Change to Nationals format? Division 1 and Division 2?

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ I very much appreciate your opinion. We do not share exactly the same vision but I can not see how that is bad thing.

[klindy]

@lpskier‌ one clarification (as I understand it) - the current nationals would not change in format or qualification or (presumably) participation. Only level 7 skiers (or a subset of them to cap a maximum number of additional rides) would be eligible for the D2 Natioals.

 

In other words if you're qualified for the "D1" Nationals currently as you've said, you would still qualify again in the future. That means you have the same chance at a medal (or lack of a chance). You'd compete against the same number of competitors in your division and you'd be able to qualify the same way you can now.

[ntx]

So it sounds like the intent is to increase the number of skiers from the 600/700 range we have had recently back up to the 900/1000 range of years gone by. That would generate significantly more revenue for the host site. I wonder if SMRR would have been interested in hosting again with this format?

 

[lpskier]

@klindy Sorry if I was unclear. I am not suggesting a D1/D2 distinction. There is one Nationals. The only qualification change is from "Top X at Regionals" to "Top X at Regionals who have not already qualified off the ranking list." Thus, you would have Levels 8 and 9, plus level 5 and 6 skiers who ski Regionals and qualify by Regional placement. In reality, this may only swell the slalom ranks significantly as I think that level 5 and 6 skiers have an easier time medaling at Regionals just due to lack of skier numbers in certain regions in those events.

 

@Horton I have no objections to a Level 9 only event, but I think it should be held on a different weekend and we should call it something other than "Nationals." Holding it during Nationals would make the total event unwieldy considering the Big Dawg finals are now "traditionally" held at Nationals, and in my view it would detract from everyone else's moment of glory at the Big Dance. Making a seperate event at a different location makes it a lot easier to run multiple rounds. First year turn out would be a pretty good indicator whether the Level 9 skiers will actually support a non cash prize elite level tournament.

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ in my way of thinking 2 separate nationals kills any synergy. It would mean families with skiers at different levels need to ski at different tournaments.

 

Again I am not sure my way is best but we need to carefully examine options. The way we have always done things is not always the only way to do things.

[Horton]

I think it is time to look at the INT model. I do not find their events compelling for myself but INT is a business. USAWS is a nonprofit.

 

One guy owns INT and he needs to make money. When things don't work => he like any smart business owner adjusts. INT is nimble. USAWS is the antithesis of nimble.

 

I am NOT suggesting USAWS become a business but I am saying that when it fails it should act like one. If I owned a business that had lost as much as USAWS had lost in the last 10 years it would be scorched earth. People should lose jobs or be worried as hell that they will. The failures are massive and glaring but in an organization run by volunteer committee it is no ones fault. No one seems to be to blame.

 

Be nimble or be history. Embrace change. Take chances and then own and admit your errors. Learn from your failures. Be humble and be daring.

 

[SkiRV]

http://intleague.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/US-Championships-Combined-Scores-2014.pdf

 

So this past year INT only had West and East regional tournaments and combined the results for a virtual Nationals, but I also don't think they really had the numbers to do much else.

[Dusty]

@Horton- I really dont't have a dog in the fight here- (my chances of ever even reaching Regionals being slim to none)- I tend to agree with you in principle- The path to Nationals should not be so difficult- Perhaps set the qualifying criteria for Nationals, at whatever level(s) needed to attract a target number of competitors. Make the qualifications relevant by allowing skiing at Regionals; or skiing an appropriate average score over maybe 5 Class C?, or 3 ELR?, or placing in the top 5 of last or current year Regionals/Nationals, or whatever rational method makes sense. i.e.- It seems to me that Class E has become kind of irrelevant- they cost more, are harder to staff with qualified officials, take more prep, require more logistical support, and are overall more draining on the hosting party(s). Unless I misses a rule change, they now have no real value more than a "C". If they became qualifiers for Nationals might they gain some traction and prestige?

I know that my days of going to 15+ tournaments a season are long over- I might be able to manage getting to 6 or 8- maybe there are others who could qualify who are in the same circumstance- but would like a shot at attending Nationals?

I think some changes need to be considered, for all the reasons mentioned. Without some input from us- I don't see the decision makers making any progress for the benefit of skiers, and the tail will continue to wag the dog.

Someone said- (paraphrased) "Doing the same thing, the same way, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of ...? Just saying.

[walleye]

@Horton adding to Nationals by reducing qualifier is a temporary fix, real growth comes from growth in members. To do that you need.

 

More public access.

More class C tournaments

Eliminate all the hoops for average Joe or club to host class C tournaments

Recolonize what kids are interested in PRO SKIERS!!!

Swimming shall be allowed at all sites

AWSA shall host nationals with all employees officiating

Awards need to be fun for all.

Un-group from other disciplines and get better Insurance.

 

[MrJones]

I have been reading a lot of this to try and catch up. Regardless of what it is, an attempt at change should spark improvement.

 

My very simplistic add off the cuff thought is... Bigger regionals, smaller nationals. Grow the state and region by being fun and inclusive. Less expensive for big families to travel to area vs. national sites. Make nationals much smaller/shorter and therefore less expensive as well.

 

As another thought... I agree with walleye about pro skiers. I have said on here 1000x that at my first Nats I was as stoked to watch the US open as I was to ski. All the pros (and their sponsors) were there. Really exciting for the newbies. If nationals stays anywhere close to its current format put the US Open back!

[eleeski]

Lots of interesting thoughts. One thing @walleye‌ astutely noted is the plummeting general membership. Maybe AWSA is doing a good job of attracting a huge percentage of its membership to Nationals. It might be possible to blame restrictive anti boating regulations, private lakes, gas costs, Obama, the republicans in the House, etc. for the decline in membership. But it seems to be a societal shift. Kids play video games - it's too unsafe to let the kids ride a bike to school much less get in the dirty lake water.

 

The answer? Ban poker on TV. Maybe some second tier sports will get the exposure of the old days. Not only do I miss ESPN's Hot Summer Nights waterskiing but I miss beach volleyball, gymnastics, surf contests, snow skiing and lots of other fun sports. Fat guys playing poker suck - I'm playing a video game instead. Of course, I'm such a dinosaur that I foolishly think that kids watch TV - they don't, they U Tube or something.

 

Other solutions? Do outdoor stuff with your kids. Monitor TV and computer time for the kids. Set good examples by staying active yourself and helping out at the tournaments. Hope that waterskiing stays around in some form.

 

Sorry if this is an off topic rant. But hopefully we don't get too worked up by any changes (or lack thereof) and stop having fun skiing.

 

Eric

[Horton]

@eleeski‌ insightful and off topic

[ToddL]

As much as I wish I was good enough to repeatedly qualify for Nationals, I just don't see me travelling each year even if that were the case. I was lucky that 2014 was within 1 hour drive for me and was the first year I have ever qualified.

 

That said, I really like what @MrJones said. To expand on that, if Nationals was more like a pro tour stop finals with the top 10 per rankings list in each age division battling it out for top positions, then I'd watch that on a web cast. It would be the cream of the crop in an elite competition to see who get the title "National Champion" in each age division.

 

To balance this out, the Regionals should be heralded as the "Best of the Rest" competition. The top 10 per ranking list would be excluded from Regionals competition.

 

Finally, the State competitions should be a true "best in that state" competition. Only local state residents competing, with any friendly travelers/visitors segregated into a separate sanction.

 

I hate to admit it, but I also agree with @Horton. Different results require different solutions. Change is necessary to create a different outcome.

 

Something I say when I am coaching a skier who makes no visible change... "The very core element of improvement is change. You cannot get better doing exactly the same thing as before." Skiers who want to improve must do something differently for each improvement to potentially be realized. Same can be said of any organization.

 

Improvement requires changes.

[GAJ0004]

I don't think it is the qualification format that is the problem. The competitive end of the sport itself is just becoming more expensive which can explain lack of participation. Finding a place to practice, and all the equipment needed are all barriers to entry into the sport. $50,000 or more for a boat, access to a lake, plus the cost of the competition grade equipment. The only rule I disagree with is Regionals participation is mandatory. If you are a level 8 or 9 that should automatically get you in. Let's face it the sport is getting more expensive, and travel is not cheap either. If you are level 9 then that should automatically bump you up to open division or masters men for the next ski year. Getting access to lake property is expensive, and to train at a level to make it to nationals you need a private site. Lake Latonka has about 700 homes on it and it is a private lake, but there is still only a small window of time to practice because of traffic. I skied in 3 Regionals. I never expected to make it that far. I would like to make it to nationals before I get out of men 4. I have a lot of work to do..

[gregy]

Thinking out of the box. Remove all barriers to nationals. If our goal is to increase participation in nationals make D2 a class C open to anyone who wants to ski. If you have 700 available spaces for pulls make it open to the first 700 to sign up. That would get people to nationals that other wise would never go.

[ToddL]

@gregy - cool idea! Spectators at nationals are all either other skiers or families of competitors. A class C could appeal to many of the spectators. Thus, one could plan a trip to nationals to watch top skiers and grab a tourny set themselves.

[lpskier]

I disagree with the notion that you have to have a private site to make it to Nationals. The course on my lake is skiable first thing in the morning and then it is toast. When it is "skiable," it has a heck of a roll to it that has brought many a tournament skier to decline a second invitation to join us a second time. Our core group has one level 9 skier, three level 8s and two 7s. Horrible sites can produce decent skiers. (Side note: One of the reasons I got back into tournament skiing several years ago was so I could go ski some decent water on the weekends.)

 

I think one of the big reasons we are declining in numbers is because we are not drawing skiers from outside the bounds of our core group. The vast majority of the kids in skiing today are there because their parents are there. I see very few new faces year to year at the tournaments I attend.

 

College skiing attracts a lot of new blood. Their "model" blends skiing with a party, and the parties are pretty fun. The college party model and our family sport model don't necessarily blend, particularly because most tournaments are one day events and then everyone goes home, and few of the skiers I know are big partiers (sp?). When college kids graduate, many drift away from the sport, even some of the really good skiers. They might stay in if we offered a more fun experience and it didn't cost them a lot.

 

I don't know how it works yet, but I am pretty sure the solution lies in ski clubs. We need more clubs, more public water sites and at some point, probably more beer. We need to offer the kids just out of college a cheap way to ski and have fun. Our way of skiing and the way of the kid that just graduated are not the same, and we may need to bend to them. This will require guys like me to be more generous with our time, gear and sites, and to be the ones that step up to develop new public water sites.

 

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS CONSTITUTE HERESY AND WILL BE FOUND OFFENSIVE BY SOME READERS: We also need more jumps. A lot of the kids like the jump and when that opportunity is taken away, perhaps we lose a bunch of them. Riding over the jump is easier than running the course. Success comes more quickly. The jump is exciting. In NY, I think we have two permanent jump sites, and two other ramps "on the shore." I think there is one each in NH, MA, CT, and PA. Only the NH site is on public water. There are, I think, none in VT, ME, RI, and NJ. That is six permanent jumps in nine states. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

 

 

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ as a former Open Rated Jumper I love the event but I am not sure it is the answer. Two of the core issues in the sport are cost and access. Jumping is even more expensive than slalom and as you noted access is very hard. I think out side of the south that ship has sailed.

[The_MS]

In addition to what @LP was saying about public water, in Minn it is very expensive to own a lake lot on public water. Private lake communities are much more affordable and taxes are cheaper.

The only cheaper option is to join a club or find 1 of the 10,000 swamps we have and set it up for skiing.

[lpskier]

@MS But on public water, you need not live on the lake. You just need to live near a lake that has a public launch site.

[The_MS]

@LP That is what I did for years. Hook up and drive to the launch a few miles away. I know lots of people that live on public water here in Minn. They ski at 6am or 8pm and still deal with wallys. Lots of $$ to live on any of the 10,000 lakes we have.

If you are loaded like @Razor you can live on one of the nicest lakes in the metro, own a lot on a private site and have a brother that also has access to 2 courses.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Lots of good comments here. I think there is an overwhelming need for change. So, some food for thought:

 

I’m inclined to agree with MrJones – Nationals should be a BIG deal. It should be hard to qualify instead of everyone and their dog being able to go. Cut it down to the top skiers and more of them will attend and it will not be a week long endurance test. It will again be a major accomplishment just to qualify for Nationals – an accomplishment to work hard for and be proud of. Keep the amateur Nationals, but make Open and MM premier events at the same time. IMO, we need to get away from the “everyone gets a trophy” mentality. If it was easy, they would call it wakeboarding;)

 

How many people do you know that can say “yeah, I paid my $100 and went to Nationals and fell early”? Talk about discouragement. Think they will go next year? They most likely weren’t ready and would be better served to perform at the local and Regional level and when/if they qualify for Nationals, they will be more prepared.

 

Regionals should be the big tournament for the majority of skiers. It is a major hassle and financial burden for those that have to drive long hours or fly to Regionals AND turn around and fly to Nationals 2 weeks later. I like the tiered approach for skiers to shoot for state level, then Regional, then National competition. Each level should be more exclusive and again be an accomplishment to reach it.

 

Regionals could be expanded in format also. There are lots options – make a preliminary and final round for each event, or head to head for the top few. Several years at the SCR, we did head to head at night, or had a voluntary head to head after the events were over where everyone put in $ and the pot was divided. Some outside the box thinking would really open up things.

 

I also agree with @Lpskier about jump. Kids love it. Want to grow the sport? You HAVE to get kids excited about it. The coaching and equipment make the event so much safer than it was 20 years ago. Yes, its expensive, but once the jump is in place, what’s $1000 for jumpers vs $1000 for a slalom ski? There is also a huge benefit to 3 event. Think about how discouraging it is to travel, pay a big entry fee, sit around, ski once and bomb. If you have 2 other events to think about it is much more fun!

 

Then there is the cross training benefit of 3 event skiing. Want to be a better slalom skier? Spend some time tricking. Many of the fundamentals are the same across the 3 events and training in 1 can lead to breakthroughs in the other events.

 

One final thought – why is anyone thinking we should increase participation at Nationals to begin with? It should be the tournament for the best of the best.

 

[dcovington]

i think a change in leadership and vision at the top may reflect new ideas and a newer format?

maybe a "SUPER" regionals is more beneficial to get the skiers in each region more in tune to a tournament with annual participation and excitement, with the focus of growth as the main goal. given the playoff situation in football, seems that its time for a multiple round tournament that meets the expectations of the skiers and makes fiscal since to attend annually. skiing is no different than any other game or sport? you have to be present to win! the multiple rounds will make it more appealing financially.

 

qualifying for a nationals should be a BIG DEAL and maybe the recognition of such achievements need to be awarded accordingly to create an incentive to keep wanting more!!!!!!.

i still have my EP patch and my century club patch. it was a big deal years ago and it still should be. going to tournaments for scores and ratings are not appealing. the sites that host "events"

with awards and solid ski conditions definitely have seen the best turn outs.

 

if you are good enough not to ski in the tournaments in your area or ski your own regionals, skiing has a place for you---go for it--its called the pro tour.

 

maybe we should look at other possibilities like team events? turn skiing into nascar.

show up with your team, your boat, your driver, your gear, and ski.

 

my conclusion-watering down nationals any lower than it currently is will not grow the sport.

my opinion.

there will be more newbies that will attend the event in the first couple of years but the core

group of skiers that have made their passion for skiing their best at this event for their entire life will no longer attend and the event will disappear.

 

i am devoted to promote any growth for the sport as long as we maintain tiered events and realize that there is only one national champion each year in each event.

 

i think to grow the numbers at nationals, we must look at growing the numbers at regionals.

 

growth should be analyzed outside of the nationals.

collegiate skiing?

show skiing?

fun events on public water?

 

if all someone wants to do is stay home and ski in their backyard, in uetopia conditions at their own tournament and not attend and support clubs and events around them?

they should shoot a video and send it in. awsa can send them a ribbon for their outstanding achievement. we have room for everyone in the sport

 

dc

 

 

[Horton]

@dcovington‌ & @Bruce_Butterfield‌ thanks for chiming in. It means a lot when guys with your level of experience voice their opinion.

[MichaelGoodman]

Look what happened to boxing when they went to multiple titles anybody know who the heavy

weight champion of the world is? There are probably three or four different ones but there all watered down so no one pays any attention any more. Making the nationals should be hard and

mean something. I would love to qualify. I have come close but never have but making it there

in division "2" would not mean much to me.

[The_MS]

@Bruce_Butterfield for President. Well said.

[disland]

I think this thread got off on a tangent trying to solve a different problem.

 

I believe the problem statement was;

 

How can we get more participation at Nationals in order to;

 

a. Make it more worthwhile for a site to host the event. Problem is without enough attendance there isnt enough money for officials for have a fancy hotel and enough golf carts to drive around.

 

b. Make it worthwhile for vendors i.e. boat manufacturers and ski manufactures to come and have booths and so on.

 

If I misunderstood the problem statement please correct me.

 

 

[Horton]

@‌disland

 

yea and no - The real 90k foot question is how to we restructure competition to make it more appealing to more skiers. Bigger Nationals or smaller Nationals with all the possible iterations => the questions are "Is the current model the best?" and from my personal soap box "Do we have the ability to be nimble and change?"

 

Tiny Nationals and big Regionals (or State tournament) might return the same result as no Regionals and huge Nationals. In the current model I think more and more skiers are less interested or the pool of skiers has shrunk to the point where the current model has to be rethought.

 

We simply must rethink how to stimulate competition & participation. As I understand it AWSA was created when the sport needed regulation and standardization. There was actually a need for a restricting authority. Membership was BOOMING. Water skiing was huge. That is no longer the case.

[ToddL]

Just another angle to come at all of this... Stop thinking about what to change. Rather, take the current state of competitive membership and ask yourself, "given these skiers and costs today, how would I structure a brand new competitive framework which is enticing and appropriate?"

 

Maybe it is amateur competition, but with a financial incentive for top places ( i.e. refunded entry fees and comped hotel for next year). Only the top can qualify such that there is some uncertainty who will prevail. Maybe even add a "shadow" competition based upon handicap version of the actual nationals scores for a cash prize. Maybe there is a separate head-to-head cash prize under the lights for the top 4 skiers in any division with more than 20 skiers qualified for nationals. Consider @gregy 's idea of a concurrent Class C event for spectators and family members of National Competitors.

 

Please consider the impact of your proposed framework with regards to all three events, the young and the old, the largest age division and the smallest age division. Maybe there isn't a one-size-fits-all proposal. Maybe things like: For each division, only the top 10% qualify for nationals capped at 35 skiers max for larger divisions. If there are only 100 skiers in a particular age division, then only 10 max would be able to participate in Nationals. Maybe there is an entirely different competitive structure for Trick that looks nothing like the Jump competitive structure nor the slalom one. Etc.

 

 

[Horton]

Stop thinking about what to change

is not the same as

how would I structure a brand new competitive framework

?

 

I do like the idea of one or more class C events being run at the same time as Nationals and at the same site or close by.

[behindpropellers]

@Horton‌

 

 

Isn't this D1 and D2 stuff just a proposed band aid for other issues?

 

Seems to me like the foundation needs a bit of work before putting another story on top?

 

Also, this is not just a 3 event thing. Its time to do a bit more blending of the towed watersports crowd.

 

I really like your comparison of INT, excellent parallel.

 

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ToddL]

@Horton - technically, both are about change. However, one looks at the status quo and tries to modify it (leaving some of it unchanged). The other looks at a blank slate and asks, "what should we create to work best." Subtle difference, but relevant to getting more creative thinking going.

[Horton]

@ToddL‌ blank slate? Talking my language

[ForrestGump]

Lower tournament tournament turnout for regular tournaments, regionals and nationals is not a result of the format. Until the underlying issues within the USAWaterski/AWSA administration are resolved, making changes to the format is a bandaid at best.

[klindy]

@ShaneH‌ I'm curious what you perceive to be the "underlying ussues within the USAWS/AWSA administration"??

[disland]

@horton how can we leverage BOS to deliver an actionable message to the powers that be?

[gregy]

As I read through this thread I kept thinking about the report on golf and subsequent discussion. How some of the diehards don't want change while others are trying to save golf.

 

I like the idea of a smaller top level Nationals but the problem I see with is that the attendance will likely be less than present. Without the crowds the manufacturers / vendors are not going see enough return on investment. I think nationals as a showcase for vendors is important. The solution seems to me would be the one that brings in the largest amount of skiers without hurting the level of competition.

 

There needs to be something outside of competition to bring crowds. Maybe have a professional level tournament with the world best along side. Free ski demos. Free or discounted coaching for skiers from professionals where usaws pays the coaches. Combine with wakeboarding nationals. Look at what other sports are doing.

[Horton]

@disland‌ (Google Analytics are not perfect but they are the industry standard.) According to Google Analytics, BallOfSpray is visited by about 25,000 people per month in the winter and 45,000 to 50,000 people per month in the summer.

 

Note: less than .025% of the readers of this site ever comment.

 

AWSA membership is 8,000?

 

My point is "we" are are bigger than they are in terms of raw numbers.

 

Clearly all USAWS/AWSA members do not read this forum but this site is the media source of the sport. It is literally our public forum. I know many of the elected officials in our sport read this forum.

 

What can the Ballers do? Be informed and voice your opinion. Call your area EVP and board members. Get involved.

 

I heard the attendance at this year's annual membership meeting was embarrassingly low. With that in mind maybe we are the problem.

[klindy]

Ok this thread died and the board meeting is in about 10 days. What's the consensus?

 

I'm positive this will be a hotly debated topic so now is the chance to get your voice heard of you're not going to attend. @horton is right there, you could easily count the number of attendees at the annual membership meeting on your fingers and toes ( having it scheduled after an EXTREMELY long awards ceremony and raffle didn't help).

 

Speak now or what happens, happens.

[sunperch]

I think that it need to continue to be an elite event, something to strive to qualify for. Lowering the qualifications would propagate the "give everyone a trophy for participating" mentality. The cost of hosting the event needs to be managed - get rid of the free hotels for officials lower than chief judge/driver/scorer. Chose officials from those that are attending. The emphasis needs to be on highlighting the open ski divisions (Nate, Regina, Dane, Parrish, etc...) to increase the interest in the sport. Awards given at the lake, not a long, boring, no fun ceremony. Host a FUN junior development party.

 

@klindy‌ - I think you should print and distribute the list from @walleye from "What is the goal of Nationals" to see the responses, find out who has a sense of humor in the group.

[Wish]

When and where is it??

[klindy]

@Wish‌ August 11-15 at Okeeheelee.

[klindy]

@sunperch‌ I'll do my best to present those as my official position. Of course I'll give all the credit to @walleye‌!!

 

 

[Kelvin]

@klindy‌,

 

As I understand it, the current discussion centers around increasing participation at Nationals. Some have stated their concern with diluting the competition by lowering the standards. Let's take a step back. In 2009, the first year I attended Nationals (as an official and bag carrier for my kids, but not a skier) there were close to 100 skiers in M4. Back then no one complained about the diluted competition and you essentially had a D1 and D2 with the dual lake system. How many #40, #50 or #100 seeds really had a chance of getting on the podium? These 100 competitors came from a group of about 200+ that qualified and 700 or so skiers in each division that skied a tournament. For 2014, there were approximately 50 skiers in these divisions at Nationals, 120 qualified and 390 skied a tournament. The numbers are shrinking and more of the attrition is coming out of the level 4,5 & 6 skiers. As a result, the scores needed to qualify are creeping upwards making it more difficult to qualify.

 

I personally like the idea of a D1 and D2. It fits me perfectly (well almost). I've been to Nats every year since 2009. Twice as an appointed official with the free hotel room (It didn't seem very free after working as Safety and TC, but that a topic for another thread) and the other times as the entourage for my kids. It would have been nice to ski Nationals while I was there.

 

The current D2 proposal (Level 7 qualifies) is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't quite go far enough. A few years ago I was at the low end of Level 7. My scores have dropped a buoy or 2 with age and the cutoff is rising due to the attrition of the lower level skiers. The D2 system needs to encourage participation throughout the season, not just at Nationals. I like the idea that more participation throughout the season improves your chances of getting in. I would also like to see some participation credit for officiating.

 

Who is adding more to the sport? The guy that skis 8-10 tournaments each year and is involved in all aspects of officiating, etc or the the guy that's a better skier, but only skies 1 local event so he can qualify for Regionals and then Nationals? Without these types of changes, I may need to quit volunteering so I can spend the time on the water getting back to Level 7.

 

Kelvin

[disland]

I second what @kelvin said. Gordon Hall made a good point at our meeting. The collegiate folks had all the same concerns before they went to D1/D2 and most everyone now is happy with the system. We need to try something and for now this is what we have.

[ToddL]

I sometimes wish my "day job" was playing with data for my hobbies and interests instead of for my employer...

 

I think AWSA needs to do the exact analysis that @Kelvin did but on a 10 or 5 year trend and for each individual division. The output is 3 ratios for each division/yr:

1) Div "A#", Year "YYYY" = Total Skiers with a Competition Score : Number Qualified for Nationals

2) Div "A#", Year "YYYY" = Total Qualified : Number Skied at Nationals

3) Div "A#", Year "YYYY" = Total Skiers with a Competition Score : Number Skied at Nationals

 

From this data, determine if there is a rather consistent ratio between these three populations; or determine if there are clear movement trends across all divisions, or are there clear trends as populations move through divisions.

Analysis should include US Baby-Boomer impact on those division, the Children of Baby-Boomers and now the Grandchildren of Baby-Boomers impact.

 

From that data, there could be further insights as to why the numbers might be changing. As such, the root cause may not be something that "we" are doing wrong, it just might be population variations moving through our age divisions.

 

Even better would be to use statistic to normalize or control for the Baby-boomer affect to see how much of the perceived decline is truly a declining participation at those levels.

 

[Jody_Seal]

@Klindy. what was the consensus on D1&D2 proposal at your winter meeting? Southern region voted overwhelmingly no last Saturday and instructed our directors to also vote as such at the BOD meeting.

 

My .02 cents is in a lot of way's we already have a D-1 and D-2 but many of the D-1 skiers tend to Ski D-1 all year until they reach the Regionals and Nationals then ski D-2. have even seen many times D-2 scores higher then the D-1! If y'all get my drift!

[ToddL]

I guess what I am saying is that I still don't think there is an agreed upon problem statement about nationals. There is an assumption that participation is down. But do we really know? Just because fewer skiers skied from 1 year to the next, doesn't mean that it is about nationals. It could just be that there are fewer skiers competing from that year to the next. In fact, data could define if a higher % of competitive or qualified skiers participated in nationals.

 

To me, I would not define the problem as decline in participation at Nationals unless the data clearly shows an overall reduction in the % of competitive skiers who participate or a reduction in the % of qualified skiers who participate. If those numbers are documented, then we can focus on solutions to that problem.

 

Finally, if we find % participation declining in only a few areas, then we need to understand why before we can determine if it is a population impact or a problem that AWSA needs to address.

[jcamp]

"the cutoff is rising due to the attrition of the lower level skiers"

 

To illustrate @kelvin's point, in 2013 the Men's 3 nationals cutoff was 3@35. In 2014 it was 5@35. As of right now, it's 0.28 @ 38, or a half buoy at 38 off. And I see a couple guys with penalties that will certainly jump up a bunch once they ski one more tournament, so that cut off score is likely to go above 1@38.

 

That is a big jump in two years.

[ToddL]

Lastly, @MarcusBrown has invested into the hypothesis that participation in competition is directly associated to participation in recreational water skiing, specifically recreational/public-water slalom skiing. I happen to agree. If there was a way to measure public slalom skiing population trends over the past 5 to 10 years, I bet we would see a correlation to competitive skier population trends. This is my hypothesis within competition as well. I would expect to see a rather stable correlation between total competitive skier population (those w/ 1 or more score in the books) and the total Nationals participation population.