Replace Regionals With State Championships?

[Broussard]

@Horton The west is certainly a unique situation. I think that the state system would work well in California, Texas, and Florida where there are numbers, but I'm not sure how well it works in smaller states with less skiers.

 

Numbers at Nationals (barring this year) are increasing and I'm not sure that we need more than 700+ skiers at the event.

 

Do you think that having state championships become more meaningful increases participation and retention for the sport? If so, it is definitely looking into.

 

I think that one of the main reason that people stay in tournament water skiing is camaraderie and getting to see friends at tournaments. For years I have thought that we needed to bring more importance to state championships as I think it could be an important event where we get together with the other skiers in our state for a weekend instead of us all hanging out at our home sites skiing different tournaments with only our neighbors.

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton I don't know, personally I think Regionals is an important part of our sport for many reasons that we've gone through before, but yes the double travel is brutal. It all depends on the goal you are trying to achieve. If it's to get more skiers to Nationals then we're going to need to make qualifications tougher b/c we are starting to get too big at Nationals. And I don't think making qualifications tougher is a bad idea, its time to tighten them up again now that attendance is back. Ideally more time between regionals and nationals would be nice as well, I've always thought Nationals should be labor day weekend but I know that throws a wrench into kids fall sports, but outside of that the season should end in September with our Nationals thus giving a few weeks between between travels of regionals and nationals. I also think this one of those debates that is region specific. i.e what works in one does not work in the other so if the West has more travel and expense issues perhaps the west should try switching to a state qualifier or sectional or something that works better for them and they could test the ground and see how it goes and if successful other regions could follow suit. We have such little competition in our sport so going to states vs regionals just takes away one more semi-competitive event, unless we revamp how competition works and how divisions are structured.

[Horton]

@Broussard

I think that one of the main reason that people stay in tournament water skiing is camaraderie and getting to see friends at tournaments.

 

I hear stuff like this as a reason to attend both Regionals and Nationals. For some skiers this makes sense. For other people this is completely ludicrous.

[Jody_Seal]

I think it is definitely time to address the system as it currently exists. It is flawed and not conducive for growth towards the sport. To maintain a policy of less then 6 weeks between three championship events continues to be a hardship. Particularly with the men/women 1-3.

We have been so ingrained to do this system because that's how we have always done it .

We continue to make rules, come up with gadgets and do everything we can to stifle growth and attendance.

Our leadership caters to the elite level skiers in their anal policys and rules. This way of governance of the sport turns skiers away and does not encourage new skiers to come into the competitive stage.

 

Maybe real soon another choice will manifest its self. Only time will tell!

[Broussard]

@Horton Your quote perfectly summaries the complexity of AWSA

For some skiers this makes sense. For other people this is completely ludicrous.

There are so many age divisions and differences across geographic regions. What might make sense for M2/3 3 event skiers in say Arkansas is completely different than what would be best for a M4 slalom specialist in California.

 

Obviously solutions would be a lot easier if AWSA was slalom only, but that isn't the case.

 

I think that before any decision is made we should stop and ask: "What are we trying to accomplish here?"

 

I agree that trying to travel to regionals then turn around and head to nationals is ludicrous and simply not feasible for some people.

 

Again, what are we trying to accomplish by developing a more organized state championship series? (Which I agree with)

Are we trying to increase attendance at Nationals?

Are we trying to get a higher level of competition at nationals (i.e. better skiers)?

Are we trying to increase retention of tournament skiers?

 

Like @Chet said

Until we decide what we are shooting for I think it’s hard to pinpoint the direction.

Unless we can define what we are trying to accomplish, trying to develop solutions seems silly.

[Horton]

@Broussard my goal would be to make it more economical for more people to attend Nationals if they wanted to. Now I agree Nationals is this giant monster without a purpose but if it's ridiculously expensive to get there who cares what the purpose is?

 

There is a rumor that Western regionals next year might be in Eastern Washington. So I would have to fly to Eastern Washington and back and then to Chicago and back? Good luck increasing participation with that kind of travel commitment.

 

30 + years ago America was a different place and the culture was different and water skiing was different. At that time the Regionals Nationals model probably made a lot of sense. I don't think it makes nearly as much sense today.

[sunperch]

@JeffSurdej what are you suggesting with regards to changing how competition works and how divisions are structured?

[Hallpass]

@Horton, or anyone else for that matter. Newbie questions from the parent of a kid just getting into comp skiing, who has not yet attended a Nationals.

 

Why is there a need to drive more skiers to Nationals? There were over 600 skiers in the middle of a pandemic. Looking back at some Nationals Data, it appears that, for the most part, the top 5 or 10 skiers in each class have participated.

 

Looking at the numbers, it appears there is a greater need to drive attendance at the regionals. Am I wrong?

 

FWIW, Statistics suggest that Air travel is not the real problem. Adjusted for inflation and fees Air travel costs 36% less than it did in 1990. The number of Domestic Air passengers doubled from 1990-2019. So, that begs the quesion, what are the real issues?

 

 

 

 

[Jody_Seal]

@Hallpass

The issues are not the cost incurred to participate but the cost stacked up within 5 weeks between a state regional and national event.

 

Issue, our sport no longer is a true championship winner of the day ideology. for many in the sport regionals and even nationals is just another rankings list opportunity.

 

Issue, in order for a loc to cover costs at a regional or national event they rely on sponsorship moneys. Well sponsors want to see asses in the seats so to speak. Sponsor's want people to see their ware's.

 

Issue, we have way to many of our sports leaders that are making decisions not based on personal background experience in bringing juniors up through the sport.

 

Scale down the nationals loose the Sponsor's. It then becomes just another back yard trials..

[jcamp]

My state championship was this past Saturday. I took first (two skiers in my division) my daughters finished 1st and 2nd (two skiers in their division) and my son took first (only skier in his division). Should this really qualify us for Nationals? Plus, there is not a single jump in my state (sorry jumpers, you can't go to Nationals) and our tournament is slalom only (sorry trickers, no Nationals for you either). Not to mention that to run our state championships we need officials from out of state. If states were how you qualified for Nationals instead of Regionals then all the states would be having championships right around the same time, stretching officials too thin. There simply aren't enough officials to run 50 state championships in a few weeks time.

 

The better solution is for a number of states to band together to share resources (sites, ramps, officials) and create a tournament big enough that there is good competition in just about every division.

 

We could call that the Regional Championships.

[MattP]

@jcamp Georgia & Tennessee did a joint states this year. We did one with GA, TN & SC as well and one with GA & ALA in the past. There are ways to make it happen.

[JackQ]

It sounds like we need something between 50 state championships being mini regionals and the 5 current Regions/Regionals. In other-words revisit our current regional make up, maybe 6-8 regions.

 

Over my skiing career, I have changed regions 5 times, when a West Coast skier; it was obvious the West Region structure needed rethinking.

[disland]

Would it require a AWSA rules change to allow the west region to sub divide? Allowing a region to sub divide regionals seems like an easier "experiment" then restructuring the entire BOD and AWSA structure. It also pushes the decision down and eliminates the hurdle of getting the AWSA BoD to agree on something so "different"

[MISkier]

@JackQ,

 

Great Lakes

Illinois

Indiana

Michigan

Ohio

Wisconsin

 

Great Plains

Iowa

North Dakota

Minnesota

Nebraska

South Dakota

 

South Central

Arkansas

Louisiana

Kansas

Mississippi

Missouri

Oklahoma

Texas

 

Northeast

Connecticut

Delaware

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

 

Northwest

Alaska

Oregon

Washington

 

Southwest

Arizona

California

Hawaii

New Mexico

Nevada

 

West

Colorado

Idaho

Montana

Wyoming

Utah

 

South

Alabama

Florida

Georgia

South Carolina

 

Southeast

DC

Kentucky

Maryland

North Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

West Virginia

[disland]

One more comment. The objection I hear the most is. "Regionals" needs to have enough participants to justify the expense of putting on the event. I think thats only because we add too many self inflicted costs. First there is no need to have assigned judges and drivers.(Its nice and certainly prefered but does it have to be mandatory?) Use volunteer officials and save a lot. Also regionals should be allowed to be class C. This would enable a larger group of sites that may not have all the equipment and expertise to host the event.

[JeffSurdej]

I still don't see how this really helps the sport in any significant way. We are simply shuffling the deck chairs. We just had 3 really well attended Nationals with great competition in every division. I'm not sure what is "broken" with nationals? If we did the above scenario and more people came to Nationals then we have to make qualifications harder b/c we can not go over 750 skiers without a 3-5 lake site, even a 3 lake site now is 5 days maxed out. So in the end of all this you'll still have the same size Nationals with probably just more of the top qualified skier which is a good direction don't get me wrong. I can argue that our bigger problem in the sport is local, state and regional competition that is not increasing the membership and tourney participation at the base. I do think finding a way to spread out state, regionals, nationals would be nice, but until we have a labor day Nationals this won't happen and prior surveys did not seem to be too favorable with a labor day Nationals. Anytime I go to a 5-7 day event I have much more cost in hotels and food, time off work, and rental car than the flight. So I could argue the length of the event is more expensive then the travel to get there. But to solve that we have to cut Nationals down to 200 skiers and have it over 3 days and then hope that state and regionals turns into a really big deal otherwise we just cut 75% of the top competitors out of any competitive event. I don't know the answers but I'd rather focus on making the every weekend event much more fun and competitive and increase membership and tourney participation. And I also say if the west would rather have 2 sectional or 2 regionals due to having to fly then go for it, makes sense.

[Horton]

@jcamp If your state champs was a OFFICIAL State Champs and the OFFICIAL path to Nationals and there was not a Regionals would participation at States be a lot bigger and therefore more have more officials? If not then you have a point.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej

 

Perhaps I have miss framed this topic or I have evolved in my thinking. If State Titles was an official big deal and a replacement for Regionals I think we would have more participation as a whole ( more membership? maybe? ). I am suggesting the the sum of a California state champs, Washington state champs, and Oregon State Champs could be 1/3 or more larger than the current Western Regionals.

 

As for Nationals - From my personal perspective the current model simply makes Regionals & Nationals much more expensive to attend ( for some of us) then it would be with a State Champs model. Would it not be a good thing to have too many entries and have to raise the standards? I am 100% sure that USAWS' industry partners would like to see more skiers trying to get to Nationals.

 

I realize that states like New Mexico and many in the North East do not have enough skiers for a State Champs. Perhaps smaller states get grouped together. This is not Rocket Surgery.

[ALPJr]

Be good for t-shirt sales B)

 

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton I think to answer your question it depends on the state. My state of Illinois already has everyone going, i.e no one skips state and then goes to regionals, so our state would still be 50 skiers competing in 34 divisions and thus no competition, at least at regionals there are 20 M3 slalom skiers. So this goes back to a different response I had that maybe its time to rethink the division structure and how we compete that would tie better into making a 50 person event competitive. Even if we went back to age groups at Nationals I think that would be fine b/c at Nationals skiing by age works. IDK. Sadly, our sport is not big enough to have competition at any local level under an age division structure or at least 34 age divisions.

[jcamp]

@Horton generally speaking, every single skier in the state who skis at Regionals also skis in our state championships. Same with officials. We don't have enough to hold a tournament without out-of-state officials.

[Horton]

@JeffSurdej Perhap the current system works better in some regions than in others. I imagine the folks in Orlando or Miami are likely to share my view when their Regionals are in Kentucky.

[brettmainer]

Drop the mandatory Regionals requirement as a condition of skiing Nationals. @Horton's finance problem is solved.

 

Skiing's problem is at the base of the pyramid, not the top. There are way fewer local tournaments than there used to be. In the Sacto area, we have about 30-50 skiers skiing in the one, sometimes two local tournaments any given weekend. 20 years ago, there would be 5+ local tournaments per weekend with what I'm guessing was 400 combined participants. That is the problem and where we should be focusing on growing the sport, not Nationals participation which is already maxed out as it is.

 

[klindy]

@MattP is correct combined state tournaments do happen and are both successful and pretty well attended.

 

More to the point, what "works well" or is the 'best' for one group is exactly the opposite for another demographic. Some want to use Labor day weekend as a prime Nationals date and others have kids that would have school disrupted. If the answer was easy, I'm really sure this whole thread (and several others) wouldn't be here.

 

As has been said, there are a few basic questions that need to be sorted out. What's the purpose of Nationals? To find the best of the best (inferring a fairly strict qualifications scheme that finds away to make sure the nations best skiers attend and compete - best skier today scenario? Or is it a venue to support the family centered nature of the sport where people literally from all over attend the one (or two) events a year that they see friends and other competitors - inferring it's less about the true competition and more about building community.

 

Add to this the commercial aspects where we have dwindling vendor support (in some cases), new products always being developed, few opportunities to "get everyone together" and the pressures on a single event are wide ranging, diverse and impossible to please everyone. Add other outside pressures like alternative sports, other interests, family life, etc. and, again, impossible to keep everyone happy all at once.

 

Like it or not, over the years we have built a system that is fundamentally different than years past. The "old school"/"old guard" frequently referenced, grew up in an environment where the ONLY way you knew who the best of the best was, was to show up at Nationals, see where you were on the seeded running order and perform on the water when it was your turn. A skier got their "EP" ratings which were their ticket to Nationals and the rest was all determined on the water. Today we have a ranking list where anyone can almost immediately know the scores of everyone else in the country. To me, that pretty well answers the question of who the "best of the best" are (in general) but certainly not "in the moment". No suggesting it's the best way to answer the questions but it has changed the dynamic AWAY from the water and toward a more personal, perhaps even isolated approach toward answering the question.

 

So we're always working to balance the needs of the 'pure athlete', the more socially centered family foundation of the sport and the real needs of the supporting companies and organizations that frankly make it all possible.

 

To perhaps help understand my thinking on where we go from here - While the idea of 50 (or some combined) state championships being the gateway to the Nationals sounds good, but as pointed out, is likely impossible to easily accomplish. Many more multiple sites dilutes and can significantly increase costs and lower potential customer contact for the vendors. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea but it does mean that some real thought needs to be included. Also, as pointed out above, many states have a difficult time fielding more than a handful of athletes for each event which doesn't address any 'competitive' issues in any meaningful way.

 

As @jcamp points out, combine enough states/events into one single event and you have something that looks a lot like a Regional event with the attendance levels and diversity that vendors and more socially driven attendees would want. There are obvious challenges with large regions that I think can be resolved thru some creative ideas like dual sites, perhaps different or expanded 'automatic' qualifiers, etc. each of which have plusses and minuses. The idea of realigning the regional system as a way to somehow resolve some distance/travel concerns is frankly a non-starter. There may be other compelling issues to consider a re-alignment but the prospect of a bigger board with all the associated travel and coordination issues will likely make matters worse in other areas. Besides, it sets up the scenario where we have the same total number of skiers simply divided up into smaller geographic areas which means fewer people actually competing with each other.

 

 

Anyway, fundamental to all this is a real need to take a step back and really think thru the strategic aspirations of the sport organization. Where are we going as a sport, what difference can we make and how to we support the various aspects we have enjoyed for a long time. Things have obviously changed and will continue to change and we must be able to adjust and adapt. Defining and developing clear strategies to accomplish our goals will drive everything from participation to partner support to committee action. I have started a few steps to organize this kind of discussion with the Executive Committee at AWSA to start. It is by far nowhere near complete but I will assure everyone that all comments, concerns and suggestions like we see in this thread are critical to understanding the ussies and finding workable solutions. Thru the outstanding leadership of @JeffSurdej and others, we have made good progress in some areas which have been very positive for waterskiing. In other areas we need more work and I'm certain we can get that done.

 

[MattP]

@klindy as always thank you for the thought out insightful posts. Has AWSA done any bench-marking against other sports and how they are ranked, qualify for a National level tournament?

[klindy]

@MattP Not that I'm directly aware of. Like most sports, it's hard to compare among them and most have developed, like waterskiing, out of a long history of doing what we do because we do what we do.

 

Most comparison type thinking I've seen is really at the pro/amateur level on working on developing a money making professional program that works and can grow. This is also an important component of any discussion like this. There are several rodeo circuit programs that are both interesting and relative in size/scope/challenges to what our elite athletes have which are interesting case studies. Some more successful than others but all with pretty solid partner backing, TV time and a competition format that works. Maybe something to learn there.

 

 

The point is we'll likely always count 6 buoys, measure jumps and call tricks the same. But how we organize the competition around the individual events are the key to growth and longevity. In other words, the discussion starts at that level not in the minutia of what's a 1/4 or 1/2 buoy. I think we can all agree on that.

[unksskis]

I get a sense that no matter how much you may change things to accommodate people, those people still won't attend and find the next issue that keeps them from going.

 

 

[klindy]

@unksskis I'd like to hope that's not totally correct. Certainly there will always be a 'reason' but I think more to the point is that it's likely impossible to please everyone and that will demotivate those to participate. Others are motivated for reasons not even considered here at all. Either way, there will always be pressures from other activities, life events and other personal concerns that ultimately decide what's best for everyone. Our goal should be to have a good, overall program that works for the vast majority of us and then put any supporting programs in place to underpin and grow support for the main program.

 

In other words, find a formula that works and make sure you do whatever is possible to support and grow that formula.

[RichardDoane]

@klindy - case example here - like @Horton mentioned, the Western Regional tournament may be in Othello, WA (which is Central, not Eastern Washington BTW) next July. For all those skiers in California who didn't want to make the flight, or 800 mile drive, what kind of rule change is necessary for them to attend a different "regional" in say, Bakerfield ?

 

 

 

[Horton]

@RichardDoane More likely Sacramento - still at 4.5 hour drive for me, 6+ hours from LA or Newberry and 10 hours for the guys in Imperial.

[MattP]

@RichardDoane make regionals a requirement to attend every 2 years. The event still holds its prestige and most will still attend, but if my best friend is getting married on regionals weekend I can still attend the big show. I will still pay my regionals entry.

 

@klindy just thinking out loud. Would having both a Slalom Nationals and an Jrs + Overall Nationals on separate weekends appease most of the issues? Have Slalom Nationals on Labor Day weekend and the Jr + Overall on the current week. Officials for a slalom only event would be much easier to come by. I could see the 1 event slalom skiers being more attracted to attend their State Champs & Regionals.

 

Skiers could go to one or both if they are qualified and want to ski in them. Could these events be run on a 2 lake site in 3 days? This past year there were 481 slalom skiers, 304 tickers, & 221 jumpers. With 227 skiing overall.

[ALPJr]

One of the best ideas I’ve read yet @MattP - two separate Nat’s.

[sunperch]

@MattP two separate Nationals does not ease the burdens for the families that ski together. That would significantly increase the costs and time required. All of the reorganization has already increased the cost to participate for families. Family memberships went up in price. In addition, all dependents over the age of 18 have to have individual memberships which costs more. Another consequence is the eighteen-year-olds and older kids are not eligible for family rates to enter regionals or Nationals. It would have cost an extra $100 for my College freshman daughter to ski Nationals this year compared to last year, when AWSA still considered her part of my family.

[jcamp]

One of THE BEST things about this sport is that grandparents, parents and kids can compete along side each other. Once you start messing with that you are really on the path to putting the sport in its grave.

[Horton]

Look my point is if you were designing the sport from scratch and max participation at all levels was important the current model would not be ideal.

[MattP]

@sunperch @jcamp I don't disagree. I just don't have family in the sport. My view point is much different.

 

I guess this sentence was missed "Skiers could go to one or both if they are qualified and want to ski in them."

[klindy]

@Horton I would completely agree where we are currently.

 

My point is maybe 'tweaking things' are appropriate or maybe not. Either way it makes sense to me to really work through the strategic goals and envision what the future state wants to look like,

 

As an example from above, @MattP and @RichardDoane (and others) all have good ideas to take our current system and adjust to accommodate part of the stakeholder interests. But, depending on the overall strategic goals, they all can fit perfectly or completely miss the objective.

 

As pointed out, splitting the Nationals makes travel easier but would (I believe) tend to erode the social/community/family aspect that is both real and important. Any kind of "slalom only" event would tend to dilute already struggling participation in overall/three event. Again, all roads will get you there without a map.

 

So the high level goals and strategy needs to be discussed, developed and communicated. Using just a few examples, The overall participation in the elite ranks has all but disappeared in the US at the elite levels. The support to encourage participation just hasn't been there. Whereas globally three event elite athletes are supported pretty well and always contenders at World & Championship events. However if you look at our junior skiers, there are a lot of really, really good future three event champions coming up thru the ranks. Seems we need to make sure the system supports them or we need to accept some becoming one/two event specialists. Again, there aren't wrong answers but constantly adjusting rules and events to try and cater to everyone all at once, as @Horton said, isn't working.

 

Some fundamental issues that should be clearly supported by the organization (AWSA, USA-WSWS and even USOC) should be some of the following -

 

1) grassroot participation constantly 'building a base'. This involves easy ways to participate, waterways access, fun and interesting events

 

2) development and support of an elite/pro class of athlete which showcases the sport and provides exposure for sponsors, partners and others who's business is dependent on the sport (and the sport dependent on the business).

 

3) a nimble, governance structure that can evaluate and effectively manage the challenges of the changes we face.

 

I realize these are somewhat poorly defined and, in many ways, are already addressed in the current system but, again as you said, if you were to start from scratch, I'm really sure it wouldn't look like it does today.

 

[ALPJr]

Amateur volleyball had two Nat’s when our daughter played, an East (Orlando) and a West (Las Vegas). There sure wasn’t any problem with filling the arena.

[sunperch]

@MattP I did not miss that sentence. If we went to two different Nationals that would double the travel cost for my family. We have one kid that is an adult and one kid that is a junior. If we only went to one Nationals, which kid would we choose? My husband and I also ski Nationals so it would be three against one, sorry son majority rules?

[MattP]

@sunperch still missing a bit of info here. Your family only slaloms? If so I get what you are saying. Then it should be a Slalom Nationals and an Overall/3 Event Nationals.

[sunperch]

@MattP I am saying two separate Nationals would not work for most families. Families are the lifeblood of this sport.

[RichardDoane]

after reading the above comments, I'd suggest increasing the age of "family" memberships to include kids up to age 21.

[Not_The_Pug]

I know a few years ago they looked at splitting up the Western region. The main reason I heard people were not for it due to not being able to see friends from other area's. No matter where we go in the west it is a drive/flight. I towed my boat to this years regionals 9.5 hours each way. Even in just CA it is a minimum of 4.5 hours from Northern CA to Bakersfield as Horton stated.

 

I think as an organization we need to define what is the goal from Regionals and Nationals. Then we can discuss how to best accomplish. Is it a large event so the sponsors get good participation or is it a true national championship where the top 10 (random number) in each group get invited?

[klindy]

@Not_The_Pug a bit off topic but I don’t see how splitting the west into two regions solves the problem noted of “not being able to see friends from different areas”. In fact it seems to do the opposite by providing two places to meet rather than one.

[Jody_Seal]

@JeffSurdej

Your post reads complacency and elitist.

Yes there is a problem with the time frame of the championship series as it is implemented currently for many in this sport. As well as logistical and it is a financial burden to many awsa members and members who would otherwise participate are not.

What's the problem for a test run? Why be so stringent?

Membership across the organization are telling you try something different.

You once told me awsa is about sanctioning tournaments and growing competition..

more emphasis on a state and regional competition is great but if they are piled with such a short time frame inbetween it becomes a excessive burden for many.

 

Why not encourage those that participate in a State championships to be held after nationals, where many skiers could get their regional and national qualification early.

Why not recomend a 5 week distance between when regional's end and nationals start?

Why not encourage the monster land area regions a option to hold 2 regional tournaments ?

Why send out e-blasts from usaws for members to re-new cause the numbers are down? but you don't want hear or want to listen to suggestions or needs of these members to encourage them back ?

Why not listen to the skiers in the trenches rather then cater to the elite and affluent?

 

 

 

[klindy]

Other sports do different things that work but I’m sure have similar issues. For example, the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) is a similar organization where it has regions (zones), club programs, a National event, sponsors and companies who rely on the organization success. It is cheap to join ($20 annually, $500 life) and is expensive to be “fully engaged”.

 

The organization is headquartered in Sparta, IL with a permanent facility including 120 traps (3.5 miles long), permanent vendor facilities, etc. the “Grand American” event is 11 days long with specific events each day and attracts 4000+ participants who can simply pay entry fees or event “play options” which allows them to be eligible for various cash prizes (mostly self-funded by event). The event has preliminary events early in the week and championship events later in the week. People come and go.

 

Point is this developed over time and the regional and local clubs support the organization in a variety of ways that has made it successful. One thing I think helps a lot is the permanent facility. Every year/event you know exactly what you need to break even and everyone knows when, where, how things are going to unfold (and what it will cost etc. ). Purely spitballing here but maybe part of the solution is to just pick a permanent spot for nationals - same place, same time every year? (Note I’m not advocating for this, it’s just a thought).

 

Back to my original points, as an organization we need to define what’s important and build a strategic plan to support those ideals.

[Horton]

@MattP MOST of tournament water skiing is slalom.

 

Every time you add another fly away event you further raise the financial burden on the average skiers. I forget the logic behind a kids nationals and an adult Nationals but it would likely guarantee I would not attend either. ( this is really another topic for another thread )

[MattP]

@Horton I agree. That's what I am getting at. Feel free to split into another thread.

Have a Slalom Nationals on Labor day weekend.

Have a 3 Event/Overall Nationals on the current system.

These both in theory could be run in 2-3 days instead of 6 or 7.

 

I do not see how this splits families up. Depending on location I would attend both. You can enter which ever one you want if you are qualified. Depending on the numbers there could be Semis and Finals. Would need to look more into that.

 

In reality our Nationals is usually taking place before everyone is peaking in their performance for the year. One reason the fall records are so big so that skiers can lock in scores and qualifications for next year and ride them for the next 12 months.

 

In the end the champion will be crowned as the best skier on that day with those that chose to attend which ever event. We already crown a "ranking list champion" What is adding 1 more to the mix gong to do?

 

I am not saying this is an amazing well thought out idea. It is just an idea.

I am a M2 skier. The only time I have someone to ski against is at Regionals & Nationals. Adding another large event could drive more competition back into the sport that has faded away over the years. Or merge the divisions together.

[klindy]

@Horton of course your right that most tournament waterskiing is slalom. But 2 & 3 event participation has been growing at the regional and national level for a while. I didn’t look this year but the average skier skied 2 events at several of the past nationals.

 

So, you’re right, most tournament along is slalom. Does that mean we have ignore or minimize the support for the other two events?

 

Again this thinking is exactly my previous points. Until we literally define what’s important as an organization we’ll go around in circles forever and we’ll all be right from our own perspective and we’ll end up in the same place we are now with partial answers for everyone.

[JackQ]

Jody, While I think there a plethora of things we can do, for many of the states, having the state tournament serve as qualification for the Nationals will not be effective.

 

Qualifying by being in the top 5 and some Regional's/Division just running a pass at any speed on your tricks or jumper will get you qualified for the Nationals.

 

We need to find a balance. I agree with many that we should determine what is the desired size of the Nationals and work down. Taking the top x percent of each division that gets us to the desired size should set a goal for each division, then a process of either position in ranking list and/or some reasonable criteria at a Regional's or State Championship.

 

There is zero chance that ANY process will make everyone happy nor meet their needs. I would like to see some changes and experimentation, but almost anything we do will have some unintended consequences.