A totally different idea for Regionals & Nationals

[Horton]

When I was a 3 event skier, Nationals was the highlight of my season. If I had one really good ride out of three, I was pretty happy. Dad paid for all of it so cost and time away from work was an unknown idea.

 

Fast-forward 20+ years => I am a slalom skier with a corporate day job, a web site, and a family. Every year I am asked why I am not going to go to Regionals or Nationals. The answer is easy. I am not going to spend that amount of time and money for one ride. I simply do not see the appeal. It does not sound fun. (Let the hate mail start.)

 

Additional background: at this point in my skiing career I do not have snowballs chance in hell of getting on the podium at Nationals. That is not the problem. I am clear about where I am in the pecking order of 55k skiers. When I ski in a tournament I am skiing against my own expectations and the National rankings list. I want a certified / official score I am proud of.

 

Other side of the coin => Every other year or so I go to a BigDawg. I get 2 rounds and sometimes there is a class C on Sunday so I get 2 or 3 more rounds. If I can help it I never miss the California ProAM. Generally, I only get 2 rides but I can ski that event without missing more than one day of work. In both of these examples I get a few rides and have a lot of fun with a lot less time away from work and less total cost. I get my ass kicked by more than a pass in both examples but I have a good time and get high quality rounds.

 

My proposal is a 3 day (or at worst 4 day) 3 round State Championships, a 3 day 3 round Regionals and then a 3 day 3 round Nationals. To ski the State Champs you need to be at USAWS level “whatever” to keep the size of the event manageable. To ski Regionals you must finish on the top 5(+-) from your State Champs. To ski Nationals you need to be top 5(+-) from Regionals.

 

This way Nationals is a small manageable FUN elite event. Regionals is a small manageable FUN event. State Champs would far less expensive for skiers of all levels. State Champs is that inclusive event for a much wider range of skill sets.

 

What about three event skiers? Any skier can ski up to 3 times total per tournament (Pick and Choose). If you are qualified in all three events you choose what to do => you get only 3 pulls total. The tradition of 3 event should not be the albatross around the neck of the sport.

 

Last thing=> Before someone cries that I am elitist. Under this proposal it is pretty unlikely that I would make it to Nationals and to get to Regionals might require me to go all Tonya Harding on Larson, Matt Brown and Bishop.

 

[Chef23]

Interesting idea. For us in the Northeast the State Championships aren't an issue. We already run a 2 day multi-round state championship without an issue. Your concept would completely eliminate any chance I ever have to compete at Nationals (which is a stretch anyway.) I would likely qualify for Regionals just because we don't have a ton of skiers.

 

Unlike you I have never competed at Nationals so I probably have a different perspective on it. If I qualify I likely will go at least once. I have my son in the mix who has competed at a couple of Nationals so that would impact things as well.

[Marco]

It sure would make it a lot harder to qualify for Nationals, as well as Regionals, Glad I went to Nats for the first time this year so I could cross it off my bucket list. I would have very little chance of qualifying under the scenario above.

 

I do like the idea of multi round tournaments for Regionals and Nats, but I don't know how you would do it without making them much harder to qualify for in order to keep the numbers down.

 

All in all, an interesting idea.

[RazorRoss3]

I think that is a great idea, I haven't skied state, in 5 years and never regionals or nationals because the tine and money for a single set if slalom isn't worth it to me. I love a good 3 round slalom or 3 round there event because for the travel, time, and money I feel like I get enough water time to make it worth it. You have my vote

[skiray]

@Horton‌ I see your point and agree with the concept for some folks. I'm on the other side of that. I'm getting back into skiing. Back in the day I skied some tournaments in college. Afterwards I just stopped. So, my goal now is to one day qualify for Nationals. I skied in my first Regionals this year. Your concept basically ends my tournament skiing. At 42, two kids, public lake, total lack of athletic ability, etc. I have no expectation of getting into the top 5 in my region. Current qualifications for Nationals are a stretch goal.

[Horton]

For this to work we have to forget the idea that Nationals freaking Holy Week.

 

I think if someone really looked at the numbers you would find decreasing percent of qualified skiers go to Nationals. There is always talk of growing the sport. How about we talk about keeping participation levels from getting smaller first?

 

These tournaments could increase participation. All the events need to be fun and manageable. Just give me a tournament that I want to go to. As it is now I will never ski another Regionals or Nationals unless it is local.

 

[klindy]

Good idea. Thought about before. Certainly different than how things are today.

 

I'd say there are two schools of thought (at least) about regionals and nationals. One is make it smaller, more "exclusive or elite" and literally crown the best of the best. The other camp is to make it more inclusive (I.e. - bigger but not necessarily more days). Hard to tell but my guess is it's equally divided.

 

For a small nationals you have a few challenges. First, not every state has a state tournament. Travel planning is difficult if regionals remains a week or two after states and nationals stays two weeks after regionals. If you have to place to move on that can mean that some don't take the next step. Do you allow the 6th or 7th place guy fill the gap? What about families that can't qualify thru placement? There are a LOT of kids who are skiing because mom and/or dad also qualify and ski regionals and nationals.

 

A placement only format pretty much negates the whole ranking list. So what value is it beyond a database of everyone's scores?

 

Perhaps the biggest concern is the costs/revenue. For the host club there's certainly a need for it to be worthwhile. For AWSA Nationals is one of two primary income sources (membership distribution from USAWS being the other). Soliciting vendors for a decidedly smaller Nationals (or Regionals) gets difficult because the more people the better chance of selling skis, ropes, boats, etc.

 

Either way ALL these ideas are worth discussion and exploring. Ideas like the Big Dawg or US Open or other "highlight" events should all be potential.

[swaterkd]

I like the idea of a change. For the people who don't, Pro and big dawg have changed through the years from one pass to multi-passes and then to a head to head. You could have regionals be 2 or 3 rounds and the top ?? number go to nationals for a head to head.. just brain storming.

 

 

[RazorRoss3]

Numerous possibilities for sure. I would have to agree with Horton though that I will likely not ski regionals unless it's local and will likely never ski nationals because it will never be local living in Minnesota. For 1 round of slalom, the math just doesn't add up.

[animal]

I like the idea of increased competition, but am not fond of allowing specialists three rounds for an event when an all around skier only gets one. It would make the 3 Event Skier choose between all around and having a legitimate shot at their best event. Keep it a one round tourney and you could easily do it in a long weekend.

[jwroblew]

what about multi-rounds but averaging the rounds, instead of best score?

 

On a different rant, why do the powers that be not group age divisions close together that make sense? Like B/G 1 & B/G 2 with M/W 3 and M/W 4. Didn't go to nationals this year because my daughter skied Tuesday / Wednesday and I wouldn't have skied till Saturday.

[Ed_Johnson]

I know at Nationals, I would at least like to see the top 10% of each division get to ski a second time and cumulative score wins...Not only provide more skiing, but have a more accurate depiction of the True Champion.

 

[Horton]

@jwroblew‌ with the current size of Nationals i am pretty sure there is no possible schedule to make everyone happy

[Horton]

@animal‌ here on the west coast 3 Event is a tiny fraction of the skiers.

[MrJones]

John,

I agree. Some states (like here in Louisiana) would have to get a state organization going. An issue would be sites to host the state level tournament. As far as I know Bennett's is the only active site in the state with a jump ramp. On the other hand, my home state of Oklahoma has a strong and active state federation and tournament. It would be an easy go for them.

 

I think that making the regional tournament a qualifier for nationals MIGHT be a better option. It would stink to go down early, but if you did it as a multi round deal with something like the big dawg system it could work. The numbers might have to be variable as well. I mean there are only 2 boys 1 in our state.

 

A major problem would be getting AWSA to change the concept of Nationals. As you said, it is "holy week" to some. I for one would be up for options. My daughter skied the first slalom event on Monday morning. I was the last on Saturday afternoon. Luckily I was in the BD finals so I was able to ski some during the week. Otherwise that stinks and is very expensive. When Nats go back to the West Coast we may be out for a year or two.

[mikegile]

Like the idea. I think you would have to base it on participation for a state or a region. I cant imagine taking only 5 skiers from a state like Florida or Cali, and at the same time taking 5 from a less populated place like North Dakota......

[MattP]

I have some thoughts on this issue I will type out when I'm at my computer but why on earth was M1 & W1 on the opposite ends if Nationals this year...

[RazorRoss3]

At the collegiate level (in the Midwest where many early slalom skiers only run 0-2 passes) the regional tourbamebt is held at a 1 lake site and has about 80 men and 80 women slalom trick and jump over the course of a long weekend (Friday, Saturday, first half of Sunday) if the field was limited at the state, regional, and national level to about 60-80 skiers total on a two lake site I would think it would be possible to run a 2-3 round 3 event tournament (so a single skier can ski all 3 events all rounds) over the course of a 3-4 day event. So all of Thursday, Friday, Saturday, and the first half of Sunday leaving Sunday afternoon/evening for travel. This would of course require a limiting of the playing field in many states particularly in the most competitive age groups.

 

Obviously skiers in non collegiate events tend to take more time on the water in slalom but 3 jumps is 3 jumps for the most part and trick is trick.

 

I'm sure I'm missing some logistical piece here that makes this impractical.

[bishop8950]

I feel somewhat guilty saying it, but if there were not a BigDawg in combination with Nationals I dont think I would go to Nationals. Guilty because I want to support the sport and respect the National competition. But like Horton, too much time and money for one round. When its something we do in MM after the BigDawg perfect...for us.

 

Plenty of constraints to consider, but something along the lines of what Horton proposes sounds great to me. If we do, I will watch my back for burly long haired attackers with pipes. Tonya, Horton or otherwise!

[jdarwin]

As @klindy will attest, this was kicked around a bit at the summer AWSA board meeting. Most of the discussion was getting the participant number closer to 1000 to satisfy the fiscal requirements of the LOC and the on-site vendors/sponsors. To me, that is easy to achieve - simply relax the entry requirements. But, that reduces the "prestige" of the event in some people's minds. Personally, I don't share that view. I don't believe Nationals (as currently constructed) is a prestige event when most of those who qualify fail to show. Making it smaller and therefore more "exclusive" and "prestigious" has some merit but the financial ROI has to make sense to the LOC. In the end, something has to give. Changes need to be made. Smaller or larger? I can see the benefits of both but tend to agree (hard to admit) with Horton. Most of us who participate are "contributors" more than contestants. Smaller wouldn't change the ultimate outcome - the same individuals would take home the hardware. They just wouldn't have to wait thru 50+ other skiers to determine placements. My $.02.

[MillerTime38]

I am still trying to figure out where all the money goes for Nationals. How much does the LOC make for hosting a Nationals tournament?

[ntx]

@MillerTime38 One of the biggest expense is for lodgeing for officals. Between Judges, scorers, drivers, announcers, safety and TC that is a bunch of rooms for a lot of nights. I am sure that awsa gets a cut also. On a side note, a site like San Marcos that has a addtional lake that runs all day long practice, can make a ton of extra cash.

[jcamp]

I wonder how many qualified skiers don't go because their kids and spouses can't ski. That's a lot of sacrifice (money, time, vacation) to go toward only one family member. What if everyone in the family could ski? I could see a lot more people being able to justify that trip.

 

My dad is a poor example (and was a crappy dad BTW) but I didn't ski at Nationals or Regionals as a kid because he couldn't qualify. He sure as hell wasn't gonna drive me 12 hours to a tournament he couldn't ski in. Because of that I probably fall on the other side of the coin now that I'm a dad. I feel guilty about spending the time and money that I do on the sport. But if everyone participates I feel better about it.

[klindy]

Another thing to factor in this year was the fact that there were several regionals which were located at "more remote" locations than probably typical. Western regionals were in CO, Southern regional in AL and Eastern regionals on a public lake in NY (surely a great venue). Point is, at least for the west and south it was a long trip to the regionals from where the majority of skier ski in the region. Pile on nationals two weeks later and it makes for an expensive month for two rounds of skiing. Only speculation but if the regionals were in CA and FL it's possible we would have seen more folks at nationals.

 

I'm in the process of reviewing how many people were qualified for regionals and nationals and actually participated. It'll take a few more days for me to complete it but I'll share something soon.

[MillerTime38]

@Klindy so why make skiers go to regionals in order to ski at nationals? I never understood this. It is hard enough swallowing a $160 set at nationals, then throw on top a $120 set at regionals along with all the other incurred expenses.

 

This seems like a bad business model, keep charging the skiers more $$ and still no one makes any money. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the model.

[MattP]

If SE regionals were in FL more of the "Deep South" states would have lower attendance. Traditionally if Nats is in FL. Florida skiers show up to regionals. If both are in FL entries for both are much larger. We should not be hosting regionals on FL just because they have "more skiers". But that's my opinion.

 

@Horton‌ I would say make sure you include skiers who qualified through other means. LCQ Tournaments, regionals podiums and overall. The easy way is to look at level 8&9 but it's not that accurate. I qualified in trick but did not go. Looking at my scores you would never know.

[Horton]

The bottom line is not if or how you get to nationals. The bottom line is it more interesting than other tournaments.

[MarcusBrown]

@horton ......I think its genius. And I think I've heard that idea somewhere before.....

[oldjeep]

Sounds similar to the debate I have with myself each year about going to Nastar Nationals out west. Sure its fun to qualify, race and talk to all the folks from around the country but it is a ton of money for under 4 minutes worth of competition. Last year I skipped it and just went to our state league championships in MI, had just as much fun, got to race more and it was a whole lot closer to home.

 

As an aside, doesn't seem like it matters much what the sport is there is always controversy after national events. In the snow stuff it is all suspected sandbagging so that people could drop a division or 2.

[Horton]

@MarcusBrown‌ if it was your idea first you can have all the credit. Just gimme a tournament I want to attend.

[Horton]

@oldjeep‌ that is another thread. ... I am against ALL ability level groups

[mwetskier]

how about 180 degree different idea - follow the american ninja warrior model and make every regionals open to a limited number of ' walk ons '. so even if nobody ever heard of you you might finish in the top what ever number (5 -10 -15 ?) and go on to nationals on a wild card entry.

[Horton]

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[LeonL]

I think it's a valid approach. I've skied several regionals and a few nationals. Would have been 3 seed at regionals but chose not to go. The wife doesn't like hanging out at the ski lake, and isn't so happy with the amount of money it takes to do it. As I mentioned in a previous thread I won't go to either if I have to fly due to ski getting lost. You see I'm kinda in the minority on this site, as best I can determine due to age. I'm what has become know as "on a fixed income". There was a time that some tournaments gave juniors a discount. What the hey, who needs a discount more? Kids of parents in their prime income producing years or someone on SS? But I digress. I would be more inclined to go under @Horton's scenario. I had meant to start a thread asking if there was nation wide support for requiring participation in state championships in order to enter regionals, such is the case for nationals. This would effectively take care of that. Oh and @MillerTime38‌ the requirement to ski regionals in order to enter nationals is pretty much $$$. Also to make regionals a true representation of a championships. As @MattP alluded to, if that was not a requirement, and the Southern regionals were held in KY, if would be very light attended and the LOC would lose their ass.

[elr]

Make the National tournament itself like the Big Dawgs (e.g. apparently more fun) - two qualifying rounds with a small head to head finals, all 3 events, all age groups. Maybe there is no need to change the qualifying criteria just modulate the criteria to get the right numbers. Each age group skis all its rounds in a maximum of two days. It could require a 4 lake site and need to be a Class C because of officials but could be something people consider going to because its more fun.

[Than_Bogan]

Overall, I'm very intrigued by this idea. I love the idea of more rounds and making Nationals more elite.

 

But let me also play Devil's Advocate (with apologies for being a little redundant with some comments above).

 

- There's a logistical problem with any system where you don't know if you're qualified until the last moment. It's hard enough for me to carve out the time for Nationals if I know I am going as of April. If I find out in early August, it probably just can't happen.

 

- State and Region qualification is a little unfair. I have top-5ed at Eastern Regionals many times -- indeed probably a little more often than not in the last decade. But that means I might qualify for Nationals while 20-30 skiers ranked ahead of me do not. Basically, the Eastern Region would feel like a backdoor to get in. MAYBE that's OK, since it's clearly a disadvantage to have a short season like we do, but I'm pretty sure if I were in a stronger region I'd feel slighted by some scrubs getting in from Eastern.

 

- Any purely competition based system has some undesirable incentives. If I realize I am not going to be able to attend Nationals, isn't there going to be a lot of pressure on me to tank so that someone else can go? Even if I can somehow formally give up the spot and pass it along to somebody below me, I'll feel some pressure to do so, especially for someone who has never qualified before.

 

- Is this scheme really any better than just raising the bar? Maybe top 10% or even top 5% is a good line for "everybody has at least a small shot at a podium."

 

- Presently, Nationals is also kind of a Waterski Convention. Could that continue with a much smaller entry list? If not, what replaces that?

[MillerTime38]

@Horton I always thought it would be cool to have all of the champions from Nationals ski in a exhibition at Nationals against one another. M1-M? and W1-W? ski against each other and crown a Mens and Womens champion. I know it would be hard logistically since some skiers leave before the other divisions ski and you would have to decide on going by purely buoy count or give a handicap for 36 mph but there could be a way.

[mwetskier]

woohoo first panda! thats good right?

[Horton]

Don't like my idea? I am cool with that. Just tell me about an tournament I want to attend.

[Than_Bogan]

Well, I love to go to Nationals. Much more so than Regionals. For me, my skiing is an afterthought. I want to watch the best and check out all the new stuff and then talk with all the vendors and slalom gurus.

 

That said, it's damn hard to fit, and I haven't actually been to Nationals since 2011. Really hoping for 2015.

[TylerR]

@Horton‌ I like your idea, but you said you wanted a tourney you will attend, how about we say first 2000 skiers to enter ski all 3 events for overall points championship. The winner gets no trophy but gets bragging rights for the next season. Worst skier has to clean your boat after each set.

[liquid d]

I just don't see how making the regionals or nats shorter with higher ranked skiers will help things grow. People, kids, first timers are so pumped when they make these milestones. I also love the fact that it's 1 shot. Pressure to max.

We have so many chances during the year for multi round tourneys, head to head, maybe try some more night tourneys etc on the local level.

 

I fear if this narrowing of the field were to happen in Regionals and Nats, participation would drop way off in local tourneys. Some would feel they don't have a reasonable shot to qualify and give up.

[liquid d]

You will always have a percentage of those that qualify that won't go to regs/or nats for a multitude of reasons. It doesn't make the titles won any less important to those that win them.

[Horton]

It is not that smaller is better. It is that the current format is uninteresting to me

[GAJ0004]

I skied in my 3rd Midwest Regionals this year. I entered it never expecting to get on the podium. I did it for the experience. I am in Men 4. I came in 6th in tricks and 20th in slalom. I won't be able to go next year because I won't be able to get the time off from work. Even if I could qualify for nationals I would not be able to make the trip for both regionals and nationals since I work every other weekend, and I cannot use vacation days to take a particular Saturday off. It would be nice if Regionals and Nationals had more than one round. I would like to see a cumulative score format if it was multiple rounds. It would take more time than most people have available to run tournament like that. I think the Big Dawg should be a separate tournament. I would like to have multiple rounds at a Regionals or Nationals, but it would take too much time unless every ski lake starts putting up stadium lights..

[MattP]

@liquid d‌ we need to grow at the State and Regional level. Make Regionals a very big deal and Nationals the creme de la creme.

 

In Jr Rowing ("my profession") the top 3 in each region qualify for Nationals at the regional championships. Just qualifying is a huge deal. 20ish boats per event make it. Just saying you qualified is a huge accomplishment. The Regional championships is the highest level most rowers will ever see but Nationals is the best of the best. If the boat does not accept their bid to Nationals it can be passed to the next boat in line to race over an exciting WEEKEND.

 

I think is the direction we need to go. Make Nationals a weekend event top 20 in each division ski 2 if not 3 rounds. With elimination after each round. With night skiing each night. Keep Regionals the same weekends and move Nats to the end of August how about Labor day weekend. At a 3 lake site. 2 lakes for skiing 1 for practice or just a 2 lake site with no practice unless after skiing is finished. The way Nationals are now there are only a hand full of sites around the country that are able to host such an event due to the lakes needed. Make Nationals appealing to the LOCs!

 

[ntx]

Even if you limit to the top 20 in each div. B1 - M6 is 180 skiers plus 180 on the female side. Now add another 25 skiers for M7 thru MB and the same on the female side. That brings the numbers up to about four hundred. Times 2 rd and three events. Not sure you are getting that done in a weekend. If you want mult RDS and three events not more than five skiers per div. How about the top single skier from each region per event and the top overall skier. At that point not many on here get to play. It needs to stay one rd three events. People all ready complain about having to ski both regionals and nationals. Now you want to add a state requirement. No thanks.

[klindy]

What if state and regional tournaments are still a pathway to nationals via placement (1st-5th/ 1st-3rd or whatever). But level 8/9 skiers didn't have to ski regionals to ski nationals? I realize that the region and regionals loc may need to be compensated somehow since it's a revenue source but would not being forced to ski regionals make going to nationals more compelling?

[MattP]

@ntx you are assuming 20 will show per division.. ok 400 skiers that is still hundreds less than there was this year. 1 prelim round cut to 10 for a final round. Or just top 4 for a H2H final possibly at night. It needs to be something FUN. 1 round is not FUN. Skiing should be FUN. Events should be FUN to attend. Other than being able to be on the start dock with my college skiing friends and hang out with them after the event Nationals does not appeal to me to ski in. I would rather go to ATL , Cali, KY, Ltl Mtn, Skeet & Ski, & Mapple ProAms. Multi rounds with fun environments, people, skiing against you average, shooting, night skiing ect.

 

I never said make states a requirement. I said grow the sport. Encourage skiers to come who normally would blow it off. Make state titles mean something like free entry to 3 tournaments the next season paid by the state fed or regionals entry paid for. This year in GA we had 1rd 3 event which also included a disabled 3 event and a Grassroots/novice divisions (4 pass min) $60 for 1-3 event. To me that is a reasonable price. Those that only ski 1 event were a little perturbed because recently we had a multi round states. But I saw many skiers who do not normally do more than 1 event strap on a trick, slalom or jump skis. They were there and paid the same price.

I would still like to see podiums at states as a LCQ for Regionals and some sort of LCQ from Regionals to Nationals. Call it a wild card 1 per state goes to regionals and 1 per region that were not already qualified and is non transferable to the next skier down the list.

 

I'm not saying myself @horton or @MarcusBrown‌ have all the answers but I think there NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE at Nationals and Regionals. We do not need to preserve the tradition of boring long tournaments we need to create a movement of FUN exciting events that draw those fringe skiers back out of the woodwork to enter states and Regionals and to have events I would invite my non-skiing friends & family to come hang out and watch.

[Horton]

@ntx I think you and most of the Ballers are thinking about this backwards.

 

Question #1 (Forget number of skiers or time problems) What format would YOU most want to attend? Not necessarily Nationals or Regionals but if you personally could design a 3 day event what would be most worth your time and effort? What would be the most fun?

 

Question #2 How do you make that accessible to the most skiers? My solution is to basically use many sub events and forget the idea of a huge Nationals. I am not telling you that is the answer. I am telling you that as a sport we need to engage is some radical thinking.

 

I know I have said it 5 times already in this thread but I will do it ONE more time. => I will take time off work and spend my cash to go to a ProAM or BigDawg but I will not will take time off work and spend my cash to go to Regionals or Nationals. I do not think I am alone on this.

 

So I am asking that the format be thrown out and reinvented.

 

It is not a problem it is an opportunity

Haaa I hate guys at work that say shit like that