Who is going to regionals?

[Horton]

It is going to empty my bank account but Buford Danger and I will be a Laku.

[brettmainer]

Mackenzie and I will be there. Flights and especially rental cars are pricey this year. I miss pandemic travel pricing.

[GaryJanzig]

I am going to the Midwest Regionals in Illinois to make my first National qualification official. It is a 6 hour drive from home. I may not get another chance where I am qualified and I can afford the trip.

[klindy]

I’ll be at the southern regionals. To underscore @brettmainer above, rental cars probably should be priority #1 for anyone flying. They are very, very scarce currently almost everywhere. Easy to cancel but difficult to find an option.

[Horton]

@GaryJanzig I have long advocated that the Regionals requirement to go to Nationals makes the cost of Nationals out of reach for so many people. Traditionalist don't want to hear it but we really need to rethink it.

[PatM]

It would help everyone out west if they broke the region up into at least 3 different regions. Crazy that someone from southern California has to go to Colorado for a Regional and vice versa.

[MISkier]

I am going to the Midwest Regionals because it is close and I can support that tournament easily. I'm also hoping to lower my per buoy cost from my previous Regionals. It was an abysmal $90 per buoy and an embarrassing performance, though this year's 7:00AM start time for me doesn't bode well either. I have no delusions of placement or any sort of LCQ for Nationals. It's strictly to challenge myself again.

 

I am not qualified for Nationals. More than the cost of going to both tournaments, it is the drive that would be the big issue. When Regionals is in Kansas, it is a 16 hour drive one-way. For Nationals, I would probably have to fly to that one, assuming it is not in Illinois like this year.

 

I've advocated a new region definition plan here before, in order to make it drivable for most people and not burn a bunch of vacation to do it.

[Horton]

@PatM yes and no.

 

Yes the Western Region is way too big.

 

No it is not just the west. For skiers in every region the possibility that both Regionals and Nationals are too far to drive is not unlikely. I have long suggested we switch to a state titles as the qualifications event for Nationals or even do away with the event qualification. The problem is that some skiers LOVE regionals.

[PatM]

@Horton I'm one of those people who love the regionals. Fortunately for me most of the regionals in the east are drivable for me.

[Horton]

@PatM I think it really impacts Nationals. I am not anti-Regionals I just can not see spending that much on two events per year.

[klindy]

OK since @Horton has let the thread drift (slightly) off-course. I would agree that the concept of having to attend Regionals to go to Nationals should be reviewed. There are lots of threads advocating for one option or the other, so I'm not going to revisit them now. However, similar to how IWWF has retooled how it expects to fund World events, what we really need to do is look at our entire governance structure to effectively make changes.

 

For example, under the current structure, the Regionals is a major fundraising event for most of the regions. Simply saying "do go" isn't the answer and saying "pay the entry fee is enough" doesn't work either if we still expect to have some kind of LCQ type "first 5 places" go to the Nationals. Is there potential solutions - sure there is.

 

Rejiggering the regions so that the West is now 2 or 3 regions also doesn't work as a simple, stand alone solution. I'd suggest that the AWSA board is already too large and difficult to get much done. Adding "more regions" just makes the situation worse unless other things are done at the same time. Allowing a region to have multiple Regional Championships at two or more sites on the SAME weekend might make sense but obviously makes the purists heads explode.

 

Some people hate the ranking list and want only true competition. That sets up a situation where only a certain "top x" competitors move on to the next level of competition. Great for the competitive aspect but even more difficult to plan and/or pay for the needed trips especially with a tight, weather dependent season.

 

My point is, we're open to alternatives. But meaningful changes are not going to work if they are piecemeal or half baked. The above has been discussed on various levels by a variety of people over a fairly long period of time. It's not being ignored, but it difficult to find a consensus to make a change.

 

Happy to listen to any and ALL ideas. Probably best to send a note privately or start a new thread (or 5).

[Zman]

Both Regionals and Nationals are a haul this year, so it is a pass. Though I usually qualify, I pass a lot anyway.

And, I have a lot of catching up to do visiting family I have not seen over the last 15-plus months.

Next year, Regionals are close (Lymanland) and Nats in Florida. Should be a good year to go.

[Horton]

@klindy I have never agreed with you more.

[The_MS]

Illinois in Aug is at the bottom of my vacation priorities

[lpskier]

Eastern Regionals at Avon and off to Wilmington for me.

[rico]

The question should be, why are you going to regionals or nationals?

[Horton]

@rico yea I have asked that question many times.

 

The sport should have a central event that everyone aspires to attend. That is a very loose definition of Nationals.

[RichardDoane]

I've driven the 20 hours and 1300 miles from Western WA to Colorado (one way) for a Regionals (2009). It was a great group (Laku Landing does a fantastic job) but don't plan to attend this year. Our Western region size is just too large. Re-thinking the qualifications for attending Nationals, and allowing a State Championship to be an alternative would be step in the right direction. The Board needs to begin making beneficial changes to promote and/or support tournaments of all levels. If the top 5 finishers at a Regionals get qualified for Nationals, why not add the top 5 finishers from a State Championship to qualify as well, if the goal is to have a bigger/better Nationals ?

 

 

[NameUnavailable]

I am going to regionals, but have no desire to go back in IL. I like to go to nationals to see people I have known for 40+ years.

 

It seems we are quick to add requirements, but seldom think about the sport that is on life support.

[bojans]

Taking my son to Regionals and Nationals. It is an easy decision with both only being a 2 hour drive. Next year regionals would be a 11+ hour drive, not sure where nationals will be but that would be much harder to justify.

[MISkier]

On the topic of waiving the Regionals requirement to go to Nationals, I think it is a good idea and may actually increase Nationals participation. There are some who may be concerned that the top 5 finishers at a more sparsely populated Regionals would lower the Nationals bar too much.

 

My suggestion is to enact a minimum average restriction on the first 5 places as part of that qualification. Those on the podium at Regionals must also have a ranking list average (not a single score) of, say, at least 95% of the Nationals Cutoff Average for that division/event in order to qualify for Nationals. For example, a Slalom division with a 93.0 Nationals Cutoff Average would require that the podium finisher have an average of at least 88.35 to get Nationals LCQ status from their Regionals finish.

 

I'm not sure how to fix the reduced revenue issue for a Regionals after waiving that requirement. One way might be to have the skier pay to skip it. I'm sure there are other ideas.

[GaryJanzig]

@horton I happened to luck out this time, both Regionals and Nationals are in Illinois which is just a 6 hour drive each way from where I live on Ohio. Looking forward to meeting skiers from other parts of the country.

[Horton]

Is the first 5 places thing even still a real thing? We live in a rankings list world if we like it or not.

[lpskier]

@bojans 2022 Nationals are back in Witchita.

 

@Horton Top five from each event/division at Regionals qualify for Nationals.

[MISkier]

@Horton, I don't think the "extra" podium qualifiers will be significant, even if we created some smaller regions.

 

A look at the data will tell you if you have a problem or not. Take a look at the top of each of the likely-to-be-subdivided Regions and see how far down you have to go before you start including folks who wouldn't qualify for Nationals anyway. That is, eliminate those that are just attending Regionals to check that box and see who remains.

 

One example in the Midwest is Men's 5 Slalom. There are about 45 who would qualify for Regionals and about another 5 that didn't because of the penalty to their average or who might qualify with a State Championship podium finish. Of those 50 or so, 25 are already qualified for Nationals and would just be checking that box, if they attended Regionals. That leaves you with 25 non-qualified potential podium finishers across the "new" regions.

 

So, if Midwest were split into 2 regions, then you have 10 potential finishers that would be getting in, assuming none of the top echelon showed up to challenge them. Of those 10 out of the pool of 25 in my example, there is only one that currently has the average score that is 95% of the COA. There might be one or two of the penalized non-qualifiers that could hit that average. Again, this assumes those folks remain unchallenged by at least 5 top skiers in either of the regions and secure their spot on the podium.

 

Obviously, this isn't a comprehensive analysis, but I think one could be done. In the end, I think most of the podium finishers will either already be qualified for Nationals through their scores or will not meet the 95% of COA restriction.

[unksskis]

@klindy I know you're not exclusively saying it, but to not split up the West because what it would do to the board seems like putting the cart before the horse.

[Horton]

I understand top five finishers from regionals always get a pass to nationals but how often are those people not already qualified? I imagine it happens in the junior divisions. Do we even need to keep that tradition? can't we just adjust the qualification levels and call it good?

[unksskis]

@Horton there's rarely 5 competitors in most divisions anymore. I think it's more important that the top 5 State finishers qualify for Regionals, however that is more likely going to be people who are already qualified.

 

The Western Region should have 3 regionals, just as Texas should have 3 State Championships/Regional qualifiers.

 

Edit: To add, one suggestion would be to allow Top 5 placement in Overall to qualify for Nationals. I feel this would encourage 3event and qualify people who will attend if able.

[klindy]

@unksskis I am saying that splitting the west into 3 regions is a bad idea because what it does to the board (assuming the current bylaws). That said, I have been a BIG advocate to allow for more than one "regional tournament" in a region. For example, let there be 3 regional tournaments the same weekend. There can be a 'local' podium and a combined, virtual podium that combines the scores of all 3 locations. I get the different conditions issue - let anyone from the region pick wherever they want to ski. I also get that it's hard to coordinate schedules - do the best you can.

 

In other words, same regional structure but the ability to have more than one "official" site for the regionals.

[RichardDoane]

@klindy - how can we do a "test case" and get approval for having two regional tournaments in the West next year ?

[Horton]

@RichardDoane or why don't we just dispose of the regionals requirement and see if more or less people show up at Nationals?

[Broussard]

@Horton I'm confused here... is the goal to get more people to Nationals?

 

Prior to COVID entries were around 700-750 and 531 entries in 2020 with COVID.

 

Much larger than 700 gets extremely challenging to run - especially on 2 or 3 lakes - requiring a longer event in number of days which is more difficult for tournament organizers, officials, and vendors.

 

If the goal is to get higher level skiers at nationals and implement stricter cut off scores - I'm all ears.

[Cooper_Trelawney]

@Broussard If I remember right, when I was competing in the late 80s/90s Nationals usually had over 1,000 skiers (Men's 3 slalom well over 100 alone). Some of the national sites I went to back then were Bennett's, Okaheelee, Bell Aqua and Arvin CA and they all pulled it off somehow.

 

I think the only way into Nationals back then was to earn 2 EP ratings or a Masters Rating plus a Top 3 podium at Regionals and we still had so many skiers. I think one year I placed 20th out of 31 men's 2 jumpers. Not a great placement but could you imagine 31 Men's 2 jumpers now? And all of those jumpers performed at those higher performance requirements to get in.

 

I also think you had to ski in regionals if you wanted to ski in nationals but I'm not sure. I'm guessing the Western region has always been as huge as it is now. I wonder how people dealt with it back then...

[Broussard]

@Cooper_Trelawney I believe that the mentality of individuals has changed.

 

I am told that often times people were on the road every weekend driving hours to go to the tournament. Now you see multiple tournaments in the same region and even the same state in a given weekend.

 

These days lives are generally more hectic and individuals are involved in a lot of activities other than water skiing. Some officials are already looking to split assignments for Nationals as they do not wish to dedicate an entire week to judging an event.

 

There is a short list of sites/clubs that are willing to put on the event as is. Adding additional skiers -> resulting in increased number of days required to run the event seems disadvantageous.

[Cooper_Trelawney]

@Broussard you are right about the willingness to drive to tournaments. I lived on Lake McQueeney and in Austin during my skiing days but we would drive to Houston or to Zachary or even Shreveport on any given weekend for a tournament. Some summers we would enter 5 or 6 tournaments plus Regionals and sometimes Nationals. Usually 3 or 4 skiers riding together to those events and sharing the cost of a hotel room. The road trips were often just as fun as the ski tournaments! I guess it is true that our mentalities and expectations have changed.

[Broussard]

@Cooper_Trelawney Exactly - now people are hesitant to drive a few hours to go to a tournament, much less take a 7 or 8 hour road trip!

[aupatking]

I’m only going to regionals if I qualify for nationals, this weekend, and have to go. It’s an 8 hour, 507 mile trip. Nothing like you guys out west, but it’s enough. I can only duck out of so many Sunday travel days at work for Waterski tournaments before it stops being interesting to them that I still compete

[lpskier]

I drove five hours each way (pulling my 19’ Airstream) this weekend to ski a class C at a great slalom site. Nationals is 13 hours from home, each way. San Marcos was a couple days, and I took four days to drive home from Idaho. I stop along the way to visit National Parks and battlefields (my dog is a history buff so I want the trip to be fun for her too). Retired life is great. My working daughter and son-in-law don’t have quite the same flexibility.

[RAWSki]

Perhaps regionals could be replaced by strategic "multi-state" state events thus making the travel in many places more manageable? Something needs to change but change is scary especially to dinosaurs.

Like a lot of us! ......And AWSA

[JeffSurdej]

@Broussard is right. First we need to figure out what ur trying to fix. We don’t have an issue with nationals numbers. However I could argue it’s simply b/c it’s so easy now. In the 90’s we had 1000 skiers but still only had 1400 pulls. Now we have 700 skiers with 1400 pulls. So what’s our objective and goal with Nationals. Determine that and then design the process to get there. but like most things in our sport we won’t satisfy everyone. Way too many different mindsets in the sport and why people compete. Yes states to nationals would help get the best skiers to nationals and increase numbers but we’ll need to make it harder to get there or you’ll have a 2 week event. I still think getting rid of regionals will have more negative impacts than positive. Ideally we need to spread it all out. The travel is tough but the travel all within 2 weeks is killer. But those of us in colder states can’t start much earlier. Nationals should be much later in the season. Right now it’s half way through the peak warm months. Need a labor day Nationals but I know that doesn’t work for kids. So no I don’t know the answer but nationals is plenty big but probably doesn’t attract the true top 20 on the rankings in each division/event.

[Broussard]

I agree with @JeffSurdej

 

Trying to select solutions without first defining the problem is just asking for failure.

[Horton]

@Broussard I totally agree that trying to find a solution without knowing the goal is ridiculous.

 

Looking through my personal lens... I would like to attend Nationals but the expense and travel to get to Regionals this year will likely keep me from going to Chicago. ( This year's regionals is really about my daughter. We're driving from California to Colorado and staying on site. It is not going to be very economical but hopefully it will be a great ski experience for her.)

 

I see nationals as the pinnacle of the ski year. I would much rather see higher qualification standards and lower financial costs be the filter for who does and does not go to Nationals.

 

Currently qualification standards are not terribly high and the ability to spend the time & money to get there is a bigger factor.

[klindy]

@Horton let’s explore your last sentence in the second to last paragraph a bit …

 

“I would much rather see higher qualifications and lower financial costs get the filter for who does and does not go to Nationals”.

 

The qualifications part is easy … which means (likely) fewer people attending a smaller event. How do you recommend lower the costs?

 

Remember that more people means higher likelihood of vendors wanting to pay for space and sponsorships. Without which means net costs are higher. So I’m interested to know how you’d lower costs.

[The_MS]

Run it as a C event. Use sure path to the same extent that you would for an R

[RichardDoane]

Start making Nationals more about the skiing and less about making money for AWSA.

[klindy]

@RichardDoane i can assure you that it’s NOT about making money for AWSA. AWSA gets far less than you think - I’ll get the exact number.

[Horton]

@klindy what I am saying is that the cost of going to Regionals keeps some % of skiers from going to Nationals. If removing the Regionals requirement means that Nationals becomes too big then adjust the qualifications.

 

Both Cost and Qualifications are factors for those who do not attend Nationals. By removing the cost of going to Regionals I propose more skiers will be able to afford Nationals.

 

To be clear. I would like to go to Chicago. I really want to be there for the US Open but after Regionals I do not think I can justify the expense.

[klindy]

@Horton underdtood. One more question, so if you did not have to ski regionals this year, you would go to Nationals in Chicago right?

[Horton]

@klindy VERY likely.

[unksskis]

@klindy add me to this list. With everything I have going on in life, it seems Regionals will eat away my budget that would be for Nationals. I have no reason to ski Regionals, it offers me nothing but access to Nationals, at an unnecessary cost. I don’t want to miss Nationals, but it may become unfeasible given the Regional expense.