Regionals if you aren't in your region

[kmenard]

My son's goal this year was to make Nationals. He is going to be at a ski school in NC when the North East is holding their regionals (where he would compete in the majority of his tournaments), but will be in NC when that region is holding theirs. 

Is he just SOL?

[dave2ball]

I believe he can ski but it will be for placement only. He will not be eligible for any medals.   

[LeonL]

Is he working ski school or just attending for a week or so?  Might make a difference but probably not.  As @dave2ball said, no placement permitted but will get the regional requirement for Nationals covered.

Contact your regional  EVP.

[kmenard]

Working at a ski school, but only 3 weeks.

[lpskier]

I’ll bet that it is significantly easier to get to Avon than Tuscaloosa unless you are riding with other people from the ski school. 

[Kelvin]

Does he need to place at regionals to qualify for nationals or does he have the scores to qualify, but just needs to ski regionals?

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

4.03 Regional Tournament Qualifications
A. General: Each Region shall determine the required qualifications for its own Regional Tournament.
1. In any year, a skier shall be qualified to enter only one Regional Tournament for placement. A skier shall ski for placement in the Region where he does more than half of his tournament skiing during the ten weeks prior to the Regional Tournament, but has the option to return to his Region of legal residence to ski for placement.
15
2. If this rule is clearly inequitable, the Regional Executive Vice Presidents of the affected Regions may correct the situation at the request of the skier prior to July 16 immediately preceding Nationals. EVP’s from the Regions involved must be in agreement.
3. If the skier has not done more than half his skiing in the ten-week period in any single Region, he shall ski in the Region in which he has skied most. If a skier is in doubt as to the Region in which he is qualified to ski, he shall present all the facts to the Regional Executive Vice President in the Region in which he has legal residence prior to July 16th immediately preceding Nationals and the Regional Executive Vice President’s decision shall be final. If there is any question regarding a particular skier’s Region, the Executive Vice President is required to rule based on the legal residence of the skier. This may be accomplished with the information contained in the USA-WSWS membership database. A skier skiing “out of Region”, based on the ten-week rule, may thereby satisfy the requirement to compete in a Regional Tournament to qualify for the National Tournament (Rule 4.02.A), and may ski for rankings only. He may not ski for Regional placement.

[unksskis]

When can we drop the Regional requirement for those already qualified for Nationals? 

[dave2ball]

@unksskis I don’t see that happening. Although I agree with you and open skiers have that option if that rule occurred the regionals would just be another tournament.  It would give another 5 skiers the shot at qualifying  which grows the sport, it will not happen.  

[lpskier]

Regionals are the “big dance” for the majority of skiers. I’d vote against any rule change that diminishes the regional tournament experience for those that don’t go to Nationsls. In fact, there is no longer a rational basis for giving open skiers a pass. It used to be that the pro tour would have events most weekends, leaving open skiers the choice of Nationals or earning a living. Masters skiers are pissed that open can skip and they can’t. Open skiers should have to go to regionals just like anyone else, in my opinion, as it would enhance everyone else’s Regionals experience and it would treat open skiers like everyone else. 

[Drago]

@lpskier while I basically agree with you, and Open should be near the middle of Regionals to  give "fans" better odds of seeing the show, an unintentional consequence is the incredible burden that puts on the LOC (half a dozen cameras, 25 judges per buoy, chief judges from half way around the world, paid drivers...). As usual, I’m being slightly sarcastic, but, am I?

[lpskier]

@Drago No one says you have to run Open as an R. Regionals offer an Open division now. It’s just that few Open skiers participate, typically three eventers who aren’t Open  in all three events, or who have children that ski. Run Open as an L and it takes no more officials than any other event. 

[unksskis]

@lpskier I’m having difficulty understanding your reasoning.  The sheer fact that the only reason qualified Nationals skiers attend Regionals is because its required does diminish the quality of Regionals, as well as the potential for placement/qualification and experience for those whose “big dance” it is.  What is the benefit of an already qualified Nationals skier attending Regionals? 

[jcamp]

"... the only reason qualified Nationals skiers attend Regionals is because its required ..."

@unksskis not true for everyone. I attend regionals because it is the most competitive and fun tournament I ski in all year. I am not "in the mix" so to speak at Nationals, but very much am so at Regionals and have even found myself on the podium a couple times. Nationals may in fact be the more important tournament and have the most skiers, but to me Regionals is my "biggest" tournament of the year and I gear all my training toward it. 

[dave2ball]

Keeping this requirement just adds costs to families. For myself I have to fly to Alabama 300.00 hotel 150.00 car 100.00 entry can’t remember  but these costs add up. A lot of money for an 8 minute ride and maybe a medal. If I did not have to attend regionals it would be a short drive to west palm plus a hotel  and entry   
if they changes the rule I believe more people or families would attend the nationals   

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by dave2ball

[Jody_Seal]

the national championship is and should remain the pinical of our sport outside of the world championships.

getting there should not be done via some no pressure score from two class c tournaments or in a set up back yard record tournament. the championship level should be based on besting ones opponent or opponents on the field of play on a given day.. every successful sport has a pyramid approach to the finals. local,State,region and national or something of that nature.

the current entitled ideology in this sport continues to permeate. Yes Open/elite level skiers should have to ski "A" Regionals to participate at nationals. notice I said "A" regionals. one area where we fall short is applying such a requirement where it truly benefits  this level of skier or optimizes their desire to win a competition. I also believe that in order to ski under the US flag or on a US team one should be required to attend the US nationals to be eligible at world level championships.

 

[unksskis]

@jcamp so it’s the responsibility of those “in the mix” for Nationals to make Regionals worth it to you?  I would say in most cases/divisions at Regionals it is a few Nationals qualified skiers skiing as required, and maybe a couple additional skiers with a major discrepancy in-between.  Very rarely is there this days of old where it’s giving Level 6-7 skiers a chance to ski vs Level 8-9, and frankly why should that be an expectation. What is the value (to Nationals qualified skiers) in requiring them to ski Regionals?  
 

Are you qualified for Nationals, and/or if you were to be would you attend?  If no, why not? 

[unksskis]

@Jody_Seal while I understand your perspective, that requires too much change to the system.  If anything, qualifying for Nationals via local tournaments supports the local/grassroots level which is necessary to sustain and grow the competitive sport.  Keep in mind placing at Nationals removes this qualification requirement, however one must still attend Regionals.  Requiring Regionals attendance, for those already qualified for Nationals, is not necessary to sustain the sport, and as @dave2ball indicates, a major burden and cost to many.  

[jcamp]

1 hour ago, unksskis said:

@jcamp so it’s the responsibility of those “in the mix” for Nationals to make Regionals worth it to you?  I would say in most cases/divisions at Regionals it is a few Nationals qualified skiers skiing as required, and maybe a couple additional skiers with a major discrepancy in-between.  Very rarely is there this days of old where it’s giving Level 6-7 skiers a chance to ski vs Level 8-9, and frankly why should that be an expectation. What is the value (to Nationals qualified skiers) in requiring them to ski Regionals?  
 

Are you qualified for Nationals, and/or if you were to be would you attend?  If no, why not? 

I am just saying that not everyone skis regionals only because they have to, and removing the requirement would certainly be a negative impact to regionals, a tournament that I suspect I am not alone in considering the highlight of my year. 

In the eastern region Mens 3 and 4 realistically go about 10 skiers deep so it makes for a competitive event. 

Yes, I am qualified to ski Nationals and plan to this year. I have missed the past two nationals (covid, family, etc.) but had a streak going of I think 6 or 7 in a row before covid hit. 

[PatM]

I agree with @jcamp Regionals are my highlight of the year for the same reasons he stated.  I usually don't go to Nationals although I qualify every year.  This year will be the second time in over 15 years that I will be going to Nationals.  I love Regionals because I compete against the best of my region.  Part of the reason the best is there is because of the requirement to ski Regionals.  If I podium or God willing someday win Regionals it would be hollow if the best were not there.

[jjackkrash]

The kids love Regionals.  Whatever makes the tourney better is better for the kids and the sport.  In my opinion.  

[Horton]

I have long advocated for a change to this structure. The structure we have now dates back to a completely different national culture and economic climate.  As membership is low and ageing it seems like we should be looking for ways to reorganize the sport to keep or grow what membership we have. Not changing because "this is the way we have always done it" is like playing the violin while the titanic sinks. 

It is a big ask for families to attend two fly away events per summer. For me, this year Regionals is a 2 1/2 hour drive so Nationals is a lot more reasonable & we are going.  It is still a financial commitment. If Regionals was also a fly away ( Washington or Colorado ) I would likely stay home and ski. This is not ideal for the health of the sport.

I have long advocated that if State Championships replaced Regionals as a Nationals qualifier it makes Nationals a lot more economical for a lot of skiers. I know the arguments against this ( some states are too small, Regionals is a revenue stream for some sites, there are not enough judges, AND "this is not the way we have always done it").  

[lpskier]

@unksskis I adopt @jcamp ‘s statements above. He laid out my reasoning accurately. 

[unksskis]

@jcamp @lpskierand @PatM I appreciate your dialog.  Given the value you see it adding for yourselves having it being required for upper level skiers, like yourselves, but that regularly attend Nationals, if these same skiers decide to NOT ski Regionals because they are not going to Nationals due to the requirement, additional cost, travel, burden, etc, would you agree that is devaluing Regionals just the same?  I think it would be interesting to see how many Level 8-9 skiers don’t go to Regionals because they’re not going to Nationals, compared to those that go to Regionals but not Nationals even though they are qualified. 

[lpskier]

@Horton I have also advocated splitting up the regions to make Regionals a more local tournament. I can drive in one day to any regional site in the Eastern Region. You guys in the west can not, and i agree that places a significant financial burden on you. To me, the solution is to make the regions (or at least the West and maybe Midwest) smaller and the Regionals more accessible 

[Horton]

@lpskier what about the skier from Miami when regionals is in Kentucky? 

[Jody_Seal]

i happen to agree that the Regional areas need to be restructured  and remapping. sadly those in power of the organization are Full on A type personality and will run the organization into the ground before they let go of their territory. mostly run by angry old people. 710 miles Miami to Pensacola,  Florida alone could be classified as a region! 

on another note. one only has to take a on line look at upcoming tournament entry's and one will find pockets, particularly in the Midwest where tournament entry's are full and mostly juniors.. these places must be doing something right!

[Horton]

That is great news about the Mid West. At 53 years old I am a Jr skier in California. 

[lpskier]

@Horton Yeah, Miami to Paducah is 16 hours in the car. Maybe Kentucky gets wrapped into one of the new Midwest regions. But not Tennessee. Southern Region needs Kirby Whetsel. 

[kmenard]

2 hours ago, Horton said:

is like playing the violin while the titanic sinks. 

 

Too soon man...too soon.

[buechsr]

3 hours ago, Horton said:

I have long advocated for a change to this structure. The structure we have now dates back to a completely different national culture and economic climate.  As membership is low and ageing it seems like we should be looking for ways to reorganize the sport to keep or grow what membership we have. Not changing because "this is the way we have always done it" is like playing the violin while the titanic sinks. 

It is a big ask for families to attend two fly away events per summer. For me, this year Regionals is a 2 1/2 hour drive so Nationals is a lot more reasonable & we are going.  It is still a financial commitment. If Regionals was also a fly away ( Washington or Colorado ) I would likely stay home and ski. This is not ideal for the health of the sport.

I have long advocated that if State Championships replaced Regionals as a Nationals qualifier it makes Nationals a lot more economical for a lot of skiers. I know the arguments against this ( some states are too small, Regionals is a revenue stream for some sites, there are not enough judges, AND "this is not the way we have always done it").  

@horton, out of true interest, can you offer a history lesson as to when this current structure started and what preceded it?  I'll hazard a guess that nationals qualification was totally (or almost) score based, and that regionals were dying?  

 

[Horton]

@buechsr before we had the National ranking lists it was all performance standards and or Regional placement. When ever the rankings lists came out ( 1990s??? ) we moved to the current system. 

Besides the ranking list as a qualifier the other big difference was the number of people trying to get into Nationals. When the sport was bigger it was a HUGE deal for many to just qualify. The standards were high. Now roughly 50% of anyone who skis tournaments is qualified for Nationals. 

I very much like Regionals as an event and look forward to attending when I can but if eliminating it or changing the rules means more skiers at Nationals then we should look very hard at that. 

 

[bojans]

18 hours ago, Jody_Seal said:

i happen to agree that the Regional areas need to be restructured  and remapping. sadly those in power of the organization are Full on A type personality and will run the organization into the ground before they let go of their territory. mostly run by angry old people. 710 miles Miami to Pensacola,  Florida alone could be classified as a region! 

on another note. one only has to take a on line look at upcoming tournament entry's and one will find pockets, particularly in the Midwest where tournament entry's are full and mostly juniors.. these places must be doing something right!

@Jody_Seal The gang at Stillwater and Ski Wisconsin are doing an amazing job bringing kids into the sport and tournaments. Being just a few miles over the boarder we (are very lucky to) have been adopted by the Wisconsin crew and just completed a a 2 day Jr clinic with a number of new faces.

With a number of these families being new to the tournament world I think @Horton's point of putting less of a financial and time strain is even more important to further engage these new families. 

[buechsr]

13 hours ago, Horton said:

@buechsr before we had the National ranking lists it was all performance standards and or Regional placement. When ever the rankings lists came out ( 1990s??? ) we moved to the current system. 

Besides the ranking list as a qualifier the other big difference was the number of people trying to get into Nationals. When the sport was bigger it was a HUGE deal for many to just qualify. The standards were high. Now roughly 50% of anyone who skis tournaments is qualified for Nationals. 

I very much like Regionals as an event and look forward to attending when I can but if eliminating it or changing the rules means more skiers at Nationals then we should look very hard at that. 

 

Can you describe distinction between "performance standards" and usage of current rankings lists?  Was that an objective score that didn't fluctuate year over year as depending on the scores set by the others in one's division?

[Horton]

@buechsr in the old days there was a score to beat known as an EP rating. It was set a maybe a year in advance. If you achieved your EP you were in nationals.

Now with the ranking lists we have a population percentiles. So to make Nationals most divisions need to be level 8. ( something like that )

make sense?

[buechsr]

36 minutes ago, Horton said:

@buechsr in the old days there was a score to beat known as an EP rating. It was set a maybe a year in advance. If you achieved your EP you were in nationals.

Now with the ranking lists we have a population percentiles. So to make Nationals most divisions need to be level 8. ( something like that )

make sense?

YEs and that's what I recalled though didn't participate in it, but very aware how it works now.

So in your opinion, make the "auto qualifying" scores lower to qualify for nationals, to allow more to skip regionals?

 

[Horton]

No. I think probably the best solution is to rearrange regionals. States like California and Florida would have a state titles. Smaller states would band together to form smaller regional events. Odd states like Alaska would be allowed to have their own state titles even though there's not many skiers because it's so expensive to travel all the way back to the 48. That way we would keep at least some of the goodness that is the current regional system.

Then I think allowing open skiers to skip regionals should be eliminated. That's an entitlement we gave them in a different era. 

lastly, I think nationals should be rearranged around a 3-day weekend like Labor Day. Perhaps running the older retirement age divisions on Thursday or Friday. The idea there is to allow people with traditional jobs to miss as few work days as possible and still attend with their children.

It would blow up tradition and likely blow some minds, but we could even do nationals 4th of July weekend. Currently Nationals conflicts with the beginning of school for many kids. The one group we need to keep involved in water skiing is the children. We are rapidly aging into a sport that is mostly comprised of retirees. That's pretty much a death sentence.

[buechsr]

So keep regional participation requirement for all but the most skier-dense states?  Florida obviously has its own state titles already.  If I'm understanding correctly you're proposing FL skiers (and CA, TX, maybe a couple others) check the box of regional participation (for purposes of nationals qualification) but everyone else needs to go to a regionals?  I'm trying to follow how redrawing regional maps eases the travel burdens for anyone not in skier-dense states? 

I ask that with an open mind.

Edited June 21, 2023 by buechsr

[Jody_Seal]

American power boat assn. 

APBA.

[Horton]

@buechsr not exactly. I'm saying everybody has to ski a qualifier. in big states it's a state titles. In smaller states it makes more sense to join forces and have it be a multi-state event but essentially everybody has the same requirement. everybody  has a national's qualifier event that is most likely driving distance from home.

[buechsr]

So what you're essentially proposing, again if I'm understanding, is the creation of more but smaller regions, with the benefit being that it makes, in theory, all regional tourneys drivable and doesn't require skier-dense states to leave their states? 

Just for fun of the discussion, what do you do with the problem that not all divisions/events have full fields as it is now?  Doesn't regionals placement get watered down?

[Horton]

@buechsr

yeah you get my concept. As far as the divisions, I think that is the sacrifice we make to make the event more accessible to more people. There is no perfect solution. Again, imagine being a skier in Miami and finding out that regionals is in Kentucky or being a skier in northern Washington and finding out that regionals is in Bakersfield.

[lpskier]

Everyone has to ski a regionals. But California and Florida can each be a region. 
 

I think the last time I had an EP might have been M4 and I want to say it was 6@35. When we went to ranking list averages for Nationals qualifications, it became easier, not harder and not the same, to qualify. Maybe like by four buoys. And the last nationals I attended based on my EP rating, there were maybe 140 skiers at Nationals in my division. Last year, we were down to maybe 45. I think the other 95 guys were seeing their proctologist that day…

[LeonL]

And you had to have 2 EP performances for Nationals.  Only 1 Masters for Regionals.  I think that that type of qualification was still in effect as late as 2000, maybe later.

[kc]

1 hour ago, LeonL said:

And you had to have 2 EP performances for Nationals.  Only 1 Masters for Regionals.  I think that that type of qualification was still in effect as late as 2000, maybe later.

When  I qualified for my first Nationals in September 1976, you only needed one EP. It later was changed to 2 from class C tournaments, or still 1, if done in a record tournament.