Thoughts on new rules proposal

[JeffSurdej]

New Level 10 which is top 3%. Those skiers must ski Open/Masters. Level 9 is optional but once you opt up you stay until nationals. Juniors are not mandatory at Level 10 unless they opt into Open, then they stay through Nationals. Overall skiers must ski overall in their highest event level.

[eleeski]

So I will be jumping MM. That will be entertaining. And Scott Larsen doesn't want to draw me head to head.

This will be fun!

Eric

 

[JeffSurdej]

the overall part has really thrown us for a loop Eric and is not ideal in my mind but help us if you can figure out a better way to handle overall. The choices are (using you for an example) 1) allow you to trick MM, slalom and jump M5 and then drag your MM trick score into M5Overall. I like this but what sucks is if MM trick is saturday and M5 tuesday then all the M5 overall skiers have to wait until Saturday to find out who won overall. 2) you ski twice, once in MM trick for placement, then again first off the dock in M5T for overall. 3) force you to ski all events in M5 or MM. None of the 3 choices are prefect.

[BRY]

@JeffSurdej Why? 1. What is the problem this rule will solve? 2. What is the expected outcome of this change? 3. Why do we want said outcomes to happen? Have you floated this by the top 5% to see what they all think, particularly their answers to the 3 questions above?

 

Another question: How is Top 3% defined? Top 3% of all skiers (assume splitting M/F) or top 3% of each division? By score or by rank? This is important as the top 3% in some divisions crush the top 3% in others. Some divisions don't have any Level 9, or Level 9 is the 3% so Level 9 effectively eliminated for some divisions and some Level 8 are required to ski against true elite and pro's?

 

"Juniors are not mandatory at Level 10 unless they opt into Open, then they stay through Nationals." I see the effect of this as almost all or all B3/G3 will just stay in juniors. Some top juniors enter open for experience even though they are not competitive. With this they won't. Pack filling entries at big/Pro events drop more and young skiers do not gain valuable experience.

 

This rule just moves around the elite. It makes false champions of a very few (best by rule not by performance) and a very few are rendered noncompetitive. The very, very top remain unchanged. The 95% below remained unchanged. The sport is not grown, competition is not enhanced but just shifted and a few skiers may leave.

[Than_Bogan]

@BRY People right here on BoS have been asking for something like this for years. This helps fix the "choosing to win M2 instead of competing in Open" issue.

 

Personally, I think any proposal that still allows a choice of division, even in limited cases, hasn't really solved the problem. But this is probably better than where we are today.

[Razorskier1]

I would only suggest that the rule be in place for a year or two and let's see how it plays out. Leave room for tweaking/changing as necessary. Seems like a good first step in resolving an issue that has been overly analyzed by just about everybody.

[ToddL]

@JeffSurdej - Maybe I am missing the problem here, but why is overall an issue? Would it make more sense to calculate overall independent from the single event classifications? Maybe have separate overall levels independent from the individual event level classifications?

 

I mean a trick run which scores 7500 still scores 7500 regardless of what division the skier is in, right. Same for Jump distances. Rope lengths...

 

I guess it can get sticky if the individual event division affects things like ramp height or max speed. If those cases can be worked out, then wouldn't it be easier to think of Overall as an "overlay" scoring done on top of the individual event performance data?

[unksskis]

Will this not encourage top level skiers to stick with skiing a limited/minimal number of tournaments, taking the penalty, and then being well set up/sandbagging into Nationals? I get the initiatives, but the real need is an attraction/aspiration to ski Open, a mindset that last place in Open is better than first in division.

[eleeski]

@JeffSurdej Sorry for the flippant response. Actually, it's one of the ideas that I think is reasonably fair. I'm probably the worst jumper with overall hopes so I'm an outlier. And I did truly appreciate having some competition at Nationals last year in MM. Good work!

 

Thanks for considering overall and doing something positive to encourage it. Nothing will ever completely solve all the problems. This is certainly a step in the right direction. And it has already got me planning to get my slalom back on track.

 

Eric

[BRY]

@Than_Bogan Some people here on BOS have been asking. How many of them are actually affected by jumping in/out of division/MM-Open? Bet very few to none. Many (most?) are not and many (most?) don't' care. You and I are not affected, we are not anywhere close to competing for the win.

 

Would like @JeffSurdej to hop in and let us know the reason behind it. Sure he will when he gets around to seeing it.

 

Some think hoping divisions is a problem, others don't. I don't. Wanna be M4 champion? Then beat all men 45-52 who show up. My opinion. I get my ass handed to me at Nat's, but 2 out of 3 I've gone to I beat my seed.

 

If "choosing to win (division) instead of competing in (MM-Open)" is really a problem this is to address, it is a bad solution. I believe forcing people to ski MM/Open who never have will upset more people. Forcing the top M6 guys to ski against the top M3-M4? As rule is stated above top M7, M8 need to ski MM? Huh? Do they step up to 34 or what? W7 top 3% ski MM women? Just don't see it being good as written. Needs to be way more convoluted and complex to handle all divisions and events, AKA it's a bad rule.

 

Also, how to stop sandbagging? That 3% bump will be a very interesting score to watch. Every ability based system (that's what this is) I have ever been involved in (INT, local unaffiliated tourney's) needed a hidden bump. There will be major drama without a bump and major drama if there is. My opinion, if ability based is needed/appropriate anywhere, it's at the bottom, not at the top.

 

If "choosing to win (division) instead of competing in (MM-Open)" is really a problem there is a much simpler and better solution. How about this "Once a skier takes a start in MM or Open they have to stay there through that years Nationals?" Simple, clean and no hopping.

 

We have enough rules. We have bigger issues that need to be addressed. Either way some people will be upset, a very few people. This rule does nothing for the sport as a whole or AWSA skiers/potential AWSA skiers as a whole.

 

[Edbrazil]

 

At one time, mid-late 1970's you were forced into Open if you ran the score. Then, in

Slalom, the Open level was a full 32 off. One Eastern Regionals, we had 2 Men1 slalomers

who were good, but not really competitive if they got into Open. So, they sandbagged,

and ran just short of a full 32 off. There was a protest filed for unsportsmanlike conduct.

I don't remember the outcome or how they skied at Nationals.

 

Not long after, perhaps the next year, being forced into Open was dropped from the Rules. This is not exactly the same Rule, but it will be interesting to see how it works out.

 

And, whether it even gets passed by the Board in their Winter Meeting.

 

Fortunately, in MM, you can choose to jump at 5 feet.

[Razorskier1]

It will be interesting to see how this works. In theory, by putting the truly elite skiers into MM or Open, it should open up the age divisions for the guys (and women) the "next layer down", thus increasing the number of competitors at nationals. Time will tell.

[eleeski]

@BRY Is our sport and BOS just slalom? That's a pretty shallow and shortsighted view. Perhaps building participation at the top of the sport is good. @JeffSurdej is trying to do something good. I'm not sure your ideas are really that different from what Jeff has carefully weighed. At least the overall skier is considered.

 

Eric

 

PS I jump division a lot for various reasons. I skied MM at Regionals so I would have some fun competition. That forced me to ski MM at Nationals despite the lack of a field until the last day of registration. I would love to get fun competition.

Also I did ski age division instead of MM because I wanted to ski overall. The times I skied Open and age division, I didn't get to compete in overall - not good for the sport of overall. This rule helps.

 

I'm sure Chris Eller (last year's only MM overall skier) would be very happy to have some competition as well - even if he dominates us. And it solves Brandy Nagle's overall qualification nightmare.

 

I think we want fun competition way more than National medals. And we want a healthy sport.

[JeffSurdej]

Let me first say as new president I completely agree that this proposal is not the answer to our sport. We are working on a good strategic plan over the next few years, 90% of it has nothing to do with elite skiers. But lets talk about the reasoning for the proposal. In a nutshell simply look at the rankings list champions in the last waterskier magazine, nate smith, jon travers, zach worden, anna gay, april coble, scot ellis, and karen truelove are all rankings list champions. This is not right! These are high level (pro) skiers who should not be skiing age divisions, and they taking away nationals spots from amateurs. We are the only sport in the world not based on ability, yet we have 2 ability based divisions (open/masters) but unless they are mandatory they are worthless divisions. This proposal is not for elite but for the non elite. Could this be the start of ability based skiing, I don't know, do I think ability based is much more needed at the lower level... yes.

 

@BRY the 3% will be done just as the Level 9 (7%) is now, it is not top 3 in each division but yet the pool of skiers used in that calculation. i.e it is a very very high mark and those in L9 will still have the choice to stay in age.

 

@ToddL you are correct on overall, a score is a score but I'm worried about an age division finished on Wednesday having to wait until masters men ski Saturday to find who won age division overall.

 

Sandbagging might happen, not much we can do. The key is open and masters must be more prestigious, NCWSA has captured this, all schools would rather get 12th in D1 vs 1st in D2

 

@BRY whats a hidden bump?

 

Good feedback everyone, so far all elite elite athletes I have talked to are behind it, even Anna Gay said she would rather trick open than G3 but she wants to slalom and jump G3, Now we have found a way for her to do both and still ski overall, although I'm not a huge fan of the overall solution b/c it forces her to ski overall in Open where she might not belong. But help us find a better solution, overall has stumped us for weeks, we love the single event part of this all but overall is challenging.

[ToddL]

Funny thing with overall, eh?

 

I was thinking... Anyone who can perform to an "Open" / Elite level in any one event AND still be competitive in the other two events is an Overall Awesome Skier in my book!

[Dirt]

I like the idea but have a question. If I understand the proposal correctly, would that only move @skidawg (Mclain), Badal and Rodgers into mandatory MM? How would it work with Open? They are all MM and Open qualified? Would they have to trick and jump Open?

[Dirt]

Badal broke his ankle jumping at the Cal Proam

[JeffSurdej]

If over 35 years old you are not forced into open just MM, unless they elect to ski open. So for russell gay he doesnt have to go beyond MM but once he skis OM he stays there through nationals.

[Dirt]

After a math lesson from @Horton it looks like 11 M4, 6 M3 and 14 M5 would be mandatory MM.

[BRY]

@Dirt sure that math's right? For example for M5 14 is the exact number in L9, which is supposed to be top 7% by percentile. The current COA score for the 7% (93-100 percentile) is 105. So the 3% COA score cutoff obviously a bit higher than that.

[BRY]

@eleeski "Is our sport and BOS just slalom? That's a pretty shallow and shortsighted view." I agree it is. Never said or inferred they are. Think my comments apply to all disciplines and overall, and were intended that way.

"Perhaps building participation at the top of the sport is good." I would say building participation anywhere is good, including the top. I am not convinced this will build participation at all, perhaps disincent some.

[JeffSurdej]

dont forget to include MM in your total pool of skiers, the 3% is based off m3,m4 and mm skiers. not m5

[BRY]

@JeffSurdej At the ability tournaments (none AWSA, non-affiliated or early INT's) I have gone to or helped run (long time ago) had a "hidden bump" score. Those who exceed the score of a division are "bumped" into the next. We didn't say or know the bump score beforehand. We pulled a number (usually between 4 and 6) out of a hat afterward, and that was the bump. Say 4 was pulled, then those that scored 4 won and those that scored 4.5 bumped to next division. No sandbagging, worked surprisingly well. Not sure if INT does that anymore but haven't been to one for a real long time.

[RichardDoane]

@JeffSurdej - thanks to you and the committee for coming up with a proposal, and working in a positive direction, there can always be adjustments made after a season of results, as there is always room for improvement

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Jeff,

 

Interesting idea. However I think the ranking list approach has a host of drawbacks, many of which have been brought up here. A far better approach that I brought to the rules committee a number of years ago is to make entry into MM or Open mandatory based on placement at Regionals and Nationals.

 

It would work like this:

 

For M3 and M4, the top 3 placements from each Regional Championship and the top 5 from the National Championship, who have also achieved the performance standard (2@39 or whatever) are required to ski in the MM division for the following ski year. In the following ski year, if the MM skier fails to place in the top 3 at Regionals or top 5 at Nationals, he may choose to ski in his age division or MM for the next ski year. Entry in MM is optional for any skier who has met the performance standard, but not the placement requirements.

 

Its debatable whether to include M5 or not.

 

Same rule for M1/M2 and W1/W2 for Open – maybe adjust the number of placements that are forced up due to population.

 

This approach solves several issues:

- Opens up the competiveness of less that top tier skiers in the age divisions (I think this is the major complaint of the current situation)

- Increases the competiveness of MM

- Eliminates “sandbagging” – I don’t think anyone will standup and avoid placement just to avoid skiing MM/Open

- The requirement to also achieve the performance standard will avoid forcing a lower tier skier into MM/Open by mishap, i.e. weak region or a condition blowout where the winner was the only one to run his opener.

- If a skier doesn’t make MM by placement, but has achieved the performance standard, he still has the option to step up if he wishes.

- The “less than top tier” skiers can choose to return to their age division or stay in MM after a year, so no one gets stuck if they are not competitive

- No bouncing back and forth between divisions during the ski year.

 

I strongly disagree with any rule forcing juniors, or anyone else for that matter, into open if they elect to ski open for something like a pro tour challenge, the Masters, or some other major event. A skier on the edge should never be discouraged from getting on the same water as the elite skiers. That experience in invaluable even if they are not competitive.

 

Take the example of a 16yo B3 skier who just got a PB of 2@39 (or whatever the open rating is these days), and that gives him the opportunity to take to the water with Nate Smith and Will Asher in the challenge round of some pro event coming to his area next month. Should he be penalized into competing in Open for an entire year when he is clearly not ready (yet) or have to choose to forgo what could be a once in a lifetime opportunity?

 

[skidawg]

@Bruce_Butterfield - taking it to the next level

[Drago]

@JeffSurdej I think looking at @Bruce_Butterfield 's thoughts would be a good idea. Especially A junior should still be allowed to enter a pro tournament once without consequence.

[MISkier]

@JeffSurdej, I am hoping the changes that preclude/discourage switching between divisions are only targeted at the top 3%. I recently started switching between IM and M4, just to post some official 36 mph scores and I'd like to continue to do that. The IM scores show up in the Open List, but I do not have the elite qualifying status to actually compete as Open - not even close.

 

I don't know why a top 3% skier would want to ski their age division at Nationals, if they qualified for Open or MM. I would think they would have already won their age division or know they can do so easily. Unless they want to set some kind of record for most consecutive Nationals wins, it would test a skier of that caliber much more to ski Open or MM than flatten their age group competition.

 

To @unksskis point, I am more satisfied with my near-the-bottom Open rating than I am with my middle-of-the-pack M4 rating. Also, if I were qualified to ski Open at Nationals, I probably would do it over skiing in my age division - at least once.