More Nationals Thoughts

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I‘ve been reading the Nationals threads and want to throw out some thoughts on comments, formats, and assorted issues.

 

First the comment that the title sponsor was wanting (demanding??) attendance at Nationals to be 1000 skiers really concerns me. The fact that it was listed in the meeting minutes shows someone thought it was important. Full disclosure, I don’t know how much weight or influence this carried with the BOD, but I think it is flat out wrong for any organization to be controlled by any sponsor. Sure sponsor desires should be considered, but they should be way down the list when any decisions are made.

 

Lets look at an example: Suppose a new sponsor comes along and says to USAWS “I want to be the new title sponsor for Nationals and I’ll pay twice what the previous sponsor paid, BUT I want you to have at least 2000 competitors and Nationals to cover 7-8 days”. Should USAWS jump at this (whoo-hooo more money!!!), or should they decide what is best for the organization and its membership? If they can honestly determine its good for the organization, then it’s a win-win. If its not in the best interest of the organization, they should tell the sponsor “we would love to have your sponsorship, but the tournament will be run on our terms and we’re sorry if it doesn’t work for your business model.”

 

Next, there have been lots of very real issues raised on what is wrong with the current format. At the top of my list is that Nationals is too long. Sorry, but 7 days in the heat and sun is a very long time for any die-hard skier, let alone the officials and sponsors. In my case, for the last several years, my kids skied early in the week and were done by Wednesday, but my event wasn’t until Friday or Saturday. Several of those years, we’ve packed up and left after the kids events simply because it wasn’t worth it to hang around for 3 more days to get 1 ski ride in. If the schedule holds the same this year, there is 50-50 chance we’ll head home when the kids are done and I’ll skip my event.

 

I think the long duration significantly contributes to the number of skiers who show up right before their event and leave right after it. Some may really want to watch another event, but its 2 days before or after they ski with nothing they want to see in between, so why stick around?

 

The week long marathon is a primary contributor to many other drawbacks including cost of official hotels and willingness of LOCs to host Nationals. How many LOCs would be willing to consider hosting a 3 day Nationals vs a 7 day Nationals?

 

The “long way to go and very expensive for 1 ski ride” reason is also a major problem. How many skiers honestly wouldn’t rather go to a 3 round tournament over 2 days for shorter travel and less expense than Nationals? Increasing the number of skiers and duration simply to “get more participation” or “increase the income” makes this effect worse and I think many more of the higher end skiers will have less desire to ski in a watered-down Nationals.

 

So what formats would I change if I were king?

 

1. Nationals would be limited to 3 days with a total skier count of 200-300, or whatever could be completed in 3 days

2. Maximum skiers in any 1 division event would be 40. When you get below that point, those skiers don’t have a realistic chance of getting the top 10, let alone medaling

3. Change the format from a single round to a qualifier and final just like the Masters, the worlds and many other high end tournaments. The top x in any event would advance to the finals (immediately after the preliminary round) and the winner determined solely from placement in the finals. The number of skiers advancing to the finals would be the smaller of 10 skiers or half of the entrants, i.e. if there are 40 skiers, only 10 would advance, if there are 16, 8 would advance. If there is less than 10 skiers in an event, there would be only 1 round. Sorry, but M9 doesn’t need a prelim and final. Maybe keep B1 and G1 at 1 round.

4. Open divisions should be the last events and the grand finale. Those are the events most skiers REALLY want to watch and would be willing to stick around for if they aren’t spread out over a week.

 

What are the potential benefits of this type of change? My speculations are:

 

Shorter duration and more elite qualification will encourage the better skiers who have been sitting out to once again come to a real National championship.

 

The preliminary and final round will give many skiers the opportunity for 2 rounds and increase the pressure and strategy, i.e. if I run mid 38 I should make the finals, but want to run it to get a good seed, etc. Most if not all of the skiers will have the ability to make the finals if they perform well. What is the current pressure and strategy of the current format? Don’t fall?

 

It will again be a significant accomplishment just to qualify for Nationals. Regionals will be the big tournament for most skiers. The skiers who are qualified for Nationals will be looked up to as actually having earned something.

 

Shorter duration reduces the cost of officials’ hotels and I strongly suspect more LOCs will be willing to consider hosting Nationals.

 

There will be less need to practice if the skiers aren’t sitting around for several days before their event. I know that’s less income for the LOC, but I think overall better for the tournament.

 

Other thoughts:

 

Instead of a practice lake, have a lake set aside for ski demos. A ski manufacture can reserve a 4 hour block and work whatever trial/demo/coaching arrangement they want for prospective buyers. Bring the Mapple training center, the Goode training center, D3 and anyone else all to one spot. Skiers can demo and get setup advice for several brands of skis at one time. Will that bring more skiers and enthusiasts that didn’t qualify to Nationals if they were on the fence about going? Will that improve a sponsor’s sales vs just having skis inside a tent and people walking by?

 

How many skiers have a goal to simply go and watch the Masters? Let’s make Nationals that kind of event. How many ski enthusiasts would travel to watch a high end tournament for a few days vs the current schedule of something like “I’d like to watch Open Men, but its Tuesday, Open Men jump is Friday and MM slalom is Saturday afternoon……” How many of these enthusiasts would visit the sponsors’ tents and actually buy something that they wouldn’t buy from a ski shop or on line? .

 

Back in the heyday of the pro tour, there would literally be thousands of spectators watching the event. It was all due to the promotion done before hand to let people know the excitement and thrills of watching the world’s best athletes doing what would have been the X-games of the day. Nationals may not rise to that level, but the right type of promotion will certainly increase spectators, competiveness, and yes, the number of people visiting the sponsors’ tents.

 

Just my $0.02

 

[walleye]

@Bruce_Butterfield very good points, especially demo/coaching lake, Top few make it Nationals and more of a head to head format. I tell my kids you have to make top 10 or we don't go.

 

There is no promotion outside our ski community. The secret squirrel magazine which is viewed as a benefit is not promotion.

 

Open up the Senior judge monopoly so more people can volunteer.

 

To dam many promo boats required costing everybody money.

 

Boring awards, need to do that at the lake then stick a fork in it is done. Reward the winners with media promotion.

 

Big party afterwards, that will make people stay.

 

We need more athlete's running the AWSA like Krista.

 

[sunperch]

I think the emphasis on increasing the number of skiers at Nationals to increase the financial incentive to host is wrong. To make Nationals more financially appealing to host, costs need to be controlled. @Bruce_Butterfield has some great ideas that would control the costs. I have been to Nationals with the increased number of skiers and it was like running cattle through the chute - hurry up, hurry up, hurry up. That does not lend itself to a good skiing experience and we all spend way too much $$ to get there. Efficiency is good, being treated like a number to get past is not.

 

[liquid d]

Bruce, those are some great ideas! The regional tournaments would start to become very important and more prestigious too.

[dchristman]

How about this idea - reduce the size of the nationals by eliminating specialists to make it more elite.

 

Require qualification in 3 events for men1, women1, OM, OW (3rd event qualifications are lower for non-open) to attend THE Nationals. Require qualification in 2 events for all other divisions.

 

Eliminate "The Regionals" and hold regional "Nationals" on the same long weekend as "THE Nationals".

 

Allow skiers to ski regional "Nationals" at the hosting venue of their choice.

 

I like the idea because it:

 

1. would make "THE Nationals" a more elite event and maybe inspire more people to train for the other two events.

 

2. would reduce the need for a week long event, perhaps inspiring more skiers and spectators alike to attend because a national event is closer and not as drawn out. Easier on the volunteers at the hosting sites.

 

3. You don't have to ski the regionals to get to nationals because regionals IS the nationals. If you place, you place... in the (regional) Nationals. Want to get to the big time? Train in another event or two. If you want you can compare your placement with the results from the other sites. Not enough competition in your region to inspire your performance? Travel to one of the other sites.

 

I'm sure there will be all kinds of logistical arguments against this, like availability of qualified officials and drivers, splitting up families, ... maybe even the number of qualified skiers, but I just thought I'd put it out there as food for thought.

 

[ToddL]

@Bruce_Butterfield‌ Thank you for underscoring all of the same elements I've been promoting (sponsors shouldn't mandate decisons, shorter event, top skiers, qual then finals for larger divisions, open divisions on Sat). I like the demo lake idea, too.

 

I think the event described, but with smaller finals numbers and open on Sat would be able to draw a crowd if awareness (advertising) were at the same level as what we see for our local boat/camping/fishing shows. Before I knew what competitive skiing was, I went to those events and same can be said if the Pro Tour had ever came to my town. Open divisions at Nationals is like a pro tour stop. Every recreational slalom skier will come see that IF they know it is happening in their town. Relying on local news stories that run maybe only two times for less than 30 seconds is not an advertising plan.

[Wish]

Hmmm, is smaller better? Lets flip the coin for fun (not that I do not agree with BB but why not stir the pot) and see what bigger could look like. But a few points in agreement.

1. cost prohibitive for most

2. to long of an event being a week or more

3. not enough marketing to general public to come watch

4. the best of the best skiers are spread out over days

5. have to go to Regionals to qualify

6. awards at the lake

7. more then one round or run a class C at the same time

8. BIG party at the end

 

First, the title. US Waterski Nationals and Expo. I know, it's just a title. But how many of the companies both in industry and out would sit up and pay attention to the word Expo. We need that in order to address competitor and visitor down time. And the venders need both groups as potential costumers. So is bigger better..?..possibly.

 

One thing is for sure.... all 3 groups want an EVENT or SHOW as @ToddL says it, and different from current. Take a read on what was said about the snow ski amateur nationals. It is an EVENT, and a big one from what I've read. Now consider cutting that event in half. What vender would show up for that or at least strongly object. Do you think they would take time to give demos?... and so on... How would that bring $$s to a hosting community, the organization, and make the event more of an event?. My guess is each and every year they have attempted to make it bigger...not smaller. And from the sounds of it, they have had success. And champions have been crowned.

 

So we have to start with the competitors and getting more to want to come with less road blocks stopping them. So how do we get more competitors?

1. Change qualifications. Can get the invite if you attend a regional or a state championships..your choice. This helps some dwindling state championships and lessons competitor burdens.

2. Arrange level qualifications so that there are enough competitors to draw from. Some divisions all may qualify. Some divisions only half or like it is currently.., level 8-9 will qualify. Say.. 40 skiers per division if you can find them. Really work the #s so to speak. I know this is already done to some respect. Can be done by/for discipline as well. If needed, lower overall as well but start by the divisions that have far less competitors showing up.

3. Make the event 4 days tops including Sunday till 5pm. Logistics are tough here. Could not be less then 3 lakes. You would need 2 boats per some events like slalom. No down time hooking up the next skier. Falls get pickup boats. That one is hard with pickup boats a rollers. All down lake time filled with demos or other divisions or a second class C. No lake left idol for even a minute the entire 4 days. Time management.

4. Premier top, best of the best ski Saturday in all disciplines. Open divisions being at the ideal spectator time. Have announcer’s. I'd stay to watch that.

5. Better grab bags with more local goods

6. Venders venders and more venders. In and outside the ski industry. If there are local folks that want to sell goods, have at it. If there are national companies that want to join in.. great. Think Surf and Ski Expo that happens in Orlando. Lot's of "out door" companies there not specific to Ski or Surf.

7. Lower cost per competitor. Less days would help. Less officials would help. Lower the number of officials needed. Run as Class C (less cost to competitor) for certain groups like juniors and perhaps others to reduce needed staff/judges.

8. Run a class C or F at the same time if possible.

9. Not sure if multi rounds are possible but above makes one round more palatable. There is other stuff to do, see and enjoy. Think family

10. Party Sat night

 

How to get the visitors.

1. Advertise as usual and add local radio advertising. Get a station to sponsor.

2. Make sure they know there will be food trucks and a hell of a waterski show, national and local venders and it is free. Work up big local venders like car dealerships and others.

3. Venders, local and national will advertise, especially local. If the #s of folks on property exceeds 1000, it would be a good incentive to do so. Then it just builds on itself marketing wise

4. Raffle off any items venders wish to donate on Saturday’s main events via announcers.

5. Have a “Learn to Ski Day” or something along those lines. Perhaps for the public the day before it all or weekend before if there is no water time during

6. Party Sat night

7. Food trucks

 

How to get the venders there.

2. It is now a shorter event

3. It is now a bigger event

4. It has more in attendance

5. It is now an advertised event on public radio

6. It now has other draws to bring outside visitors not just competitors

7. Give them the space they need

8. Ok…party Sat night… Pretty sure they will join in.

 

All logistical nightmares and I’m sure lots bullet holes could be put in most of the ideas but that is where the AWSA would employ or use current volunteers to do nothing but focus on this event. Create a cookie cutter process (Pro tour style) that can move as the event is set up in different cities year after year. Of course this is all in a perfect world much like the what is hoped for in what has been suggested. Always positives and negatives. Always people that think one way and not another. I like to flip a coin over. If not for anything else but to see how others think or how something might turn out if done the opposite.

 

So….Think BIG… Big event, big crowds, big vender area, big ski show, big party, big food. Now who wouldn’t want to go to that? Ok..probably several but the fact of the matter is $$$$s drive events…period. Smaller does not equate to the desired "more revenue" for venders, host sight (incentive to host), host city, AWSA or any one else involved. So is bigger better…..?...maybe. When it's big, it may make that entree fee and travel cost a feel a bit more palatable then smaller does it not? Either way, it was fun to flip the coin over. Let the discussion begin…

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@wish I think that is one of the fundamental disconnects - more competitors does not necessarily make it a "bigger" event. In fact, I think more competitors will water down the event and fewer top skiers will attend.

 

I think a "bigger" nationals can more effectively be achieved by shortening the duration, changing the format, and encouraging the best skiers to attend.

[Than_Bogan]

I don't necessarily agree with every word, but those are some VERY insightful comments, @Bruce_Butterfield.

[Wish]

@Bruce_Butterfield‌ it depends on how you define bigger. If you are looking for bigger prestige to the top level competitors, then you are most likely correct. But does that bring in venders, outsider, newbies to nationals, and $$s. I'll go back to the Nastar snow ski nationals..level based.. now that is big. Amateur champions are crowned. After all, it is amateur. The Masters is big but also established. Same place, same show, same history and for that it is huge in our sport and small at the same time so I get what your saying. Not a disconnect I don;t think. Just a different definition of big. Plus we agree an a whole lot.

[The_MS]

It needs to be in the middle of a large city on public or city waterways that normally do not allow boating.

[Wish]

My question would be...what top or best skiers would not attend based on bigger size and scope? Are you speaking certain devisions? And why? We already have several "big" venues for pros and BD. We only have one major amateur comp. Why have less of them attending? I would suggest Nastar to be the same. If your better then amateur, your probably skiing on a circuit that has some prize money and perhaps some sponsors and certain prestige. The top amateurs will probably attend the big amateur Nastar show. Are you saying some top Jrs would skip out?

[Horton]

It comes back to the question: What is the goal? If the goal is to crown a champion the plan is totally different than if goal is to have an Expo / Festival. Maybe neither of these is the goal. Give us the goal and I think we can plan a pretty good event.

 

A few other thoughts:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I do not think sponsorship is nearly as big of a driver as entry fee revenue but sponsorship is a hot topic so => Let’s pretend I got super drunk and decided to be a Nationals sponsor. There is no question that to get any value I need as many skiers as possible to attend. The top skiers already know about BallOfSpray and read it if they are interested. I would want to get my message out to skiers of all levels.

 

Let say I also win the lottery and start a ski company. If I am a sponsor or not I want as many skiers going to Nationals as possible. I need skiers to be tempted to think that the newest and latest skis will get them the advantage when they get to the big show. Really I need more competition in general A bigger Nationals is good for our equipment suppliers. Is that a reason for a bigger Nationals? Mmmm not saying it is.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Let say the goal is more skiers.

I have always hated the idea of ability based divisions. As I have stated many times I do not even like Open and Masters Divisions at Nationals. I say this because in my mind Nationals is about Crowning clear National Champ.

 

But let’s say the goal is more skiers. If there was a Level 8 M4 or Level 8 M3, M4 & M5 division there are now a lot of guys ski at a very similar level. (I feel like a hypocrite suddenly) Oooo this sounds like fun. Hey I have a chance to win! A lot of guys have a chance to win because we are all in the same skill range. Does winning a Level 8 National event mean the same as winning your age division under the current (old) format? NO but it sounds like a fun time. Maybe we need to get over ourselves and re-think EVERYTHING.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I do not have data to back up the below data but I am pretty sure it is true

 

The current format made sense 30 years ago because there were so many competitive skiers that the top 10 or 15 % of each division was a LOT of skiers. If you had an EP rating you were at the top of your division nationally. We could afford to make it hard to get into the event. We could afford to say if the event too long or inconvenient, stay home. Those days are gone unless we go to a very small event. Maybe we do need a small event. What is the goal?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Wolfeie]

All you have to do is look at the INT model. Ski West has hosted several USA-WS and INT Nationals. The INT format calls for 250-350 skiers, is held over a shorter time period, skiers get 2 runs plus top skiers go to a final. Even with less total number of skiers they have no problem attracting sponsors. The ski and boat manufacturers will not go away with less skiers, they may put up less dollars but cost to run event will also be reduced.

I agree 100% with Bruce's idea

[Marco]

From today's USAWS newsletter: The stated goal is to increase participation. Doesn't say why...

 

"AWSA Creates Special Committee For GOODE Nationals

 

 

Goal is to increase participation at Nationals

 

The American Water Ski Association's board of directors held its annual mid-winter board meeting on Jan. 24 with the priority item on the agenda being to increase the skier participation at the GOODE Water Ski National Championships. To read the entire article, click here."

 

[The_MS]

I live on a private lake 1 mile out of town and 3/4 of the towns people do not know its there. I am 15 minutes from Rochester, Mn (200k people) and no one knows it there. Get the nats into the public's eye and collect their money. You could get sponsors that dont even sell waterski equipment to become a part of it. You will never see 1000 people compete but you may see 5000 spectators if planned right. Just reading all the comments tells me that the era of 140 M3 or M4 competitors is over.

[sunperch]

@Horton I agree, no one answered the question: what is the problem that we are trying to solve by changing Nationals? To me, the first problem that needs to be solved is how to make Nationals an event that a site will host. Currently, too much work with limited to no financial reward to the LOC is the main problem, therefore no one wants to host it at their site. If no one wants to host, then there will be no Nationals, whether it is big or small. Is the goal for AWSA to attract more sites that are willing to host the event, is the goal for it to become a cash cow to fund USAWS/AWSA, or is the goal for Nationals to be a prestigious event (or a combination of the above)?

[Wish]

How's this for "More Nationals Thoughts" and a curve ball, out of the box thinking...

 

From Nastar.

 

To qualify for the 2015 Championships, NASTAR racers must earn a top national, state or resort ranking in their age and ability category by Presidents Day, February 16, 2015. Racers are grouped by age, gender, division and discipline and each participant will take two runs on Thursday, Mar. 19 and two runs on Friday, Mar. 20. The best handicap score earned on each race day will be averaged to determine the competitors’ final results. Each racer that wins a Nature Valley NASTAR National Championship title is invited to compete in the final Race of Champions competition on Saturday. Racers carry their handicap into the race to level the playing field so that young and veteran racers have an opportunity to win and become the overall Nature Valley NASTAR National Champion. In addition, the fastest man and woman, based on raw time, during the Race of Champions will earn a trip to a U.S. Ski Team event.

[oldjeep]

@Wish its a little more convoluted than that. The goal (from what I see) of Nastar Nationals is to get as many people as possible to show up and race (up to 2000). Basically the way you get to Nationals is

 

a) be in the top x (5?) in your age/ability division at a resort - now if you are in the top x at more than one resort then you get dropped off all but 1 and #6 slides up and so on

 

b) be in the top x in your age/division in your state

 

c) be in the top x in your age/division at one of the 2 "regional events" (Open events)

 

d) Send an email to nastar and ask if you can go to nationals ;)

 

In terms of the event it costs $200 - and the 2 years I went the swag bag and any prizes I won exceeded that amount. Friend of mine actually won a pair of Goode skis there one year. You still have to buy lift tickets (discounted) and deal with lodging and some food (they have a couple free food events)

 

While there are a lot of top skiers there, it isn't really what it is about. It is a 3-4 day mostly family based event, with a lot of fun surrounding the actual skiing.

 

Now in terms of sponsors/vendors. You can buy all sorts of stuff in the village at the bottom of the hill. Speed suits, tshirts, goggles, glasses, wax, etc. The vendors there have to be making $$$$ judging by all the stuff coming and going. The bar owners should be able to retire after the event. Now these folks are not necessarily all the best skiers in the country but they do have enough money to get to Colorado and money to spend on toys - which is all a vendor/sponsor should really care about.

[Wish]

At @oldjeep‌ ...your sentence.."While there are a lot of top skiers...." ..exactly..and 2000+people showed up spectators, tons off venders and and all. Watered down to much obviously but along the lines of what I suggest. Seems like that's what the AWSA is driving at with the Div 2 proposal. They want it big. Comes back to $$$$ unfortunately. Was your time spent there fun and competitive? Did it feel watered down? Did it feel exclusionary? Did families compete? Do you think the best skipped out? I really have no idea. I guess the bigger question is if we are looking outside the box of a format that worked 20-30 yrs ago but nor longer, can the Nastar model be adapted in some way to work for skiing, it's growth and fun aspect?? Just flipping the coin again.

[klindy]

@Marco The news blurb is correct. This year the goal is to "increase participation at the Nationals". The host site Okeeheelee can accommodate and has asked for 250 more skiers. In future years, smaller sites or other reasons may want to see a smaller event. One of the indirect conclusions from the current special committee effort may be some idea of what a "minimum" number of competitors needs to be (based on the current aged based, three event structure). Number of days required to get the event completed, at that point, is purely a function of lake time available (days x hours available x number of lakes).

 

All the ideas which encourage additional PEOPLE to come to the event - skiers or not or even non-qualifing skiers - are excellent ideas worth considering this year and in future years. Everyone is right that it's a delicate balance to have a financially viable event AND maintain the prestige and status of the US Nationals. It involves some trade-offs and not everyone will be happy with the result.

[Kelvin]

To all of the "watered down" comments. Isn't the winner of the M3 slalom title still the National Champion and the best skier in the nation? Does it really matter if there are only 50 competitors in the group or the group expands to 100 competitors (there were that many a few years ago). The podium is still the podium.

[The_MS]

How many times will a skier go to Nats and finish 45th? They will have a "been there done that" mentality after 1 or 2 appearances. Your top 10 may go year after year if they think they have a shot.

[klindy]

@MS‌ the M4/M5 slalom events are still big. Before we grew older we were M3, M2 and M1 skiers with large slalom events. So for the past 35+ years I've bwen involved there have been large slalom events where you could probably pick one of 10 or so names who would likely win. Yet over those same years the events have 80, 100, 150 competitors.

 

There have always been competitors that don't expect to win. Certainly the total number of skiers has shrunk over the years and there are certainly people who won't attend if they feel they are not going to be competitive as a national champion.

 

But to answer your question of how many times will some one go to Nationals and finish 45th? I'd say a lot!! That said the fornat needs to evolve and there needs to be a motivator for those who will finish 45th or 6th or 1st.

[Chef23]

I have been thinking about whether I would attend a D2 type Nationals and the more I think about it assuming I had been skiing a normal amount I think I would especially if Open Men and Women along with the Big Dawg were skiing when I was there. Ideally it would be great to get more than one ride but if there was other stuff going on I would give hard consideration to going to a D2 Nationals. My goal is still to qualify for the big show but I likely never be competitive for the big event unless I ski into my 80s.

[Jody_Seal]

"Build it they will come"

 

Some of the 40% ers claim nationals is expensive for one ski set. It has been my experience that competitors that enter nationals also pay for 2-4 practice rides on adjacent lakes. I know even though I am not entered into nationals as a competitor I have skied when practice was available as many as 5-6 times and paid for it and know of many other skiers and parents that pay to do the same.

want to increase national participation offer one free practice set with a national entry. I know in the past the practice boat sponsors have picked up the fuel tab anyway. And the labor crew is volunteer.

in Addition for extra practice rides reduce practice fee's $5-$10 per ride.

 

Lower the qualification percent another 10% across the board.

 

These two items would make a Trip to WPB more inviting!

 

 

[h2oski]

My thoughts on a completely different concept to increase participation.

Regionals are eliminated, replaced by 2 or three Qualifiers, east, central and west. Qualifiers will have 4 divisions, 6, 7, 8 and 9. (based on the current ranking list levels) I believe 6-8 should be handicap but could be actual. Skiers would need to have a minimum of 4 or even 5 tournament scores in the qualifying year to be eligible.

 

Format: Qualifiers would be run by headquarters and the host club. They would be in late July to early August. It would be a special C tournament with tighter judging on gates and driver selection than a plain C (Hortons C+?) A skier can enter any of the Qualifiers and more than one if spots are open. Skiers would pick the day they ski when they enter. Families can get their rides in one or two days and be done if desired. My ski buddies and I could all enter for the same day and car pool to the tournament, ski and go home if we wanted, hopefully after we helped with judging scoring etc. Each day, each division will ski together. All 6's ski at 7:30, 7's at 9;00 etc. BGM&W and all ages ski together if they are in that division. Scores are posted as the skiers ski and winners are determined at the end of the tournament. Competition would run from early in the morning to early afternoon to take advantage of better conditions and hopefully similar for everyone and allow for the next days competitors to get a practice ride before they ski. The top 5 skiers in all the various groups would be invited to the National Championship Finals.

 

National Championship Finals

This event would be in a warm location towards the end of Sept or early Oct. Run it as a two round event under the same handicap or actual score basis as the qualifiers. Entries should be free from a fee paid as a part of the entry fee for the Qualifier. Alternates are eligible to move up if a top 5 skier does not participate. In order to drive revenue, a crew should be hired to professionally video the final rounds. They should professionally edit it after the tourney and commercials sold to sponsors would be added just like a television production. This could be sold as a DVD or pay per view online product or, if enough advertising is sold, made available for free.

 

This should bring a lot more entries and hopefully revenue. To be clear, you are still skiing against only the skiers in your age group and level. All M5, level 7 skiers are skiing against each other but you would be skiing with all level 7 skiers on that day and you are competing against all M5 level 7 skiers skiing in that qualifier. Requiring participants to have a minimum of 4 or 5 tournaments to establish their average and level would help increase participation in local tournaments.

 

[The_MS]

@klindy Not knowing the recent historical numbers from M3/4/5 I would think that is where the participation levels are shrinking. We are all getting older and less of us are skiing nats. I think you will see the numbers drop as we get even older, so this problem could get worse.

[Wolfeie]

It seems to me that dangling the carrot (Nationals) has very little to do with increasing participation in a sport where many have access to private facilities, boats cost over 50K,

and skiis run $1500 to $2000. With these barriers the Nationals will not get someone into waterskiing. Don't water down the Nationals, bring the best skiers and have a champion.

Leave the grass roots tournaments, regionals and expo's or "boardstocks" like wakeboarding

to bring numbers up.

[klindy]

@MS‌ I completely agree. However you comment/question above was "how many times would someone come to nationals and ski and finish 45th?" My reply was - historically, quite a few. The "big" slalom events are definitely shrinking every year but they still have a 45th place finisher.

 

I'm not suggesting that nothing needs to be done. Quite the opposite. But I am saying that a lot of the same people that have little or no chance to medal are still coming for other reasons. Perhaps that reason is another event where they excel or seeing new equipment or simply seeing old friends.

 

If only the top contenders cared, then only they would show up and that's not been the case. That leads me to believe that just qualifykng (regardless of a shot at a medal) means something to many skiers. I kbow it means something to me.

[Zman]

@MS makes a great point about location. I would be surprised if there were 10 people last summer at SMRR that were not part of our waterski community, or family. Needs to be more public for a big spectator draw, like old pro tour venues that might also work for larger Nats.

@Bruce_Butterfield‌ - another big draw for the pro tour "back in the day" (mid-1980's) was the Freestyle Jumping that was owned by Scotty Clack, with several others that were thrilling to watch. Scotty was amazing.

[6balls]

@zman I like it and bring some exhibitions x-style skiing and wakeboarding to be part of the mix. Metro venues!! Keller Lake in St. Paul, wherever they run the pro stop in Milwaukee. This allows for bigger nat's in terms of crowd appeal and vendors while keeping skier numbers smaller and top ranked with mixed freestyle/footing/wakeboarding exhibitions mixed in there.

[bigtex2011]

barefooting.. come on..

[skiray]

After reading the different how to make Nationals great threads, it's my conclusion that we are screwed. We love the sport and we can't agree. If we could, what makes you think USAWS gives a rip.

 

Back in the day, you got your EP and you skied Nationals(I think). EP had privileges. Now you have to be a level 8. No privileges. Go to Nationals to be shuffled around like sheep for one round of skiing. Where are the privileges?

 

Some want it to be more prestigious. I can see that but 1,000's of spectators is a pipe dream for Nationals. I agree that all of the pro stops should be in major markets. The question is, major market for what? Numbers of spectators or potential skiers?

 

Besides, the average spectator can't tell the difference in me and @Horton 's skiing. I know, we use to take different friends to the Masters every year. Same thing no matter how much you explain it. All you get is "fun atmosphere" (sitting with Pros) but they never "get it". Most just like jump and bikinis. Something needs to be done to bridge the gap. I personally think the presentation sucks. We need better/different camera angles or something that translates to a non-skier.

 

My plan / 2 cents for Nationals:

1. Make State the qualifier for Nationals. Forget the level stuff. Take the top 20 national scores from State tournaments. Take as many as 40 in each division. So if the 20th highest score for M3 is 5@39, you make that the cut off. Take up to 40 total in case you have multiple skiers with State scores of 5@39. So, you want to ski Nationals, you have to ski state. No need to spend $$ to go to Regionals. If your State tournament sucks, get more active in your state...

 

2. Make Nationals about the skiers. Charge a couple of bucks on every entry fee all year long to support National skiers. Offset their entry fee. Provide National SWAG. Make it about the skiers...

 

3. Make Regionals for the rest of us. Use the stupid level stuff for qualifications. (I prefer an absolute cutoff like 84 buoys that doesn't move during the ski year) Provide multiple rounds for at least one event.

 

4. Have big parties at all of them. Make it about the skiers.

 

5. Bring back some privileges. If you ski Nationals, you should get some real love from somebody. If you ski Regionals, maybe you get some love just not as much as the Nationals skier.

 

 

We participate in one of the most expensive sports on the planet. Our most prestigious non-pro tournament has zero financial incentives. Why? It's hard to see the prestige in going when I get through paying the entry fee, buying the plane ticket, booking the hotel and rental car and try to find something non-fast food to eat for every meal. Make it about the skier. Without the skier, we don't have anything.

 

 

[jcamp]

More than a few people have talked about hosting Nationals in a city and/or on public water in order to increase exposure. The Eastern Region - through the hard work of @lpskier and his team - sorta did that this year with Regionals in Lake Placid (not a large city, but definitely in a downtown location). It was great to be right in town with lots of nearby recreational activities and places to eat and drink. There were actually crowds on the shore, many of whom had probably never seen a ski tournament before. It was one of the best tournaments I've ever skied in.

 

Unfortunately, the skiing conditions weren’t that great. I didn’t mind but most skiers ripped it, said they’d never come back. After surveying participants there wasn’t enough support to go back to Lake Placid in 2015 and the Region voted to have next year’s regionals some place else.

 

Can't help but think the same thing would happen if Nationals were held on some less-than-perfect site.

[teammalibu]

@MS i resemble that remark!! I go beacuse I get to see friends from around the country that are all in one place! Shootin for 44th this year!!

[Than_Bogan]

@skiray LOVE the creativity there. I especially like idea #2: the idea that going to Nationals is a reward rather than an additional expense. I further understand that that will likely leave me out of Nationals, but it seems like a MUCH more appealing idea and would definitely increase my personal motivation to try to qualify for the new, presumably higher, standard.

 

I think that's the first thing on this whole topic where I've thought "THAT might be a game-changing idea that would actually work."

[lpskier]

As seen today on a dry erase board at the Correct Craft factory: "The most dangerous words in the English language are 'We have always done it this way.' Admiral Grace Hooper."

[Zman]

@jcamp Glad you had fun at Lake Placid. If only once in a while big tournaments could be at such a fun, public venue but with reasonable conditions - that would be awesome.

[DavidP]

I asked my 15 year old daughter what her favorite tournament was...she replied Nationals (she has only qualified once (2013), and she did by being in level 8). I then asked her why Nationals...she responded "because I qualified and skied a PB". She placed 20 something and never had a chance to place, but was recognized for skiing a PB. How was she recognized? That year Centurion had a white board at their tent counting PBs behind the Carbon Pro and giving out personal best tshirts. She didn't have a medal to wear around her neck, but she loved wearing the shirt around the rest of the tournament and folks would notice the shirt and tell her congrats.

 

Every level and age skier gets satisfaction performing a PB, and public recognition makes it that much sweeter. AWSA should publicly recognize PBs at nationals (its asked in the skier's bio) to provide positive reinforcement and motivate skiers of all levels to keep up the good work and do it again next year.

[disland]

@davidP well said

[JohnN]

@Bruce_Butterfield I think your suggestion is right on the money for a truly elite Nationals. At various times our family has been qualified for Nationals, but we haven't gone due to the time and, yes, the cost for one set. Qualifying and Head to Head would make it much more exciting, and a 3 day event would be better. I probably wouldn't make the cut, but the kids might, and with enough ski demos in one place I would be more more motivated to take them for sure.

 

As far as the Nastar Natl's comparison we went for several years when the kids were smaller. That event would be more like having ability groups, a huge party and 4 ball courses. Fun, but not really testing and crowning a national amateur champion. We stopped going after the courses were made shorter and easier, and parents were complaining about racers who skied in other series of races besides Nastar (USSA). Probably more comparable to INT Nationals than an AWSA Nationals (not that there aren't great skiers at both INT and Nastar Nationals, but they're not where the most serious amateurs are). FWIW, the team aspect and the multi-day jockeying for the leader board of Nastar Natl's were probably the most fun part for me.

[LeonL]

@klindy stated that WPB asked for 250 more skiers. So there is the entity wanting more and not sponsors, as was previously surmised. If AWSA seeks to make changes concerning qualifications for Nationals based on requests of the LOC, that would seem to be setting a bad precedent. Not likely, but what if a LOC requested a max of 200 skiers, would AWSA seek to make that a reality?

[klindy]

@LeonL personally I believe we have an excellent tool to be able to scale up or down the size of the Nationals relative to the potential sites available. The ranking list can do exactly that.

 

However to do that effectively we'd all have to agree what a 'minimum" and 'maximum' Nationals might look like. The exercise for this year may end up with a decent definition of a max.

 

If it were just the logistics of getting the Nationals pulled we could simply scale the days and people up or down depending on the lake time available. it doesn't seem smart to limit the potential sites to a handful large enough to handle 700+ skiers in 4 or 6 days. So some strategic planning seems prudent.

[MillerTime38]

@Klindy has anyone looked at how much cost savings there would be for the LOC if nationals were trimmed down to 2-3 day event?

Personally I love the idea, the LOC should be able to choose the qualification criteria based on their preference. I also think they should also be able to choose the format, for example 1 rd only or 1 rd prelim then top x skiers go to finals. Obviously they would have to make these decisions early in the year so everyone knows the rules. I think this would allow the LOC more flexibility and it would allow them to figure out ways to make the tournament profitable again.

 

 

[lpskier]

This dovetails with a discussion on SkiFly concerning officials costs, but in general is all part of the same discussion here:

 

I would venture that a large percentage of the non skiing officials are retired and not taking much time off from work. I would also venture that you could fill almost all the driving, judging, scoring and safety duties with officials who also plan to ski. High level tricks and TC may be the exceptions.

 

The problem with eliminating the "retired from skiing but still want to officiate" crowd is: 1) they never have skiing conflicts, and 2) cutting them out might drive them to golf and there would be a huge loss of institutional knowledge and wisdom, and their skill. Considering the fact that National records are on the line, it would suck to lose a record due to driver error caused by a lesser experienced regular driver -me, for example- who just wasn't up to the task at the key moment in time.

 

Without some appointed non skier drivers, scores could be effected. If Lee Mershon, Tommy Harrington, Jeff Gilbert, Becky Lathrop, Gordon Hall, Jody Seal and Chris Eller, (to name but a few of the best of the best) weren't skiing Nationals, you wouldn't care if they didn't show up to drive? I know I would.

 

I always know who the driver is. Sometimes I know him or her and sometimes I have to ask, and with those latter drivers maybe I have heard their reputation and maybe I haven't. If I don't know a driver, for better or worse, I'll go watch how they drive before it is my turn to go. Maybe how they drive will effect my strategy. If the driver tends to be in the middle in one direction and to one side or the other in the opposite direction, well, I want my shortest rope length on the down the middle direction. I'm not likely going to set a record, but I always can strive for a Nationals PB. I know that the face behind the wheel gives a skier a lot of confidence, or takes that confidence away, depending who it is sitting in that starboard side seat. On the other hand, who has ever said "I'm screwed. The Judge in tower two has lousy vision in his left eye. I need to run my money pass coming from his right."?

 

All that said, it would be better if appointed officials showed up and paid their own way, but it would be worse if they didn't show at all. Maybe keep the same rule and halve the number of appointed officials with skier/officials to fill in. Cuts the baby in half by saving half the money now spent for rooms. Or at least require that they double up. Two officials in a room cuts the cost by half. If an official wants to bring a spouse or guest, what is unfair about the official picking up the guest's share of the room cost? Combine both ideas (reduce by half the number of appointed officials and asking them to double up) cuts costs by 75%.

 

Any cut that takes significant money from the LOC or AWSA probably is a bad idea in the long run. Letting the LOC determine Nationals qualification standards will turn the standard into a moving target, with some, perhaps many skiers in one year and out the next. That's bad for skier morale and would likely have the result of reducing annual tournament skier numbers.

 

Frankly, we have enough awards for the Open skiers (Moomba, Masters, Malibu and US Opens, Worlds, etc.) Same with the U21s, and mens MM slalom crowd. Even though I have several level 9 ski friends that have skied age group and won in two out of the last three Nationals, who would be screwed having to ski open, I think there is some merit to requiring at least the adult Open and MM skiers to ski those divisions if they are qualified, thus making the National Age Group Champions from the Level 8 crowd. It could be worth trying this year to look at how the numbers shake out.

[Dirt]

Maybe Nationals were more popular in the past because most skiers competed in multiple events. There are far more single event specialists now and the value is gone. It does not make sense to spend a thousand bucks and several days off for one round, The $20 four pass practice ride and crappy skier bag don't help.

Remember getting a KD 7000 with double high wraps and a ski bag for $200? Add a rope and handle for $20 and a rolling ski bag for $40. The trip almost payed for itself in savings alone.

[Dirt]

Here is the bag I use to this day (my wife "borrowed" the masterline bag) and a KD that replaced the purple one that broke. They replaced it for free.

[Horton]

The days of killer deals are gone. The landscape has changed. The economics have changed.

[The_MS]

@Horton That explains most of problems they are trying to solve.