Rules interpretation for Natls Qualification (My last Nationals was 1985)

[swbca]

Qualifier A "A skier may also qualify . . after the Cut Off Date by increasing his Ranking List Average above the Level 8 Cut Off Average before the Natls"

 

Qualifier B "or attain a score equal to or greater that the Level 8 Cut Off Average in a Regionals or any Class C tournament before the Natls"

 

Qualifier B makes it appear that a brand new skier (with no Level 8 Average) would only have to ski in 1 Tournament - plus the Regionals - during the summer of the Natls. with a Level 8 Cut Off score to Qualify.

 

Is that correct ? It seems like B would always supersede A because how would a skier have a Level 8 Average without skiing Qualifier B performances multiple times ?

[Than_Bogan]

Huh. Good point.

[MISkier]

For Qualifier B, you are correct that a brand new skier could qualify with one tournament and with a corresponding participation at Regionals. The Cutoff Date last year for the upcoming 2021 Nationals was 8/13/2020. If, on 8/14/2020, a skier attained a score in a class C tournament above the level 8 Cutoff Average for their division, they would be qualified for Nationals with Regional Participation Required (QFY-RPR). The key here is that the new skier's one tournament score above level 8 has to be after the Cutoff Average (COA) is set. They could not do it on 8/12/2020.

 

For Qualifier A, assume that a skier had an average below the new Level 8 Cutoff Average at that the time of the Cutoff Date, but did have a couple scores above the new Cutoff Average. Assume that all of those scores were prior to the Cutoff Date. They would not be qualified by their scores over the Cutoff Average (because they occurred before) and would not be qualified by their average (which is below the COA). Now, assume that the skier achieves a score after the Cutoff Date that does not exceed the Cutoff Average, but, when factored in with their other pre-Cutoff Date scores, is enough to push their average above the Cutoff Average. Then, they would be qualified for exceeding the Cutoff Average after the Cutoff Date and before the Nationals. In this way, they did not qualify by skiing above the Cutoff Average after the Cutoff Date (though they did attain those scores before the Cutoff Date).

 

The differentiation is when the score or scores above COA occur.

 

 

[swbca]

@MISkier impressive . . Thank you . . I have the spread sheet "2020 Level 8 COA" are those the COA's in force up to the 2021 Nationals, or is the COA a moving target ?

[lpskier]

It’s whatever the cut off average is the day after Nationals. It’s not a moving target.

[MISkier]

The COA does not move and is in place from the Cutoff Date until Nationals, But, you might see the actual Level 8 cutoff in the Ranking List move, as scores occur during the year and change the distribution of the skiers across the percentiles. In fact, that Level 8 Ranking score in Men's 9 is currently above the COA and is 66.15. However, that does not change the score you must exceed to qualify.

 

I think you need the 2021 spreadsheet, though.

 

Also, to see your qualification status in the Rankings, be sure to select "Last 12 Months" as the time period and "2021 Goode National Championships" as the Qualify option.

 

For Men's 9, the 2021 COA was set on 8/13/2020 and is 65.33334. If you get 5.5 buoys at 22 off at 30 mph (assuming you run 15 off at 30 mph and any longer/slower passes before it), you will exceed the COA and be qualified.

 

 

[swbca]

@MISkier 22off qualifies ?? The 1985 Highlight Reels of skiing that are still in my head, still fool me into thinking I can just start where I left off. What a shock it will be when the ice goes out in Minnesota.

[MISkier]

That is what the numbers say. I'll be interested to see how your quest goes.

[lpskier]

2@35 won M9 Nationals last year.

[Broussard]

Scenario B is vestigial from when the cutoff date was only 3 or 4 weeks before nationals. The cutoff date changed to just after the previous nationals for 2018 in attempts to have a concrete target for skiers to aim for.

[swbca]

@lpskier You said "2@35 won M9 Nationals last year".

 

. . maybe I should just keep running 38off passes in my head . . . at 75 I have no problem there.

 

[lpskier]

@swbca I’m certainly not saying you can’t do it and I applaud your grit to come back and give it a go. I wish you great success, but I hope that you don’t disappoint or hurt yourself in the process. The sport has changed a lot since you left, almost all for the better (I say almost because there is the “I hate Zero Off” crowd). The part that hasn’t changed is the physical toll it puts on your body. Do yourself a huge favor: hire a trainer and work out hard in the gym. Being in shape and strong (different terms) enough to ski, at your age, is probably the single-most important factor in having a successful come back. And don’t expect to pick up right where you left off. There is only one guy I know (our neighbor when I was a kid) who picked where he left off after a long hiatus and you have already mentioned his name: Warren Witherall. But he was maybe in his 50’s when he came back. You (and I) are north of that.

 

Have fun, be safe, and don’t set yourself up for failure. Under promise and then over perform.

 

My two cents. Best of luck to you and I wish you success. If you make it, look me up at Nationals.

 

And welcome home,

 

Lpskier, aka John Wilkins

[GregHind]

@swbca I've loved every one of your posts and comments so far and I'm looking forward to your future stories. I need to know! When was the last time you had a slalom? Why did you stop? Why are you coming back now? You seem really passionate - where did that passion go, how come it came back now/what triggered everything you are doing at the moment. I love it and would really like to hear more about why and your story of how you go. I'm batting for you!

[RichardDoane]

@swbca - I'm also a member of your "fan club" and look forward to the next 8 months of installments in your quest. @lpskier made some great comments, but I'd add some type of Balance and Flexibility training to the recommended list

[dbutcher]

@swbca For a better idea of what M9 competition may be like in 2021 and for your 2021 target, take a look at the current M9 National Rankings list on AWSA's website.

 

[swbca]

Ranking notations * #

On the individual rankings I get that the Asterix means Penalty for having less the 3 qualifying events, but what does # mean. I looked at rule 1.13 but didn't figure it out.

[lpskier]

@swbca I’m not 100% sure either. If I had to guess, my guess would be that “#” denotes that one (or two) scores with a penalty results in a higher average for a particular skier than if you took the average of that skier’s three actual highest scores.

 

For example, the M9 skier that is 28th on the ranking list has an average score of .95. His scores are 1 at Regionals, so either an E or L score, and his other score is a zero in a Class C. The average of the two is .5 (less a 2.5%penalty for one E and one C score, or in this case .4875, call it .49 ). His one score “average with a 5% penalty from Regionals (an E/L) is .95. So his single E or higher score with penalty is higher than his actual two score average of .49. Under rule 1.13, he gets the higher of the two.

 

@klindy ? @JeffSurdej ?

[dbutcher]

Look at the FAQ/Tips near the top of the rankings list under National Rankings Settings. Basically it deals with how the penalty is applied when less than three tournament scores exist. There can be situations when using only one score even though more scores are available results in a smaller penalty. The purpose is to penalize the skier the least when options exist - as I understand it.

[JeffSurdej]

@swbca @lpskier correct its called the "do no harm" rule which basically is set up so skiers don't feel they would hurt their averages by skiing more events, so it looks at all the possible penatlty scenario for only having 1 or 2 scores and E/C/L and gives the skier the best possible average according to the rules.

[swbca]

@lpskier @GregHind @RichardDoane @dbutcher @HORTON Thanks for you encouragement and guidance with my effort to go from M3 to M9 with nothing in-between. This forum is an invaluable resource in preparing for this effort. Also should mention this forum platform (software and management) is technically one of the best I have seen on any special interest topic.

 

Its easy to go off the rails without the benefits of this community of knowledge and experience. Case in point . . In September I tried skiing for the first time in several years.

 

:) I got up with both feet in on my very old Lapoint Radius.

 

:) Same with my son's newer vintage Obrien.

 

The next day I tried my new D3 Evo with an HO HiMax shell and the Radar Hybrid kick-in rear. I couldn't get up with 2 feet in, or 1 foot in, or by dropping a ski. After spending hours on this forum, now I understand why @HORTON is insistent that I start with Wiley bindings. In the lengthy Boot forum, many skiers commented that they couldn't get up, or pull out in advance of the course with a new shell or some other new arrangement.

 

Someone asked why I am starting again from scratch. I felt like I was wasting the last viable decade of pursuing something physical . . . a motivator for health and fitness, and something to pursue without compromise. Could have been Nastar ski racing or this. But this will be a life changer if it works out.

 

Many guys I have known since being a teenager are still skiing in M6 - M10. They ski in the Nationals and one of trick skiers placed 2nd in World tournament. I bought his ProStar boat because he needed a current model Nautique to practice for the next world tournament. Sounded like fun to me.