Nationals qualifications

[Ilivetoski]

Does anyone know exactly what the rule is for qualifying for nationals? I called USAWS to ask and couldn't get a coherent answer... Is it still level 8? Was there a rule change last year that said if you have a level 8 ranking at least 12 months in advance of the nationals then you qualify? Or do you have to be level 8 at the cut off date? I was kind of amazed that USAWS spent 20 mins on the phone with me looking up the answer to this in the rule book and pretty much gave me an "I'm not sure" answer

[klindy]

Rule 4.02 starting on page 13 of the PDF in the link.

[JeffSurdej]

Level 8 as of the cutoff date which is July 13th. There are other ways to qualify both before and mainly after but the major qualification status of which you are looking for is still the same L8 at July 13th.

[klindy]

@OB1 the Southern region determined whether State tournament placement is an entry to Regionals. I don't know what the policy is but it'll be in the regional guide or region website.

[Chef23]

@OB1 generally regionals qualifications are different from region to region. I think you need to contact someone in the region to ask that question.

[Drago]

@OB1 looks like level 5, = 2.7 buoys total at the moment .

[LeonL]

@OB1 , I quote directly from the SR tournament guide, "The first place event winning skiers, without regard to their Ranking Level and who scored in their events at their respective current year's state tournament, shall be allowed to ski that event at the Southern Regional Tournament." So if he's the only B1 skier in GA, all he has to do is score one buoy and he's in.

[LeonL]

@Ilivetoski if you're in reference to your qualification, here's the scenario. You currently have an average of 94, however you will lose your top five scores prior to the cutoff date. It gets a little too complicated to explain here if you do get scores, since we could only speculate what they may be, but if you receive no other scores prior to the cutoff date your top two scores would be used because your next score would "do harm" to your average. So, the system will take those top two, average them and deduct 5%, leaving you with an average of 88.11. So, you need a score of 85 prior to July 13 to keep you in level 8.

[Jody_Seal]

Why not just set qualification criteria starting the day after nationals?? Might spark interest in some or many skiers ! oh wait! To easy! let's make genuine wanting to participate members (or better yet past and or potential members) have to wait til a month before the nationals to decide if they can get the time off from Work or put together the finances to participate..

Still no logical business model for membership! But hey! We got level 10 to run members off faster!

[LeonL]

What @Jody_Seal said is good. Based on the previous scenario, due to inadequate water time, living somewhere that skiing conditions are erratic for the first 2 months of the season, you end up not getting up to snuff until close to cutoff date. Then you either cancel the arrangements you already made, or scramble to make said arrangements. Of course some skiers are well above cutoff, and good for you, but many are on the borderline and really want to go.

[liquid d]

Jody for President! Jody for President! Jody for President! whooohoooo

[Dirt]

It is ridiculous that we cant answer @Ilivetoski question with a simple answer. Why has this not changed?

 

Set an EP (exceptional performance) at the end of Nationals. Anyone who achieves that score at anytime during the ski year gets a congratulatory email from AWSA inviting them to the current year Nationals.

 

If you need more participants a month before Nats, lower the EP and send out more invites.

[MrJones]

Dirt. That would be far too simple....

[MrJones]

or this....

 

What if there were no entry requirements for Nationals? The other sport I've got into heavily is practical pistol. For them nationals is an open event. If you want to come and shoot all you have to be is an organization member. If you're willing to pony up the entry fee and travel expense bring it.

 

I could see how in the US Open of golf or tennis the number of entries could be a logistical nightmare, but for all the other smaller sports who cares? Open it up and let them come. Set a hard cut off date for entry so the site will know the numbers. If there is really a concern set an entry limit and stick to it.

 

What do ya'll think?

[Kelvin]

Or do it like the Jr US Open. Pick the number of skiers you want in each division/event and let the highest rated skiers in until you reach that number. If you don't get that number of entries in a particular division/event, expand the other divisions to make up the difference.

[MarkTimm]

As of right now I am at level 8. It has been a long time goal to qualify for and ski in the nationals. So here I am just above the current cut off, do I book the trip and make the plans knowing the number could change and I could fall back to level 7.

[Wish]

@MrJones for President and @Kalvin for VP. And @Dirt can be @MrJones arm candy...his idea was good too.

[LeonL]

@dirt I thought I netted it out to a rather simple answer for @Ilivetoski. He needs to run a couple of buoys at 28 off and he's in. But I do see your point. It is more complicated than an EP.

[Dirt]

@LeonL your explanation was good, as usual. The moving target is the problem.

[JeffSurdej]

Would there be a difference if we just moved the cutoff date from 3 weeks before to 10 months before? The one difference I see there is that a skier would be able to use scores from august of say 2016 to qualify for 2018 nats, as opposed to a rating that the skier has to go out and achieve twice after nationals. But moving the cutoff date makes it as simply as possible. Remember that after the cutoff date, we then have an established rating which is the L8 cutoff score which anyone can achieve once and get to nationals, if we moved the cutoff date to 10 months before or 12, we would essential establish a EP rating for the ski year? thoughts?

[MISkier]

Why not just make it January 1st? That is the same effective date for the age group you would be in for that Nationals. Then, your scores from the post-season of the previous Nationals will either get you there or give you an idea of whether you will get there with enough notice to plan to attend.

 

For those that continue to shoot for LCQ, they already know they are in that boat (so to speak) and are making their decisions based on their understanding of their chances to qualify and their related desire to do so.

[LeonL]

@MISkier Jan 1 is not really the effective date for age groups. It is the age that you are on that date that determines age group for that season, however the season starts the day after Nationals possibly before your birthday. Now, I may have misread your intended point. If so, as Emily Latella would say "Never mind."

[MISkier]

@LeonL, I realize you already start skiing in the next age division after Nationals, should you be forecasted to achieve that minimum age by January 1. I was just aligning the calculation of the COA with that date to link them and allow post-Nationals scoring to be applied in the calculation. It would potentially allow the post-Nationals scores of those new divisional members to possibly be included in the distribution, whereas just setting the COA the day after Nationals would not.

 

Some of my best skiing occurs in late August and September. It seems that including those scores would help the calculation be more accurate/representative.

[scoke]

January 1 would be clean simple cutoff date. As miskier mentioned and others, It could work well:

 

Skiers age into their divisions on August 14th. MANY tournaments for next years divisions from August until November when tournaments shut down. Heck, half the ski year has gone by with plenty of all of our best scores in the books

 

Everyone knows in the dead of the winter where they stand and what the cut line is. No pickle surprises.

 

If our goal is to have more families involved in tournament skiing, give them as much time in advance of "are we going to nationals as a family?? YEEEHAW" feeling all spring. Gives plenty of time for vacation planning, summer school, getting off work.

 

Everyone can stew all spring when the wind is blowing and it's cold "I've got to ski as I know exactly at what level I have to perform."

 

 

 

Personally, as a former single guy scheduling to attend nationals at the last minute was no big deal but with now that I have a wife 2.5 kids, 2 cats, a turtle and a demanding boss, I can't imagine trying to schedule that only 6 weeks in advance.

 

I vote for a Jan 1 cut line. This could increase overall participation in nationals and more family involvement for a vacation.

 

The more I think of it, the more it doesn't make sense to have it very LATE in the year. If you have the LCQ scoring, that gives an outlet for people to bump up into it as well and push those averages.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

So Jeff what is the problem with having an EP style alternative avenue for national qualification that allows skiers and family's to make decisions and plan ahead sooner then 30 day's from the big show?

let's just continue down the path of hardship and not take a realistic approach at scenarios that would bring skiers into the game.

 

Still no Board packet! Southern region State's meetings less then 10 day's away. Going to be another year with ambush type of leadership I see!!

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej this needs to be simple. Set the cutoff scores at nationals for the following year, based on whatever level you want, and any skier who achieves that score (or twice) in the 12 months preceding the next nationals is qualified.

 

Why is that so hard?

[eleeski]

I loved the old EP system. It worked.

 

I was totally against the ranking list way. But I took advantage of it probably more than any other skier. We live with the rules in play.

 

Will an EP system get more skiers at a higher level to Nationals? I doubt it but I doubt it would hurt either. A couple people will be able to plan ahead (good! ) and a couple will not be as excited about the ranking list.

 

Either way, people will gripe. Not me, either way. The last change wasn't magic either way. I doubt any change now will cause or solve a crisis.

 

@JeffSurdej thanks for listening and trying. Sorry for a wishy washy response.

 

Eric

[JeffSurdej]

@Bruce_Butterfield I agree this needs to be simple, this is why I proposed the question of whether or not just moving the cut off date solves the issue. There is nothing more simple than that move, it would require changing 3 words in the rule book, all the programming is done, it all ties in with rankings and nationals qualifications. Adding back the EP is not the end of the world but it does require adding more to the rule book, it does require SQC to develop the EP chart each year and get it approved, and it requires programming changes if you want these skiers who achieve the EP to show up as qualified, otherwise it can be done manually where a skier can prove he achieved the EP twice by proving his score in the scorebook and showing it to the registrar at nationals or the registrar can go through all the work of tracking down scores and verifying ratings, so if we want this to work seamlessly where skiers show up as qualified in the system it would require programming work that would take some time, that's all I'm saying. I like the idea, hell it can't hurt. What I miss most about the EP was the excitement of when skiers knew they got the rating, that instant gratification is something rankings does not deliver, at least not in its present formula.

[klindy]

This won't be the straightforward EP style plan suggested by @Bruce_Butterfield or the alternative by @JeffSurdej but why not do both.

 

Set the "EP" score at the end of Nationals to be something higher than the level 8 scores at that time. For example pick a score '5 percentiles' higher from the level 8 and call that the EP score.

 

Then utilize the ranking list just the way it is. Anything level 8 or above qualifies. All the other paths to qualify also stay intact.

 

All that said, I personally like the idea posted by @MrJones. The hard number is the expected skiers in each division/event. That way if the site for the Nationals can handle 100 M4 slalom skiers then allow all level 8 and above skiers to register on May 1. If there isn't 100 skiers then let all level 7 and above register on June 1. Level 6 and above on July 1 etc until you fill the 100 slots.

 

Skiers qualifying by regional placements are fairly few so they won't skew anything too much. It's also predictable by looking at history.

 

This type of system would allow for much better budgeting and planning. It would also allow for the bidding site to make these forecasts early in the bidding process. The number of skiers/days would be part of the site proposal. AWSA can accept, reject or propose a modification to the hosting club.

 

I think this is as close to "win-win" as anything.

[Triplett]

I like the idea presented on this thread. I think the floating cut-offs are a little weird, I originally achieved my OM rating due to the floating cut-off. I believe there is an upside to the way we are doing this now, tournament participation. With the old system I could ski 1 or 2 tournaments, get my EP, then never show up to another tournament until the regional. I could even ski my EP at nationals and only ski in two tournaments during the entire ski year, the regional and national. Right now it encourages you to ski at minimum 2 tournaments after nationals to qualify.

 

In short, current system probably helps participation of local events. Should we qualify more people for nationals, yes. Is there a better way, probably. Do I know what that is, no. Do I think L8 needs to attend regionals, no.

[MrJones]

I'm really out of this. I thought that my score/placement at nationals last year would have gotten me in this year.

[JeffSurdej]

@MrJones It does

[JeffSurdej]

After talking to our volunteer programmers for 2 hours the other night I realize the minutia (spelling?) of stuff we are throwing on their plate. Take for example L10, on paper sounds easy...ski this score, move to elite, that's it right. Well no, there is so much more complication to it, the way scores are stored in a database or how divisions are set up, etc. There are always unintended consequences when you start throwing in overall and skiing twice etc. Then take a new rule, which I'm sure many are not aware of, that's where the top 5 from regionas go to nationals, except now, if there are L9 skiers in the top 5, we are taking more than 5, so if 2 of the top 5 are L9 now the top 7 get to go to nationals by placement. Once again sounds simply, and whats the harm, the more the better, but from a programming standpoint, its a nightmare when going from top 5 across the board to a # that we will not even know until regionals is done.

 

So in regards to this EP idea, once again sounds awesome, and once again, why not, we would be throwing a whole new level of programming to a system that is not set up to capture EP's and figure out if a skier did it twice or once in a record and then relay that information back to all the appropriate channels that deal with qualifications. Our volunteer programmers are backed logged enough as it is and although we have a new person in place to help they are still AWSA volunteers, this is not done by a paid staff at HQ.

 

So this brings me back to my original post, if skiers are truly not attending nationals b/c they have to wait until July 13th to find out, could we not just move the cutoff date earlier, this way all the programming is in place and it requires little rulebook changes and no programming changes. I know it doesnt have the spice of the EP chart but we can still post a L8 cutoff chart, we do have a rating system in place now, but it only exist for one month, july 13th up until nationals, and its not promoted very well, so we could move the cutoff date, announce the L8 cutoff score, (hell call it an EP) and the system will capture those that achieve it. Then with an earlier cutoff date we can take a look into the idea of opening up registration past L8 past certain dates so that the LOC gets their 750 skiers or so or whatever it is they want. West palm can handle 1000.

 

Food for thought,

[dchristman]

I'm just sitting here shaking my head. In the heyday of skiing, with more skiers, this was all done on paper. Where did we go wrong? Technology sucks, and it's my business. :/

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej

 

I'm still not clear on what you mean by moving the cuttoff date. Do you mean:

1. Whoever is within the L8 score on the chosen date is qualified for Nationals and no new qualifiers or

2. the L8 score on the cutoff date is what someone has to achieve to qualify and they can do that anytime up to Nationals? This is closer to the EP model and makes a lot more sense, at least to me.

 

Back to the issue of people not knowing until right before Nationals if they are qualified, it seems obvious that the new rule of going down the Regionals placement list until you get 5 "lower than L9" skiers will only make that situation worse. Now they have 2 weeks instead of a month to make arrangements. Yes, I see its well intentioned, but I doubt it will have any affect on turnout. You should put that on your list of things to track and see if they actually have the desired effect:)

 

I get that programming and databases are never as simple as it seems they should be, and its a volunteer army, but I'm with dchristman and just shaking my head.

[MISkier]

Move the cutoff date sooner (much sooner) and leave all the other criteria (including LCQ) the same.

[Dirt]

@JeffSurdej I appreciate all of your hard work and taking the time to look into this.

 

I like the EP or similar idea because AWSA can send out the email congratulating the member for their achievement, advising them it qualifies them for the "greatest skiing show on earth" and include all the details of where and when Nationals will be so they can start planning and talking about it.

 

The email may seem stupid to some but their are many who would print it out (if it were in a certificate format) and frame it or at least forward the email to interested friends, relatives and co-workers. The email could have the share links on it for Facebook, instagram, etc... That would be free marketing for AWSA and may get more people involved.

 

There may be some programming challenges but they may be worth spending some money on. The emails get sent now for Master Men and Open. Maybe HQ will see the value and offer to pay for it.

 

I like the alternate proposals better than the current system but they lack the EP Rating for the year. I think people are goal oriented and want to achieve ratings. The ranking list could show EP where it shows OM, MM, OW, MW next to the skiers name.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[MillerTime38]

@dchristman I guess your volunteering to keep track of all the paperwork

 

@Dirt what if AWSA sent you an email after the qualifying cut off date for nationals? Would that make it better?

 

I guess I do not find the current qualifications as confusing as most. Are you level 8? Did you score at level 8 anytime after the cutoff date? Did you place at regionals?

 

I began skiing tournaments during the EP era, from what I remember if you wanted to attend nationals you told the driver I need an EP and most of the time you got an EP. The current ranking system, to me, gives skiers benefit if they ski more tournaments as @Triplett mentioned

 

 

[Dirt]

@MillerTime38 that would work. I just recommend you call it something and send a certificate, congrats and invite to nationals. A designation next to your name on the rankings list would be nice too.

[MillerTime38]

@Dirt I agree something sent to qualifying competitors would be nice

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej Isn't a member of USAWS staff a webmaster? Michael Newth?

[MrJones]

If nationals were open to any USA Waterski member (regardless of score) how many do you think would go??

[JeffSurdej]

@Bruce_Butterfield To answer your question from before, moving the cutoff date does.... 2. the L8 score on the cutoff date is what someone has to achieve to qualify and they can do that anytime up to Nationals? This is closer to the EP model and makes a lot more sense, at least to me.

 

@sunperch yes Neweth is at HQ now but not sure he knows SQL programming, but we just a new volunteer to help transition with Dave Clark's retirement from waterskiing so to speak so we should be in better shape over the next few years to handle more programming changes when needed

 

@MrJones how many skiers would go to nationals with no qualifications. IDK, West palm is the only place that could handle that experiment though.

[ToddL]

@Ilivetoski

 

How to qualify for Nationals (per the current rules):

 

Must participate in the current year' Regionals, and any 1 of the following:

1) Placed in top 5 at Nationals last year.

2) Have a L8 or higher ranking

3) Ski a score equal to or better than the lowest L8 ranking score as of the cutoff date (July 13th, 2017 - today!)

4) At Regionals, earn a place among the top 5 non-elite skiers, (an elite skier is OM/OW/MM/MW or Level 10 designated)

 

Rule 4.02 - National Tournament Qualifications

[schroed]

@ToddL - Don't forget the following rule:

 

For those qualified by placement in an event without a Level 8

ranking, scores from the current Regionals or immediate past Nationals

must be above zero in the event.

 

This rule is really bothering me due to my 10 year old son's situation. This is his first year in B2 and his first year jumping. He just landed his first jump in a tournament last weekend and qualified for regionals in overall. He really wants to go to nationals but his only realistic way to qualify at this point is to place in the top 5 in overall in B2 at regionals (he's level 7 in trick and slalom, level 4 in jump). Right now there are only 5 B2 overall skiers registered for the Western Regionals so obviously he has a really good chance at placing in the top 5 overall. Even if a couple more skiers sign up and he zeros in jump he still could potentially place in the top 5 overall. My problem is this: if he doesn't land a jump at regionals, he can't go to nationals. So, do I wait to buy a plane ticket until after regionals at a much higher price or do I book it now and hope he lands a jump?

 

I understand why this rule was put in place such that really good skiers in one event can't place in overall when they're getting a 0 in one event. However, lets face it, getting 0 in trick and 0 in slalom is pretty rare (I know, missed gate on your opener is a 0, but that's a whole other discussion). So, I think this rule was put in place so people like me that don't jump don't go out there and cut and pass on three jumps just to get an overall score and placement. However, the way this rule is written for having a non-zero score at regionals is problematic. Couldn't this rule be written such that the skier has to show an attempt at a jump by going over the ramp rather than a non-zero score? What if the jumper gets hurt on the first jump and doesn't want to take their last 2 attempts. Are we saying, oh well, you're hurt right now, you're getting a zero, and therefore you're not going to nationals? That doesn't seem right.

 

BTW - I know my son is not the only one in this situation where they're trying to get to nationals by placing in overall at regionals and have a potential of having a zero in jump. Shouldn't we open it up to the top 5 in overall in the region regardless of what their scores were at regionals? If you want to stop the cut and pass in jump problem, just state you need a non-zero jump score at some time during the ski year and need to make a jump attempt at regionals.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@schroed I understand your delima - let me offer a perspective as a parent who has faced similar situations.

 

First its great your son is getting to jumping and 3 event! As a parent of skiers, I think the single most important thing I can instill in my kids is that you have to work HARD to achieve goals and recognition. You can't just "show up" and expect to earn your way to high end tournaments like Nationals - you have to put in the extra effort and be able to perform when it counts. IMO, the "show up and get a trophy" mentality is incredibly detrimental for any kid. Its critical that they learn they have to work and earn their way to whatever goals they aspire.

 

So ask yourself: has someone who just landed their first jump really earned their way to the National Championship? Has someone who scores 0 at regionals earned their ticket to nationals? Wouldn't it be a more valuable life lesson to say " that's great, if you keep working, you may be able to qualify for regionals and nationals next year?"

 

I am fully on board with getting kids excited and involved. I also think its important its done in the right way.

 

Feel free to PM me if you want.

[disland]

Buy the ticket. Total risk is the change fee. I am sure you will find another tournament to ski in at some point. Or go anyway, watch the night jump, see the pro's, Go to the vendor tents. Sign up to ski in the Radar event. Might be more fun than skiing in the national tournament itself.

[schroed]

@Bruce_Butterfield - Thanks for your response and I totally agree with your point that you need to instill in your kids that you have to work hard to achieve your goals. I also agree that the "show up and get a trophy" mentality is detrimental. Further, I am totally prepared to have the talk with my son about how he may need to work harder and perform under pressure in order to qualify for nationals. However, let me make a couple points on this subject related to my original post:

 

1. I don't think that my son who has landed his first jump in a tournament has earned his way to the National Championship on jump alone. However, I do know that he qualified for regionals in overall based on his ability in slalom and trick and by the fact that he was willing to learn how to jump. He had the courage to go over the jump ramp (BTW - Thank you Terry Winter for going over the jump ramp with him for the first time), practiced jump at our lake, recorded a jump score in a tournament, and achieved an overall score that qualified him for regionals. Thus, he now has the opportunity to qualify for nationals through placement at the regional championships.

 

2. You either agree with the rule that the top 5 skiers at any regionals are qualified for nationals (regardless of scores or number of participants) or you don't. I agree with this rule to encourage the top skiers from all of the regions to participate in nationals. It is unfortunate that many divisions in many regions have very few overall skiers. Currently the Western Region has only 8 B2 skiers that have registered a jump in the last 12 months and thus only 8 overall B2 skiers in the region. There are plenty of other divisions with similar numbers in the Western Region. So, are we really trying to put into place an exception to this top 5 rule that states that even though you placed in the top 5, you are still not qualified for nationals because your scores are not good enough? That doesn't seem like the right answer. Maybe skiers in any division would look at the overall scores from the prior year and be motivated to ski overall as way to qualify for nationals. That motivation could result in more competitors and more competition the next year.

 

My original post was more a complaint over the rule that you have to have a non-zero score at regionals for any event if you don't have a level 8 score in order to qualify for nationals. This rule could potentially limit the number of overall skiers at the nationals in all age divisions.

 

 

[bigtex2011]

@schroed If you son quailifies I will be super stoked for you. My boys 2 son can plop, barely do a side slide and is a decent slalom-er. The fact that he wants to over the jump is a big darn deal. Looking forward to seeing you and your son in San Marcos.

 

 

[MillerTime38]

@bigtex2011 I think you should start jumping with him. Your a decent slalomer but don't think you can pull off a side slide. I will be at nationals some time Thursday, you gonna be around?