Regionals / Nationals / Schizophrenia

[Horton]

A lot of skiers, myself included, have long wished that regionals was no longer required for nationals. For me it is largely about the money. I spent at least $3,000 taking my daughter & niece to regionals this year. Looking back, I could have spent less but that is another subject. In addition to the money, I spent more than 30 hours driving to and from regionals (yes I could have flown). After the dollars, time and energy spent on Regionals I cannot justify Nationals.

 

Nationals is the big show. All the “stuff” happens at Nationals - We crown National champs, product unveilings, US Open and such. It is the one time of the year when we can measure ourselves against our peers behind the same boat on the same water. Nationals should be the event all competitive skiers aspire to attend. Nationals is the event that the ski and boat companies care about.

 

If we removed the Regionals requirement compete at Nationals I would have skipped Regionals this year and gone to Nationals.

 

This is where I confess that I am schizophrenic. Regionals this year was a lot of fun. Regionals is a far more social event. Regionals is as much a party as a water ski tournament. For my 7 year old everything about the trip was fantastic (except for the drive). It was a very good time. Regionals is an institution worth preserving.

 

Questions:

If we eliminated the Regionals requirement to ski a Nationals would a substantial number of skiers skip Regionals? Would it ruin Regionals? Would a many more skiers attend Nationals? Why do allow Open skiers to skip Regionals?

 

[The_MS]

Same boat, water or same driver?

At Oke my group was split and most 100 bouy or lower skiers had to go out to the turnpike and melt in the sun. Different boat, driver and lake.

[Horton]

@The_MS no event is perfect and I am the first to scream when things are less than fair. Nationals is still the most important event of the year.

[The_MS]

I agree and it should be same boat, driver and water.

[Horton]

@The_MS okay yes but back on topic. For the sport as a whole should we be preserving regionals and the requirement to attend regionals to get to nationals?

[lpskier]

Open skiers were exempted from Regionals “back in the day” when there was a real pro tour. Tour stops often conflicted with Regionals, forcing the skiers to choose one or the other. Since neither Regionals nor Nationals had a cash prize, the pro events won out and the “pros” were therefore “not qualified” to ski Nationals because they skipped Regionals. To get the pros to Nationals without foregoing their bread and butter events, the Open skiers were given a pass at Regionals.

 

The rationale for the exemption no longer exists and the MM/MW crowd is pissed that they have to go to Regionals but the Open skiers don’t. In my view, it would be better to get rid of the exemption.

[ski6jones]

For me, like you, it largely depends on where everything is and what cost (time, money, etc) is involved. If Regionals is close enough to me I would go whether I'm going to Nationals or not, like I did this year. Not going to Nationals this year, too far. If Nationals is close enough and Regionals is far I probably wouldn't do either under the current rules, or Nationals only if Regionals wasn't a requirement.

[Broussard]

As @lpskier mentioned, I am under the impression that the dispensation of the regionals requirement for Open skiers is from the Pro Tour days where they would have been at a tour stop during regionals.

[Cooper_Trelawney]

@Horton I bet more people would still attend regionals rather than skip it. For most skiers regionals is the closest thing to Nationals with more competition than your typical local tournament, 1 round pressure (as opposed to skiing multiple rounds), seeing friends from other parts of the region, etc. It's good practice for the nationals skier to ski in the regionals too. I also think that those who qualify for nationals but know they aren't medal contenders would like to ski regionals where they may be medal contenders. It's great recognition for their hard work and incentive to keep improving.

[AdamCord]

@lpskier I ski Open instead of MM specifically for this exemption. If it didn’t exist I wouldn’t ski regionals and nationals, I would skip them both. I have a full time job, a side job, a family with small kids, etc. When I lived in the eastern region and regionals was always 4 hours or less from my house it wasn’t a big deal. Now in the west I have to fly across 4 states to get to regionals.

 

If on the other hand we got rid of regionals and just had states instead, or maybe groupings of states for you guys in the NE, that would be doable for someone like me and I think you’d see increased participation in both events.

[jayski]

Maybe "regions" should be abolished and you have to compete @ "State's"...then Nats

[Horton]

after the week Colorado with Buford skier I am sure that regionals should not be sacrificed but I do think we should look at the possibility of changing national qualifications.

[ral]

Question from a foreigner. What is the rationale behind regionals being required?

[jcamp]

@jayski and @AdamCord what about the 20+ states that don't have state championships? Should skiers in those states not be allowed to go to Nationals? Or how about my state where I think I'm the only skier in my division? How is giving me what is essentially a free pass, while making guys in California or Florida duke it out, fair?

 

 

 

 

[RazorRoss3]

It’s hard to justify the time and money for just one set. And even harder to justify doing it two weeks in a row. Yes, I could trick at regionals, but that would mean an extra night in a hotel and a price hike to the entry fee, my 800 point trick run isn’t worth that $120 tag on expense.

 

I was considering doing it this year, and if I had skied better at State I might have registered. But when my consistency has been rocky and it’s already a hard to justify tournament I decided against it. I’d rather ski a bunch of practice sets and hang out with my family than spend 14 hours on the road round trip for one set… and then have to do it again the next week. Turns into 28 hours driving and $1000 at least for 30 minutes on the water. That’s tough math right there.

[AdamCord]

@jcamp all the more reason to scrap regionals. It's a system that doesn't work in vast swaths of the country.

[jcamp]

While Regionals aren't huge money makers for their hosts, they are used by many clubs to build their tournament infrastructure, both in terms of physical (docks, jumps, etc.) and human (judges) capital. Killing or damaging Regionals would have a ripple affect that would do much more harm to the sport than do the travel/family resource issues caused by requiring Regionals attendance to ski at Nationals.

[jcamp]

@AdamCord I don't understand your post. How would a states-qualifying system work when half the states don't have championships and even many that do would feature very little competition. At least having to ski at Regionals means that most of us have some competition.

[Horton]

@jcamp I believe Adam is saying eliminate a regional or state tournament requirement. Make it a purely performance based requirement

[jcamp]

So what are we going to do when people complain about how expensive/time consuming it is to go only to Nationals? Just have the rankings list determine the national champions? That is the logical conclusion to your argument.

 

The fact remains, for most divisions (maybe not Mens 9, Womens 6-10), and most skiers, Regionals is the best competition they have each year.

[Horton]

@jcamp I don't disagree. I'm not sure the current method is the right method but I'm no longer advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water. what I am saying for sure is that is too expensive for me to ski both events. I'm happy I went to regionals. it is not black and white

[AdamCord]

@jcamp how far did you have to drive to get to regionals this year? Regionals for me was 1,300 miles from home.

 

You're right that states wouldn't work for a lot of places, if we are dead set on keeping a regionals style tournament then some of the regions are just too big and need to be split up.

[ToddL]

Regionals is a family reunion of skiers. You get to see those crazy cousins that live in the other state. Families always consider activities for all kids, teens, and adults. That's why it is fun. Sure, there is competition during the day, but there is social time in between and afterward.

 

Nationals has typically been attended by these types of skiers:

1) First-time qualifiers who can afford to travel

2) Podium Potentials - majority of the Top 10% of the division by ranking (who can afford to travel)

3) Other qualified skiers who live within a reasonable distance (and thus can afford to travel)

4) Other qualified skiers who can afford/justify travel

5) People who plan their family trip in conjunction with nationals

I don't see much deviation from the above. The members of each of those groups will change each year, but those groups seem to be well represented.

 

So, if the Regionals participation requirement was dropped, who else would go? Would the number of members in the above groups change that much? Did I miss a group?

 

Possibly fewer ranking-list-qualified skiers would attend regionals, creating room for lower ranked skiers to podium at regionals creating more first-time qualifiers, assuming they also meet #3, #4, or #5.

 

Possibly a few more Top 10% skiers might go assuming they also meet #3, #4, or #5.

 

[Chet]

I would have loved to participate in Nats. this year if I didn’t have a regional mandate.

 

[brettmainer]

The simple fix is to drop the mandatory regionals participation requirement for nationals as is already the case for Open. This might result in slightly lower regionals participation, but I am guessing the regionals attendance drop would be less than 10%. Nationals participation would increase.

 

My regionals and nationals participation varies by the year, usually a function of children's other activities. This year regionals was doable but Nationals conflicts. If it were the other way around next year, I would hate to have to miss nationals because of a regionals participation rule that family, work or finances does not allow.

 

Lucky for me, the western regionals will be at my home site next year, so that shouldn't be a problem in 2022.

[liquid d]

I think participation at Regionals would drop substantially. Maybe it gets shortened a day, and a big party on Saturday nites!

I think Nationals participation would increase, but not as much.

[Horton]

Party at @brettmainer's next year!!!!

[unksskis]

What is the primary objective, or purpose, of Regionals?

[PUoldmaid]

ask @JeffSurdej. I'll bet his short answer is growing the sport and encouraging people to be active.

[PUoldmaid]

Also, I feel it very unfair for @Horton to bitch about cost when it is a clear write off for him. My husband is schlepping me to California (LA) (kicking and screaming). Suck it up. Ski you soon?

 

[lpskier]

If the best skiers don’t go to Regionals, being a Regional champion will be less meaningful. It’s unlikely that being a National champion is in my cards but I won Regionals this year and for me it’s a big deal. If the five skiers seeded higher than me weren’t there, it would have been a big whoopty-do. A bit like the number one seed in W2 at Nationals in Idaho who clinched her win by running her opener. Yes, she won, but who did she beat? Spoiler alert: that same skier won the San Gervasio this year. Which win do you suppose means more to her?

[Bruce_Butterfield]

I understand the multiple sides of this debate and I think @lpskier nailed the biggest reason to keep Regionals participation mandatory. Eliminating the requirement would seriously dilute the tournament if the better skiers don't show up. I get the travel issue for the large regions which needs to be addressed, possibly by having several "sub-regionals" without fully dividing the regions, leading to more overhead with the political representations that @klindy brought up in another thread.

 

My $0.02 is that Regionals should be the big tournament of the year for the majority of the serious skiers and Nationals should be a smaller, more elite event with only those who have a chance of placing making the qualification. But I know that doesn't fit with the current goal of making alot of money for USAWS.

[Jody_Seal]

So same boat same driver yet the availability of two different rope compounds ??? Wait ! Digresss..

There was a time in the southern region when a potential regional LOC had to have two lakes to facilitate Regionals.

111 men 3 skiers at the 93 southern regionals..

 

I guess my question is the road to the big show is pretty easy in today's 3 event sport, why are they so thinly attended in today's championship level???

I know juniors attendance is up which is a good however the age group skiers are thin.

Rankings list ideology does not help when a state or regional tournament is just another rankings event in many skiers eyes. There was a also a time when state/regional championships had prestige in their accomplishments.

I don't know of any other sport where a competitor can advance to the next level without ever having to face an opponent on the same playing field.

" i ski against myself ! " ?? "Skiing against my rankings list at my set up tournament with my set up driver and oh wait! Got shure path in the boat that makes legit fir rankings score!!

 

In Hortons case I think that there should be Regional as well as state competition required however I also think that this organization would greatly benefit with a overall regional re districting with a few more regions added. Yes another words split up the western, Midwest and southern regions. Or allow for multiple national qualifiers in each state and region on multiple weekends leading up to the nationals.

Closer to home qualifiication opportunity would increase national participation greatly i would think.

A great leader in this sports industry said the problem with awsa is they refuse to reinvent themselves and change. They keep doing same stupid shit they did 20 years ago... .

Nothings changed!!

 

[RazorRoss3]

In terms of devaluing regionals, doesn’t it devalue regionals to have skiers already qualified for nationals regardless of regional performance?

 

Raise the qualification standard for regionals and make it the only access route to nationals. Then split up the big regions and drop the entry fee so it is in line with other tournaments instead of double. That would make going to regionals make sense in terms of time and money, it would make it more prestigious in itself, and it would alleviate the frustration of it feeling like a hoop to jump through.

 

Or

 

Drop the regional requirement because it’s an expensive tournament, the travel costs are very real, and it’s hard to work back to back weekends of expensive time consuming tournaments especially if you’re already “qualified” for nationals pending going through the gates on your opener in regionals.

[skierjp]

I also think having the Regionals and Nationals so close together is a deterrent. It has to be a strain on skiing families that have to spend the whole week to get everyone skied. 4 or 5 vacation days at Regionals then Nationals, that’s a potential of burning up to 10 vacation days.

Also, school starts here in Central Florida August 10th the same time as Nationals!!!

[jayski]

@Jody_Seal nails it

 

"A great leader in this sports industry said the problem with awsa is they refuse to reinvent themselves and change."

 

this isn't inclusive to AWSA

 

I think the problem is generally value based, currently the "value" of going to states/regional/nationals is not appropriate for the general membership, so what would have to happen to attain a general positive "value" for a majority of skiers?

 

more than one round of skiing is a easy one we can all agree on...

 

what else would bring "value"

[AdamCord]

@jayski Nationals could add value by becoming more of an Expo event than just a competition.

 

If we chose sites where there are more than 3 lakes, like Okeeheelee or Bakersfield, ski and boat companies could have time slots where people could check out and drive/try the latest gear. This would give the sponsors more of a reason to invest in the event.

 

We could also make the US Open bigger and put more of a spotlight on it, giving people a chance to watch the best skiers compete in the evenings. Schedule the US Open so it's spread out over maybe 3 evenings, and especially make sure it's when the kids are there so they have something to get excited about and aspire to, and give them a chance to get pictures and autographs with the top pros.

 

Lastly make it more of a social event, with food/beer served in the evenings when the US Open rounds are being held. Give people a reason to hang out and enjoy the spectacle of the events, talk about the skiing they did in the day, the ski they got to try, or the jump Freddy just made, all over a beer with friends. That's an event I would want to go to.

[mike_mapple]

You should have to qualify for Nationals, if anyone can go its not a special event. I think if you get rid of Regional, you need to have some other type of events you should have to go to in order to qualify. If not it takes away from those who do work hard in order to get to Nationals, and if its just an event anyone can enter, it takes away from the winners, and the hard work they put in to get there.

 

however....as someone who typically is at nationals to make sales, I want everyone to come!

 

[buechsr]

 

As I proposed in another thread on this issue, if the goal of the current system is to ensure strong regionals numbers, which stimulates participation in local events throughout the season to acquire scores to qualify for regionals and nationals, but comes at the expense of the most complete field possible at nationals because 2 of 3 weeks are consumed by both, perhaps A solution is to allow people who have skied x number of events skip regionals. For example, 6, with 3 different sites required. Some people would ski 6 anyway, and regionals, and nationals, which is great. BUT, if someone skied 6 events (or more) they've demonstrated the requisite commitment to supporting events, and if their average were high enough, could go to nationals and skip regionals. This avoids the problem with someone skiing one event, getting a score, taking the 10% penalty, and just showing up at nationals without supporting events along the way. It also ensures that if someone has demonstrated a commitment to multiple events, that they're not precluded from nationals if they have a financial, schedule, or geographical barrier to regionals.

 

In essence, either strongly support your region's tournaments throughout the season or you need to come to regionals. Seems to check multiple boxes to me.

[MrJones]

 

I believe Regionals should stay. Mainly as it and Nationals are the only ones that most of have a chance to compete in this as a "sport". There are tournaments all summer that allow you to participate in the "activity" of tournament waterskiing. There is not a thing wrong with that. Especially early on in the addiction as you need to chase ratings and PB's. Great to see friends and hang out as well.

 

After a few years (or decades....) PBs are hard to come by. The adrenaline rush of being in the stack on the dock when there are placements on the line is special. I'd hate to loose one the few opportunities for that.

[LLUSA]

Can’t believe @Horton spent $3000 at regionals. You could have flown to southern regionals for $250 each (ATL) then rental car hotel was 100 a night so your out of there for less than a $1000. As for someone who has put on six regionals I think it’s important we have them for those that haven’t reached nationals yet

[Horton]

@LLUSA 3 people. Had to be fun for 7 year and 23 year old. Camping on site made the trip but I way over paid for the RV.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@LLUSA you have to factor in Horton’s liquor bill. Seems he got out cheap this year.

[jjackkrash]

The kids in our Lake Gang were just talking today about how much they love Regionals. My boy is pumped to go next year. (I heard rumor it might be in Dirt Linda so that will be awesome!).

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@Horton yeah but an RV on site is by far the best way to go.

[klindy]

I’m the Southern Region this year there was exactly ONE OM slalom skier and exactly ONE OM jumper. Read that again — the region with by far the most Open skiers had almost no one show up. On the same weekend of the Regionals there was no “pro” event anywhere in the US. Point is, eliminate the requirement to go to Regionals and no one will come. These are the same skiers that get an automatic Senior judge rating for their abilities on the water.

 

I get it about the costs and the time requirements. But it is where all the core skiers actually have a chance to compete. It’s also a social event as @Horton experienced.

 

The model DOES need to be reinvented. But even in this short thread there are wide ranging ideas of what the Nationals and Regionals needs to be - elite and competitive, lots of people, social event, showcase for new products and sponsors. Which path should we take???

 

The basic premise makes sense. But it’s become too hard to commit to attend both. As @Bruce_Butterfield mentioned, out-of-the-box thinking like multiple regional sites on the same weekend would make it EASIER to attend. Not sure if it’s the right answer or not but probably worth a try. Regardless of the answer or path, we need MORE people participating and not less (aggregate numbers). Solutions which exempt or eliminate participation seems counter intuitive.

 

This year there will be a US Open at the Nationals. Look at the numbers and who will ski. I’m positive it will be entertaining and a great event but almost none skied at their respective regionals where the demographic that could most appreciate them attends. Seems like a disconnect to me.

 

As for skier entry fees, those are set by the sponsoring club and, ultimately, approved by awsa. If only one club bids on the tournament, guess what kind of leverage there is? The idea is it should be a competitive bidding process, it’s not really.

[brettmainer]

The root problem is that this is a declining sport. @Jody_Seal mentioned the number of skiers at an early 90s regionals. I think there was 80 of us, certainly 60+ in M2 at the 99 Nationals. There used to be 4 or more tournaments with 100 entrants each weekend in Sac any given weekend. Now it is one area tournament per weekend with only 40 or so skiers. 5x less tournament skiers per weekend. Nationals had way higher entry requirements, more participants, and a long list of skiers who wished they qualified and could go. It is a grassroots problem, not a formatting problem.

[OldGuysRule]

I don't know about declining numbers! The Mid West Regionals wrapped up today with a larger number of skier than in the past 2 years. An earlier post stated that the Regionals were a social event. I have to agree as I got to see and talk to many mid westerners that I've seen over the past few years. Perhaps the central mid west location for the Liquid Edge Mid West Regionals was one reason for increased attendance. One of the most exciting events was the Open Mens on Saturday. Nate Smith and Cale Burdick fought it out with Nate finishing on the top step. More interesting was the history shared by these two top notch people...they both began their skiing careers together on little Champion Lake in McCordsville, Indiana. Cale has since become a Michigan resident but still has "Hoosier" roots and sometimes skis Indiana tournaments. "Go Hoosiers" at NationalsQ

 

[Broussard]

@OldGuysRule Nationals are in the Midwest for the first time since 2018...

 

The region where Nationals is held sees an uptick in the number of skiers at regionals.

[LeonL]

@buechsr has an interesting idea. Choose either go to several tournaments or go to Regionals. Again, the question is asked (see @klindy post) why do Open skiers get a pass on Regionals?