Recend level recent level 10 policy / rule

[Bruce_Butterfield]

It seems that most are missing the point of the original post and getting on tangents.

 

1.  There was a significant change, affecting a relatively small number of skiers, forced on the membership with little or no input or discussion from the membership.

2.  The criteria for choosing the cutoff points is not explained and those cutoff points have not been defined to any of the affected skiers.

 

So the real issue is the gross lack of communication between the board of directors, the multiple committes, the regional representatives and the membership.

 

I do think that out our organization is in dire need of change, but arbitrary, knee jerk mandates executed in a vacuum is a receipe for failure.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

It seems that most are missing the point of the original post and getting on tangents.

 

1.  There was a significant change, affecting a relatively small number of skiers, forced on the membership with little or no input or discussion from the membership.

2.  The criteria for choosing the cutoff points is not explained and those cutoff points have not been defined to any of the affected skiers.

 

So the real issue is the gross lack of communication between the board of directors, the multiple committes, the regional representatives and the membership.

 

I do think that out our organization is in dire need of change, but arbitrary, knee jerk mandates executed in a vacuum is a receipe for failure.

[jcamp]

Can somebody please provide evidence that these rule changes were "forced on the membership with little or no input or discussion from the membership" or "arbitrary, knee jerk mandates executed in a vacuum"?

 

Did these rule changes not follow the normal process for all rule changes? I'm not on any of the committees nor part of the AWSA in any way beyond a member, but I heard about these ideas at least six months ago and knew they were going to be up for discussion at the winter meeting. If I had a strong opinion on them, which I don't really, I had the opportunity to give my input through my regional reps.

 

If they didn't follow the normal process, then that is definitely a cause for concern and I'd like tho hear more about that. If they did, then this all seem like sour grapes to me. I don't recall anyone complaining about "knee jerk mandates" when the rules we really like were passed, like lighter lines for B1/G1/B2/G2 and not making Boys 3 go 36 mph.

 

Not liking the rule changes are fine. Impugning the work of an organization and its volunteers is not.

 

 

[skier2788]

@RazorRoss3 if I read the rule correctly juniors are exempt from this rule.

[RazorRoss3]

@Jody_Seal, from the comment above, if junior skiers are exempt why does your daughter care unless she has entered W1 from G3?

 

@skier2788, if that is true, my comment remains the same, and my potential tweaks after we see how it works remain the same with the exemption of the juniors tweak as it would already be taken care of.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@ob1 I agree that moving toward ability based groups is a good thing, but forcing entry based on an arbitrary performance score is a bad method. Just one better way, that I've written about before, would be based on regionals and nationals placement AND a threshold performance.

 

@jcamp I think the evidence is just how many affected skiers were blindsided by this rule and the fact that the thresholds have not been defined. There is a huge communication gap that has been a problem for a long time.

[LLUSA]

@Chet as someone who has competed against you and others I always wanted to be the best in my division regardless of the level of competition, back in the day of Men 3 mega slalom I was fortunate enough to beat on the greatest slalom skiers of all time at Nationals, and for the next ten years he beat everybody senseless, I never felt like he should be skiing in Open or anything less, it meant more to ski against the best. And when I finally attained an open rating I wanted to ski Open although I was at the bottom, any way that was then and people things values change. keep the divisions, I can't imagine saying I won Nationals as the best 35 off skier in the country.

[nate93]

What is the purpose of this rule?

 

I believe it is an attempt "to grow the sport" but once again AWSA focuses on the few....It all started with the Olympics back in the 1980s! News flash we are never getting in! The focus needs to be on how to get more of the level 3-7 people to tournaments....I remember when I was a kid there was a novice and class C in each division....where did this go? Also when did getting your name on some list somewhere become award for skiing a tournament? Give the skiers a reason to go to a tournament again!!!

 

In my opinion this rule looks like the rules committee can't win so they are kicking the competition out, I'm not saying this is the reason but it is the perception. Remember a vast majority of these elite skiers (MM, MW) are just normal working people who may just work (at skiing) harder and/or sacrifice more than their competition.

 

[Edbrazil]

 

I remember that at one time, many years back, you were automatically forced into the

Open Division if you ran a certain score. That lasted only a year or two, before it was

rescinded. At that time, a full pass at 32 off (13m) forced you into Open. We had an

Eastern Regionals where 2 Men skiers intentionally tried to run just short of that score.

They both were very good skiers, but were a full 2 passes or so behind what was

really competitive in Open.

 

Was a big kerfuffle, and there was even a protest against them for unsportsmanlike

conduct. I do question having skiers forced into Open.

[LeonL]

It don't have a dog in this "fight", so I didn't sign the petition. On the surface it seems OK to me, however. The big point I see is the fact that no criteria has been established to implement the ruling.

[klindy]

A couple points - Attached is the methodology the Skiers Qualification Committee uses to establish the various thresholds. This is slightly adjusted from previous years to account for the changes in divisions sizes as we all age. Level 9 has been the top 7% of the division for years so clearly a level 10 threshold needs to be set above that. Using the top 98 or 99 percentile basically means that OM/OW and MM (slalom only) would have enough skiers to create a level 10.

 

Second, whether the elite divisions or a portion of the elite divisions has been a topic of discussion for several years. This is NOT a new subject. Obviously there are valid viewpoints on both sides of the debate and there is no one clear path to follow. So all opinions are valid and should be listened too.

 

Third, Ability Based divisions/competition has also been a topic of discussion for several years. The Open and Masters divisions ARE the only ability based divisions we currently have and obviously skiers qualified for those divisions span several age groups. There is a large group of the membership who would like to see ability based groupings to make things more competitive both on a weekly basis and at the Regionals/Nationals, etc. Others clearly think differently.

 

Our current ranking list simple sorts by age first (division) and then ability (level). A score (for example, 4@35off - 55kph or 4000pts in tricks or 150' in jump) in any event regardless of how old you are is exactly the same. However for slalom various divisions start (a zero score) from a different baseline (minimum starting speed) or have a different maximum speed. That makes comparing the numeric score (94 buoys) more challenging. Likewise, different ramp heights and speeds in jump make comparing distances more challenging. Tricks is pretty straightforward since everyone starts at zero and the tricks are the same value for everyone.

 

Anyway, using the raw scores and potentially some adjustment factors, its possible to develop a ranking list today (or historically) by simply adjusting the raw scores if needed and then sorting by ability (score) first and then by age, if needed.

 

What all that means is it's possible today to have both. It's a database sort. Whether major competitions are run age based or ability based is a separate debate but establishing the criteria to get it done is doable. Local tournaments can run either way.

 

Just want to have a 'ranking list' tournament? No problem. Want to develop some ability based competition at a local level? Also no problem. The biggest problems are 1) establishing the 'adjustment factors' (jump is the biggest challenge now with ZBS in slalom) and, 2) programming time to develop a new 'face' to the database.

[MillerTime38]

I like the idea, it adds ability based competition to the elite level and should allow for more average joes to make podium in the age divisions.

 

I know some younger age groups get pushed to OM/OW but looking at how many overall competitors in OM and OW last two years, OM 3 one year 1 the other OW 1 one year and 3 the other, seems like we need more competitors in those groups and it gives them a chance to compete on a bigger stage.

 

[ToddL]

I'm all for skill-based divisions within major categories of demographics. No matter where you draw lines for divisions, someone is going to be near the top and someone is going to be near the bottom. The smaller the skill range within the divisions, the more competitive the atmosphere is within them. Progress in skill can then allow a skier opportunities to be at the top then cross over and repeat the advancement through the next division.

 

Thus, I think a change away from age divisions is beneficial to our sport.

 

I just don't see how this isolated and unexpected change fits into any grand strategic plan. Is it just a band-aid for a symptom of a bigger problem?

 

These comments have a bit of how it will affect "me". It also explains why a lot of skiers probably aren't getting involved because they aren't near the Level 10 skill group. That's my "me" story. I could say, "I don't care," except that I do. I just don't know yet how to respond to this specific change.

 

When a real and substantial change to divisions is ever considered for AWSA, we will see the same voting from personal impact. We need to get past the how it impacts "me" and look at what is best for the sport's sustained health.

[ToddL]

"arbitrary, knee jerk mandates executed in a vacuum is a recipe for failure."

Agreed.

 

It seems with today's connectivity, and immediate flow of information, there is so much opportunity to do more. Leadership and representation via volunteers is a tough task. So why not leverage more volunteers via on-line tools?

 

Why not make a list of perceived problems and solicit ideas for solutions from the entire membership?

Why not take the best of those ideas and have a Skype or Go To Meeting town hall to discuss and develop them?

Why not put the developed and vetted best ideas back out to membership for a final vote?

[Chad_Scott]

You know it seems like we are headed toward give everyone a trophy no matter the ability. Nationals is where the best of the best ski and are supposed to compete. . When I was in men's 2 I can remember watching the men's 3 event with over 100 skiers . Watching chuck Forrest dominate year in and year out it was one of the most prestigious titles to be had . I was top seed for most of my men's 3 career. I worked my ass off to win the title. It only took me every year and finally happened my last year in men's 3. I see no reason for an MM division I think we should ski in our age based division. I think if we are going to have an MM division it should be at another speed other than 34

 

Nationals should be about competition. If someone can win the event on his/ he'd first pass then they should certainly not be skiing in age based division. There is no one in men's 3/4/5/6 that can win on the first pass. MM has taken the prestige of the titles that once were when skiing was at its height. I don't see how making the age divisions a second tier event is going to grow the sport.

 

If that's the case give everyone an metal whether they deserve it or not.

 

I mean with some of the new rules we are killing the competitive side of skiing. The zero based scoring makes no sense to me either. If Jeff Rodgers skis before me and runs 2@41 at 34 mph in MM. I can elect to go 36 and run 2 1/2@39 at 36 to win the event. Crazy to me.

[Triplett]

I commented on another post about this rule before it was released. This is a step in the right direction. I can see where everyone is coming from, as there is a good argument for either side of this. Age divisions work great when you have a lot of members, but we do not. I still think if you are L9 you shouldn't be able to ski your age division, but the L10 rule at least gets some movement in the right direction. Getting the best of the best out of the age division does bring in another set of high level guys but I would say it helps. We need to take the steps to increase membership, otherwise we fade into the sunset.

[skiep]

Just give me the handle put it on C1and go! 52k-55kor 58k

[Chad_Scott]

so with Nate Smith dominating the way he has in Open. Should we not make him ski in another division so others wil have chance to medal at nationals. I understand the need to encourange new members to join into tournament skiing But diluting the skiing in the age division is not going to bring in new members. It will just devalue the honor of being a National champion Believe me the national titles are not easy to win. My last year in men's 2, I was beaten out by an open skier who dropped down to men's 2. I did not cry and quit, I kept skiing and working to be a better skier.

I mean it is still the national championship where the best skiers in the country compete to be national champions. Why does anyone think the answer is making it easier for everyone to win a title.

 

I agree with some of the concepts discussed I think we should go back to a set score to achieve an invite to nationals. I remember chasing an ep score all over the place trying to just qualify for nationals Get back to manufacturers providing an ep deal on equipment and honor those who have accomplished that feat. The ranking list changes and some don't know they qualify till it is too late to plan. Give skiers a known mark to achieve to qualify for regionals and nationals.

 

I also like the idea of allowing a judged practice score or class c score to qualify skiers for a state and or regional championships . Increase participation at these events is certainly good for the sport. I am all for making these tournaments easily accessible to more people. Exclude the top three guys in each age division from skiing for placement or skiing at all at regionals so others can have their chance at a podium and new people have the opportunity to place in the top 5 earning a bid to the nationals championship

 

However I think it is important to maintain the integrity of the national championships without diluting events into participation awards.

 

Maybe the NFL should make a new league for the patriots so @OB1 falcons can win the Super Bowl. Maybe there is another league for Brady to play in. I'm a cowboys fan and I'm sure tired of everyone else winning the Super Bowl. Let's move some teams out of the league

[Than_Bogan]

@Chad_Scott I've suggested before a special division for people whose first name starts with NAT and whose last name has 5 letters...

 

Also my request for an Almost Decided To Go To Nationals trophy was supposed to be in this thread, but oh well -- it wasn't that funny anyhow.

[Kelvin]

Some of what Chad mentioned has already been changed. For the age divisions, elite skiers that ski the age divisions are no longer counted when determining the top 5 skiers that qualify for nationals.

 

4.02 National Tournament Qualifications

A. Placement Qualifications:

1. The top 5 non-elite-qualified skiers in each age-division event or overall at the current year Regionals or previous year’s Nationals shall qualify for Nationals.

[RazorRoss3]

I think the only alternative to making Open/MM divisions mandatory is to remove them. You shouldn't have a choice to be the best of the worst or the worst of the best. Hard to reason Nats when you don't even know who you'll be competing against.

[elr]

Maybe we should have two concurrent tournaments. Nationals (age group) and Elite (USA L9-10). Ski in both if qualified.

 

If you want to make it a festival have a Festival Championship (handicapped - just need an official handicap - run with boat judge only). Ski in all three if qualified. It may limit who could host depending on.numbers. But would make the attedance economics better.

[skidawg]

This entire discussion is why skiing is dying-a conundrum of BS. All cycling is ability based and cycling is booming and has been for years.

[MISkier]

Level 10 doesn't impact me now and maybe never will. But, when making my opinion, I looked at it from the perspective of my future possibilities. I wondered, if I were to achieve that level and be classified into a separate competition, what would be my thoughts? I came to the conclusion that achieving that level of performance would be notable and recognizing that with a specific competitive group would be something I would accept with the honor that it would be.

 

So, is the answer that, instead of using L10 (and maybe L9) to set up a new division, we use those levels to be the only ones qualified to go to Nationals and they remain in their age divisions? That would retain the prestige of the event and actually increase the integrity of an age-based championship. And, it would probably shorten up the duration or at least allow Nationals to be held at a one lake site. There is no need to have Level 8 skiers there, if you are truly crowning the best of the best. They have no chance to win or place unless the L9 and L10 guys all get run over by a bus while walking in from the parking lot, so there is no point in having them there. To use the NFL example, we don't kick the Patriots out of the league...we get rid of the Lions.

 

I don't know how any of this deals with membership or tournament participation, but the concerns were about watering down Nationals. So, instead of doing that, we raise the bar.

[Zman]

@MISkier That sounds a lot like just re-labeling the current Level 8 and 9. But, I'm with you for keeping aged based. As a guy approaching M7, it is already plenty tough competition with the new guys moving up from M5 every year. All in all, as a guy who does just a handful of tournaments each summer, I pretty much like what the format has been. I go to the tournaments First, for all the great people involved in our sport, Second, for the chance to see if all my practice fun can come through on tournament day (the only time it counts, I'm told). And, the beers for Apres Ski time.

[jcamp]

Maybe cyclists enjoy beating 14-year olds. But I don't.

[jcamp]

@OB1 Well, that too :-) Either way it really is a lose lose.

[TravisNW]

I'm not sure what level 10 is, currently it only goes to level 9... I'm open rated for slalom and overall, rated open overall btw means nothing because It does not enable me to carry my other two level 8 events into the open division. To carry a lower rated event into an open competition requires two single events to be level 9 at which point a third event can be carried into the open division. I hear lots of complaining about having to compete against the "real pros" but I don't see Freddy Zack or Taylor competing at nationals, also if you look at Cp Nate, jimmy Siemers etc they are mostly single eventers anymore, maybe this rule would bring them back to 3 event or at least not discourage others from moving away from it. Also lets not forget overall is a prestigious event, in my opinion the most prestigious so to place or win a single event or to place or win overall is huge! the fact is the number of open skiers at regionals and nationals is ridiculously small there usually is less than a podium full and Honestly there are a lot of really good skiers that this rule effects and truth is they probably should be in open, if your this good and it the rule discourages you then I call poor sport, this format should drive these individuals to perform even better. Winning isn't everything but the same people keep winning b3 m1 m2 G3 w1 w2 over and over again all the way up the line and I hear many mid field skiers comment "they should be in open", I for one feel I am stuck in the age based divisions because I value the overall and won't give that up to ski one event in the open and split up my other events. This rule would enable me to potentially place in overall and a single event or two so I am for it!

[Chad_Scott]

@TravisNW I don't keep up with the boys 3 girls 2/3 that you spoke of. You also said that the same people keep winning all the way up the age divisions. I'm curious from mens 3-6 who has won the slalom events over and over in any of these age based division. The last person I recall dominating in men's 3 was chuck Forrest and again that was back in the days when there were 180 people in the division.

 

With the ability based grouping back in the day when my son was in boys 2 . The men's 3 and 4 group would have likely been skiing against a 14 yr old who was running into 39 off at 34 mph . In ability based groupings cooper Tate would have been skiing against the old men as well if we are truly changing the divisions to ability based.

 

I just do not see how devalueing the age based division at the national championship will bring new skiers into our sport.

 

I can tell you for kids competing in the sport they want to ski against other kids their age. Most of them spend too much time skiing with adults. The key is making the sport attractive to children who are competing every day in other organized sports Going to tournaments and waiting around all day to ski two or three times. likely against no one their age, is not attractive to kids.

 

We have to make tournaments more attractive to the young

 

 

 

[TravisNW]

@Chad_Scott I don't understand. To me the intent for this change is that if your rated open you ski open, for divisions m1, m2 (36mph divisions) B3 could be optional. Same if your a men's 34 mph skier rated for mm in age group m3-m6, under 35 is not eligible to ski MM.l therefore kids wouldn't ski MM. at this point it's probably time to even add a senior masters men's for 32 with all those hot shot guys getting into 39 1/2. Every year that I ski regionals or nationals I at least podium, I never miss. I can post the lowest score of the season and still podium and I see the same faces every year. To win you should have to ski your best not just show up.

[BRY]

This whole thread has taken a turn to the absurd.

The Level 10 rule is a rule in of its self, it stands on its own. It simply shuffles around a very few (relative to numbers of AWSA skiers) at the very top. It is nothing else.

It is not "ability based" for the masses.

It does not give "average joes" or "mid field skiers" a shot at podiums.

It does nothing to promote new members (very few people out there deep -39 and shorter to add as members)

Projecting wishes and desires for change on it does not change what it is. It is a reshuffling of the top half of current Level 9. Nothing more.

 

In of its self and standing alone I think this is a bad rule. I have not seen a clear explanation of why it is needed, what it is supposed to accomplish and what the affected skiers think about it.

[BRY]

@OB1 :) Not sure how you took that from my post, meh. But @JeffSurdej is posting and soliciting for BOS'ers opinions on BOS now. Lots of on the fence potential tournaments skiers lurking. Perhaps more influence in mindshare than it should have. Just wanted the give the conversation a kick.

 

[ToddL]

Since we are brainstorming what if divisions again, this was my idea before:

Youth Novice, Youth Competitor, Youth Advanced (<18)

Adult Novice, Adult Competitor, Adult Advanced (18-60)

Senior Competitor, Senior Advanced (no need for novice at this level) (60+)

With this grouping, there are 8 divisions, again with handicapped scoring within.

Notice that there is no gender separation. There could be, but I am not certain it is needed.

 

The goal is sizable enough grouping to make success and domination meaningful in each division (trophies mean something), but yet categorized and grouped to make competition withing each group meaningful (striving for a placement is possible). AND, it still makes entry at any age into the competitive sport attractive due to the ability divisions.

 

Lots of pros/cons to anything different than today. Just imagine if the above was the norm and someone was proposing a change to solely age-base divisions currently used by AWSA. We'd all be complaining about how that isn't fair.

[jcamp]

BREAKING NEWS! Ability-based divisions already exist. It's called the INT. You know, the organization that has completely backed out of New England (and other regions) because of "declining registrations" and hasn't held a "National" championship since 2013. Definitely looks like a model a model AWSA should copy!

[ToddL]

@jcamp - it's decline isn't the divisions. That's a false suggestion of causality. It's decline is that it wasn't ever fully adopted on a national level nor fully sustainable when all local competitive resources were already focused on AWSA. If the AWSA body of skiers were all engaged in and supporting the INT model it would be thriving, likely more so than the AWSA model. Its existing model is just isolated and thus in competition with AWSA for resources. If it was integrated and connected seamlessly with rankings, etc. it would be complementary as opposed to segregated.

 

I still say that if we want to attract skiers we have to make getting started more attractive. Skiers start at any age. What is attractive about starting a sport as an adult where everyone already in it has been competing for 10+ years? Imagine if you and a bunch of guys from your neighbor hood wanted to start playing competitive baseball and the only league you could join is MLB and your team was forced to play against all of the established minor leagues? That's a tough way to get started...

[jcamp]

@ToddL yes, that would be tough, but it doesn't accurately describe all the options available in AWSA. Last year there were roughly 500 tournaments in the U.S. 120 were grassroots tournaments, offering beginner-friendly things like mulligans, and minimum numbers of passes.

 

Every single tournament could be a grassroots event. It is entirely up to the tournament organizers, not AWSA. And it's easy to introduce ability-based groups to the way tournaments are currently ran too (I ski in one every year). Just most organizers don't do it. There is no need to change the way everything is run when people already have that ability to do so on their own.

[klindy]

@jcamp I fully agree and you are exactly right that ability-based groups and competition can be done today without any changes. However even though it's possible, (obviously) some people can't see the potential or possibility. It also requires some additional effort to make it happen (read: manual calculations, etc). So I have been consistently recommending that we need to "make it easy" for these types of things to happen with templates, formats, instructions, whatever.

[jcamp]

@klindy that sounds good to me, I just don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ToddL]

@jcamp & @klindy - all true. Rather than excel templates if WSTIMS simply had a check box to score both division formats at once, then the local "trophies" can be ability based, but the results fit the national ranking upload format. I step in the right direction. Anything is capable as an "add-on" format if the hosts want to have to run two concurrent formats/scoring books. But that's exactly the issue and problem: it is two instead of one. We are unlike BMX where these age+ability based groups are the official format from the top down.

 

Everything in our sport is due to "trickle-down" competition. Since IWWF, therefore AWSA. Since Nationals... therefore Regionals must... Since Regionals must... local events are driven to... and so on.

 

If we want real change to the nature of competition, we have to dive into the deep end and do it differently from the top down. Thus, official division changes applied at nationals is the only way for a change to really stick.

[klindy]

@ToddL That's exactly what I mean by "making it easy". Our scoring systems need to be flexible to adapt to whatever the local tournament want to run. As I've said many times, we will score slalom, trick and jump exactly the same as we do now. The raw score will not change. How the skiers are grouped or the conditions which are used are the only differences. Step one - make what we CAN do currently as easy and as flexible as possible.