Would you like to see your state have a "championship" tournament instead of a regionals ?

[RichardDoane]

And what type of format would you prefer ? It probably should be a poll, but for now let's hear some ideas about single vs. multi -round, one event vs. three, and get some input from the baller's-at-large. We can put together a poll later (unless someone wants to now and we can kill this thread)

[RichardDoane]

Since we're all sanctioning the events for next season already, it's time to start thinking about 2018 and beyond.

[Horton]

@ZipZapPaddyWhack What's the difference? California is the Western Region.

[Horton]

Ooo wait seriously. Yes I like the idea of State titles being important in some way.

[RichardDoane]

CA would have to be split, Bakersfield and South, could be "southern", Sacto and everything North could be "northern"

[Horton]

That would be fun

[BRY]

I don't get this "States" vs Regional's. To what end? Replace as qualifier for Nat's or what? What's is that going to fix/make better? No matter how you slice the pie, it's gonna be the same pie (pool of skiers). May add or lose a few but either way needle not moving mucking with the near top end.

 

If you split up CA are they then really "State" tourny's?

What about FL and likely TX also? If not split and a pre-req for Nat's FL and TX tough big time tournaments.

Then what to do with NH, DE, ND, SD and the like? Skiers in those states, some very good. But do they have enough to even put on a tournament (without outside help)? 1 or 2 skiers in a few divisions with many divisions empty. Not equivalent to a CA, FL, TX state win. Could combine some of the small states but then, ahh, that's a Regional's....

 

All sorts of fun things can and should be done with State tournaments. Make them more fun and more compelling. But to replace Regional's, not seeing it.

[RazorRoss3]

Regionals frequently requires more travel and likely airfare and hotels where state (in smaller states) is easier to attend. I think that could increase nationals attendance because it's easier to stomach the long distance travel once for Nats than twice for regionals and Nats.

[jcamp]

No. I'm the only skier in my division in the entire state. I ski at Nationals, but for me Regionals is my biggest tournament of the year. I'm in the mix for a podium, but have no chance to do that at Nationals. I win states by default.

[BCM]

I'm on the fence on the regionals vs. state thing. This year I likely wont be attending regionals due to the 1000+ mile drive required, but a few years ago it was 20 minutes from home.

 

I would vote 3-event. Personally I won't travel far for a one event tournament, but I will for a 3-event (I understand that I am in the minority on this one). I like the idea of multi rounds but I would love to see us mix up the multi round idea. My thought is a cumulative score (round 1 + round 2 + round 3) rather than our current method where we take the best single score from the 3 rounds.

[Than_Bogan]

Might have to be more like a "subregion" championship: CA could have three of them and New England could have one.

[jcamp]

@Than_Bogan a New England one would be fun.

[lpskier]

NY typically has a three event state championship with an additional two rounds of slalom. We have a small group of three eventers so trick and jump don't take a lot of time and the event is often held at a two lake site. Placement at States is a qualifier for Regionals.

[eleeski]

Regionals has its place for sure. Especially for qualifying by placement. But with our region where Regionals are over a thousand miles apart almost every time it moves (Denver to Sacramento or LA to Seattle - Boise to Barstow is only 800 miles?!) travel is a huge barrier to participation.

 

Allowing National qualification exemptions by skiing alternate tournaments when the travel is extreme is an experiment worth trying.

 

Eric

[RichardDoane]

I do not get the hang up about Regionals placement. Either you make the cut or you don't. Seems like an unnecessary thing from the past. @eleeski is correct about the size of the Western Region being a disadvantage. A bunch of years ago we tried to split the region in two but too many people wanted to hold onto the past instead of embracing a better future.

[Texas6]

The other issue with Reg & Nats is just how close together they are. For us in South Central, they were separated by one week. That makes attending both a real problem just counting the number of days you need to be off of work. A meaningful state championship could be earlier in the season perhaps, giving people adequate time to attend

[MISkier]

Michigan's State Championships are one week before Midwest Regionals, which is one week before Nationals.

 

The State Championship is 3 days. Novice Slalom Championship is Friday afternoon/evening. Slalom is Saturday morning and a subsequent second slalom round happens after the skiers vie for the placing. Sunday is Trick and Jump.

 

We have very good participation. I don't know if it could be a qualifier for Nationals, but the competition is tight.

[Dirt]

It sounds like getting rid of the regional attendance requirement for nationals is a better solution.

[RichardDoane]

@dirt - I think you keep both, just add the people who went to a state championship as an alternative to a Regionals, if the goal is increasing the number of skiers who attend the Nationals

[skierjp]

In Florida we can't even get a site to host our States. As of right now almost all of our tournaments were scheduled at the Winter Meeting the first weekend in December. No one would agree to host the State tournament!!!! Crazy

[LeonL]

@skierjp , Jim do you foresee that it just won't happen this year? That would be a bad sign for the future of competitive skiing seeing as it's happening in the "hot bed " of skiing.

[klindy]

@RichardDoane are you suggesting that attendance at your official state tournament OR your Regionals would be required to ski at Nationals?

 

If so I kind of like the idea. Except I would say that the state tournament would need to be somehow identified at the "official" state tournament (maybe only allow the official tournament to be called a "championship" or something). Also I'd think that official tournament would need to be a 3 event tournament to follow the requirement that the Regionals and nationals be a 3 event tournament.

[skierjp]

I'm sure someone will have it. I'm not sure what the hold up is. I would say between the banquet, trophies and other requirements there isn't really any monetary incentive to have it. Florida runs the States as a 1 round record, that could be the issue but I have seen class C tournaments get cancelled and $200 Records have a waiting list.

[RichardDoane]

@klindy - I think people should be able to choose what works best for their schedule and budget, by either attending the Regionals in your area, or the "state championship tournament" for your state as an alternative, both satisfying the requirement for Nationals. Being able to just pay a regional entry fee in lieu of attendance seems like a sham. I'm sure we could can come up with the requirements to make a state championship "official".

[oneski]

I like the format for the Big Dawg. We should run tournaments in a head to head bracketed format. Winner of each bracket advances.