B5/G5 Passes AWSA Board...takes effect now!

[JeffSurdej]

Yesterday the AWSA Board passed the final stage of its migration to 2 year youth divisions by implementing B5/G5. The board also voted to make this change retroactive to the previous nationals so that it ties into the previously formed B4/G4 divisions.

 

So starting today B1/G1 remains U10, B2/G2 is U12, B3/G3 is U14, B4/G4 is U16, and B5/G5 is U18. The programming for this was released today so we would love more testing eyeballs to make sure everyone and their scores are correct. We still have some overall and qualification issues to work out but if anyone sees anything out of the ordinary please DM me so we have this 100% accurate before 2020 tourneys begin.

 

http://www.usawaterski.org/rankings/View-StandingsHQ.asp?pvar=National

[sunperch]

Looks like the Nationals schedule that was released earlier this week does not include B5/G5. When can we expect the revised schedule so we know when our kids ski?

 

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch ill get on that but pretty sure the plan is to run it right after all the 4’s b/c that way the total numbers and times are not effected.

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej Great, thanks!

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej OK, sitting down with family and we are all confused......what is the max speed for the new B4 division? Is it 36mph like before???

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch no changes in any slalom or jump, we simply took B4 (old old B3) and split it into 2 groups

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch

 

[ScarletArrow]

While I think this is a great move, I would like to see the speeds changed so that B1-28mph, B2-30mph, B3-32mph, B4-34mph, B5-36mph.

 

I know it was probably considered and discussed; and can already be somewhat accomplished through ZBS; and I understand it would have brought about a different set of problems with past records.

 

I just think it makes sense because elite level juniors could always ski in a higher division if they wanted a higher max speed or more competition, but for the average skier in a tournament this feels like (subjectively) the right speed.

[MattP]

@ScarletArrow write a proposal.. feelings don’t make changes around here.

[MrJones]

This could go a bit further. What about Boys Alex, Girls Becky, etc, etc. We could just go ahead and order the trophies when dues are paid for the year.

[Horton]

@MrJones Funny-ish but I expect more concise objection from you. I am kicking myself for not making a bigger deal out of this rule change before it was voted on. I am pretty sure I am against it. My push back would have been that if we do not have full divisions already then more divisions means less competition. I missed my chance to push back so I really can't carp.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Exhibit A

http://usawaterski.org/rankings/View-StandingsHQ.asp?pvar=Junior

 

 

With the new divisions, there are exactly 4 G2 in the entire Nation who have landed a jump in the last year. So any girl in that age group can show up at Nationals and get a placement - even if they can't ride out a jump. Oh and BTW, what is the qualification to go to Nationals for this division and event?

 

This is obviously the extreme example, but this change really waters down the competition. And it was implemented before any experience with the new B4/G4 divisions. Wouldn't it have been a reasonable idea to give B4/G4 a try for a year or 2 before diluting the kids events even more?

 

Another poorly thought out idea rammed through by a vocal minority. Sounds good on the surface, but if you give it a little thought, its really bad.

[brettmainer]

I am mostly with @Bruce_Butterfield on this, but not as vehemently. I get the idea of U10, U12, U14, U16 and U18, but there currently aren’t enough skiers to make local tournaments and even Regionals populated enough for such narrow divisions. However, perhaps it will encourage more participants who will now feel competitive in their divisions. I think B/G1, B/G2 and B/G3 were ok the way they were last year. Not everyone should medal every time. Those who want it enough will strive to get better, and those who do medal will feel more sense of accomplishment than just medaling for merely showing up.

[MrJones]

I agree. Here is my non funny (sarcastic) thought.

 

How does this make anything better? It is already largely this way, but this will solidify that Nationals will be the only event where there is any true competition. There will be several "divisions" at our regional JD and championship tournaments where there will be one or zero competitors.

 

If having fun is the goal, tournaments of any sort aren't needed. Go to the public lake or just have fun skiing against your friends and family at home. I see competition as something that should be challenging. To be worthwhile it must be difficult. You want to get better. You struggle. You persevere. You may or may not win but you grow and learn something about yourself.

 

Kids aren't stupid. It won't take long for them to realize standing up on a podium, by themselves, to receive their first place trophy is meaningless and will move along to the next hobby.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej would you mind pulling and posting the data for the number of entrants in all the 2019 Regional Championships by division and event for B/G1,2,3 and compare to what those entrants would be under the B/G1,2,3,4,5?

 

I suspect it will be enlightening and sure hope this was evaluated prior to the rules committee and the board voting on it.

[unksskis]

Same could be said for W3 and above, usually less than 5 compete in jump nationally.

[Inboardfix]

In our area the only tournaments where anyone gets awards are the States (other than Regionals and Nationals). My daughter started competing in 2011 and often was the only competitor in G1. In the following years a girl one year younger started being a regular so usually it was the 2 of them only all the way through G3/4. Sometimes there would be up to 4 in her division at the States. One time Mr. Jones' daughter came over to Ski Chaste to make it 3 G1 competitors at a non States but pretty sure that was the only time she competed against more than 1 other than States all the way through G3/G4.

 

My point is I don't see where much has changed with the new divisions and understand the hope in why the change was made. That hope is the new divisions will stimulate youth competitors to continue competing at the Regional/National level every year and not skip a couple years after moving up to the next division. During this gap in competing at the Reg/Nat level many skiers find other hobbies/alternatives to skiing. An additional hope is this will have a trickle down effect and stimulate kids to compete at local tournaments because they won't feel so overwhelmed competing against a kid 3 years older they know are out of their league (performance wise).

 

Will this change grow the youth divisions/sport? It will take years to know but it's worth a try. My daughter skipped at least one year participating at Regionals/Nationals every division change because she didn't really feel competitive and I didn't want to take time off work/lose money/time to have her be frustrated. We probably wouldn't have skipped those years if the divisions were as they are now.

 

@Sunperch I really don't understand why your surprised. I get confused every time I sit down for diner w/your family too.

[JeffSurdej]

@Bruce_Butterfield I have to call BS on this comment and give you a panda if I could

 

Another poorly thought out idea rammed through by a vocal minority.

 

I have to defend AWSA here, I don't know how we can be more transparent. We surveyed all members in which 77% were in favor. We then post all rules proposal publicly, including here on BOS, on December 1st, then each region has regional meetings in which members should have ample time to express concerns before it gets to national meetings, if you have a better way to make sure the skiing public knows about upcoming rules proposals please let me knows I'd be happy to implement them. You may not agree with the rule or how your region voted but the research and data that went into the reasoning behind it were well thought out and not rammed through.

[Horton]

I got to support @JeffSurdej on this one. As I said before I disagree with this rule change but we had the opportunity to talk about it and it was not a secret and there was not much discussion before the rules passed. We didn't talk about it the first time it came up so I don't think we have much ground to stand on bitching about it now.

[MattP]

Don’t forget that there will be more opportunities for skiers to ski Regionals and Nationals now through the State Championship podium LCQ.

Though I agree the divisions will be smaller and there will be an increased cost of medals.

[JeffSurdej]

Let me just spit out some comments to above threads. This is not about giving more awards, this is actually about INCREASING competition. Having 46 b3 skiers at nationals when the bottom half is 3 passes away from top half is NOT competition. Competition does not have to come from numbers, it comes from skiers skiing close to their age and ability. We have plenty of divisions such as W7-11 that don't warrant it by numbers but warrant it by age and physiological changes, same here for 14 year olds against 17 year olds. The facts are that the # of juniors skiers is declining year after year, data shows that skiers leave the sport or do not participate in the 1st 2 years of a new division, if we can make this change so that they are competitive maybe they stay in the sport, its worth a try, in my eyes it can not hurt. No 17 year old is going to quit the sport b/c he cant ski against a 14 year old or has to ski against 20 instead of 40 at nationals, but plenty of 14 years old might quit. yes I agree we dont have #'s and I wish we did but we don't have them locally now, I'm in m3 and I have not skied against anyone in 10 years locally. most of us ski against rankings b/c its the only way to have competition until our sport realizes we need ability based skiing or a handicap system in place to add competition but I don't want to get off track on this thread

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@JeffSurdej Sorry if my “poorly thought out” comment came across wrong. I know the majority of membership polled voted in favor if this idea and there was transparency. On the surface, 2 year age groups make sense - if you have a sufficiently large population. 3 event skiing does not have a very large population in the kids divisions. My speculation is that even those who voted in favor did not spend much time thinking about the negative side of only having a couple of kids in a given division/event. In that sense I stand by my opinion that this change is poorly thought out.

 

So to my request, how many of the new divisions will have 0-3 competitors at each regionals? And more importantly is that a good thing that will keep kids interested and grow the sport?

 

From being around alot of kid tournaments I think the chance of kids loosing interest is MUCH higher if there are few or no other kids to ski with/against than being at the bottom of a large group.

 

I hope I’m wrong.

[unksskis]

I would say kids are more likely to ski in a scarce division than an adult. Placing 3rd, out of 3, at my first tournament which was State, heavily influenced my interest and participation in skiing for LIFE.

[Jody_Seal]

This subject was discussed in depth at the southern region winter meeting. Pros and cons were discussed, many of the same discussion points from above were considered. Bottom line for the southern region the con outweighed the pros. It was pretty overwhelming a no vote from the regional counsel.

States and regions should at least have the levity to run the junior divisions in a manor that better fits their respective region and or state championships.

For the record this multi junior age division ideology has been kicked around for quite a few years now, so it is not a knee jerk policy.

Does it dilute the sport to some degree?

I think so. Having brought two juniors through the system I can recall my son as a pretty competitive 14 year old in all three events. I think having a bar set by the older boys in the division made him a better skier and competitor.

One of the ideas surrounding the age group change is that it will give younger skiers a chance to win. Like it or not there will be monsters on all these divisions that would have been competitive skiing with the older kids...Ann Gay skied open events as a 14 year old... just saying..

[sunperch]

My 17yo G3, scratch that, G4, scrach that, G5 skier said she wants to quit skiing because it is becoming a joke with all of the rule changes. She is choosing to swim in college instead of skiing where qualifications and results are evident and consistent.

[MattP]

@sunperch NCWSA/collegiate skiing is completely different. There is only 1 division and the rules don’t change that much. It’s the most fun on the water. She will more than likely be a skier the rest of her life if she does it. Don’t let a few rule changes change her outlook on the sport. The intention is good from the powers that be.

 

Personally I voted against this rule change.

[sunperch]

@MattP She has witnessed collegiate skiing since she was born at her lake and is well aware of what it looks like. All of the rules changes have undermined the integrity of the sport no matter what the intentions behind the changes are. My kids have participated in many sports and I have never seen other sports change rules based on kids' feelings.

[MattP]

@JeffSurdej ^^

 

@sunperch well that’s unfortunate. I feel like she should take a different approach to it if she wants to ski in college. Our sport is not like most where the officials and officers are actual competitors in the sport and have athletes representation at all levels of governance. Not may sports can say that. I never seen feelings change the rules in any council or board meeting.

[JeffSurdej]

@sunperch only time will tell if it will work, I know numbers of juniors is declining now, we have to try something, i know almost all sports have gone to 1-2 year age groups so I would assume most sports have gone through this recently, I know there has been a lot of rule changes over the recent years, I'll take the blame on that for sure. I became president to try and change the sport, and although rules is not the main way to do it I felt there was a lot of ways to make the sport better through rules changes. ZBS, mini course, L10, new age groups, team skiing, gotta try right. Maybe others sports don't change rules b/c they figured it out over the years, I feel we are way behind the evolution of sport and how to adapt to today's society. Anyways anytime you do this stuff you have hundreds that love it and hundreds that hate it, cant make them all happy :)

[Jody_Seal]

I am not sure what all the sports have gone to 2 year age groups means.

Just did a quick google.

Swimming and wrestling were the only two I found that are utilizing 2 year age divisions. Funny they just announced a age group change also.

Baseball , football and basket ball was a mish mash with 8 and under 10 and under and then any thing from 3 year age groups to 4 year age group for the older juniors 17/18 and under

Just a thought usa wrestling, aau swimming are affiliated with usoc! Hmm!!

[JeffSurdej]

I think the perfect situation we should have done was 3 groups of 3 years. 10-12,13-15, 16-18 maybe.

[MrJones]

Which would actually be four groups. (10 and under)

[disland]

FWIW but son who is no longer a junior remined me how this would have been a good thing in his day as there were a couple of years where he just moved into a new division and he was looking up hill at some stud skiers (several of which are top pro's now). That said he stuck with it and skied knowing we wasnt going to medal but had the bar set for where to get to.

[EricKelley]

As a coach or parent or official you make a mistake when you make the top reward winning. Also you make a mistake by telling kids that if they do not win there must be a problem with the rules or competition in some way.

The top reward should always be Making Themselves Better. If they are progressing they should be see reward in that. If this is not enough to win they must see the answer is more time, dedication, and quality practice.

The people who win in life don't quit when they're not winning......they work harder.

There is value in these athletes learning how to compete when they are not as physically capable as their competitors.

This is what I preached to my son who is a National Champion and also what I coached to my youth football players.

I fully know this issue with speed, etc.... but this is a mistake.

[Luzz]

From an outsider perspective, it seems to me this is starting to align a bit more with IWWF categories, which probably should have been the standard all along since a lot of these kids will have the opportunity to compete internationally. U10, U12, U14, U17, U21. The U16 and U18 might be justified by high numbers (?).

[Broussard]

@Luzz I agree that aligning the divisions with the IWWF categories would be a good move.

 

I believe that the reason for the U18 division stems from the previous structure of the divisions separating at 18 for the Boys (3) division and the Mens (1) division.

[unksskis]

Where was all this uproar when they moved M4/M5 around to better align with IWWF and general age brackets? This is a good change to better align competition, don't not like it just because it's a change, Waterskiing has a long history of doing that and it biting in the rear.

[brettmainer]

I'm not impressed with the numbers. I understand but don’t agree with the move to split the old B2 so the 11/12s can go 32mph (ZBS solved that problem). The rest of it just dilutes the competition. Imagine if M1/2/3/3/5 was split into 2yr groups? How unappealing would Regionals and Nationals be? My daughter will be in her first year of G4 next year and she wishes it were the 4 year group of years past, even though she will be the youngest. I haven’t spoken to a single person who likes the new 5 junior divisions.

 

Perhaps there is a proponent who can put forth an eloquent argument for 5 junior divisions and I am willing to listen, but right now I think the powers that be should scrap the new arrangement this winter and go back to B/G1, B/G2, B/G3.

[disland]

@brettmainer Cant judge based on this year. Obviously numbers are down, lets wait and see next year. Kinda rang the bell so I dont see a path backward

[jcamp]

4 divisions, three age years in each is probably the better arrangement ... But age groups with four age years in them was too much.

 

@brettmainer Not sure the example of two year M1/2/3/4/5 divisions is an applicable caparison here. Not much difference in people who are 37 and 41. Huge potential difference between kids that are 10 and 13 (the old Girls/Boys 2).

[brettmainer]

@disland, I don't see any reduction in junior numbers this year in NorCal. If anything, the kids are skiing more because there is nothing else to do. That said, we don't need to look at only this year's numbers. Look at last year or the year before. Regionals and Nationals. Split the actual historical number of competitors in B/G2 and B/G3 in half and that is what you now have. The numbers are too low. It would be great if we had huge numbers like soccer, but we don't.

 

The path backwards is just as easy as making the change in the first place. Have a poll, and the majority rules. A mistake is only a mistake if one persists in it.

 

@jcamp, yes, there is a huge difference between 10 and 13 year olds, but this isn't football where that difference is physically dangerous. I understood the logic for splitting the old B2, but was against it. I don't feel every kid should automatically get a medal at every competition so their feelings don't get hurt. Why don't we split up B/G1 while we are at it so 6 year olds don't have to compete against 10 year olds? That difference is just as great as the difference between 10 and 13 year olds.

 

I wouldn't be as strident about this issue if it was just the B/G2 split. Even though I didn't agree with it, the move has its merits and I would have quietly accepted it. I do not at all support splitting the old B/G3. That split seemed to be tacked on at the last minute without the same level of reasoning and discussion that went into the B2 split. Many non contact sports, even with big numbers like swimming, have 15-18 as one group. There was no valid reason to split B/G3.

 

A random thought. If the divisions are in place only to insure fair competition due to physical maturity on both ends of the spectrum, then why is there M1/M2? There is no advantage to being 19 vs 34. Just combine them.

 

The biggest numbers in the sport are currently in M4-M7. Back when we were in the juniors, we only had Junior Boys and Boys. Apparently none of us got discouraged and quit the sport over the way things were back then. M1 started at 17, which meant I was skiing in M1 the fall before my 17th birthday. I thought it was cool to ski against college kids, even though I got my ass kicked.

 

I liked the move 20+ years ago to go to the 1/2/3 format, but the new move to 5 divisions doesn't work because the numbers aren't there.

[brettmainer]

I don't know how to set a poll up and don't want to spend the time to figure it out, but this issue seems ripe for a poll. Two choices. Do you prefer the old 1/2/3 format or the new 1/2/3/4/5 format? If the majority prefers the new rule, then I will accept that I am in the minority and move along.

[klindy]

@brettmainer there was a poll sent to all members for feedback. There was good support for the current arrangement - not unanimous by any stretch. If you ask most kids, they’d rather have it like it was. If you ask their parents, many prefer the 2-year steps.

 

At this years southern regionals there were a record number of juniors and the competition was very “level” for the most part. Almost all the podiums has 5 kids receiving medals in each event and overall. I’m not suggesting the new divisions are solely responsible for the increased participation but I didn’t hurt anything.

 

The only real disadvantage was it took much longer to cycle thru all the medal presentations and, of course, there was the added expense of the additional medals. I tend to agree that 3-year steps makes sense, but I also think one year is a good representation of whether this has been a good move. It’ll be interesting to hear feedback on what happened at the other regionals.

[sunperch]

@klindy If you ask most kids, they’d rather have it like it was. I thought the change was to try to keep more kids engaged in the sport so they would not quit skiing. If that was the purpose of the change, why didn't we do what the kids want???

[brettmainer]

The primary focus of the change was to encourage ski age 10 and 11 year olds so they wouldn’t have to compete against 12 and 13 year olds. At the Western Regional Championships, there was exactly ONE G2 skier. How satisfying are those four first place medals?

 

I suggest resending whatever poll was sent out last year (I must have missed it last year).

[unksskis]

@brettmainer what is your actual issue with it? Sorry, I haven't been able to gather that in all of your posts, other than it is different.

[Broussard]

@unksskis The issue that Brett is referring to is that if the groups are subdivided at some point the competition is diluted and thus the incentive nullified.

 

Say for instance my goal is to win a regional medal in the new "B4." If there are only 4 skiers in my region and said division I now have no reason to practice because whether I run 32 off or fall around 2 ball on my opener I still get a medal.

 

Having competition drives one to up his level of play. COMPETITION IS A GOOD THING!

[unksskis]

@Broussard totally understand that, and agree that competition motivates. On the other hand, how many skiers didn't go in the original division arrangement, say in their first year in B3 (when that was the oldest group), because they didn't have a chance to compete, or left competitive skiing overall. I know multiple examples of youth that excelled in B2/G2 who no longer compete because that step up was too big, and they became a little fish in a bigger pond.

 

[brettmainer]

@unksskis, my issue is that I believe it is better to have a deep pool of competitors at tournaments rather than divisions with not enough competitors to make it interesting. Podiums are meant to be the tip of the pyramid, not the entire pyramid.

 

I would be more likely to travel and attend a big event that had 80 contestants in my division than I would if there were four and I was basically just getting a participation award. Also, it is perfectly acceptable for families to take a break from Regionals/Nationals their first year in a new group if they want to. Heck, maybe they will take a houseboat trip or go to Disneyland or whatever rather than spend those two weeks of vacation at Regionals and Nationals AGAIN. That might even be healthier for the kids and the sport, so it is certainly not a negative. Far worse is the case of the poor girl who traveled to Idaho this year for Regionals and turned out to be the only one in her division. What kind of competition is that?

 

You either love to ski or you don't. If you have the passion, you work to improve and not getting a medal doesn't make you quit. If a kid is so on the fence about the sport that not getting a medal at Regionals is going to drive them to quit, they are going to quit anyways. I had two kids who skied in the B1 and B2 divisions who quit skiing competitively around age 14/15. It wasn't because of the competition or the jump to 36mph; they just found other things that they liked better than skiing (Crazy, huh?). I don't think being a big or little fish in a pond has much to do with it. Kids are smart enough to see that if you make the pond into a tiny fish bowl, it does't matter whether they are a big or little fish, as there are just not enough fish to make it interesting.

 

My youngest is 14 and will be moving into the old G3 (now G4) in two weeks. She does not like the new smaller divisions, and she is the exact demographic that the new rules were supposed to cater to. She would rather ski with 17 and 18 year olds in a big division than ski against just a couple of other girls closer to her age. Her friend and ski partner is only 2 years older, but they will never get to be in the same division until W1. That seems wrong.

 

 

[unksskis]

@brettmainer thank you for the response. I agree with you pretty much on all fronts, however that is not ideal for USA-WS, as they are trying to avoid that from occurring; they need to maintain and increase involvement. While I don't disagree with you, I can see how this may work to meet the organization's goal, because the previous division arrangement was not working and instead losing participation/membership.