Replace Regionals With State Championships?

[Horton]

In another era, the idea of the road trip to Regionals made a lot more sense. Going all the way back to the dark ages before cell phones, the internet and cable TV the idea of an interstate road trip with the family seemed a lot more popular than it is today. Add in COVID 19 and the cost of air travel, the idea of needing to go over a thousand miles to Regionals just seems less appealing than in decades past.

 

What if we did away with Regionals and replaced it with State Championships or at least made State Championships a bigger thing and a qualifier for Nationals.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej what you think?

[sheskis7]

To be fair to clubs that are hosting Regionals if a skier can skip Regionals and still ski Nationals then I feel like they should have to pay their Regional entry fee. These clubs go to a lot of expense to host a Regionals. Another thought would be keep Regionals on the same dates that are scheduled but move the Nationals into September. Almost all skiers are going to have short seasons and that would give more time to be ready to ski Nationals.

[Horton]

@sheskis7 no. you don't get it. I'm saying make regionals a smaller affair and less of a big deal to host.

[sheskis7]

The thing about hosting Regionals is Classification Requirements for the Officials and also the site. In the awsa rule book on page119 has all the requirements. When doing a record E,L or R all the appointed officials have to be seniors. And event judges have to be reg & Senior. just look at everything that has to be done on site to the bouys, towers, courses certifications. This is what makes Regionals a big deal for the host club. And if they have regionals then I just feel like skiers who pass should pay the entry fee. Also these people are giving up there lake, to have the site ready for record tournament.

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton I have to give you crap.....you never go to Nationals anyways :)

 

IDK I'm always so torn on this skip Regionals thing. I think Regionals is a very important part of our sport, its a building block for officials and skiers and a great weekend of what makes our sport what it is, seeing friends and family and competing. It is also is important in the maintenance of record level ski sites. In the midwest we have 3 sites that alternate, that income every 3 years assures these sites to continue to have world class facilities and conditions, if Regionals went away those sites would not worry about having a 2nd lake or buying a new jump, etc. BUT we are talking 2020 and COVID so this presents a new issue and not our normal "skip regionals" discussion. This might be one of those answers that does not fit all regions, in the west travel is a much bigger issue than other regions. Honestly, outside of screwing over the 5 regional host who are looking forward to hosting and have put work into planning on hosting, this is a good year to do away with the 5 regionals. Maybe we let each region decide what works best for them or maybe we meet half way and have semi regionals, each region hosts 2 events roughly on each ends of the region, then we have 10 semi regionals, this way travel is drive-able and the host will still have a decent turnout. IDK, surveys are showing a decent turnout for Nationals with 400 going, 150 most likely and 100 50/50. Numbers will be down this year but I am not sure if they will be down significantly. I think everyone is looking forward to going to these events after being locked up all spring. Th really issue is going to be when one of the regionals host simply can not host their event due to state orders or gatherings, then we have an issue :) Anyways lets see where Nationals will be after this morning and keep monitoring regionals and see if a move needs to be made.

[lazzn]

The better question I think is does this help boost state tournament attendances? I feel like this may be the more important effect

[sunperch]

@sheskis7 the problem with moving Nationals later is the kids will have already gone back to school making travel much more difficult. They also will have started fall Sports at the middle school and high school level.

[gjohnson]

Probably very little would happen. Skiers have made up their minds about Nationals already. Spending 5K for one round of slalom isn’t that appealing to most people.

[unksskis]

Lucky to fill most divisions these days at Regionals, let alone State.

[Horton]

2 things...

many states do not have state champs

 

one of the things that keep me from Nationals is the travel cost of the two trips.

[Chet]

For a long time people have had an opinion on Regionals. Personally I have had so much fun at so many regionals in so many regions over the years that I would hope they never faded. That being said I do think the mandatory participation for Nationals should end. Not just this year but forever. Everyone knows the pros and cons but that choice makes Nationals travel and participation so much more appealing. Some fly some drive and many plan a vacation that coincides with the trip. It is and has been about skiers and for skiers.

[sheskis7]

For Jeff, now that the Nationals have been decided has there been any more discussions about REGIONALS. MW is going to be a little tough going to Center City and turning around and going to Zachary. One Official told me last night that he'll go to Zachary as a safety official and not ski because doing regionals and Nationals is just too hard. Most of the older skiers aren't thinking about flying (even though it's cheap) because of the risk involved.

[disland]

For this year, allow a state championships as a substitute for Regionals. Long term divide the west into two regions.

[jcamp]

Not all states have state championships. Some are only slalom. Some are after Nationals. Few have any real competition there. Substituting states for regionals is not a possibility.

[klindy]

@disland Also, while the West is a big area, dividing it into two separate regions creates a whole bunch of other issues. The AWSA Board is already massive and difficult to coordinate. One potentially better idea would be to allow more than one Regional tournament to be held in a single region. I'd give the skiers the option to ski at either. This, of course, sets up a whole different set of challenges.

[sheskis7]

If a skier is already qualified to ski Nationals (except skiing in Regionals) why not treat them just like an open skier? They don't have to ski Regionals. But, I still like the idea of pay entry fee to clubs who are hosting the Regionals. State tournament are not a requirement to ski in Regionals or Nationals unless a skier needs to qualify for Regionals by placement in state tournament. By letting qualified skier skip Regionals it would help some skier qualify for Nationals by placement in Regionals.

[Boo]

Given the recent rise in virus cases, it would be good to reconsider regionals mandatory in order to ski Nationals. I am a w8 overall skier and am qualified to ski Nationals. My non-skier husband is 74 and recently recovered from a significant heart attack. I have already registered for both Regionals and Nationals. It would be awesome if I could just pay the entry fee and skip Regionals this year—less risk for both hubby and me. Some of you would say just leave him at home, but he’s really good at carrying jump skis and pulling release (ha ha). I’m not suggesting this as a long term solution but only for this season. Does anyone know if AWSA leadership is considering this as a possibility?

[klindy]

Brenda @Boo we’ve considered may options including your suggestion. The last conference call we decided to, once again, reconvene a call about the first of July. With the dynamic situation I’m sure we’ll discuss all the options again.

 

One significant concern was “what if” one or more regional were unable to hold a Regional Champs due to the virus. What effect would that have on the other regions? Again I anticipate revisiting all these options soon.

[Jody_Seal]

Makes more sense doesn't it?

 

Why are state championships especially in the southern region two weeks before regionals that are two to three weeks in front of nationals?? Thats how its always been done! Hmmm!!

 

Why must one go to regionals to compete in nationals?? : That's how it's always been done! Arg!

 

In this time of slow down and social distancing / lockdown we have had time to consider changes that would benefit the sports membership in growth and accessibility.

I guess working on and trying to implement expensive boat tracking technology is more important then taking a look at what can we do entice skiers to come participate.

Boat rules, speed control rules, way to tight tolerances as well as a general elitist direction continues to plague the membership growth and sustainability of three event skiing.

The sport has languished with the ranking list ideology for competition.

 

So back to the nationals qualification issue.

Consider changing the long standing idea of current time line for state championships, widen the the time frame between regionals and nationals. I know here in the southern region we could hold our state championship as early as late april ( in florida) as well as regionals as early as mid june. Many members have suggested nationals at the end of August. Maybe some states would like to have state championship after nationals and get early qualification before the next championship season after all the next qualification season starts the day after nationals.

 

Is it time to reconsider our regions territories or expand some on what we have? I think so and the economical impact for the skiers and family's would not be such an impact.

I have said it before, will say it again go back to a championship ideology. make it more accessible and less elitist, the sport will benefit.

 

Currently the 2021 nationals are slated for Illinois along with the Americas cup.

Americas cup truly a breath of fresh air in our sport! Especially since the US open is buried and dead!

 

"Note" the map above is the American power boat associations regions for competition. Breaking up states would not be good in our sport but you get idea..

.

 

[RichardDoane]

@Jody_Seal - you're my hero ! thanks for the graphic display, but the Western Region is still too large. The regions definitely should be re-configured to make more sense, and if this shifts the number of board members on the council then it's also part of the improvement.

 

@klindy and @JeffSurdej - what are the obstacles in re-mapping the regions ?

 

This is America, and we are the best at overcoming obstacles, and solving problems.

 

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal your region can host regionals and states whenever it wants, earlier might work in south, it would not in others such as midwest where we are having our first tournament of the year this weekend, we just don't have enough warm weekends to spread them out, but I wish we could. I agree a labor day nationals would be great, it would truly be the end of the season, just wish it would not effect the juniors and schools.

 

@RichardDoane pretty big to be honest, not impossible but requires a rework of bylaws and voting seats etc. I would ask what is the objective in doing so, I would imagine simply less travel for regionals?

 

The whole skipping regionals to nationals is something I've always been torn on, I think regionals is a tremendous event for the athletes and officials, yes its a lot of travel and expense but its a tremendous stepping stone in so many ways for all our members b/c if its not mandatory it will 100% go away and not be worth the effort of those that host it. The other scary side is how big do we want nationals, if skipping regionals would increase national attendance, how many more pulls can we handle, we already are going to be at 7 full days next year, Kansas was overbooked on 3 lakes for 5 days.

 

I've always been on your side with rankings vs competition, I think rankings as it is now has caused more harm than good, we need to make it a point system, based on competing against others and perhaps even having to go to states to qualify for regionals and regionals to qualify for nationals, then I think the restructure above works better perhaps b/c we can have sectionals maybe. other sports have the advantage of numbers to support tighter areas, so there is a balance there, even the biggest of regions is only 200-300 competitors and with so many division there is barely competition even then so i think along with an entire change to competition we have to re-look at having 34 divisions :) or god forbid we compete by ability like every other sport in America :). If we want to increase participation we have to stop making 15 off ski against 39 off just b/c they are the same age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[disland]

@JeffSurdej maybe this pandemic will be the impetus to finally drive ability based competition

[RichardDoane]

@JeffSurdej yes, the region size is the problem. It could be made into 3 pieces and that would take away the length of travel problems.

 

States, then Regionals, then Nationals makes a lot of sense, as well as ability based grouping.

 

We need forward thinking people piloting the ship and change our organization in ways that make the most sense.

[klindy]

As @JeffSurdej inferred, unless the Western region bylaws prevent it, there is no reason today that the West couldn't have 2 or 3 'regional' tournaments in different places. Hold them on the same weekend (or not) have a site champ and a "regional champ" based on the scores of all three locations. Let each skier decide which one they want to go - closest, favorite site, best potential conditions, etc. Let the skier decide.

[Kelvin]

How about allowing 1 Regionals to allow you to ski the next 2 Nationals? That way, they larger regions could move the tournament from the north to the south on a rotating basis. It would cut down on 1 long trip a year and improve the number of skier elgible to compete at nationals.

 

[RichardDoane]

@klindy multiple regional tournaments would be an improvement, but comparing scores from different sites with different everything would not be an even way to come up with a "champ"

 

@Kelvin that's a very good idea, as long as the skier is at a level that qualifies for Nationals

[ALPJr]

Well put @JeffSurdej... “god forbid we compete by ability like every other sport in America :). If we want to increase participation we have to stop making 15 off ski against 39 off just b/c they are the same age”

[JackQ]

There must be some middle ground, having solely ability based competition would in some case have someone like me at 66 competing against skiers 20 or 30 year younger. Not exactly an even playing field, my goal would then be don't be last.

 

I believe most sports have masters (age divisions), we have too many divisions in my opinion as Mens 3 & 4, maybe 5 could be one division now days.

[Not_The_Pug]

@JackQ How is competing against younger individuals not an even playing field if you are the same ability? If both skiers have an average of 3@28, age shouldn't matter. That is the kind of old school thinking that @jeffsurdej was speaking of above.

 

The problem I see with ability base is "sandbagging" just to win or get a trophy/medal and not have to move up to the next division.

[jcamp]

As someone in my mid 40s, I just would not enjoy skiing against a 17-year old girl or 68-year old man. I much prefer skiing against someone who is in a similar life situation that I'm in: a bunch of kids, trying to grow a business/career, squeezing in some youth sports coaching, working hard to keep off the weight my beer drinking adds, etc., etc. Regardless if I get smoked by some of the best skiers, I'm gaining on them and that brings a lot more satisfaction than beating someone who just wrapped up their sophomore year of undergrad.

[unksskis]

@Not_The_Pug just like keeping Regionals around because of "tradition" is old school thinking. Can't have it both ways depending on how it fits an agenda.

 

What is the point of Regionals? If the fact that it's required for Nationals is what's keeping it around, let it die. What are the percentage of skiers that attend Regionals and not Nationals? Now try to compare that to the number of those that didn't attend either due to the requirement.

[Jody_Seal]

The sanctioning overlords have made qualification for the championship series much much easier to attain but have fallen short examining the time frame and the impacts incured to participate in said series.

Yes jeff we know as a region we can change our state and regionals to fit what we decide is best for our regions skiers same with our state federations.

But the sports board has fallen short in coming up with ideas and solutions to help regions and state federations bolster membership participation and or make it more consumer freindly.

Moving nationals to labor day would be one of the easiest ways to help lessen the burden. I have to ask you though jeff how many kids have you raised and provided support to ski in a national championship?

From my limited (sic) experience we found that it was harder on our kids education to keep them out of the first week of school then it was to pull them out for two days around a holiday after they have had a few weeks emercing into school life.

 

Overall is still part of our sport yet the ratio of single evente-rs are probably three or four to one in our sport of single event ( mostly slalom ) and overall skiers.

I once proposed a overall nationals and a slalom nationals but that fell on deff ears with the overlords.

Recently a idea of a junior nationals and a sr nationals was actually considered by these mighty lords but it took a pandemic to re-look at the idea... again poo-pood by the mighty ones.

 

Agreed we have way to many age groups, like what 10 junior divisions now? I don't mind sking against a 12 year old but I also think that if we are are going to do that there must be some meet in the middle considerations. Again overall must be addressed in this picture and also true professional level must be identified.

Get off the iwwf band wagon and limit the excessive amount of r&l "Trials".

Make it so to break a national record there must be at least 3 other competitors in the division and 5 for a world record. These closed set up tournaments are not conducive for promoting the sport.

Put more emphasis on class E national level events and quit with the rankings list ideology.

 

 

Too the overlords! Want to create more enthusiasm and membership growth in the sport? Quit being a sales dept for the boat companys.

There are about 20 facebook pages dedicated to tournament style Inboards, waterskiing and the life style of lake life and waterskiing yet that is an untapped source for our organization we have no presence.

 

@JeffSurdej there is a forest out there, green and vibrant but observing one or two exclusive trees will never move the sport in a successful direction.

 

 

 

 

[Chet]

I think Jeff has hit on the big question. Do we want a big Nationals or do we want a limited more elite nationals with more emphasis on state, regional and local events. Until we decide what we are shooting for I think it’s hard to pinpoint the direction.

[RichardDoane]

@Chet makes a good point, let’s focus on improvements that are quickly attainable. Make Nationals a very select event for those that qualify. That will drive competition at the State and Regional level. Give skiers the option of using either to qualify, but scrap the “must attend regionals” language in the rules. Use the ranking list to set the qualification level.

[brettmainer]

Regionals is by far my favorite tournament. There are enough competitors to make it a competition, but I am still competitive (I have never won but have come close on many occasions). I know the majority of the skiers, many only from past regionals, and it is a fun social scene.

 

Nationals is fun, but a different feel. I do think the cut off scores are too low nowadays. M2 for example used to be 5@35 (not that M2 is crowded now because of the current low cut off.) I hear we need more participation to make Nationals financially viable, but then I hear we have too many competitors and it takes all week. Which is it? What do we want Nationals to be. An all week, 3 lake minimum, 1000 skier extravaganza, or a more elite event? I understand the financial and logistical pros and cons, and don’t personally have a strong opinion either way.

 

There are way too many divisions, which contributes to the length of a regionals or nationals tournament. There aren’t enough junior skiers to justify 5 junior divisions. I thought 3 was the right number. Combine M1 and M2. There is no physical performance reason for separating 19yr olds and 34yr olds. Perhaps combine M3 and M4 for the same reason. Maybe some of the older divisions can also be combined as well.

 

I prefer live competition to chasing scores. I am looking forward to competing against several comparably ranked skiers in a tomorrow's tournament that is forecast to have a 15mph head/tail with white caps. Nobody will put up a great score, but it will be fun to see who can handle the conditions the best. Unfortunately, most divisions in most local tournaments do not offer such competition, so the only competition is seeing where you stand on the regional and national ranking list. So, the ranking list does provide a sort of virtual competition.

 

Lastly, I don’t know if we even have a State Tournament in California. Might be fun if we did, but I wouldn’t want it to replace Regionals.

[ALPJr]

States + cool tees = fun

 

[aupatking]

I’m ok with either State or Regionals qualifying me to go to Nationals but it would be nice to have more than 2 weeks between them.

I mainly wanted to weigh in on @Jody_Seal proposed regional map. He has south Alabama in the same Region as Arkansas. Fayetteville AR is an 11 hour drive from here. I’d prefer to stay in the South Region. Hopefully if anyone is redrawing Regional lines, I hope they’re asking the members that will be effected

[disland]

You can have ability based competition that coincides with age based divisions. Tennis has always done it that way. Lots of options

[klindy]

@disland EXACTLY!!! And the scores in the ranking list will be precisely the same scores whether you sort the list based on age or based on ability! There is no reason a tournament sponsor couldn't host a completely ability based tournament.

 

Perhaps you 'batch' groups as Under 17, 18-30, 30-50 and 50 and up (either separate men/women groups or combined), THEN group by ability. One of the building blocks to make this happen was the zero-based scoring. Tricks and Jump are zero based by default.

 

 

We've added the ability to do this type of thing in the scoring software over the years. I've advocated for an even more simplified "template" where you can select a format and make some adjustments to the groupings, but we really need feedback from anyone who does this type of thing already.

 

 

Slightly off topic - but we need the same feedback on best practices for handicap and league ideas too!

[JeffSurdej]

@klindy I've seen a number of handicaps formats but I think the one we use at green lightening is the best. Of course I am biased to it but we have experimented with this annually since 1998 and the event has grown to a 400 pull tournament year after year and every year a different skill level seems to win. You do percentages below your average and plus minus after. So if average is 100 and you get 98 instead of the typical -2 a lot of events do you do 98% , this way if a skier averages 3 buoys and they get 2 the 98% person wins b/c its harder to get 98 when you average 100 than 2 when you average 3. but then after your average you go to a plus minus instead of % this way if a beginner averages 3 and gets 4 its not 133% and therefore impossoble for a 100 buoy skiers to win. I have a spreadsheet we've used that calculates it all, of course its set up for team skiing and head to head match ups but the formulas could be used by anyone for any type of similar handicap but I do think this method is great if you have a good mix of skill levels you want to put on the same playing field.

[disland]

I have seen and tried several handicap formats, @Horton had a great series a couple years back. Rounding to the whole pass seems to be easier to manage than handicapping to the exact buoy average. @Horton isnt that your default method now? You could overlay a handicap format onto this years nationals. Could be fun, hey I might actually enter slalom. Only cost a few hundred dollars in extra medals. what have you got to lose?

[klindy]

Thanks @JeffSurdej and @disland. I know there are a couple good handicap formats. Probably the wrong thread, don’t want to hijack any more than I already have, but I was trying to encourage more feedback and ideas.

 

One thing I think has to happen is the average needs to be a pure average and not one with a 3% or whatever penalty. For the QC I go get the skiers actual posted scores and calculate the average by using the top 80% of the scores posted.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej I am sitting on a dock with 10 skiers at a tournament talking about this. I propose that more skiers would participate at 50 state championships ( National qualifiers ) than would participate at 5 regionals.

[RichardDoane]

We’ve had a “Washington State Slalom Championship” now for the past 4 seasons, however this year’s was cancelled for COVID reasons. Next season I’d like to make it a 3 event tournament as the warm-up to the Western Regionals at Tate and Stella Blue lakes.

[Broussard]

@Horton I do think that making state championships more meaningful is important, but keep in mind that you are now trying to find 50 host sites instead of 5 (unless we are combining them).

 

I'll leave 2020 out of this, because it was a bit of a special season, but let's look at 2019.

 

- Alabama State Championships (Class C)

- Delaware State Championships (Class C)

- Florida State Championships

- Georgia State Championships (Class C)

- Illinois State Championships

- 71st Indiana State Championships (Class C)

- Iowa State Championships (Class C)

- Kansas State Championships (Class C)

- JDRF Kentucky State Championships (Class C)

- Maryland State Championship (C sl/trick only)

- Michigan State 3 Event - Novice Championships (Class C)

- Nor Cal State Championships

- Ralph Samuelson Minnesota State Championships (Class C)

- Missouri State Waterski Championships (Class C)

- Nebraska State Championships (Class C)

- NY State Championships (C sl/trick only)

- Ohio State Championships (Class C)

- Oklahoma State Championships (Class C)

- PA State Championships (Class C)

- South Carolina State at Trophy Lakes (Class C)

- Tennessee State Championships (Class C)

- Texas State Championships

- Utah State Championships (C Slalom only)

- Virginia State Championships (Class C)

- Washington State Slalom Championships (slalom only)

- WI State 3 Event (Class C)

 

I didn't realize how many State Championships are already being hosted. As long as we are okay with States being run as Class C this might be viable. The only issue is being able to find a 3 Event host site in some states.

[Horton]

@Broussard you are missing my point. Replace regionals with an official state titles and make it a replacement for regionals. Currently anyone can host a event and call it "State Championships"

[Broussard]

@Horton I am not missing your point at all.

 

Your assertion that anyone can host an event and call it "State Championships" is also not entirely correct. While AWSA has no requirements, some regions and state federations have requirements for timing or state championships, standards, and exclusivity provisions for state championships.

 

I am not saying that it is a bad idea, just mentioning the fact that it might be difficult to find 50 sites to host official 3 event state championships if that is what you are proposing.

 

Although the regionals system is not without its flaws, for many it is one of the only tournaments where true competition is present which I believe is key to retention of skiers.

[kc]

@Broussard You missed my home state of Indiana. This year was our 72nd state championships. It’s been a three event tournament for at least the last 50 years that I’ve attended.

 

I like the current set up, where state placement can qualify you for regionals, and hopefully encourage more regionals participation. I enjoy the few remaining tournaments we have that are about competition and placement. The level of competition, presumably, will always be greater with participants from multiple states competing.

[Horton]

The problem for me is it is not unusual for both regionals and nationals to be fly away events. If we want more participation make it more affordable. @JeffSurdej gives me crap for not going but it is super expensive to fly to two events for 1 or 2 ski rides. Make it so my nationals qualifier is driving distance and I am more likely to fly to nationals.