The new Level 10 Rule is

[skiinxs]

Seems to be more fair to me, I'm for it.

[LeonL]

If I understand it to be, for example, M3 skier ranking places the skier in L10 he must ski in MM not M3 then I think it a great thing.

[disland]

Has anyone said what the percentages are for Level 10?

[klindy]

@disland top 3% with no fewer than 5 that qualify.

[disland]

@klindy Will this change the percentages for all the other levels? btw why are the percentages different for men 7,8,9?

[disland]

@klindy can someone confirm what the rules are for overall? Is the rumor correct that MM skiers ski in their division but only for overall so they essencialy get a 4th or 5th ride at Nationals?

[Than_Bogan]

I have some idea how it works, but it just doesn't concern me one way or the other.

[MattP]

I always thought that level 9 was an odd place to stop the ranking list.

[klindy]

@disland The proposal was to allow for a skier who was in MM (lets say for slalom) and M4 for trick and jump to ski a second time (for overall score only - no placement) in their age division. I do not know if that passed or not. That would allow that M4 skier to ski for M4 overall.

 

I also do not know if the details are worked out completely as to where that skier is to be seeded (first? wherever their score places them? special group after the event?).

 

@disland I'm not sure what you mean by "why are the percentages different for M7,8,9?

[Kelvin]

@klindy @disland Dave is referring to the cutoff percentiles for the various levels. A larger percentage of the M7, 8 & 9 skiers are level 8 compared to M3, 4, 5 & 6, for example.

[LeonL]

@klindy does that mean if there are fewer than five that are in the top 3% the top five will be L10? And with the tie-in to MM does this only apply M3-6? Does it apply to MW?

[disland]

@Kelvin Yes, thank you

[klindy]

@disland @Kelvin Again the proposal was the level 8 ranking is set to be 70% for all divisions except for those where there are at least 5 skiers in an elite division. For those divisions where there are at least 5 skiers in MM/MW/OM/OW the top 3% of the skiers will be set to level 10. Level 8 would then be adjusted to be the 70% threshold minus the number of level 10 skiers.

 

Level 9 is set to be the top 7% of skiers in the pool of skiers used to set the MM/MW/OM/OW rankings.

 

If the total number of skiers in any age group is less than 35, the level 8 percentile would be lowered to the 40th percentile. The goal is to have enough skiers to make the competition (as currently set up) reasonable at the Nationals.

[disland]

@klindy Mens 7 has over 100 skiers but level 8 starts at 58%. Please explain?

 

 

Percentiles and COA Scores For M7 Slalom

Level 9 ( 93-100 ) Percentiles COA Score: 105.50

Level 8 ( 58-92 ) Percentiles COA Score: 82.17

Level 7 ( 18-57 ) Percentiles COA Score: 63.00

Level 6 ( 18-17 ) Percentiles COA Score: 47.70

Level 5 ( 8-17 ) Percentiles COA Score: 47.70

Level 4 ( 0-7 ) Percentiles COA Score: 1.80

Level 3 ( 0--1 ) Percentiles All Others

Rankings last recalculated at 4:06:05 AM on 2/1/2017.

* Indicates Penalty; # Indicates Rule 1.13; See FAQ/Tips.

 

[Triplett]

Since I am the only guy to say bad idea I might as well explain myself.

 

While I think forcing a certain level to a higher division a good idea, I don't understand why a L10 was created. For me, and from what I can see in the 36mph groups, L9 would have been good metric go use for a forced entry into open. Considering L9 in the age divisions, this would add 15 skiers to OM, most of which are already on the list of 29 OM skiers (L9 OM). For 34 mph it would add 31 skiers, some of which are part of the 35 MM (L9). In my opinion this makes Open and Mens Masters into two divisions, almost like a super Open or super masters.

 

 

[klindy]

@disland Looking at the ranking list level percentiles presented to the board, M7S is set to 70% where in 2016 it was set to 58%. So I suspect the changes (assuming they were approved) have not ben entered into the database as of now.

[disland]

@klindy regarding these percentages. who makes these decisions and how often are the changed? what is the process? where is that documented? Seems arbitrary.

[MillerTime38]

i like the idea, it should add more competition for some divisions, mainly M3-5 and W2-3.

 

 

[Than_Bogan]

@MillerTime38 Good points, but wrong thread. You're talking about ZBS, right?

[Horton]

@MillerTime38

 

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

[Horton]

Soooo I was thinking that this thing is STUPID but was keeping that to myself until I understood it better. I just spoke to @skimom and yes it all makes sense.

 

The deal is - the top 1/2 of the Level 9 skiers are now Level 10 and can not bounce back to their age group. It will negatively impact a handful of skiers who wish to ski in their age group at Nationals. It stops Nate Smith from skiing M2 if he wanted .... but why would he?

 

FYI - I do totally disagree with the idea of Open or MM at Regionals and Nationals but if we have to have those divisions then the L10 rule is a step forward.

[klindy]

@disland The protocol is set by the Skiers Qualification Committee and was changed somewhat from previous years to it was presented this year to the BOD. Previously the percentiles were set to attempt to have a minimum number of skiers at the Nationals. The lower levels cascaded down from Level 8.

 

Look here on page 108

[Than_Bogan]

@Horton Couldn't agree more. The real fix is to NOT have choice of division ever: Either age-based or ability-based but never a weird overlay that offers some skiers a choice of division.

 

But this level 10 thing isn't horrible; it's just not the real fix.

[disland]

@klindy Thanks

[Triplett]

@Than_Bogan This is why I said this is not a good idea. L9 should have taken care of this. When you become open rated you shouldn't have the choice to compete in your age division, you are now able to ski in pro events, you should have to compete against your peers in amateur events. This would apply to MM as well. You have done your work, here is your reward.

 

Disclaimer: I have used the ability to choose my age division while in Level 9. I was never the best by a pass or even top seed.

[Than_Bogan]

@Triplett Regarding your disclaimer: It's always valid to play the game by the current rules. Advocating for rules changes does not require sub-optimal choices by pretending that your suggested rule is already in place.

 

I get into this all the time with people on other topics, including broader policy issues. (Don't worry, I won't give a specific example.) So many times I hear "you can just do that on your own" and sometimes I feel like it's my life's mission to explain to people how that doesn't make sense. If someone unilaterally enforces a rule on themselves, then they are simply at an unfair disadvantage. That has nothing to do with advocating rules changes to make the "game" better for everyone.

[jcamp]

@Horton Playing out your last post a little bit using Men's 3 as an example. The top half of level nine would be pulled out of Men's 3 and into MM at Regionals and Nationals, right? So in the Eastern Region two of our top skiers are now out of my (Men's 3) division at Regionals? I'm not sure how I feel about that, but if that's the case, it just got a bit easier to podium at Regionals ... Am I on track here?

[Horton]

@jcamp top half of level 9 is an approximation. There will actually be a cut off score. Something like 2 @ 41. Yes a BIG score. (if I got this wrong then blame @skimom because she explained it to me)

 

For me the problem is that it just got easier for you to get a medal at Regionals.

 

We are an ability based sport or we are not. This is actually a throwback to the 70s when if you skied too well you were forced into open. Skiers for sure dropped the handle to stay out of Open so they could have a chance a winning Nationals. Hopefully the skiers that are good enough to be in Level 10 will want ski with the very best.

[jcamp]

@Horton: "For me the problem is that it just got easier for you to get a medal at Regionals."

 

I agree, even though it may help me.

[Horton]

@jcamp I have not won regionals in over 25 years and if I did it again I would be thrilled but I would certainly know I was not the best skier in the age division because that skier is skiing in Masters Men. (Larson or @Dirt or @Milford or...)

[eleeski]

Last year's Nationals was a pretty small MM division in slalom. Only 3 trickers (a rematch exactly of Western Regionals). Not sure about MM jump. Hopefully this rule will make these divisions bigger and more competitive.

 

I'm not sure MM dilutes the age divisions. The skiing goals and planning to achieve them is still relevant.

 

Of course, you could say anything but the Open champion is not the best. But every football player makes more than the best waterskier so??? Set goals, train to achieve them and enjoy your successes - whatever division you are in. And congratulations to those who qualify up - a significant accomplishment.

 

Eric