Should the Regionals attendance requirement to participate in the Nationals be removed ?

[RichardDoane]

I'm going to propose a rule change, and would like to hear what the ballers think. It would be a slight change to the wording of rule 4.02 in the very beginning "general" description.

[RichardDoane]

I think you can guess how I would answer this question. I would hope that a high percentage of the AWSA ballers would vote and/or comment.

[klindy]

I don't think the requirement should be removed but I do think there need to be several changes which makes it easier to ski Regionals. For example, there should be 2 or 3 regional event held in the larger regions. All on the same weekend, no restriction of where any skier can ski. The goal is to make it easier and cheaper to attend.

[bkreis]

I voted yes but must have 3 record scores to qualify otherwise because, some sites are really hard to get to by flights/hotels, trying to get back to work timely, etc.. @klindy the idea of multiple for larger regions is great!

[Chet]

This would be a serious step in the right direction. Take away the mandate and one step into the future success of our sport. Many of the families I work with can swing one but not both events (reg./nat.).

And they are all qualified to go except for the mandate. It's time has come. More will qualify with the removal of those who choose not to go. In my opinion it's a win win.

[Texas6]

Voting yes as well. The time commitment in doing both is the issue because they are so close together. I don't know about you but I get a couple weeks off a year, and this almost sucks them both up to do it right, unless both are in your own backyard. Need to be qualified of course

[lpskier]

In the Eastern Region, there are a couple record slaloms each season, sometimes, but darn few if any revord trick and jump tournaments other than Regionals. You can't compare the Florida (and a select few other areas) record scene to other areas of the country that primarily host class C events.

[MattP]

Whoops. Checked the wrong yes. Put me down for:

"Yes, but a skier must be qualified, and have scores from 3 record events in the previous 12 months"

 

@lpskier why not replace the Regionals with a regular L/R tournament and let those go who want those scores?

[liquid d]

What if Regionals were in June?

[jcamp]

I'm really torn. On one hand I understand that traveling to two events is really, really tough both financially as well as time off from work wise.

 

But on the other, in the Eastern Region Regionals is really the only large, hyper competitive event. Even though I ski Nationals, Regionals is by far my favorite tournament of the year and the one that gets the competitive juices flowing the most. Take away a handful of skiers in each of the larger events and that competitiveness just goes away.

[ntx]

The cost to attend three class l/r events would offset the cost of the single regional. All the slalom skiers on here continue to forget about the three event skiers. Outside of regionals, how many three event class l/r events are in each region. The south has some but the rest of the regions do not.

 

Most l/r events are two day events. The cost in entry fee and lodging would exceed the cost of three local single day events class c.

[Drago]

Yes

[Wish]

Why not qualify in 2 ways?

 

1. Three R rounds vs 3 events.

2. Three separate class C events scores.

 

Records can be very expensive for families for a whole host of reasons and puts similar pressure and time constraints to free up 3 full weekends plus Nats

[Drago]

Would cost way more to take my family to 3 L+ tournaments every yr. "You can't compare the Florida (and a select few other areas) record scene to other areas of the country that primarily host class C events."

the reason to eliminate the Regional requirement is mainly cost (time and money)

[RazorRoss3]

If you're a lv 8 skier you've qualified, I'd leave it at that. Leave regionals as a last effort for the lv7 and less skiers to try and qualify and for lv 8+ skiers who like the event for the competition. For the 3 L/R, I'd say no since 3 entries for those plus non-ski expenses likely nets with regionals, if you want to mandate a number of tournaments scores, fine but leave it as any class event.

[Than_Bogan]

I have identical conflicted thoughts as @jcamp

[disland]

The bigger regions need to be split up. Either split the region or have two "regionals"

[bigtex2011]

3 scores either class c or record.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I get the time off from work and cost, but if you are not serious enough about skiing to go to regionals, by what rationale are you serious enough to go to nationals? Are you too good to bother with regionals? There is a ready an exemption for open skiers who may be competing against themselves at regionals.

 

If you are going to 3 L/R tournaments a year, you are likely going to many tournaments cost be damned. If you are doing that and are cost constrained, substitute 1 of those for regionals.

 

@klindy how would splitting up regionals work? Seems that would be the same as creating more regions? If so, I can see that being a reasonable option.

 

This also gets back to the fundamental purpose of nationals that no one can agree on. If it's a ski festival, who cares about regionals and let everyone go. If it's a real national championship, regionals is the big tournament for most and only the best of the best go to nationals. Regionals would be much less prestigious if the best skiers are missing.

 

My $0.02

[ScarletArrow]

I don't like the 3 L/R tournament requirement. There are exactly zero L/R tournaments in Ohio. I don't think demanding more regulated tournaments is the answer (though I understand why you would propose it in lieu of no Regionals).

[Kelvin]

What if skiers were required to ski regionals every other year? Since regionals moves around from year to year, skiers could choose to go the year it is close and skip the next year.

[klindy]

@Kelvin as long as the Regionals location (and Nationals) was know 2-3 years+ in advance.

[klindy]

@Bruce_Butterfield (and @disland) agreed that a multi site Regionals would be somewhat similar to making smaller regions. However - and this, in my opinion, is HUGE - we do NOT need to add more people to the goverence structure to AWSA. As it stands each region already has 1 EVP and 3 directors plus a bunch of committee chairs. The board meetings are far too big as it is.

 

My strong preference is to simply run 2 (or 3) simultaneous tournaments spread around the region. Skiers would obviously know which sites are hosting and a list of drivers/officials. Don't want to ski at X location, drive/fly to the other.

 

The idea is to maximize the participation and minimize the cost to participate. Ideally the same schedules can take place at the same time. Scores would be kept at each site and a "combined" scorebook could also be put together. Clearly some rules may need to be adjusted like 'top 3 on each site qualify for Nationals', how to handle ties, maybe even officials requirements for the tournament. I'd envision a tournament much more like a "local" record tournament rather than the big production of a Regionals currently.

 

Things like regional meetings can be held via skype or on an alternative date.

 

It's not the perfect social setup but ultimately the question is whether you want to (potentially) sacrifice Regionals to (maybe) increase participaton at Nationals. Just saying "you no longer need to ski at Regionals" provides no assurance anyone will show up and provides zero guarantee more people will ski Nationals. I assume the premise of the poll is that not skiing Regionals will lower the burden to compete and therefore will increase the skiers at Nationals. While that seems reasonable, I'd suggest the location of the Nationals likely has a much greater impact.

[The_MS]

State, reg, nats

[bigtex2011]

Wouldn't skipping regionals if you are already qualified for nationals be like getting a bye in other sports. It makes way more sense than the Zero Base rule AWSA passed My .02

[Rpc29]

Regionals needs to die, why as an organization are we trying to hold several mediocre events (which is what we currently do) when we should be focusing on holding one great one.

[WBLskier]

How many total skiers participate in regionals compared to nationals?

[Horton]

I am a traditionalist and I hate change but the reality is the Regionals requirement made sense when things were different. In today's environment we have to adjust.

[ntx]

@WBLskier The total number of regional skiers exceeds the skiers from nationals.

 

Regionals should be used as a building block to get lower ranked skiers ready for the next step. Nationals. There is already a method to allow you to skip regionals. Get a OPEN rating.

 

I agree with @Bruce_Butterfield. Decide what nationals is. Right now, as it is, I look at it as the best of the best. In that scenario regionals should be required. Regionals is like the playoffs. @bigtex2011 show me any sport that a team gets a "bye" all the way to the championship game.

[bigtex2011]

good point. what have you come up with

[RazorRoss3]

As a level 8 skier all I have to do at regionals is show up, I could miss my pullup and I'd still be qualified. In what way is that not a "bye" round short of the fact that AWSA milked me for an entry fee and made me travel who knows how far to do it?

[MISkier]

@RazorRoss3, you can't miss your pull-up.

 

The rules state: "To have competed in an event at a Regional Tournament means to have attained skiing position".

[RazorRoss3]

Ok, that's fair, so I do at least need to stand up on my ski. Would you allow me to count the number of times I have missed my pull up? Already done, that number is thankfully zero even when I include some of my less than sober collegiate tournament rides. My point that this is effectively a bye round holds since I certainly don't need to podium. requiring level 8 and above to attend is just a scam for extra entry fees since they've already qualified.

[jcamp]

@RazorRoss3 "requiring level 8 and above to attend is just a scam for extra entry fees since they've already qualified."

 

Or, depending on your viewpoint, a way to encourage the viability of, and participation in, an event that probably offers the most competitive setting of the summer for the vast majority of skiers.

[BRY]

Why, Daddy, Why?

This is a solution in need of a problem. Why should Regionals requirement be removed? What issue will that solve? Specifically, not "save the sport" or "World Peace" or whatever. Specifically what and how will the change be an improvement? I truly would be appreciative of someone who can cogently explain it to me, would like to understand.

 

I will submit it won't change anything about the health of the sport as a whole. Pretty much anything done regarding Nationals is just stirring the pot of National's level skiers. It's still the same noodles inside. Pick up a few maybe, loose a few maybe, essentially no change to what is in the pot. I don't see numbers of new members joining because of this.

 

I see two results if this rule changed happens:

1. Regionals will die, turn into essentially a local R.

2. Nationals will get bigger. How much bigger? Could be minimal or could be significant. (I think fewer than you think, many who don't go still won't go as their commitment is elsewhere.)

 

Do we (skiers who qualify for Nationals) want these two results? Seems the current desire is to have a shorter National's at more varied sites with more rides (practice, other tourney, ect.) Fewer days means fewer rides available. Smaller sites (2 or 3 lake vs 4 or 5 lake) means fewer rides available. So more skiers is in direct contradiction to those desires.

 

BTW: The proposal the OP is going to submit is just removing the Regional's requirement. Does not contain anything about any kind of "Regional's replacement." Simply just removing the requirement to attend Regional's to ski Nationals.

[RazorRoss3]

@Jcamp, you are correct, at a regional level the regional tournament does likely create the most competitive event for anyone not qualified for Nationals, as I have said more than once in various threads I skied against a grand total of zero M1 skiers in the 10+ tournaments I skied last year. Regionals if nothing else does have the effect in most age divisions of having more than 1 skier compete which I won't argue is fun every now and then, I know I enjoyed it in college. But if by rankings list I'm qualified that should be the end of it. No special caveats about having to "achieve skiing position" at regionals. As I said above, if an L8+ skier wants to go to regionals more power to them, but it should not be mandatory.

[Wish]

@Horton, how do you see a diff between attending 3 weekends of R tournaments vs Regionals in terms of time and $$s. Pretty sure that is the main prob with Reg and a requirement. Am I missing something?

[MarkTimm]

Should we consider getting rid of the level 8 requirement and allocate nationals attendance based on regional placement? In this case it would not be the top 5, rather an allocation based on the number of skiers in each age division in the nation. if you have 400 M4 skiers and the allocation number is 20% or 80 skiers, the 80 skiers would come proportionally from each region, (200 skiers in the western region equals an allocation of 40 skiers etc...). Doesn't solve the money and travel issue but it would make regional tournaments much more relevant.

[perfski]

Every year we travel to go to Nationals....the topic of # of skiers diminishing comes up. Also "how to grow the sport" and what is needed to grow the sport. While I understand the concept of having to travel to "states", then "regionals", then Nationals....the common theme I hear from everyone at these events and in the shop is that the cost for an entire family to go to all of htem has become so prohibitive its just not financially feasible for alot of families. The other challenge is having a child ski on a Wednesday and Dad skiing on Saturday....that makes for a long week...and some REAL hotel and food expenses for a family.

While I agree and do feel that there needs to be standards for being qualified to ski at nationals...its only logical that if you want to grow the sport and attendence of Nationals you need to remove the obstacles for people to not be able to attend it. Think outside the box. Work to get attendance up at Nationals till you have a full running order of skiers. Ask participants what they feel needs to be done to make the events run better..and be more fun for the entire family. Don't rest on the status quo of "thats how we do it and have done it" mentality. Get REAL trophies...really BIG ones for the kids and juniors so they can get excited and be proud of being a National champion. Have more to do on the site than just skiing that encourages families to stay at the event and new potential competitors to want to be a part of it. Ultimately its about supply and demand... if your skier numbers are diminshing at Nationals...remove the restrictions that stop people from coming until you are back to the number you want to be at. But most importantly make the events fun... Yeah I know its not easy...but it can be done. #my2cents.

Bill @ Performance.

 

PS: Shops like mine will invest more in the events like this for sure when there are more participants.....so if you build it...they will come!...errr..."We will come"!

[BG1]

I don’t see regionals participation automatically dropping with the current “must ski regionals to ski nationals” requirement lifted if requirements to ski regionals and nationals were also adjusted. I would first suggest lowering the score to ski regionals. Then, as Bill and @Chet have suggested, have large, nice trophies. Allow the winner of each event at regionals to participate in nationals regardless of their score, which should increase national’s participation. Lastly, allow anyone who has a score at regionals above the minimal average score required to qualify for nationals to qualify for nationals even if their average isn’t high enough. This also should increase national’s participation.

 

I see several benefits form these suggestions. New and lower level skiers would have several nice carrots to chase through regionals including a trophy and a shot at nationals. With some of the elite skiers skipping regionals, the door would be open for the mid-level skier to the lower end national’s level skier to claim the title of “Regionals Champion!” I personally know several local skiers that don’t compete now who would be drawn in to chase these carrots.

 

The sport is dying and we need to draw in the recreational skiers, whether it be young, old, or in between. These newbie’s would bring some much needed enthusiasm and money into the sport. We also need to bring back all the ones who have left competitive skiing but still could do it if it weren’t as it is now. The status quo is killing the sport of competitive waterskiing. Look no further than the alarming rate that participation in regionals and nationals has diminished for the indisputable evidence.

 

Just remember, all change is not bad. For our sport not to change means we will continue down the road we are on now and that road leads to extinction.

 

[ntx]

It really amazes me that we have all these great ideas to save the sport, and they are already in place. @BG1 you do realize that any top five finish in any event stj or overall at regional gets you a ticket to nats. And, any score past the cut off date for nationals, that exceeds the cut off score, in any tournament, also gets you into nats

[BG1]

I understand some of this is in place. The bar would just be lowered with more potential rewards. You have the newbie who gets to boast they qualified for regionals their first year of competitive skiing. Also, the skier that comes in 10th place at regionals every year would have a better shot at winning regionals and going to nationals for the first time. Or the next skier might show up at regionals for the first time in 8 years because they think they now has a shot. Then there is the skier who will now go to nationals because the financial/time burden has been cut in half. And still you have yet another skier that goes in hopes of taking home one of those nice trophies to show off in their boat house.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@bg1 the entry requirement to ski regionals is set by each region, not usaws.

 

I dont see how anyone can think that removing the requirement to ski regionals to go to nationals will increase regionals participation. How would that encourage beginning and lower level skiers to attend?

[RazorRoss3]

@Bruce_Butterfield, I think he is suggesting a system that would turn regionals into a "nationals for people who aren't qualified for nationals" kind of thing. So remove the requirement and you likely lose some L8+ skiers but lower the qualification bar and you will hopefully see an uptick in L7- skiers. It would turn regionals into more of a strict last effort tournament for non-nationals qualified skiers to try and make the cut and as he suggested there could be a few milestones within regionals to chase for relatively new skiers.

 

I agree with you that it likely wouldn't increase regional participation but it would possibly keep it the same but by brining in lower level skiers to replace the L8+ that no longer have to go in order to go to nationals.

 

I don't think any of these ideas bring new blood into the sport but they may raise excitement and participation of those already in it. emphasis on the word "may", because I certainly can't see the future.

[LLUSA]

@Rpc29 not sure why your calling Regionals mediocre events? Have you skied any? I put on 4 of the last 5 Southern Regionals, certainly not mediocre events.

[RichardDoane]

the question/poll has nothing to do with detracting from regionals, it's just about removing a barrier to Nationals attendance IMO

[Than_Bogan]

@RichardDoane I cannot speak to the intent, but I feel the proposal must be evaluated in terms of all its effects. My guess is that Regionals would soon disappear entirely. That could be worth it if the gain realized is sufficient.

[Horton]

It was only a matter of time before I asked....

 

"What is the purpose of Regionals?"

[gmut]

If you qualify for the Nationals you qualify. Why should you HAVE to go to the Regionals????? The Regionals should not only be a tournament that is a last chance qualifier for the Nationals but also a prestigious tournament for those who for one reason or another will not be attending the Nationals. Attendance should not be a prerequisite for the Nationals.

[Rpc29]

@LLUSA I have skied regionals before. (Jack Travers in Florida) And I've skied at your site a few times in college. Phenomenal place with well run tournaments and unreal conditions. My thought is that with declining attendance we focus on a single event "nationals" and build it into the powerhouse it once was where enough people are wanting to ski and attend that it requires having the additional qualifier of regionals.

 

It's not a perfect idea but the general premise is to focus our limited resources as a sport into one area with the goal of eventually expanding back out again into regional qualifiers.