Could you run a Regionals as a class C event

[Chef23]

The gate thread got me thinking about the fact that to run a class L or R event you need video and not many of the sites I ski tournaments at have that and it is an expensive endeavor to get it set up. This limits the sites that can host regionals to sites that have video. Is it a requirement in the rules to run Regionals as a class L or R event or could a region chose to run a regionals as a one round class C event?

[klindy]

@Chef23 most regions (all?) have policies or bylaws which currently dictate regionals is at least run as a class E. in terms of the video setup, most TCs I know have at least some of the major components required for the various video needs. While the extra burdens are a consideration I would suspect that tying the lake(s) up for a long hard week (including the prep time) is a least as big of a concern. Not to mention parking, and other logistics

[Chef23]

@klindy I understand the issues regarding tying the lake up, logistics etc, not to mention the amount of work all year that goes into running the event as I was involved on the periphery of the Eastern Regionals this year.

 

It sounds like that if the region approves it there is no national rule against having a class C regional though.

[klindy]

AWSA rule 15.01B says that Regionals are "encouraged to meet record capability standards". (15.01A says nationals must be record capability). So nothing exists in the rules to force record capability regionals. Although I know some regions have policies to run at least class E.

 

Also remember for a class E tournament (regionals or whatever) you CAN run slalom WITHOUT gate video if you put 2 judges in the right place at each end of the slalom course (4 shore judges total). So the sponsoring club could make a decision to have enough officials to make it work or spend the effort/money/time to install the video.

[jcamp]

@Chef23 A certain tournament organizer you and I both know told me back in August that regionals could be ran as a C.

[Kelvin]

There may be a requirement to run it as at least a Class E, but if they only get a single bid and the bid stipulates it will be run as a Class C, then the burden is on the region to step up if they don't like a Class C.

[lpskier]

No sites have stepped up to host the 2014 Eastern Regionals so far. The common theme seems to be a lack of members at the clubs that "traditionally" have hosted the event. Too much work for too few people. Some clubs hardly have any skiers. It would be a shame to see these sites get sold to the non skiing public due to lack of use by skiers. I don't know what the solution is, but we had better figure one out pronto or we will be back to hosting events on public water.

[klindy]

The Eastern Region policies and procedures may need to be updated a bit but the section on site selection sounds like it has the answers you're looking for (section 3) - http://www.awsaeast.org/business/05pandp.php

 

[sbink]

If the rules could be revised to where you weren't required to judge the gates through class E

you could run a regional slalom class E event with 2 tower judges(just like is required now),

no gate cameras,no gate DVRs,no gate monitors or wiring between all of that stuff.It would be a move in the right direction for making these events look more appealing to host sites

and the volunteer officials (sorry to be slightly off topic).

 

[LeonL]

Nothing has been firmed up as a Regionals site for 2014 for the Southern Region as of yet either. This is opposed to the time where as many as three bids were submitted.

[Chef23]

In the Eastern Region there wasn't a lot of interest last year and the Pangaea team stepped up and hosted for the third year in a row.

[ToddL]

Trickle-down competition is the issue...

 

There are many who feel (and thus the rules require) that Nationals should be run in compliance with IWWF, so it is L/R. Then, there are many who feel that Regionals should be run like Nationals, so it becomes E/L/R. Then, there are many who feel that the State Championships should be run like Regionals, so it becomes E/L/R. Then, there are many who feel that summer tournaments in preparation for State/Regionals/Nationals should be run like those, too. After a while, no one is hosting Class C or GR events anymore and no new skiers are coming to tournaments.

 

Entry fees seem to be almost 2x from Class C to Class E+. I still don't quite understand why. I know technology costs more, but these hosts/sites aren't buying new computers and cameras for each individual tournament, right? Also, they aren't paying the TC's an additional flat fee for their prep time and equipment costs, are they? So, where is the extra cost? I know that E+ can become a PITA to prepare for so is the cost just a PITA markup? Maybe it is just assumed that we all should pay more for Class E+.

 

This year, we had 8 tournaments in the Central Texas area. Only 4 of them included Class C. Prior years, it was typical to have 8 class C tournaments and maybe 1-2 extra E/L/R level events. CAWSC is the only one that hosts an affordable GR event (<$30) with sufficient GR water time (min of 4 passes per rd) that actually attracts new skiers to the sport. We even have to pay lake rental fees to do our tournaments; so we aren't hosting tournaments to make money; we are just wanting to cover costs. The only way we can afford to do this is through fund raising (raffle) and support of our local Nautique retailer. Right now, our Finals tournament has more Novice skiers registered than Class C, so obviously there is a demand that we are fulfilling...

[Chef23]

@ToddL I only have anecdotal evidence from the east on what drives costs up but part of it is the cost of bringing in the officials you need. The East doesn't have the number of senior officials, drivers, scorers etc that other regions do so the tournament pays travel costs for the officials which needs to be covered by entrance fees. I think this is largely what creates the higher costs for E/L/R events.

[Jody_Seal]

I sat in both my state meeting and the regional meeting. percentage of membership represented was a small fraction of our membership.... Very small Fraction, and this from probably the biggest state and region in the organization membership wise . So it only goes to prove that if you want to change policy, procedure and the general welfare of the sport more members with fresh ideas need to attend these meetings. listing your grievances here on BOS is worthless unless you can encourage your membership from this site to attend these meetings.

[Chef23]

@Jody_Seal I have to admit that I am part of that problem. I am a judge and driver and help out running tournaments but at Regionals I was wiped out from working all day and I didn't sit in on the Regional meeting. I may try to make the winter meeting if I can but it is usually a 6 hour drive from where I live and in the winter I am busy chasing my kids around.

[ToddL]

@Chef23 - I am unaware of any tournament in my area paying for the travel costs of officials.

[jcamp]

The entry fees at the Eastern Regionals last year did not even cover the judges' food and lodging. Hard to make a tournament work financially when you are still in the hole when the biggest pop of revenue (entry fees) is already used up.

[BK]

@ToddL

You might want to do another count and take a look at the Tribal Throwdown hosted by the SMRR POA in June. Had you been there, you might have noticed we ran a GR Division. Kudos to the CAWSC for their efforts promoting GR and hosting events to include them, but you're not completely alone in these efforts.

During the '13 Summer (May through August) in Central Texas there were really 6 tournaments. Two had two sanctions and were run on consecutive days (or very close), and they were invitational slalom only. Their site, their party, and their rules. So even if someone wanted to pay for an R, they couldn't ski unless they were invited. So there were really only 4 open tournaments in the area. You said 8 is typical for Class C? That's definitely not typical, especially in more recent years with the drought.

Of the 4 open tournaments, the only one that didn't have Class C was the Texas State Championships. I'm not part of the Club that hosted the event, but I think part of the reason was to attract some of the elite skiers to participate, including many juniors that skipped it the year before to go to another a record event in Mississippi. Maybe the hosting club could/should have Class C or GR, but you should lobby the club that has the lock on hosting that event every year; maybe even offer to handle all of the GR events.? I think it would make more sense to add Class C to the State Championships, then it would to eliminate E/L. Outside of the debate about the difficulties and expense in hosting or skiing in an E/L, it does attract more high-end skiers; I know we don't necessarily want to cater to the elite, but maybe the State Championship and higher should have a higher bar and be a little more difficult than the rest of tournaments of the year. This was the first year in many years that it was sanctioned higher than a C event. Speaking for myself, it "felt" more like a State Championship this year and we definitely saw better competition and skiing than there's been in a while. Even The Horton skied in it.

Regarding the expense of an E/L, come help us with one next year. You'll quickly see where the money goes well beyond one-time capital improvements - we rent a lot of things we can't buy, feed everyone (lunch and dinner), live music!, higher sanction fees, etc. It definitely isn't a big money maker if that's what you're thinking. I'm just a peon, talk to our tournament organizers if you really want to learn more about what goes into an E+.

[ForrestGump]

A lot of the high end record tournaments pay for drivers and pan am judges to travel in.

[ToddL]

@BK Yes! and thanks for correcting me.

 

SMRR and CAWSC were the only hosting entities to offer GR. "Tribal" is the best tournament of the summer and I am beyond pissed that I have been forced to miss it two years running. Parents-in-law's 50th wedding anniversary trumped it on the calendar this year. Non-refundable extended family travels trumped it last year.

 

Correct - Aplex Record should not have been included. Some R are by invitation only.

 

So the corrected list is...

1) Kick-Off by CAWSC - C/GR (had 5 skiers if I recall, two rounds, dirt cheap, they loved the 4-pass minimum)

2) Tribal by SMRR - C/GR (had 2 GR skiers. Three of the skiers from Kick-off said it was too costly)

3) Warm-up by SMRR - GR/C/L/R - no grass roots skiers signed up. Again, I heard from 2 skiers about fees too high for GR levels.

4) Tx St by ASC - E only

5) Finals by CAWSC - C/GR - (so far we have 5 paid GR skiers and I know of 3 more who said they will be registering)

 

As noted, there were only 4 GR offerings. What stands out is the fact that CAWSC does GR differently. GR skiers do NOT want to put on their ski to ride down the lake and back only once per round. They often can't run their opening pass. Thus with a mulligan, one round of skiing equates to only 2 passes. Two rounds of that means only 4 passes. Then, add $7 for USAWS day pass and $35 for registration for 4 passes. It seems that supply & demand don't work in that situation for GR. However, if we offer minimum of 4 passes per round and lower the registration fee to $20, people sign up! That's what CAWSC has determined. If you want to get Novice skiers to tryout competition, the sweet spot is about $3 per pass. At $35 and 4 passes for the day, that is over $8 per pass. They just won't pay that as beginners.

 

I did speak to several members of the ASC board/club and wrote an email to them specifically promoting C/GR for their event. I was told that a very healthy, positive discussion resulted at their meeting but the final vote was for Class E/L without GR/C.

 

Yes, prior to 2009, every C tournament in our area offered "F" or "Novice" and we would have no less than 6 Class C tournaments. I recall a season when we had 10 (many years ago). I agree that the drought has been a key issue along with some tech constraints to keep up at some sites.

 

Cen Tex is so blessed to have so many high-performing junior skiers. I want them to pursue tournaments that meet their needs. When that requires them to choose to travel to E/L/R over a local tournament that maxes at Class C, so be it. It is OK and should not mean that we can't hold an event just because they are present. I also think it is wonderful that Cen Tex has the facilities and officials to offer such events for all skiers locally, too!

 

Here's the thing... This doesn't need to be a GR/C vs. E/L/R issue. The thinking that these levels cannot coexists escapes my understanding. Ideally, I would like it if we could offer GR/C/E/L/R at every tournament. I am just going to be the squeaky wheel that we don't drop GR in exchange for E/L/R as a standard practice. I'm not anti-E/L/R, I'm just pro GR/C.

 

 

 

[Kelvin]

@jcamp "The entry fees at the Eastern Regionals last year did not even cover the judges' food and lodging. Hard to make a tournament work financially when you are still in the hole when the biggest pop of revenue (entry fees) is already used up."

 

There were 163 skiers that paid over $18,000 in entry fees - those judges must be living large in the East!!

[jcamp]

@Kelvin I guess ... just sharing what someone who has a good grasp on the event's numbers told me.

 

[ntx]

The easy money for host sites is pulling practice.

[ForrestGump]

@kelvin That's what I was thinking. Of course, don't tell Chad that. He's still irritated about sleeping on a single bed in a college dorm room for the SCR regionals. If he knew they were living large in other regions, he might move. :)

[Chef23]

@ntx it is easy money if you don't have to coordinate it. Even on 2 lake sites for regionals you don't get as much practice time in as you would think and it is a ton of work.

 

On the expense front I don't know how many senior officials need to be brought in but if they have to travel and be put up in hotels for 3-4 nights it could run $750 per official pretty easily. If you need 15 senior officials, drivers and judges total that is over $11K.

[Kelvin]

Why is travel covered? Most would be coming to the tournament anyway to ski.

[Chef23]

@Kelvin there aren't many senior judges, officials etc in the east and many of them are older and don't all ski. Quite a few of them just drive or judge. I believe the cost is picked up for many if not all of them to be there.

[The_MS]

Eliminate Regionals. It is to expensive and its to close to Nats for people to get time off.

It would also eliminate regional sanction fees which I never understood.

[disland]

I will give this one more try. I said the same at the SCR regional meeting.

 

What is driving all the expense and work for L is Jr teams and world teams. Only L scores count for Jr team qualifications, with some exceptions depending on what event. The trickle down effect is because of this the top Jr skiers want L scores. The objection to using class C I am told is that trick scores are over inflated in Class C, supposedly because video is not used. No one wants to require video for class C, so here we are.

 

My personal opinion is so what. Lets make class C rules count toward everything. Introduce class C into IWWF and lets make everyone's life a little easier and less expensive. Oh and the skiers who go to worlds if you are worried about your tricks getting cut get a coach and he/she will fix you up so your clean. The rest of us can do a ton less work and stop buying cameras and VCR's, and for god sakes not have to fly judges around.

[ntx]

@disland Can we get a amen. Skiers are also having to fly all over the country in search of the tournments that offer three event ELR. In some cases only to get condtions that are less than ideal. I have seen skiers fly half way across the country because they needed a score only to find the site is blown out with 30 MPH winds. Turns into a bunch of wasted money. If you look at most of the top skiers, the scores are the same or maybe slightly better in ELR.

[disland]

@ntx amen I will continue to lobby my SCR EVP and AWSA president

[Chef23]

@disland it sounds good to me.

[klindy]

@disland the problem is the EVP and AWSA president have no control over the IWWF rules which govern class L and R tournaments. Class E tournaments are not applicable for the world ranking list.

[Kelvin]

@klindy, you are correct that the scores don't hit the world ranking list, but we are talking about choosing the skiers to be our representatives on the US teams. AWSA can use whatever criteria it wants to pick those teams - it doesn't have to be based solely on L scores.

[klindy]

@Kelvin I agree that's the issue. However a class E tournament has effectively the same technical requirements as a class L. Difference being the class L is run under IWWF rules which make scores potentially more in line with the skiers a US team would compete with.

 

My question is how are tournaments run outside the US? We have by far the most tournaments of any other country (including class L/R) and tournaments held outside the US aren't run under class C criteria. Being the devils advocate, why is the IWWF rule book acceptable for the other 188 countries around the world and not the US? (thats not the say the right thing is to simply make every tournament class L!)

[ToddL]

@klindy - excellent question. How do all of the other countries afford hosting tournaments? Maybe AWSA's interpretation of how to put on L/R is somehow off base?

 

Still, my feeling is that we have to protect our GR/C events because they are getting lost in the "Trickle-down" rules affect.

 

[ntx]

@Kelvin In addtion to the "team" that the US selects for international events, a skier can ski world events as a indepedent if they are in the top ten on the Worlds Rankings List. The scores must come from class L or R. Next week, the U21 World Championships will be held in Orlando. In addtion to the four member USA team, fourteen addtional skiers from the USA will be there looking for medals also. They qualified entirely based on the Worlds Rankings List.

 

Huge props to the all the people helping to host the event. The homeowners of Lake Hancock should all be recognized for stepping up on short notice to allow this event to happen. Steve Garcia along with Paul Melnick and the rest of the homeowners have done a outstanding job.

Thank you guys and see you next week.

[Kelvin]

@ntx Good point. I hadn't considered the independent qualifiers.

[LeonL]

The previous few posts outline some reasons for L R, but I have a question for what seems to be the majority of Ballers. The majority seem to be M3, M4, M5 (no slight meant toward others) Why do you choose (if you do) to ski in L or R tournaments? There will probably be many possible answers, and I'm curious as to what most of the reasons are. Maybe this should be a thread of its own. Hmmm, I guess I'll start one.

[disland]

@leonl I cant answer for everyone but I will take some guesses,

 

1. Their kids need it so they go too

2. Kids at their site or area need it so they ski there anyway

3. They need it for senior worlds

4. their scores are more heavily weighted in the ranking system

5. they want to ski at the best sites with the best drivers and those are the same ones that do L/R

 

[JackQ]

At least in my region going to a record, especially in our regionals you are not going to have the best drivers. All too often many drivers do not pull practice and only drive in a handfull of tournaments and are not prepared for shortline skiers. As Phil Adams (San Diego) told me a number of years ago, "If I am not pulling skiers at 35/38off and beyond, every week in practice I have no business driving in a tournament, a skier would not expect to ski well if he only skied in tournaments and never practiced, why should a driver."