Would you be more likely to attend Nationals if you did not have to go to Regionals?

[Than_Bogan]

Scheduling both can be a challenge, so there are years I choose to do only one, which mandates Regionals-only. I might do Nationals-only sometimes if that were a possibility.

 

Seems like allowing that would totally kill Regionals, though, no? Is that acceptable?

[dave2ball]

I would bet that half the skiers are at regionals because they are forced to be there in order to ski nationals.

[GAJ0004]

I don't have to worry about that since I am not qualified to ski nationals.

[sunvalleylaw]

I voted no. I would attend nationals mostly to watch the best ski. But I think there could be a way to accomplish both the goal of an event to determine national champions, and to hold a national tourney without the requirement of regional qualification. Hold the event at a venue that has enough space to hold both type of tourneys, and allow entrants to enter one or the other. Either you are skiing in the Nat'l championships because you qualified, or you are skiing in the all comers event for fun. Fun available for all, and bona fide nat'l champs could be decided efficiently.

[6balls]

Until I have more time flexibility it is pretty tough to justify. I skied 12 tourney rounds last year (all 3 round double weekends for 6 rounds/weekend). This season looks like I MIGHT ski 6 rounds if I can make it to skiwatch. Lots of family obligations, work obligations, and vacations types my family enjoy more than a ski tourney doesn't leave a lot of time for competition...especially a one rounder that requires airfare/lodging/meals.

I'm already negligent in making time to travel to see parents, other family, and close friends on weekends.

The good news is I do get to ski quite a bit in the short MN season, but even practice sets are squeezed in and are generally forced to be time efficient. If my family was into skiing it would be far easier, but they are into other cool stuff and as a dad it's fun to watch them chase their own passions, too.

[bmiller3536]

@6balls, that is my point if your time is what is restricting you from attending nationals wouldn't the fact that you do not have to go to regionals make it easier for you to attend nationals since you do not have to try and make more time to atttend a regional tournament?

 

[6balls]

@bmiller3536 it might as then it's only consuming one weekend. At the same time if I have one weekend I'm more likely to use it up on a 6 round double locally that I can drive to than fly to nat's w/air and lodging. Now if I were a threat at nationals...that would be different!

[Jody_Seal]

A Few out of the box ideas on this issue is to allow the previous years national champions or top 3 placements a bye at regionals . Also maybe the Rankings list champions a bye from regionals.

[boarditup]

Perhaps Nationals should be restricted to only those who have a reasonable chance at a medal. Then Nationals could be held in a day or two. Far fewer would be able to ski there, but it would be a more compact event and only the very best would be eligible to compete. This would be a very significant shift, but it is worth consideration.

[klindy]

First and foremost what we're talking about is competitive waterskiing which I believe is fundementally different than just cutting up a lake (with or without a course). By design the tournaments especially at the higher levels - state, regionals and nationals - should be structured to be competitive. At the same time, these tournaments are revenue sources for the sponsors/tournament directors - clubs, states, regionals, nationals.

 

Finding the balance between economic goals, competitive goals and promotional goals is difficult to say the least. We're a self-funded sport for the most part with an age-based competitive system and limited market.

 

Generally speaking our 'system' has been pretty much the same for a long time. I also think there are different motivators for different people at every level. Some folks will go to the regionals/nationals to win, others will go because they finally qualified and still others just enjoy skiing, tournaments and/or the people. What's mostly common however is people go to ski and not to watch or browse the sponsor booths (with some notable exceptions of course).

 

Point I'm making is to grow I believe the focus should be on growing more participants which means bigger tournaments and not more restrictions. That path tends to dilute the competitiveness and certainly runs against legitmate logistical challenges.

 

So let's think out of the box - As has been pointed out in other threads, we're largely an age-based sport and not ability based. MM/OM/OW are the exception and, in reality, are all virtual divisions which can be minipulated and/or created as needed. What if our regionals and nationals were all open tournaments open to whomever shows up and pays an entry fee (and the obligitory USAWS membership etc.). Everyone, regardless of ability, skis in their respective age groups and placements/awards are handed out accordingly. In addition, there's a virtual scoring system taking place whereby the "elite" skiers of that tournament are allowed to ski in the "Open" divisions (ability based groupings - OM/OW, MM/MW, etc.) on the last day or two of the tournament. Think an age based Nationals with the "US Open" on the last day.

 

So what about logistics - "too many will compete"...we need the numbers to go up to be sustainable. Who says we need to hold the nationals (or regionals) at a single location? Let the US Nationals be held at 3 locations simultaneously. The dates are the same as are the schedule of events. Each location has a "site winner" and there is an overall winner. Things like ties can be run-off at seperate sites as well. Since the locations are known well in advance and there wouldn't be any restriction to where you ski, things like weather and conditions are the skiers risk. If you don't like site "A" then go to ski at site "B" instead. Other sports with similar growth issues - like trapshooting - have done this successfully for years at least at the regional level.

 

Other, perhaps more controversial, tactics to increase participation can include skier funded purses. Again using trapshooting as an example, there are multiple optional purses which cost $5 or $10 that pay out only to those participating in the purse. Some are ability based - the "class purse" pays to the top 1 (or 2/3) score in an individual class. So for us, all class 8 skiers ski against each other and the top score wins (probably NOPS points or something). Other purses like the "Lewis purse" pay based the scores at that shoot/tournament and to some extent everyone has a good opportunity at something. Attached there's a PDF which explains it in more detail.

 

Other ideas include things like Calcutta's which is an auction with 50% of the funds going to the participant and the other 50% going to the "buyer" of the winning participant(s). Or develpment of a handicap system similar to golf where your practice "performance" is self reported and can be used to develop some really interesting tournament formats.

 

The goal is to increase participation! Never before have there been more tournament capable sites. More of the same hasn't been the answer...maybe some new ideas (or borrowed ideas) can make a difference.