2018 AWSA Rules Committee Meeting Proposals Survey

[Horton]

I hope everyone takes the survey. Some of the questions really need some debate.

 

[RichardDoane]

I added my .02 this morning, as I hope everyone else does as well

[lpskier]

Link?

[Chad_Scott]

Yes need link for survey

[dbutcher]

If AWSA has your email address, you should get an email containing the link.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej Do you want the link posted?

[jcamp]

I hope they limit the survey to only USAWS members.

[lpskier]

AWSA doesn’t love me anymore. :'(

[JeffSurdej]

HQ had to send half out yesterday and half today, I just notice todays group just came through in my inbox so every AWSA active member should have received one by now, if not let me know and I will send you a direct link. Its tempting to post the survey public, on one hand you want answers from active members who this effects but on the other hand feedback from non-members who might be more inclined to compete in tourneys based on these changes is good feedback too. For right now @Horton don't post the link.

[skiinxs]

@JeffSurdej It might be interesting to compare non-members to members. Maybe a duplicate survey with a separate link for non-members?

[sunperch]

My daughter has said she will quit skiing tournaments if the divisions are changes to ability based. She wants to ski with her friends, she does not want to ski against "old men". This sport is male dominated, which is fine, but I don't want to ski against men either. I have learned the most when I have competed against better skiers, gives me the motivation to strive to get better myself!

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch skiing against men or kids vs old is only one of the possible options, I agree that would never work well, the first place and maybe only place i think ABD its needed is on the lower ability based, skiers who can not run the course should not have to ski against 35/38 off just b/c they are the same age, its a huge mistake driving a lot of people away especially preventing college kids from staying in the sport.

[Broussard]

I have no desire to ski in ability based divisions. I have skied against guys my age for years and it has pushed me to get better and try to close the gap between my competitors and me. If you want a trophy or a medal, you have to put in the work it takes to earn one.

[JeffSurdej]

@skiinxs great idea, I added the question of being a member or not so we can segment but also created a new collection URL for non members so please ONLY fill out this survey via this link if you are not a USAWS member. If you are a member use the one from the email. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/nonusawsmember

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej the one thing that concerns me about that survey is that I never heard a lot of these proposals before so the answers I provided we're sort of reactionary. I think a lot of these ideas need pro/con analysis before the opinion of the membership is very meaningful.

 

In other words I would assume that somebody who has thought about some of these issues for weeks and months could explain to me why my first reaction vote might be completely backwards.

[eleeski]

Open is the ultimate ability based division. We should all strive for that.

 

Age divisions are fun social groups. Definitely need to be protected.

 

Balancing the age divisions and the ability qualifications to maximize the development and retention of all skiers is a difficult task. Interesting to watch how some of the changes already made play out.

 

I am a product of Al Frosini's novice ability based tournaments. Quite a few of us are still skiing 40 years later. Kirk is a product of the great social experience of his age groups. There's merit in many paths. Hopefully options will be available.

 

Eric

[Wish]

I remember skiing out of Novice and into my age group. I also remember that as being a huge accomplishment and a goal worth striving for and an attainable one that kept me competing. Who I was competing against in Novice meant very little as the group was always rather small and I would socialize with my age group anyway . Once in age group, the bar to beat the best in that age group didn't seem so out of the question. A balance to keep the "new to tournaments" coming back for more and age devisions could be a good thing...I think.

[klindy]

I’ve said this before and I’ll continue to say it ... I really believe age based vs ability based does NOT need to be an either/or decision. With some slight changes with how we administer and organize tournaments there is zero reason we can’t do both.

 

Each of the events would be scored precisely the same regardless of how we group competitors. Six buoys in slalom will be the same whether your male, female, young, old, a single event or three event competitior, even the same if your able bodied or not, collegiate or whatever. Same idea for all events. What is different are some of the maximum parameters used with the current age based groups - primarily speed and ramp height.

 

Now with ZBS in slalom all competitors start at the same place in all three events. So, a score is just a score. At the most basic level it’s just data. How you CHOOSE to sort and group that data is the issue.

 

What’s missing are easy to use templates or tools in the scoring software to allow something other than age groups first. What’s debatsble is how the major tournaments should be organized like regional or nationals (and what the purpose of these events are).

 

In a virtual world you can have any of the options and simply switch between them based on your needs. At the individual tournament level we’d need to decide how you want to run it and configure it that way.

 

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton agreed horton, that was the main reason behind starting a position dedicated to bridging the NCWSA/AWSA gap, but yes we need to talk about ambassador program and more. Hopefully soon, its on my list to catch up with you. THIS WAS MOVED TO THE ALUMNI SURVEY FORUM

[Kelvin]

What if Regionals and Nationals recognized the top 5 placements AND recognized the top 5 HANDICAPPED placements. There are many skiers that don't have a chance at reaching the podium, but go to Regionals and Nationals for 1 or 2 years just for the experience. Some stick around longer, but others, like @Horton decide its not worth their time and money.

 

Obviously, this would take some time to properly design the Handicap. The current ranking system is close, but the penalties for fewer than 3 tournaments mucks things up. Also, those that don't have full passes in the score book also muck things up.

 

Just some thoughts.

[rico]

Didn't get the email...

[lpskier]

Although I might be able to win it, I have no interest in being National Champion in Mediocre Men.

[Horton]

@kelvin Handicap at Nationals I like it. I am tied for 17th in M4 on the ranking list as of today so I have a snowball's chance in hell of getting on the podium but a handicap medal would get my attention. That is a good idea.

 

Get me a few extra rounds and it is golden : )

 

 

[Broussard]

Handicapped national champion... sounds like a good way to water down AWSA's most prestigious tournament.

[Horton]

@Broussard it is not the same as the actual high score champ. It is a way to make the event interesting to more skiers.

 

It is a lot like what I do with my Cash Prize events. I give cash to the one bad ass best skier and to the best handicap skier. It does not diminish anything.

[Broussard]

@horton I am not against the idea of a handicapped event, and I do agree with the idea of giving people more to do during Nationals (i.e. your proposed daily tournament,) but I don't like the idea of a handicapped division as part of the National Championship.

[MattP]

@Broussard why not reward the skier who skied lights out above their average at the highest stage in amateur waterskiing? You don't have the call them a national champion but rewarding the skier who performed the best against what they have been doing is a great way to keep skiers interested and coming back who have little to no chance of winning the actual event. Essentially it is a "most improved" skier award.

[lpskier]

@Kelvin Not to be crass, but I think @jcamp beat you to the punch on suggesting handicapped events at Nationals. That’s what he was talking about, right....?

[lpskier]

Personally, I supported most of the proposed changes on the survey. I like the prospect of bringing our divisions and speeds in line with IWWF, and I believe that the 35+ etc divisions fairly solve the “I want to still ski 36” issue for all skiers. Really the only folks penalized by the rule change are the 32/30 mph skiers who can still ski the slower speeds under the ZBS rule if they choose. I support a phase in for those divisions.

 

Adopting such a plan would make the E tournament designation unnecessary. AWSA rules would apply only to C events and otherwise IWWF rules would apply. The only E events of any significance now are the Regional and National events where the age group speed differs from the world rule, for example B and G 1. Those divisions would go away and with them the Ned for an E event.

 

The big adjustment will be with records, particularly with juniors who would be adding a division under the survey’s proposal. This can be sorted out, however, with retro-active calculations of existing records into Ux records by determining existing record holder’s age when records were set and catagorizing them accordingly.

 

I can get behind ability based completion for the lower level skiers. If doing so makes it more interesting for more skiers, i’m all for it. I do not support ability based completion at Regional and Nationals. I can support it at States. Regionals and Nagionals should be hard to win and wouldn’t be as prestigious if it were otherwise. As a level 8 skier, I’m not threatened by having to ski with folks my own age regardless of ability. I ran 2@38 at Nationals this summer, my best Nationals score ever. 3 made the podium and a couple at 39 won it. I was exceptionally proud of my score, but if 2 took a top medal at Nationals (in Goode (get it?) conditions) in M6, I would have thought it was lame. I’m not a National Champion and unless my game steps up, I shouldn’t be.

 

I support @JeffSurdej ‘s effort to initiate discussion of proposed rule changes and solicitation of membership opinions in advance of the Winter meetings. The big changes that came out of last years meeting took a lot of folks by surprise. Jeff learned and improved. Hear hear.

[Broussard]

@MattP AWSA does provide certificates for the most improved skier in each event for the junior divisions. Should handicapped divisions be added to British Nationals as well? Pan-Ams? Europeans? Worlds?

[disland]

have any of you been to or participated in the AT&T Pro AM at Pebble beach? Let me tell you the winners of the "handicap" pro am dont feel mediocre. Its exciting enough that they actually usually show the last few holes of the top teams on TV

[Horton]

@Broussard I do not understand your level of dislike for this idea. It does not add rides to Nationals it only adds as second layer of competition.

 

I looked you up. You placed 23rd at Nationals this year and your score was 1 ball less than your best score of 2017. So if there was a handicap going along with the regular scoring you would have done really well. It is just an idea to make Nationals more interesting.

[Broussard]

@Horton In 2014 I came out 29/33 in slalom with a score of 2@22 off, 24/24 in trick with 510 pts, and 21/24 in jump with 97 ft.

 

This year I placed 23/35 in slalom with a score of 2.5 @ 32 off in M1 (my scores this year have been 2s, 2.5s, 3s, and 3.5s @ 32.) I scored 900 its in trick 20/21, and in jump I PB'd with 122 ft for 14/23.

 

I am extremely happy with my skiing this year and I'm proud of the fact that my scores at nationals were just under or even above my average. Do I think that I deserve a trophy or medal for skiing well by my own standards? No. Will I be headed to Kansas next year to try again? Yes.

 

The U.S. Nationals are the most prestigious AWSA tournament of the year held to crown national champions. Want to be a national champion? Get out there and start training.

[dave2ball]

I agree with @Horton. Something need to be done to bring back some excitement to the nationals. I still believe that if you change MM in some way that will bring more entries in M3-5. At one time the nationals use to be prestigious. There were many more vendors. They were encouraged to give out free tshirts stickers and so forth. the skier would turn it in for a prize drawing . Now it just feel like a regular tournament.

Very sad. Hopefully AWSA/USA WATERSKI will make some changes.

[Horton]

@Broussard I too am an idealist / traditionalist 3 event guy. I have skied maybe 13 (?) Nationals. I have a visceral dislike for the words "ability based divisions". Hell, I dislike MM and Masters as divisions at Nationals and am against the Level 10 rule.

 

This idea is simply a side competition to make Nationals interesting for guys like me and maybe you. I am currently ranked 17th in M4. My chance to get on the podium is about 500 to 1. One the other hand I am pretty consistent at times. I like the idea of going up against all the other M4 or maybe just the L8 M4 guys to see who can ski closest to their average. IT IS A SIDE BET. IT IS NOT THE SAME AS COMPETING FOR THE REAL MEDAL. Why not embrace some fun stuff to make the event more inviting?

[Broussard]

@Horton I agree, Nationals defiantly needs to be made more interesting. While more costly, I think the best way to do so is through spectator events and shows i.e. the night jump and bringing back the U.S. Open in conduction with the Nationals.

 

I wholly agree that for a single eventer, a one round tournament that's halfway across the country is not very attractive. I do believe however, that brining back the fun and community of the sport would be advantageous. People travel to the Masters to watch and don't even get to ski (granted, not as many people as there used to be).

[Horton]

@Broussard attendance at Masters not nearly what it once was. Still a landmark event but I would NOT hold it up as a spectator success anymore.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@horton, if I understand what your "handicap" class of skiers at Nationals, it would be like the top 5 "most improved skier" at a whole different level. The problem I see with this as opposed to BOS handicap events would be people intentionally keeping their average low (sandbagging if you will) to exceed their average by a lot. I can imagine large numbers of skiers trying to go for the most improved award.

 

At the BOS events, you are king, you make the rules, and can throw out the scores of anyone who gets out of line - yes there is no set criteria and largely a judgement call. Can you imagine trying to implement something to prevent sandbagging at a National level for people and the bottom and middle of the pack?

 

While I applaud out of the box ideas, I'm afraid this would be completely unworkable.

[Horton]

@Bruce_Butterfield meh. If someone wants to sandbag all year and then fly across the country, pay for a hotel room and plane ticket plus Rent-A-Car, they can have their second rate medal.

 

I'm advocating this is a sideshow. It's not really a national champion it's handicap national champion. It's a freaking booby prize and something to make things more interesting because there just aren't enough boobies at Nationals.

[lpskier]

You could base the handicap on the current year Regionals and States, and the prior year Nationals. If no prior year Nationals score, then you have to go to a Nationals before you can get into the handicap event. In other words, you have to be a regular participant at Nationals to get a handicap score. That would encourage consistent participation. It’s less likely anyone would sandbag those tournaments.

[LeonL]

I have a concern about the age + (i.e. 35+ or 65+). Would this allow a skier to jump between multiple divisions at will? If you have an exceptionally talented skier he/she could assess the talent pool in a given division(s) and then ski where they see the best possible chance of winning. Example: skier is 56 he/she would be eligible for 3 divisions. Be it as it may, there have been times when a skier dominates a division and everyone is glad to see them age out.

[BlueSki]

@LeonL, to your point, we should ask, if everyone across three divisions is skiing at the same max speed, why are there three divisions? Doesn’t this implicitly assume different abilities by age group, and thus, ability-based divisions?

[MrJones]

Here is an idea for a great side show at Nationals..... the US Open.

[JeffSurdej]

Kansas is working to see if they can add the US Open or perhaps a smaller version of it, the night jump has been a start in that direction, the issue is nothing more than $. Find the cash and we would be happy to bring it back to Nationals. Right now there isn't even a US Open let alone deciding where and when it should be. Sad but true. But we are trying

[JeffSurdej]

@LeonL Yes that is true and it was one point discussed last year when this was proposed that I think halted it. But yes a skier aged 65 could go ski 35+, 45+,55+, and 65+, not at he same tourney but yes they could go get themselves ranked in all of them. A 10 year could go do that now as well since the junior divisions are 13 and under and 17 and under but you just don't see that happening. @BlueSki no it doesnt really assume that its combined with ABD at the same time.

[JeffSurdej]

Click here for Survey Results!

 

 

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej

 

I am super impressed with the fact that the membership is getting to voice their opinion in this way and seeing the results.

[Jody_Seal]

The problem about these survey's is that it is all fine and dandy until the results and direction hits the board level. Then the special interest or influential members vote down what the general membership agreed upon in these survey's. Should require for every entry into nationals entrants take these survey's then utilize the info for direct membership vote.

Could be done with the online national entry registration.

Want direct results? try that!

 

[MISkier]

@Jody_Seal, would only Nationals participants be voting then?

 

Edited: Would Nationals participants be the only ones surveyed and only ones voting? Or, would Nationals participants be the only ones surveyed for rule feedback/refinement, with a subsequent vote to the entire active membership?

[Broussard]

I think that the tournament directors for the nationals have done a great job over the past couple years. I had a conversation with the tournament director for the Kansas National a couple weeks ago and he seemed energized about the the night jump and the possibility of bringing back the U.S. Open or a similar smaller event. We both agreed that it is important to get the open skiers to Nationals. Similarly, I think that the vendors should have poster signing sessions during the days that juniors ski and allow them to meet the men and women that they look up to.