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

[Ilivetoski]

I dont remember who it was but I remember talking about this at one time or another and somebody said that if you took away regionals as a qualification to nationals, no body would go to regionals and would just kill the tournament. Not sure if thats true because I do think if all the guys who are going to run 38 and 39 opted not to compete, it would make it more appealing to the 28-32 off skier. I do know quite a number of those skiers who choose not to go to regionals because they say there is no point and they can't compete.

[6balls]

Just one dude's perspective...since @horton came up with the BOS cash prize at the same time as nat's.

It's the first time for me nat's makes sense...otherwise it's a huge $ outlay in travel/lodging/fees for one slalom set. If I can run Nat's plus the BOS deal...I'm in...if I can do it based on my scores at some other fun 3 round tourneys (bang for my buck n time) rather than a one-round regionals which carries the same problem as a one round nationals for me that's attractive

Now that my spine seems ok if you let me run nat's based on some scores I can generate this summer, and I can run the BOS rounds as well without the requirement for state or regionals I'm in. Sounds like a great time.

[Triplett]

Damnit, I read it, understood it, then read it again and misunderstood the question. I do not think Regionals should be mandatory for Nationals. I think reginoals should be a L7 and below event, with the option if you are L8+. I have some really good memories from Regionals, but when the podium is loaded with L8 guys who already earned their spot to nationals, what is the real point of regionals. At least with L7 and below there would be some real competition, since a placement would mean a trip to nationals.

 

If we wanted to make nationals more exclusive, or more prestigious, we should make regionals the qualifier for Nationals. It would be pretty cool, dreams granted or crushed, as long as you are L6 you can go, figure out the placements for each division based on number of people you want at nationals. If you cant commit to nationals, the next guy/girl goes.

 

 

[ScarletArrow]

As a middle of the pack L6 skier, I am example of one those guys who is usually on the outside looking in for to qualify for Regionals.

 

However, two of my kids qualified for Regionals (and Nationals), so we went to KS last year where they skied on Friday and Saturday.

 

Had I been allowed to ski, I would have paid for the extra night at the hotel and meals to be able to ski with my buddies in M3 on Sunday.

 

I'm not saying lower the qualifications... I am saying just let me ski as an "unranked/unofficial" participant so I can have some fun too. I'll gladly pay the entry fee.

 

(Now hopefully I fix this problem this year and just qualify!)

 

I would also be an example of someone who would continue to go to Regionals over Nationals. Why?

 

- Regionals is closer, so I can drive (even though KS was a 15 hour hike, it was easier/cheaper than flying)

- Since I can drive, I can bring my whole family

- It's over one weekend, immediately following the State Championships which is more favorable to the family schedule.

- There's a better chance of everyone qualifying (including my youngest son and myself)

[ski6jones]

If preserving Regionals as a carrot to National entry is a good idea then why not let the top 3 (or 5 or whatever) UNQUALIFIED skiers from Regionals attend Nationals. Then if the L8+ guys decide to go (or are required or whatever) the L7 and below people still have a shot at earning a spot at Nationals. Might encourage more participation at Regionals even if the Regional requirement for Nationals is waived.

[disland]

Someone please establish the purpose of Nationals and then I can tell you the purpose of Regionals.@perfski and other vendors want maximum participation. That means its a festival. So lets let everyone in. Let everyone in at Regionals too. Lets all have fun and ski. The big dawgs get medals and everyone leaves happy.

[thager]

Can they please just send my trophy to me on my mobile device after I simulate skiing in Regional/Nationals on my app?

[lottawatta]

What if each region was allowed to designate up to 2 "National Qualifiers" in addition to their regional, which would fulfill a regional requirement. Each qualifier must be a three event competition, must be held BEFORE regionals, must be ran the same class (C, E, L, R) as the regional, must be more than 8 hours by car away from the regionals location, and if you ski the qualifier, you can't ski regionals for placement. If you score is level 8 or above, you qualify for nationals, If not, you get another chance at the regionals. Drop regionals qualifications to level 5. Just an idea.

 

Regions could decide themselves if they needed an additional qualifier or two based on where their regional championship was. If it was dead center of the region, maybe they don't need a qualifier. The west might need both qualifiers based on size alone. This would get more skiers qualified for nationals, uphold the regional standards, reduce the excuses about travel distance, etc. etc. It adds skiers to regionals like Scarlet Arrow who would have skied with his kids last year. You wouldn't take too many of the top skiers away from regionals as many of them are officials, council people, have kids that will want the regional experience, have to attend regionals for meetings, etc.

[Horton]

@disland I am 100% not against a giant Nationals but how are you going to make it interesting for the average skier? There are constraints that can't be changed. You cannot get a round peg in a square hole. There are only so many hours in the day and there are simple realities that you have to get your head around.

 

How are you going to incentivize guys like me that are currently ranked 20th or below in our division to fly across the country for 1 ski ride?

Currently only a small percentage of the skiers were qualified attend. I guess we could drop the qualifications way down. I don't have a problem with that.

 

The event I'm doing with Radar this year will change the experience for 50 skiers but 50 skiers is a drop in the bucket.

[lottawatta]

edited to combine with previous post

[disland]

@horton I agree, that's why your BOS event is spot on!

 

The good news you only have to fly half way this year.

 

The greatest festival in the world will never get everyone but if its big with other stuff like the US Open, more vendors, maybe demo days, parties, live bands etc. The night jump last year was awesome.

 

If we make it bigger we can get more sponsors. More sponsors more money, more money more pro's. I love watching the Pro's ski except like at nationals when its at 9AM in the morning. there is no announcer and no one even knows it happening, like what happened a few years ago at SMRR

 

 

[LLUSA]

@OB1 it takes around 210-215 to break even if you do the event right, and don't cut everything to the bar bones. Hotels as they are for Nationals are your biggest expense. Last year our hotel and banquet expense pushed $17,000. In the past MC had sponsored the Junior banquet, they did not last year and each state came to the rescue by paying for their juniors to attend. Add 600-750 gallons of gasoline $1500, $250 a day in food expense for officials $1250, overall medals $500-600, toilets $1500, Regional tax and fees $500, Tshirts $3000, and there you have it

[Beastmode]

Time and Cost is the main issue with doing both Regs and Nats. I love going to Regionals, but didnt go to Nationals last year because I couldn't afford the trip. I would like to see the State tournament a Requirement for Nationals and then the regionals would be an option if qualified. My competitive heart wants State and Regionals but It prevents some people from making the financial commitment to both. my .02

[The_MS]

@6balls MW Regs are in Mn this summer. Not a bad day trip.

[disland]

@LLUSA do you pay for official's hotels for regionals? Drop to class C use volunteer officials and save $17K, take the savings and throw a huge party. Better yet mix in a pro event and use it for prize money.

[jcamp]

@Mark_Matis What fun is that? Probably the best part about Nationals is to get together and see friends from across the country. And let's be real, a "Nationals" in which people ski in different conditions, different weather, different water etc., is not a true competition, nor the best way to crown the nation's "best." It just isn't.

 

@Beastmode Not all states have state championships, and some that do only have it for a single event. My state's is after Nationals and I'm the only skier in my division in the state. So I advance just by showing up, perhaps getting in over better skiers from more populous states who actually skied against people? That doesn't make sense.

[6balls]

@MS I see that. This might be the year I pull the trigger. I could see going to nats to ski both nats and BOS cash prize.

In future years, though, I'd like to qualify nats in class C 3 round tourneys and then go ski nats and BOS cash prize. Bunch of rounds makes it worth it. Not sure if there are enough others like me to grow nationals on that basis.

[ntx]

@Mark_Matis I think each SITE should have Nationals. All on the same day. That would be awesome and the travel budget would not have to be huge. AND I think our site could be done in three hours or less and still have three events.

 

Now all I have to do is figure out what band I want to play the after party.

 

Where is that sarcasm font??

[Horton]

@Mark_Matis

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

 

[MattP]

I agree with @Beastmode I have always thought that the State tournament should be the requirement to ski nationals. It is the best way to grow the sport at the Grassroots level. as @OB said we have State Championships that include GR/F events for skiers who want/need that and I am all for having it. We have also co-hosted our states a few times with AL & TN. I do not think that Regionals would pull this off as a way to grow the sport.

 

@jcamp there might have to be some restructuring done within each states yearly tournament schedule, I would think that it could be done.

[ntx]

State tournaments are a joke. Most will only have a few skiers per group. Hey everyone!!!! I won states!!!! (but had no one to ski against) Look at my trophy!!!!

[RichardDoane]

@ntx - not to be off topic, but smaller states could be combined, like in the NE for example, and remember that we're now in the digital world of the ranking list, where it's the numeric value that matters

[ntx]

@RichardDoane OMG!!!! I get it now!!! So.... we combine some of the smaller states into one tournament. Maybe we can call it REGIONALS

[BRY]

WTF! I feel for @JeffSurdej and Co. reading this thread.

 

The OP is for removing Regional's requirement. Reasonable arguments regarding time/money put forth. Now some want to add or replace with a State's requirement?

 

People want smaller National's in fewer days at more varied sites (i.e. smaller 2-3 lake sites). Yet want to get more people going to Nats, with a concurrent Pro tournament, with a C tournament, ect. There's only so many skier rides in a day per lake. Example: Horton's BOS tourney appears to take essentially 50% of the practice time, the afternoon at that (1 to 6pm), for 50 out of 600+ skiers. As SMRR states "practice will be more limited than before." Interesting to see how it all pans out on 4 day 4 lake site. Kansas (2018) three lake site.

 

@LLUSA (Tuscaloosa) has and is putting on the Southern Regionals on a single lake site. My experience is it was a well run tournament and is an awesome skiing site. Goes Wed through Sun. On one lake no time for anything else, add more stuff and great sites like this eliminated. Long truck from S FL (~10hrs) but not as bad as to Padukah, KY (plane ride + 2-3hr drive). Without attendance requirement very, very few S FL skiers going, particularly to KY and vice versa for a S FL regionals (though Okeeheelee's 5 lakes very close to 2 major airports.)

 

BTW I think is is awesome Horton is aware that at his event "50 skiers is a drop in the bucket" regarding Nat's and willing to post so. I also think it is awesome he put it together, gotta be some work. It will be awesome for the 50 that can afford the time and money (addnl hotels, $150 entry ect). The effect on the other 550+ will be interesting.

 

Some people seem to think we need change no matter what. Change is not always good, blind change is usually bad. Some here have made recommendations for "change" where the "changes" are how it's already done! Some evidence there that the way it is may not be so bad, may even be the best way. Need to strive for improvements, better ways that improve the sport for the most individuals (not for a few) and not just blind change.

[BRY]

I really don't understand those that think state tournaments should be the requirement to ski nationals. How does that work for NH, RI, ND, WY? How can a top 5 placement there compare to a top 5 placement in CA, TX, FL? Of course you can co-host (combine) some states like this but then, hey, that's a Regionals. Further, in states like CA, TX and FL it can be a long haul to a States. In FL in can be up to a 9-10 hr drive (Miami to Santa Rosa) and 4-5 hour drive for many unavoidable wherever in FL it is. So time and money (hotels in particular) similar to a Regionals. A States requirement makes no sense in any way.

 

For an idea that makes sense, @Triplett has one; "we should make regionals the qualifier for Nationals. It would be pretty cool, dreams granted or crushed, as long as you are L6 you can go, figure out the placements for each division based on number of people you want at nationals. If you cant commit to nationals, the next guy/girl goes." If there is to be some sort of qualifier, this makes sense, is a change, workable throughout the country. May be better, worse or indifferent vs status quo but it has a solid premise.

 

[JeffSurdej]

100% of my concentration is on one thing right now.... #getamemberchallenge

[jcamp]

@BRY your "WTF" post perfectly captures the gnawing sense of frustration I've been feeling while reading this site for quite some time. Well said.

[Rpc29]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I think the point of the whole states vs. regionals requirements for nationals can be summed up in a couple of bullets:

1. By removing the regionals requirements and switching it to a states requirement, there should be a larger number of skiers who can logistically attend states. This is due to decreased travel (for not all states but most, again the goal here is incremental improvement) and usually states is run over a weekend (no PTO required).

2. With a theoretical larger number of people now potentially being qualified, potentially having more PTO, and also potentially having slightly larger amounts of dollars in their bank accounts, a cross country trip to nationals may be more realistic and appealing for them.

3. There is no perfect answer, but given the trends in attendance its 100% worth having conversations.

 

 

[ALPJr]

Make it easier to attend the Regionals and Nationals. How much do rankings and requirements matter if there's only a handful of skiers in many divisions and very few spectators? Make it easier and fun, then see if the numbers begin to increase towards an unmanageable level.

[BRY]

@Rpc29 A required States seems good in concept but is no different than a Regionals in application.

Example: FL States is in Santa Rosa Beach this year. For me (West Palm area) that is an 8 hour drive (no stops, no traffic) or a 3.5 to 4.5 hr plane ride plus an hour drive each way. For Miami people add 1+ hour. Lotta Nats skiers West Palm/Miami. Orlando is 5.5 hr drive (no stops, no traffic) each way. Last year FL States had 83 skiers in SL alone. As is on multi lake sites it can be run on a weekend, but its a really full weekend. Make it required and likely more days needed. End result for 3-eventers, families, anyone skiing both days is a 4 day commitment, hotels, travel dollars, time off. For me it is exactly the same as going to Regionals, a day to get there, hotel night, ski and long ass drive/flight home with wee hr morning arrival. CA and TX are the same regarding skier numbers and travel distance.

Example: NH, RI, ND, SD, WY The little (skier number states) do not have the numbers to even put on a tournament, some don't even have a site. They do have skiers though, some very good, only 1 or 2 in some divisions and none in most. In a State tournament requirement scenario they are in limbo. One way around it is to combine several State tournaments into one larger, more sustainable and competitive tournament but that is a Regionals.

 

In FL, CA and TX if all the skiers going to Nat's are at a States that State tournament would be extremely competitive by quality and quantity of skiers. A win (just show up and win, only skier in division) in a small States (if they can pull a tourny off) is not equitable to a top 5 placement in FL, CA or TX.

 

For myself and may others (have discussed it) I would rather go to a larger, more competitive Regionals that to a States given time and money committed is the same or similar.

 

States as a requirement for anything is not a functional or equitable replacement for Regionals. It does not work.

[LLUSA]

@disland, the Regional contract states you provide rooms for officials, pay for the regional banquet, money derived from entries any heavy financial and personnel support from the city of Tuscaloosa make this event viable. I do not run class C events, I quit that several years ago because it was not financially feasible, and I prefer the REL clientele.

[Horton]

@LLUSA you've just captured the attitude and mindset that is crushing the sport

[unksskis]

What is the point of Regionals? Especially if you're requiring already Nationals qualified skiers to attend, in order to attend what they're already qualified for? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

Have Regionals be for the Level 6-7 skiers, and give them a shot at the big show. Nationals misses out on skiers because they can't, or don't want to attend both. So Regionals misses out, and Nationals. Or they have to choose one, and go to Regionals as it is closer. Shooting ourselves in both feet in that scenario.

 

Add to this argument, skiers who podium in last years Nationals are already qualified as well!

[BRY]

@Horton @LLUSA attitude and mindset is also propping the sport up. He built a lake, puts on many quality tournaments year in and year out and gives a large chunk of his time to the sport. How many people do that? Very, very, very few. Love him or hate him personally, gotta respect what he does for the sport. I don't really know him but people who know me know I'm not a Lyman fanboy, but I respect what he does for the sport.

 

If every private or controlled water site did a fraction of that, i.e. at least held 1 C/F tourney a year, we would be in much better shape. If every skier who attends 2 or more tourny's a year became an official (assist official stupid easy to become) we would be in much better shape as a sport. It's the people like Lyman who contribute who are keeping 3-event tournament skiing "the sport" going. Lack of suitable water access and the many who participate but do not contribute are crushing the sport.

[Horton]

@BRY

Lakes that are only looking for the elite skiers are not promoting the base of the sport. I 100% understand that @LLUSA has done a lot of good over the years but I firmly believe that we need to rethink EVERYTHING. We have ingrained expectations from the days when the sport was booming. In 2017 the sport is no longer booming.

 

If you need a huge amount of cash to run regionals under the old paradigm then maybe the paradigm needs to change. Maybe it is time for a Class C regional. Maybe it is time things like free rooms for the officials to be a thing of the past. Redesign the event from the ground up.

[BRY]

@Horton "I firmly believe that we need to rethink EVERYTHING." "If you need a huge amount of cash to run regionals under the old paradigm then maybe the paradigm needs to change. Maybe it is time for a Class C regional. Maybe it is time things like free rooms for the officials to be a thing of the past. Redesign the event from the ground up."

I agree 100% with those points.

In the meantime, reality. We need tournaments now to keep us going while we figure it out, Lyman does that. We need stability at our core so we can try new things without ceasing to exist if the new fails. Lyman and those like him are doing what works best for them within the current structure, and they are doing.

Your doing too with your BOS tourney's. Yours are $150 with 50 skier limit. Lyman's Records are 3 rounds, $125, no entry limit (Tuscaloosa so somewhat self limiting on entries). Different tournaments with different appeal but for a newbie kinda pricey either way.

I strongly believe changes to Regionals and Nationals will to nothing to grow the sport, just moves the people we have around.

Consistent quality access to consistent quality water at the lower end (max speed and below) is our biggest issue. More tournaments in more areas geographically is needed, so need those who aren't doing need to be doing. Its really not that hard to throw a C, if every L7+ skier stepped up and became at least an assistant judge it would real easy.

[Horton]

@BRY I would say that my events are a reimagined water ski tournament and in many ways the opposite of the old model. I charge a higher entry fee ONLY to provide for the cash prize. It is a simple cheaply run Class C with a poker game added to it. I have lost a little money at every event to date. We continue this year because Radar is stepping to support the events.

 

I would suggest that Regionals should be a mass appeal event. Run it Class C and without all the attentional cost of a ELR. We all want the best judges possible but if regular judges can't count balls and call most trick runs then we have other problems problems.

[RazorRoss3]

As a continuation of our jump off topic to sport growth: if you want to grow the sport, MAKE IT EASY FOR COLLEGE SKIERS TO STAY INVOLVED POST GRAD. Where are we growing? Collegiate. If collegiate is growing why aren't we? They can't afford to keep doing it after college and can't find water. That is your single easiest path to sport growth, right there.

 

Back to topic, changing how to qualify for Nationals will not grow the sport, it will almost certainly increase interest in the event if it is not such a pain in the butt jumping through all the extra hoops. If there is more interest in the event and you overbook you can adjust from there, change the lv8 cutoff to a higher percentile so you have fewer auto-qualifiers and so on. My mom always said its a lot easier to bring a coat and take it off if you are too warm than to not bring a coat and realize you're freezing you ass off. Same thing applies here, if we find we are overbooking nationals it is really easy to raise qualification standards to shrink the field, if too many hoops are in place and everyone loses interest there isn't much you can do. My vote is make it easier to qualify, see what happens, and adjust the qualification difficulty as necessary.

[unksskis]

@Horton why do you feel "Yes, but attend 3 records" while suggesting changing Regionals to a C class tournament? Those seem to be conflicting views.

[Horton]

@unksskis yea not sure that was the correct vote.

[evolski]

Yes, and I've participated in 2 other sports nationals, and neither required a regional attendance, just a qualification based on level. The cost and time for regional's is to high to attend both regional's and national's. So I have and know of others that have bowed out of tournaments all together. So if you are looking and revenue, this is a scenario that i have not heard mentioned. Still love to ski.

[BG1]

I was told by a former Regional VP that taught me how to run the course in the late 1970’s that the original reason skiers were required to ski in regionals before being allowed to ski nationals was to force the open skiers to ski regionals. This would allow all the up and comers and lower level skiers to see the top skiers from their region compete. He told me they dropped the regionals requirement for open skiers when they started putting on pro events. The requirement stuck for the rest of us. I remember him complaining about it a lot because of the burden it put on a lot of the nationals competitors. I’ve never researched to find out how accurate this account is I just took his word.

[RichardDoane]

My fault on the 2 possible "yes" answers. I should have kept it a simple yes or no. There are definitely a number of areas where we need to improve our sport. Keeping it fun should always be a priority, and removing barriers to entry another. There have been quite a few good suggestions over the past week. We need to take action on the needed improvements, not just talk about doing something.

[Rpc29]

Edit

[LLUSA]

@Horton crushing the sport? Running Class C events were financially a disaster, there aren't enough C skiers in the area to support the events, REL's either make money or break even. I guess putting on 4 out of the last 5 regionals is crushing the sport? Nobody wants to take on this task of Regionals or Nationals unless there is money to be made. We have done and continue to do events such as intercollegiates, pro clinics, and anything the city wishes to get involved with.

[ski6jones]

From @BG1 post, that is the perfect example of "we do it because that's how it's always been done." Might have been implemented for good reason.at the time but that reason no longer exists.

[SKILIQUIDZONE]

The Western Region does not pay for rooms for Officials at the Western Regionals. Each Region sets the requirements for there Regionals.

[bishop8950]

One thing I have never liked is that while your participation in Regionals is is required to attend Nationals, your performance is irrelevant. You just need to score a zero (in slalom I believe this means get up and establish skiing position only). If you are going to force me to ski Regionals then make it matter how well I ski. Maybe its hit a min score or min placement.

 

In Crossfit you have to qualify for Regionals through your local Open performances. You then have to place high enough at your Regionals to go the Games which is a world level event. Not saying this is our answer, but I like the idea of making Regional performance matter.

 

If Regional performance does not matter, then please drop the requirement.

 

All this said, I appreciate the chance to compete with the best skiers in my Region. The reason I have not attended the last few Regionals is due to cost and the one round format. I have the same problem with Nationals and I am only slightly more inclined to attend Nationals to see where I stack up in the Nation. But when I have to pay the expense for 2 one round events (typically $3k total) I will pass on all of it. I have better ROI deploying those funds and time on other events in skiing or outside of skiing all together. I am fortunate to have earned one National medal (Mens II 5th place) and its one of my top achievements in waterskiing. I would like another but doubt I will ever see one under the current set up.

 

One way forward is to make Regionals special wrt format. Give me a reason to really WANT to go. This would work for me: 2 qualifying rounds and top skiers qualify for a small H2H to determine placement. Maybe only top 4 skiers. Detail can be worked out. Yes, it will take more time so maybe cut back the number of skiers. Oh, that will drop revenue so fine, increase the cost of entry. The entry fee is a small part of the overall expense anyway. Then have skiers qualify for Nationals based on how they did at Regionals. Again, not sure this is the answer but it sounds good to me from a skiers perspective.

 

One problem with this proposal is travel arrangements. If you don't know if you can go to Nationals until after Regionals, you may have short notice to book travel. Maybe put more time between Regionals and Nationals?

[Edbrazil]

Not a vote, but a comment. I sure miss the Good Old Days when tournament entries were around $25 or less. Yup, you also got a banquet out of that. And, you could drive from A to B for only about a penny per mile. On brand-new Interstate highways that were not clogged with traffic. Also before much radar was checking your speed. And you could find lodging on the cheap, lots of time including primitive camping at the site.

[dvskier]

And you only paid $.25 per gallon to purchase non ethanol gas. "High test was $.27/ gallon!