What is the purpose of Nationals

[Horton]

Good question Dave

[MattP]

but, the best skiers are not always there so... its a tournament where on that given day the winner is the best out of the present field.

[DooSPX]

though I voted the same as @Horton, I do have to agree with you on that @MattP

[Skoot1123]

Good question indeed. I would like to say it's also for the family...but I haven't been to one so I wouldn't know. It would be nice if the Nationals were still centrally located in the USA...but that is just me. I'm probably biased being in the Midwest.....

[MattP]

They were in the mid west the last two years...

[disland]

If you voted number 2 then why is the level 8 cut off for B1, G1 at 80%. Clearly they are trying to achieve number 1 or 3

[The_MS]

It is a good time for the appointed officials on our dime. Isnt this a volunteer sport?

[klindy]

@disland it's not all one or the other. Part of the rationale (at least it was when I was on the committee) is to encourage participation. Better to bolster the younger ranks than it is the older groups. I believe the best still find their way to the top of the podium. Much more likely to see the 95th percentile skier end up with medals than the 80th percentile.

 

Actually if the goal was #3, why limit skiers in any way? Let every one ski if they attend and pay the entry fee.

[disland]

@klindy I agree should have put a choice all of the above :-)

[dave2ball]

The nationals used to be very prestigious tournament. Now it seem that it is just a cattle drive to see how many skiers they can ski in a week. With the Big Dawg the issue of top skiers dropping down into their divisions the nationals seem to be just an ordinary tournament.

[bmiller3536]

Paying $160.00 for 1 round of slalom...someone is making some $$$

[gjohnson]

I found the national tournament to be long and boring. I spend my time and money doing something more fun.

[Wish]

So the money making theorists..... How do the $$$$s get distributed?? Ski Club? Facilities? Officials? USA Waterski? Other? Is it percentage based? Anyone have real numbers?

[Than_Bogan]

That's a great question -- I can tell because I really wasn't sure of my answer. The reason *I* often attend (though not this year) is the one I voted for. And that's why I wouldn't support limiting the qualification to only those with a "real" chance to win.

 

Another purpose in my mind is a "carrot." For most people, including me, qualifying for Nationals at first seems just barely possible, but a stretch goal. So making it that first time is pretty awesome. I'd say it was one of my main motivations to really get fundamentally better for a few years, instead of just hacking around.

 

But I do thing it should be a real championship, too. That's why I don't want to see MM at Nationals. In fact, I don't think I even want to see OM and OW, although I must admit that OM is complicated by the fact that some of the participants are over 35 and would have to ski against folks at 34 in an age group championship.

 

But I sure would like it if Nationals were the final arbiter of age group champions for that season.

[cwillygood]

i really wish i could vote for 2 different ones, i think that for some it is to determine nationals champions, but for many more its for the experience of competing on a big stage and having fun/ getting a cool experience

[dave2ball]

In the early 2000's it used to take 5@35 off for M2 or 4@35 for M1. Men 3 used to have almost 200 hundred skiers alone. Anybody there could win on any given day. You did have the best of the best. And there were no issues like today. The kids numbers started to drop because mom and dad did not qualify. If the parents did not qualify the kids who were able to ski nationals did not go. Drop in entries and revenue. So the EP's dropped to allow the parents to qualify so the parents would bring the kids. Now with the new system of level 8, 9 ect. there are no EP's so you don't get the best of the best you get who ever is in the cutoff level and above. The nationals have become a joke.

Everybody laughs at INT but there numbers are growing and we are not. They do take the top 5 or 10 skiers from every region and they get to go to the INT nationals. They get the best of the best even though it is performance based ie never made 28 off not age based.

[Chef23]

For me if I ever qualify it would be for the experience of competing against the best in my age group.

 

@MattP in every tournament you can only beat the people that show up to compete. In an amateur event it is always the case that you don't get everyone there.

[Chuck_Dickey]

This will be our first Nationals and my daughter worked hard to make regionals and get qualified for Nat's. The $160.00 for her upcoming 40 second Trick ride is only a small part of the expense involved in attending from way out here in So. Cal. The pay off is her progress over this past year and hopefully it will carry over to next season. She'll be done skiing Nationals by 10;00AM on day one, but we are staying the entire week to see a bunch of our friends ski and cheer them on. Really looking forward to the Big Dawg's on Friday night. Blow the dust off your wallet and come support your friends that qualified and maybe get inspired to participate in next years event.

[jdarwin]

If you think AWSA (USAWS) makes money on Nationals, please review the 2011 budget - USAWS "LOST" $31,000 on Nationals last year. Hard to comprehend considering $160 entry fees. If you want to see how the money is distributed, again refer to the USAWS budget - it's online.

 

http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/2012JanuaryUSAWSBoardMinutesandPacket.pdf

 

Go to page 38 of the board packet to see details on Nationals P&L. Over $48,000 in overhead and labor allocation from USAWS. I know it's simply an accounting trick but absurd nonetheless.

[Drago]

It depends on where one is in life: when I skiid M2, then Open, it was a darn serious competition. And, being from Colorado , a chance to up my world ranking. Later, MM, it was a sort-of serious competition. Then, with kids and very limited training, a place to go and see friends from all over the states. Can't remember if I've gone as aM4... But soon will take the kids and may not even enter.

[skiboat38]

Numbers don't lie.....but liars do numbers! You can't go to a tournament in the state of Florida for under $125 per person. The bank accounts for the state and region are unreal and the people in charge will not spend it to promote anything other than their personal agendas. The sport is bleeding to death and these old control farts will drive it that way unless some changes are made.

[A_B]

Where you can go and see ripped girls in bikinis?

[dave2ball]

skiboat38 I agree 100%.

[ForrestGump]

Seems to me that page 38 of that P&L spreadsheet is pure fabrication. How could they only have $22k in entry fees for 2011? That's less than 150 entries. And then what labor expense do they have? I'm assuming they are accruing a portion of USAWS's overall labor/salary and overhead expense for the year to that one event.

[The_MS]

Hotels for the chiefs and appointed. Waste of money. The people that show up to help judge and volunteer do all the work. I am not saying that they do nothing but this is a volunteer sport that could be made better if that requirement would go away.

[sunvalleylaw]

Could and should be multiple answers, including 1 and 2. But I voted 2 as the primary function that should be occurring. I agree with @MS's comment in another thread that the top skiers should be invited based on the season's results and ski it out to crown national champions in the various age groups. Just like any other national event such as USSA nationals for snow skiing.

[klindy]

@MS really?

 

*start rant* I promise you this isn't a free vacation for me this year....Being an appointed official certainly helps with costs (hotel rooms as you pointed out) but if I showed up and skied and left it would be FAR cheaper than staying the whole week "on your dime". My entry fee didn't go down, I still need to rent a car (for twice the days than if I ski and go), I still need to eat, extra vacation days, even extra banquet tickets are at the standard price.

 

The tournament puts enough skiers and families into enough rooms that the hotels offer discounts and, perhaps, a certain number free rooms. Not saying the LOC's hotels costs are zero - I have no idea what they spend vs. what's discounted. But that same volume of hotel rooms is what provides EVERY skier a discounted room too in most cases. That's how the hotel industry works and is nothing special for waterskiiers (same things happen for tradeshows every day of the week!).

 

I agree it's a volunteer sport and we both do our share of volunteering! There's enough tournaments basically every weekend near my house that I can pretty much stay at home and get all the skiing I want. *end rant*

 

 

 

[The_MS]

Klindy,

I know that TC and other chiefs are needed for the week. It is a monster expense for the LOC of the nats. Do the appointed get put up?

I know that most skiers are not at the host hotel. they are super 8s and other chain cheap hotels.

[klindy]

@MS - I believe all chief, appointed and assigned officials have a hotel room reserved for them. Some more days than others depending on what they do (TC is there a day/two early as an example).

 

Choosing the host hotel is always a decision point but the more paid rooms by people using the group code (or whatever) generally provides more free or discounted rooms. I see there were at least 4 hotels listed on the tournament notice.

[jdarwin]

Hotel costs? Really? I've worked one Nationals and it will be a long time before I work another. Free hotel room? Whoopee! As Keith stated, that's the least costly item. Just the vacation days alone are worth more. Not to mention that it's always cheaper to live at home than on the road. And in the grand scheme of things, the hotel costs are minimal due to free or reduced rates that these tournaments enjoy.

[Roger]

So it's ok to drop the free hotel rooms for officials? That would be great since it's one of, if not the, highest cost of doing the tournament.

[Horton]

Hotels are not the core issue. For the sport what is the propose of the event? Answer that then you can move on to the details.

[The_MS]

@Roger That was my point.

Also, less competitors would make for a shorter tourney and reduce costs. Make it so only the best compete. After all, it is Nationals.

[Roger]

@MS - I know :) I don't think most people realize the expense of that item or the potential expense if things don't go well. For example, if we have a major storm come through and people can't leave, who pays for the additional days (you can guess the answer)?

[sunvalleylaw]

another thought that could make it more inclusive for those that want to attend and compete without doing regionals first: have at a venue with at least a couple ski lakes that could also hold an all comers age bracketed comp that did not have qualifying requirements, and also have the main show for the qualifiers. A person could enter only one comp or the other, held at the same venue at the same time. That way you get your purpose 1 and 2 accomplished, because I think both are important, and think it is quite important to have an tournament that determines national champions from the best skiers in the age brackets.

[jtwhit]

With 12 skiers in the Mens 3 division competing at the Southern Regionals, is Nationals even a good cross section of the best skiers in the Nation? 12 skiers from one of the strongest regions in the nation. It somewhat takes the nation out of Nationals if you ask me.

[jdarwin]

@jtwhit - if they elect not to compete, it in no way diminishes the accomplishments of those who do.

[jtwhit]

I disagree jdarwin. So the guy who wins Nationals or Regionals or State grabs his gold medal and then watches some dude rippin' 3 or 4 more buoys than the champion could ever dream about skiing around and the champ says to himself..."dang, that guy is way better than me". BS!!!! The guy with the gold wants everyone to compete to know he was truly the best on that day, not the best of the chumps that decide to pay $160 in entry fees, $450 on airline ticket, $60 on a rental car, and $115 on a hotel. He wants to beat the best of everyone, not just the rich guys.

[jdarwin]

@jtwhit - Sorry, I by my statement - and, the winner is truly “the best on that day" (your words, not mine) for there is no other tournament occurring on "that day". What if the top skier is injured? Does that mean he should still be crowned National Champion? The "chumps" (as you so affectionately refer to us as), are not just "rich" guys. Some of us make financial sacrifices all year long in order to afford to compete. I use this time as family vacation. If someone wants to sit home and dream of what "should" have been, then there is your "chump". But, if you have a better way to crown a National Champion, please enlighten everyone. BTW, there is such a thing as "Rankings List Champion" that is crowned every year. Perhaps there is the ring you can kiss.

[schroed]

The answer to this poll should be both 1 and 2. If you limit the number of skiers to only a handful of the top skiers you will also limit the overall number of people watching/attending the event. Unfortunately not that many people come out to just watch skiing, but they would come out if they were able to participate. I have skied nationals and regionals where there weren't that many people there and where there were lots of people there. I personally find it way more fun when there are lots of people there. I think the ranking system works better than the old EP system and USA waterski should find ways to help encourage more participation at the nationals. The best skiers will still come out on top even if there are more people.