Tournaments on Demand

[elr]

I was thinking about access and increasing membership and came up with this --

 

So I'm on the dock at Cory's [insert approved tournament site here e.g. @Horton 's] in line for a lesson. @Jody_Seal [insert rated driver here] is driving today. @JeffSurdej [insert rated judge here] is there to take a set also. Why can't I say to Cory "I'd like to start with a tournament set." Jody pulls me and Jeff boat judges. I fall on my 3rd pass and get my score. Passes 4-6 I get instruction. At the end of my ride I get an attested score sheet. I go home and get online and enter my class whatever score into the Rankings Database. The first tournament ride I enter in a year costs me $X and each ride thereafter costs $Y. I get my tournament score. I haven't had to spend the night in a hotel room or be away from the family for a weekend day and I've got a tournament score in the database. AWSA has an income stream.

[JeffSurdej]

@elr we used to be able to do that with expert ratings, its not a terrible idea, especially if class C ever becomes just a boat judge only. This score could be loaded on the app and it sends me and jody an email or some signal that we have to sign off on and then the score becomes official. $5 a ride a score, maybe we could make huge revenue, or maybe these only count for so much % of your rankings, IDK, its an interesting idea overall

[klindy]

Ahhhhhh...... @elr this is EXACTLY the kind of 'practice score' I have been talking about. In this particular case you could argue that it's equivalent to a class C score.

 

To help confirm the score was legit, I would 'add' a virtual scorer to the process. After you enter your name and score into the database you need to 'tag' the driver and judge. They'll get an email (or some other notification) where they can confirm your score.

 

I like it!!

[skibug]

I might even ski tournaments and get a drivers rating, judges rating, etc.; if we could do something like this.

[Chef23]

I love that idea. We have drivers and judges (assistants) at my lake and this would be a cool way to get some tournament scores.

[Wish]

Hmmmm... site qualifications?

[kurt]

@klindy This is not even close to an "equivalent" C score. To say that this would be equal

is ridicuolus. No scorer , No unbiased judge , No unbiased driver, No witnesses , heck Dr. Michaels would have run -43 everyday.

 

You would have to come up with another designation and weighting of the ratings

 

 

[skibug]

you know what they say, everybody can run 38 off......on the internet.

[RazorRoss3]

Might want to limit rounds per day, week, month. Before I moved to Austin I could've taken 3 tournament scores a day 5-7 days a week under those rules. given enough tries your average and best would be the same number. In my case that was true this year anyways but I'm pretty good about being my game when I'm on the dock.

[John Brooks]

Sounds like a great idea to me.

 

Why is everyone so hung up on what they perceive as lesser quality scores? Does it really make a difference? The only impact seems to be seeding at Regionals or Nationals. For someone attending those events, when the rubber hits the road, they have to ski & live up to there ranking. It all works out.

[MattP]

@elr that might be the most progressive idea i've heard in a while.

[klindy]

@kurt I said someone could make the case for it. Obviously you don't agree.

 

In another thread I suggested more than one column of scores 1) "practice" (or something like this); 2) class C and 3) class ELR. How or even if they are aggregated somehow isn't the question.

 

Besides I someone only posts scores like this and never skis a tournament, they can be suspicious. If my practice scores are close to my tournament scores (hence separate columns) then where is the argument?

 

Regardless, if it enticed skiers like @skibug and no doubt hundreds of others to have some kind of USAWS membership haven't we made progress?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Ok, I’ll start with my standard comment that (almost) all new ideas for improvement are welcome and should be considered on their merits, so thanks @ELR for thinking outside the box.

 

For this particular idea, I have to ask “what’s the point?” Who are you really “competing” against? Are we going to have 2 ranking lists – one for tournaments and one for practice? Does anyone doubt that the practice list will have higher scores for 90% of the participants than the tournament list? I’m not insinuating that any cheating would happen, just that is absolutely normal to perform better in practice, with no pressure, familiar site, familiar driver, etc. In every sport there is a huge difference between “practice” and “real competition” – and over 90% of that difference is between the athlete’s ears.

 

“Competition” and attempts at equivalent rankings should all involve as similar conditions as practical. Practice is a totally different ballgame than even a loosely run Class C tournament. And yes, most of are skiing against ourselves in class C tournaments, but it is still a different mindset than practice.

 

Let’s contrast ELR’s idea with something else like a Wednesday night beer league. 10 skiers throw in a few bucks, sanction a tournament and the skier who beats his average (or whatever tournament rules they want to agree on) by the most get a case of his/her favorite adult beverage. Now you have a competition with something on the line! I would be all on board with those scores “counting”.

 

One other thought to ponder – what is the point of any ranking list if skiers can’t get within a pass of their ranking score when they get to a “real” tournament like Regionals or Nationals? Is that list really worth anything, or should we attempt to make the ranking list as close as practical to how skiers really perform when it counts?

 

I’m also skeptical that this would add any members to AWSA. Think about a course skier who is a non-member. You tell him “hey for an extra $30 you can get your name on a ranking list and you will be #542 in the Nation”. How many skiers would really pay the extra $ and join?

[skibug]

@klindy I am already forced to be a member....so that wouldn't help the cause of expanding the membership base.

[Horton]

meh. I am not against it up to maybe 28 off. Could be a fun way for skier to trash talk each other. At 28 off or shorter ropes need to be checked, balls need to have been surveyed, a chief driver needs to at least spot check the boat paths and so on.

 

Although it would be pretty darn funny to compare honor system scores to tournament scores.

 

I believe the phase everyone hates is... "Practice scores do not count"

[skibug]

2 ranking lists to keep it on the up and up.

[liquid d]

This seems like something one you computer gurus could tackle on a trial basis. Take the $5 a ride, and let's see how it shapes up. Won't count towards any Awsa rankings, but would be fun way to talk smack across the country. We'd have to come up with a good name for it!

[Chef23]

This proposal is very similar to the way a golf handicap is calculated. Practice/social rounds count as long as the rules are followed. Most golfers shoot higher numbers in a tournament with the pressure on. In the handicap system tournament rounds have a notation that differentiates them.

 

I don't see the problem with this. Sure it is a bit of the honor system and who really cares if someone sandbags it will come out when they show up at a tournament. Maybe they go off the dock a couple of skiers later than they should.

 

I would think it might be a way to get more people involved in AWSA. Many golfers that don't play tournaments carry a USGA handicap which drives revenue to the USGA.

 

 

[Wish]

Probably done rather easily through a phone app.

[MattP]

@Wish now that's an app project I would like to work on. @JeffSurdej @Horton I wonder if we could throw something together to test this idea out with the ballers this season. It would not be too difficult to set up. I think if it got implemented with AWSA in the future it would be a great way to drive membership back into the association as well as drive some extra revenue. The ballers would be a great test group. Thoughts?

[disland]

I like tournament on demand, but not tournament set on demand. For me there is at least several times a year where we have a crew on the dock for practice and someone says we should just make this a tournament. Then I am usually the one who says "we cant" "I cant get a sanction that fast, and there is a penalty fee for short notice, Oh and we dont have a safety"

 

So what we need is zero notice class D tournament (boat judge only). Ok I can live with you need at least one regular judge to be "chief judge", no safety. Tournament has to have a minimum of 4 skiers to meet the Buterfield beer league requirement.

 

Minimum requirement that scores count for the ranking list and promo boat gets credit.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I guess I need to trademark that before some steals it!

 

The Butterfield Beer League

 

And that means I get to make all the rules too :#

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield no you can't make all the rules. But you will be required to bring all the beer!! B) :)

[Horton]

@MattP have you really thought about the functionality needed? I don't think it is a monster undertaking but you definitely need a bit of server-side programming to make this work.

 

I almost gave @Wish a Panda for suggesting it would be easy. Maybe it would be easy use once you hired a professional programmer to build an interface and the back end and then make it compliant for Android and Apple devices. Don't forget you're probably going to want it to speak to the AWSA database so you can sync member numbers and names. You're going to have to figure out how to convert line lengths and boat speed to zbs values. That sounds easy.

 

[rayn]

Crossfit has this notion to a degree. They have the Open which anyone can compete in and is what qualifies you for regionals. If you are not at a certified gym for your workouts, you can video your attempt and it gets voted on as to the validity and score. Seems to me that video with a boat judge could keep a lot of the honesty problems in check and make our membership more involved.

[LeonL]

I guess I just don't see that it would increase membership or revenue. If you're not a member and obviously not a tournament skier, why would you pay any bucks to get a score on a list? This skier hasn't displayed any previous desire to be on a list. I think it would be really skewed to high side regardless of honesty. I could run every set conforming to this and when I hit a great day, I submit it. I have enough good days in practice to skew my scores. If these were to be used on the true ranking list, assuming the same rules were applied , some tournament skiers might be bumped out of L8, for instance, bye someone who has no intent to ski any tournament. Having said all that, it is thinking outside the box and could be a good thing.

[Triplett]

@rayn I was planning on typing your exact reply as I was reading. It works pretty well in the Crossfit world. Only certified judges can approve the video, and that is an hour online course. If it is an outrageous score then you will get Crossfit looking at it. Some "pro" level athletes have had their scores pulled.

 

Maybe a way to get around any course or driver discrepancies would be to weight the score differently than an actual tournament. It would be pretty easy to tell if you are cheating if you have a tournament score. AWSA could require a tournament minimum for qualification to nationals, or maybe one of these scores at a known, accurate, site with a certified driver and judge in the boat, along with video. Wouldn't be hard to do for most people.

 

I would be more than happy to pay 5-10 bucks per video submission. Could be limited to number of times in a month, might get a little hard to validate scores if you get a crazy amount of scores in.

[Than_Bogan]

@LeonL I don't think "skewing toward your best" is much of a problem, as long as everyone has the same opportunity. If a rule lets you appear to accomplish something that you actually didn't, that's a serious problem. But if it simply lets you record your best days, and also lets everyone else do that, I think it's OK.

 

I'm not necessarily excited about this proposal overall; just wanted to address that one point.

[Triplett]

@LeonL I would disagree with it not driving membership. Using Crossfit as an example, I have no chance of ever going to regionals, but I still sign up for the Open to see where I stack up against people in Michigan, the US, and the world.

 

Some people just are not competitive, but I would bet there are good chunk who ski but don't want to waste every weekend spending 50 bucks for 8-12 passes, where this would be a fantastic option.

 

To @Than_Bogan's point, tournament skiers are going to use this too. I don't think it would change much.

[ToddL]

Neat out-of-the-box idea. Great comments of hurdles to address, but worthwhile discussion for sure.

 

A little off topics, but could we just get an API into the AWSA databases? Then, anyone who has the time and desire to build anything to calculate whatever differently would have access to the raw data to do so? Obviously, we don't need access to private info. Just name, number, ratings, scores, rankings, etc. in a data (not website) delivery method. Heck, Just a freaking download to the rankings list and an option to pull in every round at every sanctioned event per ski year would make for interesting opportunities to crunch numbers.

[gregy]

I think the idea has some merit. I work every other weekend and the weekends I have off I'm not crazy about speeding at a tournament. Its really hard for me to justify burning vacation for a tournament, which I've done before. I'm not sure how many people have a similar situation.

[Texas6]

It's a fantastic idea - and I believe it would make USAWS money if you simply charged for each on demand tournament round. I'm a great example of added potential revenue in this example as are many guys I ski with. Every summer I tell my wife and kids I'm going to get in 5 tournaments this year and I go through the calendar and pick the ones that make the most sense. In ten years of tournament skiing I've never made more than 3 because of busy schedules and/or life complications. Id probably do ten plus per year if this was an option

[Texas6]

As far as weighting goes - you could potentially apply a 10% buoy penalty to all on demand rounds, and/or require 5 on demand rounds before they can be leveraged toward a ranking (10% penalty remains). If anyone is worried about cheating require an iPhone video upload. Three guys in the boat, driver, judge, video. Asterisk on the rankings list indicating on demand scores

[Gloersen]

ditto @Texas6 re corroborative video database (Youtube channel/approved course sites) using standardized recording technique.

[LeonL]

@Texas6 if I were to take a 10% penalty on such scores, I would have some bad looking scores. Right now my average is around 86 (@32mph). If I have a good day in practice I may run 1-2 @38. That's 91 or 92. Deduct 10% from the 91 and I've got a 81.9. Not worth submitting.

[Texas6]

@LeonL - the premise behind the 10% penalty is that is about how much better most ski in tournaments vs practice and it equalizes the format a bit. The percentage may not be optimal, perhaps 5 is the right number (or 10 below 35 and 5 over 35). Im only suggesting that I don't think it's fair to count scores towards a ranking if you don't handicap the format a little.

[Chef23]

I don't think there should be a penalty as long as the rules are followed. Who does it really hurt if someone's ranking is artificially elevated. I guarantee people are not going to ski to their home average in their first few tournaments. It probably took me 4-5 tournaments with multiple rounds to ski my practice scores in a tournament.

 

I do think it might get some folks to ski tournaments that don't currently. Having an average might encourage going to a tournament.

[Texas6]

Im open to that also @Wish, just thought there would be more people pushing back on a home base on demand tourney counting towards rankings the same exact way as a Class C. And I do think they will bring higher scores, not entirely sure why that's bad the more I think about it

[Triplett]

There needs to be some sort of penalty for any lake and boat being used. The only way you can guarantee your course is correct is with a survey. I could have a huge average because my course is narrow then show up to a tournament and lose an entire pass consistently. This isnt fair when it comes to tournaments where seeding is important, as well as qualification to ski. I also believe that you don't need to have a judge in the boat for the score that is slightly penalized, you would need to submit video, which would be the verification of the score anyway. Now the way to not be penalized is to have your set with at least an assistant driver on a tournament lake with an AWSA approved boat for tournaments. The judge wouldn't be necessary for the reason above.

 

We still have to place importance tournaments. It is one thing to run up the line where you are comfortable with everything, and something completely different in a foreign place with the stakes higher. An idea like this has to expand the membership and support the local tournaments.

 

 

 

[MISkier]

I may be in the minority here, but this on demand idea holds no real value for me. I can't see myself doing it.

[disland]

You can run a class C without a survey so why would we expect on demand to have one. We need to make things easier not harder.

[Triplett]

@disland I did think of this after I posted. It should not be required, but I don't think it is a good idea to allow an on demand score to be equivalent to a C class score unless the site pulls tournaments and you have a trained driver.

 

 

[disland]

Given the current blow back on the recent rule changes, I cant imagine a path to something like this being approved.

[liquid d]

Not going to be equal to a tourney (and shouldn't), but a worthwhile/fun experiment.

[elr]

As I thought most of the resistance centers around equivalency which is driven by how we currently qualify for Regionals and Nationals.

 

So here is what I'm thinking --

 

- Two separate lists, a Handicap List, and a Ranking [Traditional Tournament] List. Scores from the Ranking List feed the Handicap List. Tournament on Demand [e.g. 17H0213 for February 13, 2017] scores only feed the Handicap list.

- Qualifying for Regionals and Nationals via the Ranking List remain unchanged.

- Qualifying for Regionals [only] via the Handicap List requires X number of scores - it doesn't matter what the scores are to dis-incentivize cheating.

- Using the Golf vernacular raw scores on the Handicap List can be sloped [or not] for the conditions the score was achieved under e.g. Class R Tournament highest to ToD with Trained Driver, Assistant Judge, un-surveyed course, non-current boat lowest.

 

I'm thinking this helps facilitate "beer leagues" and provides an alternative path to Regionals without doing violence to the traditional structure.

 

Also, to help grow membership send ski school students or your buddies home with a score.

 

[ForrestGump]

@elr I don't agree with you on a lot of things. But I absolutely love this. I don't have time to spend all day at the lake on a Saturday or Sunday with the other sport I'm competing in. But I could for sure get a round or two in here and there in this format and make myself available to ski at Regionals. I like this a lot.

[ForrestGump]

@elr I don't agree with you on a lot of things. But I absolutely love this. I don't have time to spend all day at the lake on a Saturday or Sunday with the other sport I'm competing in. But I could for sure get a round or two in here and there in this format and make myself available to ski at Regionals. I like this a lot.

[Zman]

Yes, golfers do build their handicap with scores "on the honor system", and none of us knows anyone with a padded handicap from that honor system? Nope, never happens there....

[Zman]

Yes, golfers do build their handicap with scores "on the honor system", and none of us knows anyone with a padded handicap from that honor system? Nope, never happens there....

[Kelvin]

@zman, So golf should just scrap the handicap system and turn their focus entire focus to the US Open.