Why should L8 skiers be invited to attend Nationals?

[MISkier]

There has been a lot of discussion around the various rule changes. While ZBS garnered the most attention, the new Level 10 rule is also attracting some debate. Both ZBS and L9/L10 led to conversations on the prestige of Nationals and the perceived weakening of competition. There were several comments about Nationals existing to select the "best of the best". If that is the purpose, I believe we should examine how many receive invitations to Nationals. Some disagree with the idea of mandatory elite competition, favoring the traditional age division model instead. With that in mind, what is the purpose of the current participant inclusion of L8 skiers?

 

For the purposes of this poll, consider the L8 skier to be a skier who does not have an L9 or L10 ranking in any one or more of the disciplines: slalom, trick, jump or overall. Also, for this poll, the L8 skier who placed on the podium at Regionals is exempt and not considered L8 in this poll, as their achievement at Regionals exemplifies the competitive path to Nationals.

 

Why should L8 skiers be invited to attend Nationals?

[MISkier]

I'd like to believe it is probably F, but it might be G. I am convinced it is not A.

 

Maybe it is another option - to provide those that are really not the best of the best with the opportunity to ski with those that are. Sort of a Pro-Am.

 

All the other discussion that tied into this makes me wonder if the rest of the crowd that doesn't/can't attend Regionals or Nationals should just sell their ski equipment and join a dodgeball league. Well, except that we'd be picked last there, too, because we're such losers.

 

One thing is for sure. If we whittle down the participants and tighten up the competition, Nationals could potentially be handled in a weekend or a long weekend. It's possible that more sites would be able to bid or would want to, since they wouldn't be dedicating their location for a full week. The strain on the officials would be less as well.

 

And, what is more exciting? Sitting around all day watching multiple lakes of skiers waiting for it to finally pare down to the final few skiers that are really competing to be the National Champion? Or, watching a certain top percentage with similar rankings into very short line lengths gut it out - maybe even head-to-head? When you watch a ton of skiers with no real chance to win and see a placement list that doesn't really reflect the competition (or lack thereof), is it a good investment of your time?

 

Don't get me wrong. If I qualified for Nationals, I would make every attempt to go, at least once, to see what I could do and experience the event. After that, unless I had a serious chance to place or enjoyed the initial experience immensely, I would probably only go if it were in my proverbial backyard.

[ToddL]

@Horton is still right (painfully to admit): Until the purpose of Nats is solidified, we cannot pursue a meaningful change to fulfill that purpose. So, your poll is assuming one propose purpose: a competition to crown the best of the best.

 

@MISkier said: "If I qualified for Nationals, I would make every attempt to go, at least once, to see what I could do and experience the event. After that, unless I had a serious chance to place or enjoyed the initial experience immensely, I would probably only go if it were in my proverbial backyard."

I think this is true of most skiers who are not in the hunt for the podium.

 

However, there are also a small group of skiers who are deeply committed to the sport and have developed life-long friends all over the nation. That population goes to nationals to spend time with those friends from afar. Many make it their annual family trip/vacation. (I prefer to spend that time travelling to go snow skiing since I live in TX and don't get to do that but once per year.)

 

So, historically, those who attend are: 1) truly the top who are vying for a podium spot, 2) those who qualified for the first time and want the experience, 3) those who go for the socializing/family trip and commitment to support of the national skier network, and 4) those who live nearby that year's location.

[jcamp]

Tightening the qualifications would reduce the field ever further than just eliminating those who would no longer qualify. How many families right now have 2-3 members who qualify so they go, but would not travel to Nationals if only, let's say, 1 member qualified?

 

Skiing is a family sport, right? That's supposed to be fun, right? Why do something that would likely lead to less families sharing the Nationals experience together?

[MISkier]

@jcamp, your point would be very valid if the purpose of Nationals were to get families to attend and ski together. But, here we are considering if the purpose of Nationals is to crown a champion from the "best of the best". Those two purposes are not the same and expanding just to include more family members is not serving the purpose of determining the champion from the top echelon.

[jcamp]

@MISKier That may be your purpose, but not mine. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to ski and get my mid20s placement the last couple years. I'm sure the LOC and on-site vendors didn't mind the money I spent there either ...

 

FWIW, I would agree that Nationals has to walk the line between being hard enough so "bad" skiers aren't there wasting time, but not too exclusive as to not give enough skiers a realistic shot of making it. I think that level 8 is a reasonable compromise.

[lpskier]

I'm Level 8, I qualify every year and go most years. I enjoy it immensely. I have never medaled, although my daughter has medaled twice.

[Chad_Scott]

I can remember chasing an ep rating like it was yesterday Going to tournaments just trying to qualify for nationals. Skied several year before I even sniffed he podium I always thought it was a big deal to qualify and ski. Once I qualified I had a great time met lots of lifelong friends and watched as the best skiers in the divisions won As a result it made me want to work harder to get to the top of the tier. I was top seed or second for nearly 13 years before I won a title. Finally won my last year in men's 3. There are lots of great skiers that ski the national championship I enjoyed the experience but most important. I enjoy the great people and friends I have met over the years well worth every dime I have spent going each year.

Because of skiing I have friends and contacts all over the country willing to provide a ski ride anytime you are in their area. What can be better than that!!

[dchristman]

I didn't go through all the rankings, but just looking at the East, Midwest, and South Slalom rankings, it wouldn't be much of a "nationals" without level 8. There are currently NO boys/girls 1,2, or 3 in the East or Midwest above level 8, and only 5 at level 9 in the South. The East has 11 level 9 and Midwest has 12 in all divisions. There has to be even less above level 8 for trick and jump.

 

I don't see how Nationals would even be feasible to hold without level 8.

[MISkier]

@dchristman, it sounds like either membership is so low or the level 9 percentile needs to be revisited. The level 8 percentile is too broad, if you want to have a Nationals that is really "best of the best".

[MISkier]

@dchristman, just looking at B1 and B2, the cutoff score for Level 9 is 109.50 for each division. At their respective max speeds, the B1 skier would have to get 1.5 at 44 off and the B2 skier would have to get 1.5 at 41 off to hit level 9. Sounds like that math could be refined a bit to have actual distribution across the percentiles for the levels, at least for those 2 divisions.

 

I have to admit it would be cool to see a 13 year old running 39 at 34 mph or a 9 year old running 43 off.

[MattP]

@MISkier there is no level 9/Open for junior skiers until they reach max speed in B/G3

[Than_Bogan]

To be honest, I'm not entirely convinced that L8 skiers, such as myself, should be invited to Nationals. But here are some things to think about:

 

As it stands currently, Nationals is largely about aspiration. There are many stories of folks reaching a new level of dedication in a drive to qualify for Nationals.

 

The vast majority of the population cannot reach level 9, no matter how dedicated they are. I would venture a guess that less than 0.1% (i.e. one person in 1,000) has the athletic ability and other attributes required. It might even be a lot less than that.

 

L8 is also very hard to reach. But the population of people who could reach it, with sufficient dedication, coaching, etc. is much larger. Out of my ass, it might be 20 percent who have the required athletic ability. Maybe more. Consider that me, @Wish, and @OB1 have all managed it. (Welcome to underneath the bus, guys!)

 

Point being: L8 is a nicely balanced aspirational target: very hard to reach so a major accomplishment. But not so far out of reach that any normal person should just immediately give up.

 

So: IF a major purpose of Nationals is to be a motivational carrot, then L8 is probably just about the perfect qualification level.

[ForrestGump]

I'm not sure that saying USA Waterskiing Nationals is about the best of the best is valid. Nor has it ever been about that. Ask Chad how many M2 and M3 he skied against all those 13 years he was #1 or #2 seed. Some years it was a LOT.

 

The talk about best of the best only came about because of this ridiculous ranking system. No one ever complained about the person just getting their EP getting a chance to take a ride at nationals. The ranking system and saying nationals should be about the best of the best is just another push to waterskiing being called an elitist sport.

[ALPJr]

I would suggest that USAWS take a look at the AAU Nationals model. Many 1,000's of participants assigned to brackets of varying levels, as well as East and West National locations. It's as much about being there, celebrating the love of the sport and competative spirit, as it is about winning.

[dave2ball]

The nationals are USA/awsa cash cow for the year. They need as many entries as possible. If you take out level 8 the you will have a very small group. More so if you start excluding the boys and girls then the parents will not attent bring down the number of skiers even more. Bad idea.

[ALPJr]

AAU basically has 3 tiers of brackets A B C. Athletes / teams are assigned to the level by their coaches or clubs with a review of the performance over that year. Great for competition, great fun and huge crowds. Many of the sports have Nationals in Orlando and Las Vegas.

[klindy]

@ALPJr we discussed a "level 2" nationals where there would be a Nationals champ (and level 8 and above skiers) and a "Level 2 National Champ" (made up of basically level 7 skiers). It's didn't get very far for several reasons. It works for collegiate primarily because it's exclusively a team sport.

 

If all of competitive 3-event waterskiing was setup to be ability based groupings, a level A, B and C (or whatever you call them) champ makes more sense. But that's not where we are currently.

 

Nationals has had to be a "certain size" to help provide an adequate number of attendees and guests to make it worth while to vendors and, frankly, because it is a source of income. That said however, I would also say that traditionally and for decades, waterskiing has really been a family sport. It's really a huge positive when most or all members of a family can compete "together" and at an event like a National Championships I think it has special significance. Nationals tends to be a family vacations for most since it's hard to dedicate a week or even 4-5 days away from the family. So many take the whole family along. Allowing as many to ski as possible while still maintaining some level of competitiveness is a challenge and a tough balance.

[brettmainer]

In M4, L8 spans from 3@35 to 3@39. Huge difference with respect to who had a chance. I am a L8 skier, but my PB would have won M3 Nats this year. What I ran two weeks before on the same lake at Regionals would have medaled. So, yes, L8 has a chance to podium.

[MISkier]

@brettmainer, your example makes a good point about the top of L8. I think L8 is too broad, probably for the exact reasons @klindy listed about family and revenue. In some age divisions, L8 is nearly 30% of the skiers. There is probably a more competitive mix of the top of L8, L9, and L10 that could have percentiles reworked to make it closer. In other words, the top of L8 should be included in L9.

 

I also think that, after L8, L9 are reworked, that the top 5 skiers in the remaining L8 from Regionals get to go to Nationals. They actually have to podium, though. Those would be the only L8 skiers to go.

[ForrestGump]

The AWSA isn't getting rid of the group that pays for a good part of their operating budget. With all the stupid decisions they've made in the last decade, even they wouldn't do that.

[MISkier]

@BoneHead, I think we are getting right back around to the real point. There is talk about Nationals as existing primarily for determining the best of the best. Then, others say/vote it should be inclusive for the sake of the money (and, to a lesser degree, for family participation). Yet, when changes are pursued to make it more attractive to participate (overspeed ZBS, L10, eventual ability-based), the dissension is that is watering down the sport, catering to the snowflakes, etc.

 

It appears there is an identity crisis.

[ForrestGump]

It's had an identity crisis for a decade.

[MattP]

@MISkier I've said it before and I will say it again.

Elaborating on what @BoneHead said.

We need to figure out the purpose of Nationals. Is it a festival for the masses or an elite championship like the European Championships where there is a team and individual event where skiers are sent from their respective states. If we want to grow the sport personally I believe that the State Championships should be a required event to ski Nationals and Regionals should go by the wayside. It's too expensive too close to Nationals to make it a requirement.

[MISkier]

By the way, I also want to note that those saying it is a true championship and those saying we need to be inclusive beyond those in the real hunt for the title are the same people in some cases.

[jcamp]

A "very best-of-the-best" Nationals would have all the charm and fun of one of those Class L tournaments down south in May. No vendors, no food trucks, and many fewer kids and family members hanging around.

 

 

[ForrestGump]

That right there says it all. Go ahead and drop the mic, @jcamp.

[thager]

Just cancel Nationals and send everybody a trophy.

[klindy]

There's really no reason the Nationals can't be both - a festival and a "best of the best" competition. If a large enough event was held (obviously at a large enough multi-lake site/sites) several tournaments can be held concurrently. For example, open the "week" to anyone who wants to come and ski. Have a 3-event tournament with whatever format that makes sense. Maybe it can be a "last chance" tournament too? Also schedule a "best of the best" tournament - only the top 5 finishers at the Regionals and the top finisher of the 'last chance' tournament. Other concurrent events could be a Jr tournament, Pro tournament, Big Dawg, US Open, etc. With enough "lake days" (or at a nearby site/sites) you can even do learn-to-ski clinics, demo days, etc.

 

Point is with some creative thinking you can have both pretty easily. Yes, I realize it's a long event already and this would make it longer, but with clear scheduling people would come and go as they pleased.

[MISkier]

@klindy, I was actually working on a response just like yours. At the tournament for the wannabes, also-rans, and the not-a-chancers (and I include myself in that group), there could be ability-based side competitions, full ZBS with overspeed option, and maybe even team competition. It would lead up to a smaller, but more prestigious, main event.

 

In fact, my hidden agenda in this whole poll was to suggest such a thing. I wanted to elicit some good discussion beforehand.

 

I love the last chance idea.

 

To make sure it isn't too long, those skiing in the marquee events don't get to ski in the others. They probably wouldn't want to, anyway.

 

Have the marquee events on the closing weekend. The other events should not require senior officials...assistant level would be OK.

 

@Horton, I believe @klindy post is worthy of a promote.

[JohnN]

@dchristman got me curious. Still wrapped up in snow skiing and feeling like something is getting missed, I'm sensing that most of us are looking at this from a M3/4/5 perspective without looking at the other divisions. I checked my home state of Colorado and there are zero L9 or 10 skiers yet somehow L8 CO skiers seem to end up on a few podiums at Natls. Should we keep them from competing in Nationals to make room for L9 skiers? How many places do we want to fill - 1, 3, 10? L8 may not win, but there's definitely a shot at podiums or top 10 finishes.

[Horton]

@MISkier My issue with @klindy 's idea (with all due respect) is that I believe you must have a singular goal to do something right. If the prime goal is to crown a champ per age group I would design the event differently then if my goal was to entertain as many skiers as possible.

 

If we want a huge event and we want as many skiers as possible then we need to go to ability based. Imagine a division for every 1/2 pass based on USAWS average. It would be a lot of fun and it might attract a lot of skiers. There is nothing wrong with an event like that but a national title with those rules means a LOT less and it would require a radical paradigm shift.

 

If you want a single champ for men or women per age bracket then you have a totally different event. An event with only the best might mean a slower pace and better rides for everyone and maybe multiple rounds.

 

Personally, I am a purest. I am an ideologue. Raise the entry qualifications and take MM and Open divisions out of Nationals. Everyone skis their age divisions. Lets get a single champion per age group. Of.... do 180 degrees the other direction. If you try to make everyone happy then you will likely fail on all accounts.

[klindy]

@Horton I'm fine with either too. Frankly I've been around long enough that the purist in me says make it a true National championship as well. Or ... do a 180 and make it a festival.

 

That said, I can't see a pure, high level National Championship that has many more than the contestants and their families show up to watch other than some locals. The hybrid approach where you have a "festival" type approach and embed the best of the best as an event which is part of the festival should sure help with marketing and attract spectators.

 

Moomba just ended and there were comments all over social media from many of the top level skiers saying it's the "best tournament of the year", etc. The waterskiing is just a piece of the whole festival and there are several tournaments in a tournament with Jr Moomba and the night events etc.

 

So while I'm s purist too, I'm also a realist and I believe a "best of the best" top tier pure National Championship tournament sure misses something if no one is there to see it. Maybe I'm wrong and you can get people to show up to an amateur Nationals like you do a Masters or Malibu but I'm more sure I can get people to show up to a festival and then put on a great tournament.

 

Just my $0.02 and I fully appreciate your comments above.

[RazorRoss3]

This sport already has plenty of "best of the best" events, and most of us don't qualify. Big Dawg, Malibu, Masters, Worlds, Moomba, etc... A larger more inclusive event to bring a larger group of us average joes who aren't playing the professional game isn't the worst thing in the world and getting to level 8 isn't exactly easy, it could even be the best some of us ever see since level 9 is no small achievement. As a sport we are small enough and spread out enough that a tournament that puts more of us in the same place probably isn't a bad idea. I still think that a week long event is too much and keeps a lot of people from attending but I don't think there is a way around that if you are trying to bring people together.

[drewski32]

Weren't we discussing how to increase participation not that long ago? Nationals is like a pro-am. And if the best skier loses to someone who's 40th in the rankings, congrats to the winner and/or shame on the "best" for getting his ass kicked

[Gar]

I have always been proud to just make it! I qualified with Regional placement and a Masters and EP'ed as well it's always been tough for me!

[klindy]

@Gar I agree. Qualifying for Nationals has been the benchmark for me. Typically I attend since I have been an official for years and years but my goal is to ski. Up until Nationals in 2015 I qualified in slalom or trick or both but never jump. In 2015, after 38 years, I finished overall high enough to qualify for all 3 events. Literally a life goal and immensely emotional experience (especially since I landed a jump at Nationals). A year before I never expected to ski again. But I finally ski'd overall at Nationals. Placement never mattered for a second.

[Horton]

@drewski32 and the odds of that happening are?

[Gar]

@kindly that's awesome!

[RazorRoss3]

@Horton, the odds of that happening approach zero but give me a 20mph tail wind off the dock and I certainly won't win but I'm sure I could piss a few people off ;)

 

We might be ignoring what L8 is though. In the USA waterski rankings list L8 is the 68th-92nd percentiles. For M1 that is a score range in the last 12 months ranking list from 91.17 to 108 or 1.17@32 36mph to 6@38 36mph. So at the bottom the shortest completed pass is -28, at the top the shortest completed pass is -38, one of these skiers has a legitimate shot at the podium and the other simply does not. One of these skiers is ranked 5th in the nation, the other is tied for 79th. I think before we think about not inviting L8 we should consider the idea that the top 5-10 people in L8 are putting up scores that could land them on the podium if they bring there A Game and someone else makes a mistake.

[skidawg]

@OB1 , everyones opinions should be heard. They open discussion and exchange ideas. without new and different ideas (no matter how valid or stupid) there will be no change. This organization, much like the federal government have been headed down the wrong path for some time now. More rules, regulations, harder to organize events will further decrease participation. A very wise jump ski maker once said, "why does it take more judges to count bouys for 30 class C slalom skiers than it does to officiate an NFL football game". It just doesn't make sense.

[MISkier]

@RazorRoss3, I was just typing almost the same thing about the span of L8. The top of L8 and L9 can beat the bottom of L8 just by running their second pass and probably can with their opener.

 

In these situations, I believe the top of L8 needs to added to L9 when the L10 is implemented. I have heard that some believe that both L9 and L10 should have the mandatory assignment to the elite division. If these things were done, then L8 becomes more competitive.

 

So, I disagree (a little) with those that say L8 has a legitimate chance at the podium. Only the top of L8 does.

[RazorRoss3]

@Ob1, if this was the USAWS board making an actual vote then I might agree with you. However in a public forum with a healthy mix of skiers who attend Nats every year, skiers who have been once but don't plan on a repeat, skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers we make up the most diverse collection of waterski enthusiasts you are going to find in one place and to not poll and gather information from that source would be a mistake.

[skidawg]

@OB1 ? Quit what? Skiing, tourneys? all of the above?

[Than_Bogan]

@OB1 When you have 1000s of views every day, a 1% "take action" rate would lead to a LOT being done. Indeed, I think that's about what happens.

[RazorRoss3]

@Ob1, I agree that most of us will not take action, I will admit I am unlikely to take any action other than getting behind a boat and having some fun. As far as online discussions are concerned though, this forum has reached a size where the governing bodies are watching it now and I think there have been a few cases of change that have come around in part because of our discussion topics.

 

I think more importantly though is that if the discussion doesn't happen here then where will it happen? In the collegiate world most regions host a winter conference where the team captains and regional boards talk about new rules, proposed rules, etc but I don't think we have one of those in the AWSA world.

[BRY]

"why does it take more judges to count buoys for 30 class C slalom skiers than it does to officiate an NFL football game"

Well for slalom it doesn't:

Seven officials "on field" for an NFL game (eight being considered)

-referee, umpire, head linesman, line judge, back judge, field judge and side judge (8, a deep back judge being considered)

Four officials "on field" for a Class C

-driver, boat judge and two shore judges

For both there are "Off field" officials as well. For slalom C there is scorer and safety. For NFL there are two replay officials, a couple in "Game Day Central", scorers and more.

 

No video, replay delay and the like necessary for Class C. 2 out of 3 and move on.

 

Six officials total for a Class C. If they work the whole "game" like NFL that's all you need. If the NFL swapped out "crews" throughout the game, well, they would need more.

 

BTW it is stupid easy to become an assistant slalom judge. Anyone who has time to get to a tournament has time to sit during that tournament for 6 skiers in a row. Do that at three tournaments (two for L7), dock start once, watch a scorer a little twice (once for L7) and chat with the Chief judge and hey, you are a judge! Now if you are a Level 8+ skier all you have to do is fill out a form and send it in. If every L7 and L8 became a judge instead of a parasite it would be so easy on everyone. Each individual would not have to judge much.

[Horton]

@ob1 i will be there this year. I think it will be my 13th Nationals.

[BRY]

@RazorRoss3 "a healthy mix of skiers who attend Nats every year, skiers who have been once but don't plan on a repeat, skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers we make up the most diverse collection of waterski enthusiasts you are going to find in one place and to not poll and gather information from that source would be a mistake."

Perhaps for many conversations. This one is about limiting who can compete at Nationals. The loudest voices and most of the voices for limiting who can compete at Nationals seems to be "skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers." What does it have to do with them? They aren't even involved. They are telling me I don't deserve to go and that when I do go I somehow degrade the performance of the winner. That the act of my skiing my 98 buoys at Nat's belittles the battle the top guys had for the win. I don't see how that is at all, not one has been able to explain it to me and I find it offensive.

Nationals is an event paid for and run by those who attend. I don't see how those who don't want to or won't or can't really have any standing, even in just swaying public opinion. I don't want non-participants working to persuade other non-participants (who could) not to participate. Fence sitters tipped the non-participant way. Lots O' Lurkers.

I am a long time snow skier, since I was 4, have had many 100+ day seasons, taught for six years, and in years past skied a NASTAR a couple times. That being said, I believe I have no standing in pushing for who qualifies to NASTAR Nationals. I haven't been, haven't read the rules, don't really appreciate what it is for there I am one of the "skiers who are qualified but have never been, skiers who aren't qualified, and non tournament skiers."

[Than_Bogan]

@OB1 I realize your numbers did represent any measurement, but actually I think you might be close. And don't forget the magic of scale. At the kind of participation rate that @Horton has managed to get, even 0.01% of people driven to action means things are happening regularly that wouldn't have happened before.