If you have 3 L/R scores in the past 12 months, should that fulfill the Regional requirement ?

[RichardDoane]

Just wondering what the ballers think about alternatives to the current rules relating to Nationals attendance.

 

Give us your .02 please.

[Horton]

Same answer as I always give.....

 

It depends on the purpose of Regionals and Nationals.

[bigskieridaho]

I am gonna ski at least 4-5 including two at BroHo this summer @RichardDoane So that should count for something.... hoping to progress more this year.... would love to hit up Newberry, just sayin.

[Drago]

No, well Yes,

There should be no Regonal requirement

[disland]

You don't get to the super bowl because you played more regular season games.

 

My position has been we need to split the western region because its too geographically big

[skier2788]

Pretty much every sport I can think of gives a bye to its top teams/athletes. It is a reward for working hard all season. I don't understand why it seems like a lot of people are against it in waterskiing. I think if you qualify for Nationals by level 8 ranking or higher you should be allowed to register and pay for regionals but be allowed to not participate if you choose. This lowers the cost of Nationals attendance for the very elite and would allow a few skiers who may not stand a chance at the podium at regionals to do so. I feel it would grow Nationals from a tournament of the best of who could afford two vacations in 3 weeks to the best in the country. For me having the best of the best at Nationals competing is more important than some silly requirment about regionals. Every year I am tempted to go to regionals get up and pull out for my gates and throw the handle. Then pump the first and scream I am going to Nationals!!!

[RazorRoss3]

My short answer is yes but lets extend it beyond that to if you've put up good scores at local events you're good to go.

 

My very, very long answer is below.

 

There are a few topics within this that I would like to address:

 

1) Rather than a dual method qualification system should we move too strict State > Regionals > Nationals qualification or to an outside system based on the rankings list.

2) If we move to a qualification method outside of the State and Regional level events, should they continue to exist?

 

1) Rather than a dual method qualification system should we move too strict State > Regionals > Nationals qualification or to an outside system based on the rankings list.

 

Should we make a hard move to a single method for qualification? I think we should, and my personal choice would be a move to qualifying outside of the State/Regional events. If the way to qualify for Nationals is by skiing a large number of local events that should keep local event attendance high, more money to sites that could potentially allow them to do things like host more open ski nights which could help at the grass roots level. Also more skiers at more local events would build a stronger local ski community which I believe would create a benefit. In addition to this I believe it would increase nationals attendance because without having to travel for regionals skiers and families would have more money left in the travel budget and less making up to do for missing a weekend at home for regionals which might make Nationals make more logistical sense.

 

2) If we move to a qualification method outside of the State and Regional level events, should they continue to exist?

 

My answer here is yes for State, maybe for Regionals. I think the idea of a state tournament would be fun, it would bring everyone together, award medals, and I think would simply be a fun event. Regionals on the other hand I think would be hard to maintain without it being a requirement for Nationals because it requires a lot of travel and time. So while some people may enjoy seeing how they stack up against their region it simply may not work. I don't see keeping it as detrimental though so I would not vote against it's continued existence.

 

[Dirt]

I don't like the regional requirement. It requires too much money, time off work and time away from family.

 

What does skiing regionals have to do with skiing nationals? It is just tradition.

 

Maybe regionals would be more popular if the national level skiers were not there. People who are newer to the sport might have a big tournament to shoot for where they are more competitive.

 

I don't think you should have to pay not to go either. If that is what it takes to lift the requirement, it is a move in the right direction.

 

[bigtex2011]

Totally agree with @Dirt

[MillerTime38]

Agree with @drago and @Dirt

 

 

[klindy]

@disland I think splitting the west into two smaller regions is a mistake. I think the board and it's structure is far too big and unwieldy now. It's hard to get any meaningful change approved.

 

That said, I totally agree to allowing the west (or any other region that makes sense) to holding two or more regional tournaments each year. Hold them on the same dates, spread them out and allow for separate and combined scores.

[ToddL]

Wait, wait, wait...

 

Is there a suggestion to stratify the tournaments such that Regionals contains no existing nationally-qualified skiers?

Would this then mean that State tournaments would contain no regionally-qualified skiers, too?

 

So, basically the suggestion is that:

The State tournament is like a last chance qualifier (top places) for Regionals and open to any skier who has not already qualified for Regionals.

The Regional tournament is like a last chance qualifier (top places) for Nationals and open to any skier who as not already qualified for Nationals.

 

Hmmm... In some ways this might increase participation. Here's why -

If non-qualified skiers have to ski against all the already qualified skiers, it is unlikely that those non-qualified skiers will take a place on the podium. However, if the tournament only contains non-qualified skiers all trying to grab those last spots, then it may be more attractive to compete for them.

 

It makes sense, except for the LOC concerns about $$ if none of the already qualified skiers show up. Maybe they are all welcome to ski, but their scores are not factored into the placement for those podium spots to get a ticket to the next level.

 

So, basically every skier is classified as either a National Competitor, Regional Competitor, or State Competitor. The respective tournament is for the skiers with that classification. The State tournament is one pathway to graduate to a Regional Competitor designation. The Regional tournament is one pathway to graduate to a National Competitor designation.

[Horton]

@dirt makes a really good point. At a time when membership is down so far it's too much to ask for people to take off that much time from work / travel to two separate events unless they have disposable time and income.

 

@ToddL I know there's a point somewhere in your thousand word essay but I'm not exactly sure what it is

 

 

[lpskier]

Often the first L/R tournament in the East is Regionals.

[ToddL]

What's the point of having a State and Regionals along with a Nationals? That's the issue. I hate the idea of nationally qualified skiers paying for a tournament that they don't attend. Stupid. If their absence and their entry fees missing makes that tournament not funded, then one should ask why have it at all. Further, if the top skiers in your region don't participate, then what does the podium really mean? Finally, if they all did actually participate, one would expect the podiums to be filled up with already qualified skiers. So, not-yet-qualified skiers have no incentive to participate.

 

If each level tournament was only for those not yet qualified for the level above, and if podium spots equate to tickets to the next level, then those tournaments have a purpose, albeit a different one. It's just a different thought about qualifications and podium meanings.

[Horton]

@ToddL The funding of the event and the validity of the event are completely different issues. Define one and let that drive the definition of the other. You can't solve multiple problems in tandem.

[disland]

@klindy My input of the west region splitting was only as it relates to regionals. I totally agree we need for less bureaucracy not more. I am only observing that the complaints about costs seem more acute for the west guys and i get that. Here in SCR you can almost always drive to regionals and get decent hotel rates and so on, so it seems like less of a problem.

[RichardDoane]

@klindy it's hard to get an LOC to host a Regionals event, so even harder to get two in the same region. Paying a regional entry fee and then not going is a dumb idea IMO. +1 to @Dirt 's comments. We should start another discussion about the unnecessary bureaucracy of the AWSA.

[ToddL]

@Horton - you got distracted by the funding comment. It was only a preemptive rebuttal about regionals losing those skiers entry fees as an excuse to not try something different.

 

The real focus is on the idea that @Dirt started and I expanded upon:

Skiers who are already nationals-qualified should be excluded from the podium spots at Regionals. They can ski and get a score, but for podium ranking, they will be skipped over. Thus, the podium equates to top skiers who weren't already qualified and now are able participate at nationals.

 

Now, take that same idea an apply it at State:

Skiers who are already regionals-qualified should be excluded from the podium spots at State Champs. They can ski and get a score, but for podium ranking, they will be skipped over. Thus, the podium equates to top skiers who weren't already qualified and now are able participate at regionals.

 

Benefits?

1) Skiers no longer have to ski lower levels if already qualified above.

2) Skiers who aren't yet qualified can compete against one another to win qualification via the podium.

3) The podium has more meaning for those competing for it.

4) Not-yet-qualified skiers are more likely to compete since they see the podium spots not all consumed by already-qualified skiers.

5) Already qualified skiers can still participate and record valid score, but don't consume podium spots.

 

[Kelvin]

@ToddL I submitted a similar rule proposal this year, except it excluded Masters and Open skiers from the Top 5 at regionals if they decided to ski age group.

[skier2788]

@RichardDoane if skiers pay an entry but don't attend maybe that is a way to make hosting regionals more appealing and not a dumb idea. Besides it would at least be a start. I will gladly pay my entry and not attend vs. being forced to attend and spend considerably more money on travel and lodging for a tournament that all I have to do is obtain skiing position

[RichardDoane]

@skier2788 - but if you already have the qualifying score for Nationals attendance, why should you be forced to throw money at an event you're over-qualified for ? My choice of words was poor, paying to not attend is a "wasteful" idea, not "dumb", sorry.

 

@ToddL - I was hoping this discussion would stimulate ideas like yours, thanks for your input. We are on the right track, because something must be done to improve the present situation.

 

[klindy]

Why would you discourage the best in the division from not skiing? Why let them ski, have the best score and not take home a medal? I also don't like the "pay and stay home" idea.

 

Here's an alternative - everything stays just the way things are ... except ... instead of the top 5 places also qualifying for Nationals how about the top 5 (or 3?) skiers who don't already have a Nationals qualification get one. So maybe in M5 slalom the top 12 guys already have a level 8 ranking or somehow already qualify. Go down the list until you find 5 (or 3) more who aren't qualified and go shake their hand.

[skier2788]

I pulled these number from another older thread on this topic.

 

A few things to ponder: Over 60% of the Nationally qualified skier's did not attend the national championships. Over 75% of slalom only qualified skiers did not attend nationals.

 

Would increasing the number of qualified skiers really do anything?

 

IMO we need to make it easier for those that are qualified to attend.

[Horton]

@ToddL That is maybe the least logical thing I have ever heard. Because I am qualified for Nationals I can not win a medal at Regionals?

 

Do you have any idea how many skiers are qualified for Nationals but have almost no chance of a medal? Those same skiers have some chance to win Regionals but you want exclude them?

 

Lets take me for example. My current national rank is 24th. Chance to be in top 5 at Nationals almost zero. My current regional rank is 4th (not including the 10 or so MM that could move down for the win). You are telling me that because I have earned the right to get my ass kicked at Nationals I can go compete at Regionals?

 

With those rules I am demotivated to go to both events.

[RazorRoss3]

Nationals qualification should be based on the nationals ranking lost with a minimum number of tournaments requirement. No state or regionals required. You could still have the events but they would have no greater impact on nationals qualification than any other event.

[skier2788]

I was trying to think about Nationals a little bit differently. What if we made it so that the only way to qualify for Nationals was to place top 5 at state and then top 5 at regionals. It would make Nationals very small with only 25 competitors max in each division but it would make Nationals a very prestiges event while also making regionals more important.

[ToddL]

@Horton - I get your point on the idea. I considered it, too.

 

Actually, I now like @klindy 's alternative idea even better!

In summary: Everyone who shows us skis. Podium is the top skiers who skied. Qualification to the next level is awarded by walking down the list of placements until the appropriate number of invitations are awarded to the top not-yet-qualified skiers.

 

Basically, this preserves the nature of the event's competition, but adds the attraction of more opportunity to become qualified for the next level! This should help make participation more attractive and further increase the number of qualified skiers for the next level.

 

@skier2788 - yeah participation rates are low. Distance and travel costs are the primary barriers.

 

However, I suspect there are three demographics which are most likely to attend nations: 1) local qualified skiers, 2) those likely to podium, and 3) those who just recently qualified for the first time or only occasionally qualify.

 

By extending qualifications down the placement list to the top N not-yet-qualified, we would be more likely to create more skiers in the 3rd category, who I believe are more likely to attend nationals.

 

[skier2788]

@ToddL this is going to come across really elitist and I apologize now for that but by allowing another 3 to 5 skiers qualify per division aren't you just watering down the competition at Nationals? If we are just wanting huge numbers at Nationals why not allow everyone to go?

We are probly just attacking the same problem from two different directions. Are you looking for just sheer numbers at Nationals or a high level of competition?

 

This idea does nothing to make regionals important to the level 8 and above skiers.

IMO you have to make regionals worth my time and money to attend or let me skip.

[ToddL]

@skier2788 - good point. no need to apologize.

 

I just don't like the pay and skip solution. So, I started down this path after reading the other posts. Maybe it's a rat hole. Keith got it back on track a bit with the alternative. Still, the question of "to what end?" is a valid one. @Horton keeps coming back to that question as well, and for good reason. All of these bandaids are all just peripheral and temporary until the body of skiers and its governing body comes to one conclusion about the purpose/definition of nationals given today's context.

[skier2788]

@ToddL haha we agree on something!

 

For the record I am not totally onboard with my pay and skip idea either. Other than it would be a stepping stone to losing the regional requirement all together. I would rather inch towards that than stand still and make no progress. I should have explained that above better.

 

Your idea above reminds me of the old EP days. I think it went like this. Run X bouys get a novice rating ski state. Run X more bouys get masters rating ski regionals.run X more bouys get an EP rating and ski Nationals. Someone please correct me if I am wrong as that was before my time. Why did they go away from that? Was regionals still a requirement?

[klindy]

There are two (at least) distinctly different ways to look at making the Regionals or Nationals successful.

 

One is clearly the competition of the event. And obviously in the larger divisions there are only a handful of folks who have a realistic opportunity to have a podium finish. The rest are there for all the reasons we've heard before from "big event of the year" to the social aspects. I'd suggest the lack of real competition at almost all local tournaments helps make it "acceptable" to most that's they aren't compeitive at the Regionals or Nationals. Clearly there are a lot of skiers who, like Horton, aren't typically competitive at Nationals but have a podium shot at Regionals. Traditionally that "less" competitive tier of skiers change from year to year depending on the location of Reg/Nat but the size of the group stays roughly similar.

 

A second valid way to define success is commercially. The tournament needs to be big enough to make financial sense and it needs to be attractive to vendors and hotels and so on so sponsorships and discounts help defray some costs making the whole thing worthwhile (besides the competition).

 

The point is it's important to have some "new blood" become part of the mix. How that happens can be from new young skiers (and hopefully their parents), new skiers to the sport and new skiers now able to qualify. One major change years ago which I think really dented the percentage of the skiers who are qualified who attend is the development of the ranking list. It used to be we needed to actually show up and ski to know how we compared to those skiers we'd see only once a year. Who actually had "2 EP's" or whatever rating was a mystery until you showed up to see the tuning order. Now we update the ranking list daily and we all know where we fall in line.

 

So reaching down the regional results to find 5 (or 3) previously unqualified skiers would make a difference on nationals attendance. Finding ways to stimulate competition is another issue that's equally important.

 

One focus point we've discussed over the past year or two is how to reconfigure the current age groups into ability based divisions. Then, essentially everyone in your division at the Nationals would be within a pass or so of each other and therefore everyone has equal potential to podium. There are some challenges and probably worth a whole new thread but it's essentially a tweak on the current age divisions. Today we sort on age group first (M1, M2, M3, etc) then by ability (level 8, level 7, level 6, etc). Flipping that over to sort by score first then (possibly) age changes the potential completely.

 

So some of the rules changes and discussion we see today are some of the things that would help make that possible and still work with our current system. Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread ....

[Dirt]

I don't think Regionals are viable "commercially." Are there many vendors who set up tents and make a bunch of money beyond food and drink?

I had a great time at the Western Regionals last year but I don't think it should be required to ski Nationals.

 

What about subdivisions in the bigger groupings? Say M4 level 8, M4 level 7, M4 level 6 and only 3 placements each. That way you don't exclude Horton (from his example) but you encourage the level 7 and 6 skiers to come and compete.

 

I also like the idea of bringing back Expert, Masters and EP ratings that are set after Nationals so there is not a moving target. It would make local tournaments more meaningful. When someone earns an expert we would be congratulating, acknowledging and encouraging them.

[Dirt]

If the subdivisions idea works maybe award ribbons or skier photos with "1st Place M4 level 6 Western Regional Championship", etc.

That would keep LOC costs down.

 

 

[skier2788]

@klindy forgive me if I am beating a dead horse but I have only gone to Nationals once because regionals was 10 minutes from me and Nationals was at my sister's place. In a way I am that new blood you speak of. I dont see someone that came in 15th at regionals and qualified on the extra 3 to 5 spots spending the money to attend Nationals.

[Horton]

@dirt I will kill you

[RazorRoss3]

@horton, too late, he's already posted your proudest moment

 

Back to topic, I'm lucky enough that they decided to host nationals 45 minutes from where I live so if I'm skiing well enough I'd hope to go but traveling do regionals and paying that entry fee for 1 round would suck. But since I could get away with taking a half day of PTO at most and get to ski nationals this year it might be hard to justify not.

[skier2788]

@RazorRoss3 similar situation. Sister lives at SMRR. Is it worth flying to CA from CO to ski regionals? Keep in mind I only have to obtain skiing position not place....

[thager]

Ha!! And he wonders why he has a sore bottom!

[RazorRoss3]

Exactly, especially that you basically need to stand up and that's it. I'm in the same place there. I don't need regionals to get there and that's a high cost for a round of skiing.

[Kelvin]

@RazorRoss3 this year that 1 round of skiing is near Fayetteville Arkansas.

[RazorRoss3]

So did the math off computer and that 1 round of skiing would come in at a cost of $400+ by car and $500+ by air. That's one more level8 skier who won't be participating.

[disland]

@RazorRoss3 hitch a ride, beg for couch space, volunteer to help set up. Call Roger.

 

Make your way to Princeton and I will give you a ride the rest of the way.

[RazorRoss3]

@disland, that's a hell of an offer and would certainly make things easier, thank you.

[elr]

We need to start thinking about the international model - preliminaries & finals - for our Regionals & Nationals. It would cut the cost per ride for the folks that make finals about in half. Making finals would be a goal for folks that don't think they will podium. Double the pressure too with essentially two one round tournaments. Probably should be looking at the international age groups as well to increase competition.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

A few random thoughts……

 

Back when I was a single skier, we would always get several skiers together for the road trip to regionals and share hotel rooms to save money since none of us had a lot of extra cash. Drives of 8-10 hours were the norm for a regionals trip. Even for those not going to Nationals, not going to Regionals never even entered our minds. My first year in Texas, dead broke out of college and before I knew many skiers, I drove myself and camped on site in a pup tent. Yes, a tent in Texas in July. I guess the point is that if you have the desire to go to Regionals, you find a way to make it happen. If you don’t have the desire to go, it’s easy to find excuses.

 

The very first Regionals I went to, I qualified for Nationals by placement even though I was a long way from getting an EP. You never know what kind of dark horse surprises will happen in unfriendly and unfamiliar water conditions.

 

Regionals and Nationals use to be essentially the ONLY 2 tournaments of the year that involved actual competition. Now there are a few other competitive tournaments, but still, if you are a “competitive” skier why would you not want to go to a tournament where you can really measure your performance against your peers?

 

If you really do have a chance at the Podium at Nationals, isn’t a similar “pressure” type tournament the best preparation? What top athlete in their right mind would go cold into their toughest tournament of the year without practicing in similar (mental) conditions? If you think you can perform at a high pressure tournament without mental preparation, you are either delusional or are one of the very few athletes with that competitive blood in your veins and can “do whatever it takes to win”. There are many of the former and darn few of the latter.

 

To me, Regionals has more rewarding “off the water time” than Nationals. More time to reconnect with other skiers, talk equipment and technique, watch your friends, and see the enthusiasm of those just getting the ski bug and trying to get their ability up to their ambition. All those things are significantly less at Nationals.

 

I may be in the minority, but I think the Regionals requirement to go to Nationals is a good thing. If you are not serious enough about skiing to go to Regionals, by what rationale are you are serious enough to go to Nationals? If you are limited by budget or vacation time, Regionals is a better overall value and should be your big tournament of the year (JMO). If you have a serious reason not to go, the Regional EVP can grant a hardship exception.

 

[dbutcher]

@Bruce_Butterfield Very well said!

[lpskier]

@skier2788 Hey, Travis! Thanks for the ski ride on the way to Nationals this past summer. I had a great time and got a great pull. I hope I get to see you at your sister's this summer!

[skier2788]

@lpskier it was great skiing with you too. I will see you down there for sure one way or another.

[skidawg]

@Bruce_Butterfield .....the dog fish head is speaking!