Change to Nationals format? Division 1 and Division 2?

[BK]

I'm one that's not a fan of d1/d2 idea. I'd be ok with lowering the barrier to include Level 7, but splitting 100 (or whatever) skiers into two groups and giving awards to 1st-5th, and 51st-55th is lame to me. 6th-50th outperform the d2 top skiers and the 51st-55th go home with nationals' medals? Sand-bagging is another concern I have, and it will happen.

The difference at Nationals when they split M4 into two lakes is different than d1/d2; they still only gave awards to the top 5 placements.

I've skied four nationals and had no chance at the podium. I was happy to compete with friends and those closest to my ranking. And for me, that along with being at the Nationals with everyone else was the fun of it. The US Open was a huge bonus, too...but that's another thread.

Collegiate skiing is smaller than it was prior to the addition of d1/d2, at least it is in the scr. I'm not saying that it's smaller because of the addition of d1/d2, but you can't say it grew the sport in the scr.

Qualifying for Nationals is a trophy in itself, give qualifiers a certificate or something. Lower level skiers should think of State and Regionals as an achievement, and a stepping stone to Nationals. I'm not saying we don't need some changes, but I don't feel d1/d2 is the way to go.

I think @Kelvin‌ is onto something with allowing officials that aren't qualified to compete at the Nationals in exchange for officiating. Maybe with that carrot, you could drop some or all of the hotel requirements for those officials.

Again, I'm good with lowering the barrier to include some or all of Level 7, but a d1/d2 "trophies for all" would cause me to rethink skiing in awsa tournaments.

(Edit: rethink skiing in awsa Nationals tournaments)

[ToddL]

@jcamp - maybe the newer boats and newer skis are allowing all of us to ski just a little better on average... Just something to consider.

(I worked a lot on technique this year and was seeing improvements, but when I changed skis, I saw a more abrupt jump in results.)

[mike_mapple]

@Horton‌ what is your reason for eliminating masters and open? just have them ski in there age group and constantly win? i don't think its a bad idea if the reasons are just. personally all the years Ive gone to nationals, i enjoy watching master men/open even when my dad was not skiing in them, the open are the "best of the best" in the past few years a lot has changed and the masters division is growing fast. IMO they are the guys who have the money to go to events/buy boat/ spend money on the sport. a lot of men 1-2 ect don't have the money to buy a boat or new ski (some do) but In my experience the masters men are the ones who have the money (due to usually being along in life and career). Just wanted to see what your reasoning was for getting rid of it?

[Horton]

@Mike_Mapple

Part of the problem is that skiing MM or Open is not mandatory for Level 9 skiers. The result is that skiers enter the division they think they can win. There have been years where M3 or M4 have required a higher score to win than MM.

 

In the case of M1, M2, W1, W2, W3 & W4 the National Champ in those divisions is the best skier of that age group that did not chose to ski Open.

 

Take April as an example. I would think she can wax the field in W4 but she can choose to ski Open and then she has to deal with Regina. She can choose and that is a wacky way to crown a champion.

 

Bottom line is the National Champ in an age division has less meaning because of Elite divisions.

 

Also I am not in favor of making Level 9 Skiers ski in open although that would give me a pretty good shot at a National Gold.

 

So yes we want those Level 9 guys to ski but I just think they should ski in their age groups. Make sense?

 

Also did you read my earlier post about my experience at the 1993 Nationals?

 

[jcamp]

@toddl I wish that were the case but the numbers don't support that.

 

In ski year 2013 there were 295 Men's 3 skiers. In 2014 there were 244. In ski year 2013 the score of the 50th ranked (not percentile) skier was 98.83, while in 2014 it was 98.5 ... DOWN a tiny bit. In 2013 the average score of the top 20 skiers was 107.14, while in 2014 it actually went DOWN to 106.45.

 

The cutoff score is going up quickly - two buoys every year - not because skiers are doing better, but that there are fewer skiers, especially at the lower levels.

[ToddL]

@Horton sort of makes sense... Who is the champ?

 

However, I disagree with regards to "open". To me, there needs to be a clear distinction between "Pro" and the rest. If "open" = "pro", then I say they ski separated from the age-based divisions. And, it shouldn't be a decision made when registering for Nationals. It should be a decision make at the season. For Example: If a skier wants to ski in any "pro" event, they become excluded from skiing in their age division at Nationals.

 

If I am off base on the "open" = "pro", then please disregard.

 

[jcamp]

@toddl and @horton maybe if you've placed Xth or higher at a pro tournament (Elites points event for example) in the past X years you ski open. Sorta like how the Big Dawg does it.

 

Of course you get into a whole other can of worms with 3 event.

[ntx]

@Horton‌ The level 9 / age group is a tough call. What are Taylor and Ellie going to do this year? Both have a Level 9 trick rating. Should they be forced to ski Open against Erika and Adam or ski age group. I guess do you want to be last of the best? or first in your age? I know I always want to be with the best. Even if I finish last.

[Horton]

@ntx‌ yes Erika and Adam should wax Taylor and Ellie but in their age divisions. Then you have a legitimate national champ

[ntx]

@Horton So.... Nate is M1, Travers is M2 and Parrish is M3. You do away with ALL Open Men and everyone skis age div.????? That does not sound good to me at all.

[Horton]

@ntx‌ so you favor ability based divisions? You read my comments about my 93 nationals? Should I have that gold?

[ntx]

@Horton‌ yes I did read your 93 experience. I can't say if you should have had the gold or not. I will say if you had a open, why not ski open? Did you only ski age to win the medal? I bet Jody wanted both you and Mike to ski open.

[Horton]

@ntx‌

Not sure my personal background story is relevant. I was barely rated and not sure if I ever actually entered an event as an open skier. Looking back I wish I had. In 1993 I was coming off a number of injuries. I think Nationals was the first tournament I skied after I qualified – skipped Regionals with medical excuse I think. Long time ago so I forget.

 

The point is two of the 3 guys on the podium chose to not ski Open. At the time I did not think about it. Selfish me wishes I had a gold but honest me thinks the whole thing is murky.

 

[elr]

US [citizen] Nationals = Age Group Champions, US Elite = US [citizen] Open/MM etc. Champions. Run both tournaments concurrently with skiers able to compete both competitions if qualified. If D2 is desired make it a handicapped Class C or lower tournament with worthwhile prizes capped at a optimum number of entries - so non age group qualifying parents/officials etc. can ski. Again run concurrently. That way Open qualified can ski 3 times, Age group can ski 2 times. And non-qualifying officials and parents can ski at at least once and practice.

[Wish]

@elr I like the titles better then D1 D2. Add to it. US National Waterski Championships and Expo. and US Elite Waterski Championships and Expo. Man that just sounds like fun. And a lot more people.

[lpskier]

Here's an interesting thought: assume D2 is adopted for 2015. Due to illness, I have no 2015 scores. How bad will I have to sandbag in the spring to qualify and win D2. Second interesting thought: how many folks will actually do that? Apropos to nothing, I am now really good at running 28 mph/ -15 on my Connelly Aspect.

[Horton]

From what I have heard this thing is not going to pass anyway. I believe the bottom line was to increase the numbers of skiers there. If this was the right approach or not we will never know.

 

Perhaps they need to just need to lower the entry standard. At this point why not?

[ToddL]

Lowering the qualifications will possibly attract a few first time qualifiers and a few more local skiers to participate, but that is it. My advice is for decision-makers to put themselves into the shoes of those skiers who should be going but don't. Clearly understand the core themes and reasons why they don't. That's all they need to address.

[jcamp]

I do think lowering the entry standards could boost numbers. Think of a family that has only one skier qualified for Nationals, whether it is one of the parents or one of the kids. A lot of families wouldn't commit to the time and expense to take the whole family down there so only one of them can ski. Now think if a second or third skier in that family qualifies. It becomes much more likely they'll make the trip.

[The_MS]

I am not for a watered down Nationals but if this is the approach they should just lower the qualifications and run 2 rounds. Take the combined scores and crown someone. Have a cut off average for who gets to ski the second round.

[Chef23]

I dint know if this is possible but what about running a class C event parallel to Nationals. I know when my son skied at Nationals and I wasn't qualified I would have loved to be able to get a score even if it wasn't at "Nationals". You might get more families to come if there was a way for everyone to compete even if it isn't Nationals.

 

My guess is that there are plenty of assistant judges, drivers and scorers there at Nationals that aren't working so there wouldn't be cost associated with bringing in judges. The issue would be is there enough lake time available to run another event.

[ToddL]

Yeah, @gregy originally suggested that hosting a Class C in parallel with Nationals would attract more people. Non-Qualified, skiing family members would have an opportunity to ski, same for judges, and heck - same for spectators who compete.

 

I guess if we were presented with two choices and asked which would draw more "participation"...

1) lower qualifications

2) Class C for present, non-qualified competitive skiers

It seems to me that more people would attend due to #2 vs. #1.

 

And what do they mean by participation? Do they really mean attendance?

 

 

Is the issue/goal - a) wanting more people attending the event?

OR... Is the issue/goal - b) wanting more qualified skiers attending/competing?

 

If "b" is the issue/goal they want to solve, then I have to ask another question...

Why? Do you feel that the champions are not adequately determined because too many upper level ranked/qualified skiers don't compete at Nationals? Lowering the qualifications will not fix that problem.

 

 

 

[klindy]

@ToddL‌ the goal is to bring more PEOPLE to the nationals.

[ToddL]

OK.

 

So, the Current Target Audience is: Those know know about and participate in competitive water skiing.

Those who probably typically attend are:

• qualified skiers who want to win and probably have a shot

• qualified skiers who can afford to travel and attend regardless of opportunity to place

• first time qualifiers who can afford to travel/register for the event

• officials who agree to work given the prestige vs. cost to them to volunteer/travel

• local club members and skiers who volunteer or can be spectators without travel costs

• family members of the above

• sponsor reps

• retailers/vendors who view the event & attendance worth their effort to have a presence

I don't know if there is any significant gains to be made in the list above... If a Class C parallel event was added, maybe the following might improve...

• officials who agree to work given the prestige vs. cost to them to volunteer/travel

• family members of the above

...because they might value the opportunity to ski as part of their decision to attend.

There are some gains there, more so than what I think lower qualifications would yield. Still, this is not like a 20% increase type of impact, in my opinion.

 

So, either we can stay with the same target audience and try to attract more of our own kind, or maybe we should expand the target audience/spectators demographic.

 

I am thinking about LA Night Jam event hosted by Bennett's. They made it a "festival" event with some skiing. Live Bands, Extreme Sports related sponsors and product booths, Marketing "Reps" in typical club dresses hanging out at the current leader's stage, etc. Charged by the car for parking. They marketed locally like mad to attract the young, party crowd to come to their water party festival (and get to see some extreme sports as a plus). I'm probably over stating a few elements, but you get the idea. Ask Jay if he thinks the formula works and is cost effective in terms of ROI.

 

Still, since this is a single, national event hosted at a single site each year; travel/time/costs to attend will always be the gating factor in non-local participation. Not sure how to cut through that.

[bigtex2011]

I'm not sure i like the D2 idea. I do like the idea of either getting rid of MM or if you are level 9 then make mm the only option. i don't like the flip flop. but that's me. i get why people do it. winning natl's is tough. only a hand full do it. i don't really understand why with all the technology you have to have all the sr officials, but that is a different thread. you don't see 17.04's anymore it's all actual, even at class c's

 

i think each state should have state championship. make regionals an option but not necessary to go to nationals. you can go if you need to qualify for nats or want too. clean up mm and have pro tourney at nationals. they usually ski when no one is there.

 

for me, as i stated before, i qualify for natls. if i ski my ass off or have a little luck i place at regionals. that's about right. deep 38 might get 5th. i'm alright with that. I go to nationals every once in a while, because it works for the family. My wife has podium-ed several x's in slalom so i like to see that. we have 2 boys 2'ers that might squeak in, and a toddler. my goal at nationals is to ski better than my average. if i where to do that i would be stoked.

 

thanks alot bin ladin

 

chris

[DavidP]

Divisions 1 & 2 is a good idea for a Team competition, but does not seem correct for an individual competition. My recommendation is to include level 7 at Nationals as a test in 2015. Perhaps that will attract more skiers and also capture more family members to ski - i.e. Kelvin's example. With regards to MM, they should ski at 35mph so it is materially different than M3-6. Level 9 - no changing during ski season.

[Wish]

Thinking out loud but what about a sliding scale for each division/discipline. If 1000 skiers is needed for a successful Nationals, then play with the numbers by division/discipline and work the numbers. Some get a much lower qualification (maybe 5-7) to up the number of participants, like the Jrs, jumping, tricking or over all? I think this is the way it works now but bend the curve even more. These numbers would change from year to year depending on total # in any given division/discipline . States OR a Regional gets you there. Lots of details to be worked out here but this would grow the sport and National in the categories needed vs all or none type thinking I've seen so far.

[elr]

Why would a supplemental tournament thats primary goal is "to bring more people to Nationals" have ANY qualification criteria? Subtract the number of people that are going ski the National tournament from the number of rides you want to pull - thats your entry limit - first come first served (including Nationals skiers) to fill the field. Bet you get more Nationals qualified skiers and families coming.

[Skihack]

I like Horton's idea of a D1/D2 Nat's. Why not try it on a temporary basis. As it currently stands, it doesn't make sense to me. If you have a 100 qualified skiers for an event, in which 90 skiers have never skied one time at the level of the top ten, why on earth would they even be pitted against the top ten? This seems to be the case across most divisions.

[Skihack]

Why not have the top ten ski in the D1 and rest of qualified skiers in D2. I would designate the top 10 D1 as the U.S. Masters and D2 as US Nat's.

[ToddL]

The vote on this is tomorrow.

[ToddL]

Did a little research tonight... Per the Last 12 months Ranking Lists, there are 2709 skiers with a rank (I excluded Level 9 skiers, a.k.a. elite skiers). There are 901 Level 8 skiers. That means 33% of ALL non-elite active skiers qualify to ski at Nationals. So, the solution to the problem is that we need to lower standards? I don't think so. There were 574 non-elite skiers at the 2014 Nationals. So 64% of qualified skiers participated. This doesn't even account for qualifiers from regionals placement. It just doesn't look like a competitor participation issue. This is way too many skiers for a "Nationals" event. I attached the data file in the comment below.

[gregy]

@Toddl I mentioned this before but what if nationals occurred ever other year. Would it mean more and draw more participation? Or would it still only be the 33% or so? It would give you 2 seasons to qualify also.

[sunperch]

@gregy‌ Every other year National would be a problem for the kids. A year of growth (physical) can mean a big difference. I would hate for a kid to be at the top age of B2, qualify with high ranking and then not have a shot at placing at Nationals due to it being an off year, only to be back at the bottom of the B3 heap the next year.

[ToddL]

I agree w @sunperch. Every year for juniors. Adults... maybe. Still the problem that leadership is trying to solve is declining support from sponsors. Sponsors cited attendance as one reason. Attendance is about both skiers and spectators. I just don't think that we need over 1/3rd of competing skiers "qualified" for nationals. I think it should only be the top 20% (capped at between 16 to 3 skiers) per division. The true best of each class.

 

Another idea is to qualify only the skiers within 1 pass of the top Level 8 skier, with a min of 3 skiers per division. In M5, there are 70 skiers within 1 pass of the top of Level 8. So, some divisions would still be huge. However, skiers with averages within 1 pass of each other, anyone could take the title.

 

Data file is attached.

[ntx]

Motion did not pass.