a competition that doesn't even hold Feet.
I can understand why the price is so high, but. It's just like. That's a lot.
It's only like 4 hours away from where I live, but I probably wont go. Just way to expensive for me.


----------



## DGCubes (Jan 9, 2017)

EntireTV said:


> Nice, I see you are only doing Pyra...
> 
> I might not go, but I'm registered



Nah, I'm gonna do everything I qualify for. I signed up for only Pyra just in case it turns out I can't make it. I'll add the rest when I'm 100% sure I'm attending.


----------



## EntireTV (Jan 9, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Nah, I'm gonna do everything I qualify for. I signed up for only Pyra just in case it turns out I can't make it. I'll add the rest when I'm 100% sure I'm attending.



Ok. I saw a lot of people doing that. I might not make it but I still put all the events


----------



## cuberkid10 (Jan 9, 2017)

Does if anyone know if Stachu's psych sheets are down for good or they are just having a problem right now? Cause it'd be cool to see those for Nats obviously.


----------



## Torch (Jan 11, 2017)

cuberkid10 said:


> Does if anyone know if Stachu's psych sheets are down for good or they are just having a problem right now? Cause it'd be cool to see those for Nats obviously.



They still exist, you just have to put the comp name and event name in the URL, like this: http://psychsheets.azurewebsites.net/nationals2017/333

A lot of the results are out of date though, since it's based on an export from somewhere between November 13th and 19th.


----------



## Luke Henize (Jan 24, 2017)

I am a fairly newer cuber, started back in October or so, and I have only been to one competition. It was really fun, even though the only events I did were 2x2 and 3x3, and so I looked at the U.S Nationals page for 2017. I made the cut-off times for 3x3 and 2x2, but I didn't make any others (because I didn't try any). I was just wanting to ask if it would be a good idea for me to sign up for nationals, considering I would only be able to do 2 events. I know that may sound like a stupid question, but I figured they probably want people to participate in more events than just two, and so I would be taking up a spot that could've gone to someone more advanced than I am. Is Nats for anyone or just dedicated people?


----------



## biscuit (Jan 24, 2017)

Luke Henize said:


> I am a fairly newer cuber, started back in October or so, and I have only been to one competition. It was really fun, even though the only events I did were 2x2 and 3x3, and so I looked at the U.S Nationals page for 2017. I made the cut-off times for 3x3 and 2x2, but I didn't make any others (because I didn't try any). I was just wanting to ask if it would be a good idea for me to sign up for nationals, considering I would only be able to do 2 events. I know that may sound like a stupid question, but I figured they probably want people to participate in more events than just two, and so I would be taking up a spot that could've gone to someone more advanced than I am. Is Nats for anyone or just dedicated people?



If you make the cutoffs and can go, there's no reason not too! It'll be a great experience for you.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jan 25, 2017)

Luke Henize said:


> I am a fairly newer cuber, started back in October or so, and I have only been to one competition. It was really fun, even though the only events I did were 2x2 and 3x3, and so I looked at the U.S Nationals page for 2017. I made the cut-off times for 3x3 and 2x2, but I didn't make any others (because I didn't try any). I was just wanting to ask if it would be a good idea for me to sign up for nationals, considering I would only be able to do 2 events. I know that may sound like a stupid question, but I figured they probably want people to participate in more events than just two, and so I would be taking up a spot that could've gone to someone more advanced than I am. Is Nats for anyone or just dedicated people?



Also, if you register for only the two events, and manage to compete and get qualifying times in later competitions in other events, you can modify your registration and get into more events.

To answer your other question, I'm starting to get the feeling that registration is going to get very close to not filling up. Anybody good enough will have had plenty of time to register, so don't worry about taking up someone else's spot


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Jan 28, 2017)

Luke Henize said:


> I am a fairly newer cuber, started back in October or so, and I have only been to one competition. It was really fun, even though the only events I did were 2x2 and 3x3, and so I looked at the U.S Nationals page for 2017. I made the cut-off times for 3x3 and 2x2, but I didn't make any others (because I didn't try any). I was just wanting to ask if it would be a good idea for me to sign up for nationals, considering I would only be able to do 2 events. I know that may sound like a stupid question, but I figured they probably want people to participate in more events than just two, and so I would be taking up a spot that could've gone to someone more advanced than I am. Is Nats for anyone or just dedicated people?


I have been cubing for 2 yrs and I am only doing about 5 events, two is fine


----------



## Eppley12 (Feb 9, 2017)

I am driving to Nationals from Port Huron, MI.
I am looking for anyone that would be interested in carpooling with me, or sharing a hotel room when in Fort Wayne. I am thinking about just booking a room now and hoping someone will be willing to room with me and help pay for some of the costs.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## obelisk477 (Mar 13, 2017)

Sorry if this has been asked, but are they doing seminars this year?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Mar 14, 2017)

I'm going



obelisk477 said:


> Sorry if this has been asked, but are* am* they *I* doing *making* seminars*finals* this year?



Hopefully I can make the semifinals without (or with lol) a sub10 avg


----------



## DELToS (Mar 14, 2017)

I'm going, will be my first Nationals


----------



## Mike Hughey (Apr 21, 2017)

I see the competition is full now. I'm looking forward to attending my first competition in 2 years!


----------



## weatherman223 (Apr 22, 2017)

Can't go, too far away and I am not taking 3 flights, nor driving 2 days to Indiana. 

Also, it's already full anyway, lol.

Praying for a more convenient location, like Denver, haha

Good luck to all that entered!


----------



## CornerCutter (Apr 22, 2017)

Will they be live streaming?


----------



## Mastermind2368 (Apr 22, 2017)

CornerCutter said:


> Will they be live streaming?


You would think so. If they won't, I will. You heard it hear people who wanted it steamed.


----------



## CornerCutter (Apr 22, 2017)

Mastermind2368 said:


> You would think so. If they won't, I will. You heard it hear people who wanted it steamed.


Great!


----------



## Jaysammey777 (May 16, 2017)

Goals:
3x3: sub-12, Round 2
2x2: sub-3.5, Round 2
4x4: sub-43, Round 2 (Semis if lucky)
5x5: sub-1:25, Round 2
6x6: sub-2:50
7x7: sub-4
BLD: success
OH: sub-20, Round 2
FMC: sub-30 mean
Mega: sub-1:03, Finals
Pyra: sub-5, Semis
Clock: sub-6.5, Finals
Skewb: sub-8
Squan: sub-20, Round 2
Not gonna get all pbs during staff rounds, but should still be fun to see if I can get any of these, esp Clock and Mega!


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (May 16, 2017)

Rubix's cube: Sub 10 average finally, comp PR single (8.70), make semis
4 square: Missouri SR average (2.60), make semis, top 32
Big one: Sub-1 average, sub-55 single
Bigger one: sub-1:50 average, sub-1:40 single
The one with 36 colors: Sub-3:30 average, sub-3:20 single
The 10x10: Sub-6 average, sub-5:45 single
Rubix triangle: Practice like once
"How do I turn it": Sub-10 average, why would I care about single anymore
Super cube: Sub-2 average, practice a little
Weird one: Sub-40 average, practice
Woah you're doing it with one hand: Sub-25 average, *max* out my *faz*tness

Every event I didn't qualify for is probably bad


----------



## Cale S (May 16, 2017)

whoa we're doing goals

2x2: actually make round 2 lol, get some low 3 averages
3x3: make semifinals, sub-10 average
4x4: sub-45 average
5x5: sub-1:25 average
square-1: make 2nd round (ez), sub-14 average
pyra: don't care
clock: don't fail
skewb: win (or at least podium, should be easy this year), hopefully NAR avg
3BLD: sub-40 mean, do well in finals
FMC: podium again
4BLD: hopefully beat Bill again and win
5BLD: get a decent time, win
MBLD: podium, pb


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (May 16, 2017)

Cale S said:


> whoa we're doing goals


Only 52 days! (depending on time zone ofc)



Cale S said:


> 3x3: make semifinals, sub-10 average


fight me


----------



## Meow (May 17, 2017)

ok goals i guess
2x2: maybe win a round, don't fail finals
3x3: a sub 8 avg, and make finals maybe, also get in budget cube challenge maybe
4x4: sub 40
5x5: sub 1:15 or sub 1:10 depending how much i practice 
6x6: 2:45
7x7: 4:00
BLD: success
OH: 16
Mega: Sub 1:15, Sub 1:05 if i practice 
Pyra: 6
Skewb: 6/7
Clock: 10
Sq1: 18


----------



## YouCubing (May 17, 2017)

if i did goals already i don't remember it
2x2: like sub3.5 avg, make round 2??
3x3: sub13 avg, maybe make round 2?????????????????
4x4: sub55 avg, probably won't make round 2
5x5: sub1:35 avg, if i'm really lucky make round 2
6x6: sub3 mean
7x7: sub4:10 mean
OH: sub23.15 avg, maybe make round 2????????????
BLD: sub1 single, make finals, m e a n
FMC: sub40 mean
Feet: WR
Mega: sub1:15 avg
Pyra: sub5 avg, possibly state record, make semis, possibly finals
Skewb: sub6 avg, round 2
Squan: sub13 avg (state record), make finals, sub10 single
Clock: sub9 avg, finals (how am i 17th on the psych sheet), don't dnf
4BLD: how can this happen to me
5BLD: i've made my mistakes
MBLD: 7/7

also have even more fun than i did at the previous two nationals, if that's possible


----------



## WACWCA (May 17, 2017)

2x2: podium, sub 1.7 avg
3x3: sub 9 avg, make semi finals
4x4: Sub 40, 2nd rd, maybe 3rd
5x5: sub 1:25
6x6: sub 2:50
OH: make round 2, sub 18 avg
Pyra: sub 7
Skewb: sub 5
Sq-1: sub 20
Mega: sub1:20
Bld: sub 2 single
Feel like I'm forgetting something


----------



## Torch (May 17, 2017)

Goal: Don't make goals until July 4th


----------



## SirWaffle (May 17, 2017)

Goal: Mega Podium


----------



## Draranor (May 17, 2017)

Goals:
2x2: sub-4 average(s), no idea where that'll place me
3x3: sub-9 average (I know, I have really high expectations for myself). Or at least make round 2
4x4: 
Other: Have fun, make friends


----------



## DGCubes (May 17, 2017)

Cubing goals:
2x2: Get a really good single so people will think I'm cool.
3x3: Get a sub-10 average with sheer luck, make semis.
4x4: Sub-45 average, sub-40 single.
5x5: Sub-1:35 average, sub-1:25 single.
6x6: Sub-3:10 mean, sub-3:00 single.
7x7: Sub-5:00 mean, sub-4:50 single.
Pyraminx: Sub-2.95 average, sub-2 single, podium in finals.
Megaminx: Sub-1:10 average, sub-1:00 single
Skewb: Get a good single for once, beat Daniel Karnaukh.
Square-1: Hope for lucky scrambles.
Clock: Sub-16 average, sub-14 single.
OH: Solve the Rubik's Cube with one hand.
3BLD: Any mean whatsoever.
FMC: Some decent single, PB mean.

Non-cubing goals:
Complete all summer homework on the plane ride.
Get there on time.
Hang out with friends a lot.
Ride the elevator frequently.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (May 17, 2017)

Draranor said:


> sub-9 average (I know, I have really high expectations for myself). Or at least make round 2


So either a sub 9 average, or if not at least sub 12. Lol


----------



## Draranor (May 17, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> So either a sub 9 average, or if not at least sub 12. Lol


Ya, I want to give myself a big margin to work with; that way I'm more likely than the achieve my goal lol


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (May 18, 2017)

Draranor said:


> Ya, I want to give myself a big margin to work with; that way I'm more likely than the achieve my goal lol


Haha, I should do that.

Adding another goal:
Be in the same heat as Noah when he gets his lucky 2x2 scramble.


----------



## Space Cat (May 18, 2017)

echhh I can't go to Nats this year....

If they keep it in the midwest in 2018, I'm definitely going


----------



## Cale S (Jun 8, 2017)

seminars are being announced on the website :O


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jun 8, 2017)

Cale S said:


> seminars are being announced on the website :O


HYPE

also it starts 4 weeks from tomorrow so hype


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Jun 8, 2017)

2x2: sub-4.5 average, maybe make second round
3x3: sub-22 average, sub-20 single
Pyra: sub-4.5 average, make finals
Skewb: sub-9 average, sub-7 single


----------



## JoshJumble (Jun 14, 2017)

Goals for Competing:
2x2: Sub 4 average, sub 3 single
3x3: Sub 14 average, sub 10 single (sub 10 single isn't very likely, but I'll still hope for the best)
4x4: Sub 1:10 average, sub 1:00 single
Pyraminx: Sub 6 average, sub 4 single
OH: Sub 35 average, sub 30 single

Goals outside of competing:
Meet some cool people
Take some good photos for a Google Photos book that I might make
Register for an unofficial event (if there are going to be any open for registration)
Meet up with a friend who recently moved to Fort Wayne


----------



## aybuck37 (Jun 14, 2017)

Fun! Good luck everyone. Did you guys see the scs t-shirt promo for nats?


----------



## Luke8 (Jun 20, 2017)

I wish I was going.


----------



## Cale S (Jun 28, 2017)

Unofficial events have been announced on the website


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 1, 2017)

Looking for a last minute carpool to hop in on from the southeast (Raleigh NC area). If anyone is leaving from, or passing through there, and wants some extra help paying for gas, let me know!


----------



## cuberkid10 (Jul 1, 2017)

Only goal:

Make 4x4 finals.


----------



## Eppley12 (Jul 1, 2017)

Hey everyone,
I am a traveling alone to Nationals and am last minute looking for someone, or a group of someone's, that could use an extra roommate! I of course am more than happy to split costs, but it's very expensive to book my own room.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## Draranor (Jul 1, 2017)

Eppley12 said:


> Hey everyone,
> I am a traveling alone to Nationals and am last minute looking for someone, or a group of someone's, that could use an extra roommate! I of course am more than happy to split costs, but it's very expensive to book my own room.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated!


It would be nice to have someone to share the costs with, but my hotel room only has one bed


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 1, 2017)

Updated goals:
_italics_ = top 5 goals

*3x3:*
_Sub 9.8 average_
Sub 8.5 single
_Make semifinals_
Top 40 (very unlikely but could happen)
*2x2:*
_Sub 2.6 average (state record, not very likely)_
Make semifinals
*Pyraminx:*
_Make second round_
Sub 7 average
*4x4:*
_Sub 1 average_
Sub 53 single
*5x5:*
Sub 1:50 average
Sub 1:40 single
*6x6:*
Sub 3:30 mean (idk whether that's possible because I haven't practiced much)
Sub 3:20 single (again, idk if I can get that)
*7x7:*
Sub 6:00 mean
Sub 5:45 single
*Megaminx:*
Sub 2:00 average
Sub 1:50 single
*Skewb:*
Sub 9 average
Sub 8 single
*OH:*
_Comp PB average and single_


----------



## WACWCA (Jul 5, 2017)

Who is staying at the Marriott?


----------



## Draranor (Jul 5, 2017)

WACWCA said:


> Who is staying at the Marriott?


I am


----------



## Hazel (Jul 5, 2017)

WACWCA said:


> Who is staying at the Marriott?


yep yep


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 5, 2017)

dang I never stay at the right place


----------



## WACWCA (Jul 5, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> dang I never stay at the right place


Well you should still come to the Marriott lobby, last year a lot of people met at the venue closest to the hotel, even if they weren't staying there


----------



## Draranor (Jul 5, 2017)

I'm curious what time people will be arriving. I'll be getting to the hotel around 2-3 pm tomorrow


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 5, 2017)

im gonna be there late tomorrow night, so yeah
also i did a goals thing thats pretty cool but nobody cares


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 5, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> im gonna be there late tomorrow night, so yeah
> also i did a goals thing thats pretty cool but nobody cares


I finally figured out who that Just Another Faceless YouTube Commenter guy who I've seen on a few cubing related videos is!

also yeah that's extremely in depth


----------



## Randon (Jul 6, 2017)

Goals:

Sub-15 3x3 Ao5
Sub-5 2x2 Ao5
Sub-5 Pyra Ao5
Sub-1 4x4 Ao5 (a man can dream)
Sub-8 Skewb Ao5
Make third round of Pyraminx
Compete on Sunday (big maybe)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 6, 2017)

Anyone else staying at LaSalle Downtown Inn?


----------



## Draranor (Jul 6, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Anyone else staying at LaSalle Downtown Inn?


Nope, but guess who isn't getting to his hotel until around 7:30 tonight


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 7, 2017)

Oh hey I'm in the same heat as @DGCubes for OH lol


----------



## CornerCutter (Jul 7, 2017)

Who is Live streaming?


----------



## Gomorrite (Jul 7, 2017)

Unfortunately live stream does not seem to be working, or not yet anyway.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 7, 2017)

Is cubecomps correct that Cale won MBLD with 22/25 in only 25 minutes?


----------



## chtiger (Jul 7, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> Is cubecomps correct that Cale won MBLD with 22/25 in only 25 minutes?


It's changed to 52 minutes now. Another round to go, so he hasn't won yet.


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 7, 2017)

chtiger said:


> It's changed to 52 minutes now. Another round to go, so he hasn't won yet.


Ah OK, that would have been too impressive . 

Cubecomps says "final, done" but I see now they've put everybody's second attempt as a DNS.


----------



## GenTheThief (Jul 8, 2017)

Max got a 24.23 NAR 4x4 average.
I don't know if there are more rounds today, but cubecomps isn't flagging it as a NAR


----------



## Cale S (Jul 8, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> Is cubecomps correct that Cale won MBLD with 22/25 in only 25 minutes?



My result is pretty cool as a palindrome: 22/25 in 52:22


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 8, 2017)

GenTheThief said:


> Max got a 24.23 NAR 4x4 average.
> I don't know if there are more rounds today, but cubecomps isn't flagging it as a NAR


cubecomps didn't flag Kevin's as NARs either.


----------



## WACWCA (Jul 8, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> cubecomps didn't flag Kevin's as NARs either.


Also Max's 5x5 NARs


----------



## CornerCutter (Jul 8, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> cubecomps didn't flag Kevin's as NARs either.


Cubecomps doesn't seem to be working good recently.


----------



## Gomorrite (Jul 8, 2017)

Now the livestream "will begin broadcasting at time TBD".


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 9, 2017)

woah i podiumed in clock
also 1.63 pyra single probably


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 9, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> woah i podiumed in clock
> also 1.63 pyra single probably


Noice

I got an 8.63 comp PB single on 3x3 but a kinda bad average. Made 2nd round though.

@DGCubes, I noticed no times are entered for you on 3x3, did you not compete?


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 9, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> @DGCubes, I noticed no times are entered for you on 3x3, did you not compete?


I somehow noticed that too


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 9, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Noice
> 
> I got an 8.63 comp PB single on 3x3 but a kinda bad average. Made 2nd round though.
> 
> @DGCubes, I noticed no times are entered for you on 3x3, did you not compete?



I competed, but a bunch of people's results aren't up yet for some reason. I didn't do well though, besides an 8.60 single.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 9, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> I competed, but a bunch of people's results aren't up yet for some reason. I didn't do well though, besides an 8.60 single.


What'd you get? And dang, you beat my sniggle by .03


----------



## xyzzy (Jul 9, 2017)

Will good recordings of the seminars be uploaded later? There's a recording of Gianfranco's talk, but the audio is almost unintelligible.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 9, 2017)

YUSSSSS

3x3x3 Round 2
(8.64), 9.43, 9.81, (12.74), 9.84 = 9.69

!


----------



## ToastyKen (Jul 9, 2017)

CubingUSA Nationals 2017 Livestream will be up for 3x3 Finals at approximately 5pm EDT at this link:






(We were unable to stream the rest of the competition due to technical difficulties.)


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 9, 2017)

18th place in 2x2.

I would have been in finals except I got a +2 on the 2nd solve.

They also made a typo while entering my first time. If the typo had been my actual time, I would have been 14th (my 2.80 was entered as 2.08) but I caught it


----------



## Ordway Persyn (Jul 9, 2017)

Max Park won with a 7.06 average!


----------



## aybuck37 (Jul 9, 2017)

Mains and Goals for US nationals
3x3: Meiying 
2x2: yupo 
lol
Congrats max and everyone who got pb's!!


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 10, 2017)

It was so fun to be back!

I want to give special thanks to Brandon and Sydney for convincing me to try again to switch to solving edges first BLD instead of corners, and also special thanks to Mark for helping me understand the method for doing it. I just tried my first 5 attempts with it and got an average of 5 of 2:11.10 [1:45.75, 1:44.43, DNF(1:25.60), 2:07.96, 2:39.58], which is only 20 seconds slower than my normal average, and was dragged down by very slow memo recall for the corners on the last one. This is going to work for me - I've officially switched, finally! Thank you!


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 10, 2017)

xyzzy said:


> Will good recordings of the seminars be uploaded later? There's a recording of Gianfranco's talk, but the audio is almost unintelligible.



From an English speaker's point of view, I was there at the talk and it was still almost unintelligible. That's not to say anything against Gianfranco -- he just has a very thick accent. Unless the audio was being recorded at the mixing board, you're probably not going to find anything (listenable?) usable.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 10, 2017)

Updated goals:
_italics_ = top 5 goals

*3x3:*
_Sub 9.8 average *been there, done that (9.69 average)*_
Sub 8.5 single *also got that, 8.36, and it was kinda funny because that was the last solve in my horribly inconsistent (and just straight up horrible) semifinals average.*
_Make semifinals *got it, 37th place in 2nd round*_
Top 40 (very unlikely but could happen) *I should have been but I flopped horribly in the semifinals, 62nd place lmao
2x2:*
_Sub 2.6 average (state record, not very likely) *Nope, but 2.81 was okay*_
Make semifinals *made the semifinals with a 2.81 average in the 2nd round. I was 18th place in semifinals, and only 0.06 away from making finals.
Pyraminx:*
_Make second round *Stupid scrambles, so yes somewhat easily*_
Sub 7 average *2 of them lmao
4x4:*
_Sub 1 average *got em, 52.15 average*_
Sub 53 single *well I got 2 sub-50 singles so...
5x5:*
Sub 1:50 average *yes*
Sub 1:40 single *yes
6x6:*
Sub 3:30 mean (idk whether that's possible because I haven't practiced much) *yes*
Sub 3:20 single (again, idk if I can get that) *yes
7x7:*
Sub 6:00 mean *yes*
Sub 5:45 single *yes
Megaminx:*
Sub 2:00 average *no *creys**
Sub 1:50 single* again no, megamnix is bad
Skewb:*
Sub 9 average *no, 10.03*
Sub 8 single *not quite, 8.28
OH:*
_Comp PB average and single *easily, 23.64/20.45*_


----------



## Kit Clement (Jul 10, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> It was so fun to be back!
> 
> I want to give special thanks to Brandon and Sydney for convincing me to try again to switch to solving edges first BLD instead of corners, and also special thanks to Mark for helping me understand the method for doing it. I just tried my first 5 attempts with it and got an average of 5 of 2:11.10 [1:45.75, 1:44.43, DNF(1:25.60), 2:07.96, 2:39.58], which is only 20 seconds slower than my normal average, and was dragged down by very slow memo recall for the corners on the last one. This is going to work for me - I've officially switched, finally! Thank you!



Really bummed that I missed my chance to see you again -- glad to hear you had a great time!


----------



## mark49152 (Jul 10, 2017)

Mike Hughey said:


> I want to give special thanks to Brandon and Sydney for convincing me to try again to switch to solving edges first BLD instead of corners, and also special thanks to Mark for helping me understand the method for doing it.


Just curious, but what was the case they made for solving edges first?


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 11, 2017)

mark49152 said:


> Just curious, but what was the case they made for solving edges first?


There are certainly a few who disagree, but most agree that it's best to memorize edges last and solve them first because then you can put a larger amount of the cube in audio memory, which can greatly speed things up. I knew a bunch of people who made this switch a few years ago, and I tried to as well, but I had great trouble with it and gave up. But this time it's going much better!


----------



## tx789 (Jul 11, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> From an English speaker's point of view, I was there at the talk and it was still almost unintelligible. That's not to say anything against Gianfranco -- he just has a very thick accent. Unless the audio was being recorded at the mixing board, you're probably not going to find anything (listenable?) usable.



All the seminars were had to watch on the video. The echo makes it harder to understand.


----------



## DGCubes (Jul 11, 2017)

Time to see how I did!

Cubing goals:
2x2: Get a really good single so people will think I'm cool.* Daaaang, it happened! 1.44 single with a stupid scramble.*
3x3: Get a sub-10 average with sheer luck, make semis. *Nope.*
4x4: Sub-45 average, sub-40 single.* Lol, I missed 4x4 because I forgot it was happening.*
5x5: Sub-1:35 average, sub-1:25 single.* No, but kinda close with the average.*
6x6: Sub-3:10 mean, sub-3:00 single.* Got the single but not the mean.*
7x7: Sub-5:00 mean, sub-4:50 single.* Not even close.*
Pyraminx: Sub-2.95 average, sub-2 single, podium in finals.* Ooooh very close. 2.98 average and 2.02 single, and 8th in finals because of shaky/numb hands. *
Megaminx: Sub-1:10 average, sub-1:00 single.* Got the average, not the single.*
Skewb: Get a good single for once, beat Daniel Karnaukh. *Both of these!*
Square-1: Hope for lucky scrambles.* I hoped, but I didn't exactly get them. *
Clock: Sub-16 average, sub-14 single.* Both of these (by a long shot)!*
OH: Solve the Rubik's Cube with one hand.* Did it!*
3BLD: Any mean whatsoever.* No...  Messed up the last solve.*
FMC: Some decent single, PB mean.* Nope.*

Non-cubing goals:
Complete all summer homework on the plane ride.* About half of it.*
Get there on time.* Did it!*
Hang out with friends a lot.* Yes sir.*
Ride the elevator frequently.* You bet!*

Overall, I'm really happy with how Nats went. I'm still kind of annoyed about my results in Pyra finals, but there's always next year.


----------



## Dr_Detonation (Jul 12, 2017)

DGCubes said:


> Time to see how I did!
> 
> Cubing goals:
> 2x2: Get a really good single so people will think I'm cool.* Daaaang, it happened! 1.44 single with a stupid scramble.*
> ...


Yeah... When are you getting a sub 1 pyra?


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 12, 2017)

A few facts:

1. @4Chan is only giving up on his new cube project to work on a more sinister plot to entirely take over cubing hardware.
2. I would have won 3x3 except the mainstream media and superdelegates rigged it against me from the beginning.
3. "Blake Thompson" is an anagram for "Luky tmes now" (see for yourself)
4. Daniel Karnaukh would have been beaten by @DGCubes if he were in the Sail Challenge. Daniel Goodman finally would have unleashed his method of reducing a 3x3 to a pyraminx, which is very move efficient (if you don't get parity.)
5. The pyraminx scrambles were, like, really easy (probably)
6. Kilominx* was actually held as an unofficial event but everyone left too early to compete.
7. Organizers are considering holding Nationals on the moon next year. Details TBA.
8. If you didn't get any free 3x3 advice you were missing out horribly. It would have made you average mid 9 just like Brody.
9. A lot of cubers are real people.
10. The venue gets really cold as soon as your heat gets called up to compete.

*DG's "kibiminx" idea was cool and I agree that our minx naming system is horrible but "kibiminx" just sounds weird


----------



## T1_M0 (Jul 12, 2017)

Nice 2x2 podium there


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Jul 12, 2017)

Ghost Cuber said:


> 2x2: sub-4.5 average, maybe make second round
> 3x3: sub-22 average, sub-20 single
> Pyra: sub-4.5 average, make finals
> Skewb: sub-9 average, sub-7 single


What I got:
4.82 average, nope
3x3: 21.52 average, 18.72 single
Pyra: 3.86 average, yep
Skewb: 9.48 average, 5.89 single
Overall, I am pretty happy with how I did.

Here is a video of the 3.86 Pyra average if anyone wants to see it:


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 12, 2017)

Results are posted, but for some reason personal records aren't???


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Jul 12, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Results are posted, but for some reason personal records aren't???


Yeah IDK what is going on.


----------



## obelisk477 (Jul 12, 2017)

JustinTimeCuber said:


> Results are posted, but for some reason personal records aren't???


You'll notice that the number of competitions you've attended and number of solves you've done have also gone up, but aren't reflected in personal records.


----------



## Ghost Cuber (Jul 12, 2017)

obelisk477 said:


> You'll notice that the number of competitions you've attended and number of solves you've done have also gone up, but aren't reflected in
> personal records.


I saw that. This is really strange.


----------



## cubeninjaIV (Jul 12, 2017)

Hey everybody, 
It was brought to my attention this morning that personal records (and apparently other things) didn't update when results were posted. I've been told that there is currently a bug in the script the WCA results team uses to update these stats, and that they are aware and are working on a fix. 

That said, it also seems like the majority of the people who can solve this problem have limited availability due to traveling for World's. Please be patient while they work on this, and please refrain from emailing either the organizers or any of the WCA committees about it. It won't help the problem get solved any faster.


----------



## JustinTimeCuber (Jul 12, 2017)

cubeninjaIV said:


> Hey everybody,
> It was brought to my attention this morning that personal records (and apparently other things) didn't update when results were posted. I've been told that there is currently a bug in the script the WCA results team uses to update these stats, and that they are aware and are working on a fix.
> 
> That said, it also seems like the majority of the people who can solve this problem have limited availability due to traveling for World's. Please be patient while they work on this, and please refrain from emailing either the organizers or any of the WCA committees about it. It won't help the problem get solved any faster.


It's fixed for me. Dang, dropping like 3/4 of a second from my 3x3 average improved my ranking quite a lot.


----------



## FastCubeMaster (Jul 12, 2017)

In my opinion the 3BLD podium was the most insane. If there was a sum of podium for 3BLD for each comp, this would definitely smash it by a lot.


----------



## Mike Hughey (Jul 13, 2017)

FastCubeMaster said:


> In my opinion the 3BLD podium was the most insane. If there was a sum of podium for 3BLD for each comp, this would definitely smash it by a lot.


Agreed. And perhaps equally wild is that the WR holder was there but didn't even come close to making that podium.


----------



## YouCubing (Jul 13, 2017)

YouCubing said:


> if i did goals already i don't remember it
> 2x2: like sub3.5 avg, make round 2?? *(yepyep)*
> 3x3: sub13 avg, maybe make round 2????????????????? *(yepyep)*
> 4x4: sub55 avg, probably won't make round 2 *(yepyep)*
> ...


----------



## FINN THE CUBER (Jul 27, 2017)

it was such a great comp looking forward to 2018 nats


----------

