Why don't all rounds of a multi-round tournament count towards AWSA rankings

[PurdueSkier]

According to AWSA

 

"Skiers will be ranked based on the average of their top three tournament scores in slalom, tricks, jumping and overall. For tournaments having multiple rounds only the best single round score will be taken for that tournament. "

 

Just curious on the logic of this. The ranking list takes the best 3 scores, of the best scores from each tournament. Why not just let all rounds count. They are already recorded, just not included in the average. This comes into play if you don't have 3 good different tournament scores or if you have one really good day at a multi-round tournament and don't get full credit for your efforts.

 

 

[webbdawg99]

I think there are several reasons. First, its to encourage participation. If you could go to one tournament and get all three scores, you may be less likely to attend other tournaments. Second, it shows more consistency of performance when your score is achieved on different days, at different sites, with different conditions and drivers. My $0.02

[Horton]

It also means that if one event is fishy... it is only 1/3 of you average

[Horton]

My personal USAWS average pretty honestly shows my skiing level. I think the current system works well.

[Ilivetoski]

.

[klindy]

@Ilivetoski‌ I assume that's sarcasm.

[klindy]

@PurdueSkier‌ the reasons listed above are the primary reasons why only a single score per tournament counts.

[PurdueSkier]

Thanks for the input. I see the point related to a "fishy" tournament or score but I overall dont think it shows or promotes consistency. It does mean you have to do it on different days/conditions, but it also means I can ski 3 rounds, blow 2 of them, and still put up a good score. That doesnt promote consistency. I also don't think it impacts participation. I hope we are all not skiing tournaments "just" for the rankings and having multiple rounds "count" might actually increase participation in multi-round events.

 

I don't disagree that for most (including me)it probably does show a pretty good representation of level.

[LeonL]

I kinda took @PurdueSkier‌ to mean that all rounds of ALL tournaments skied should be averaged. There could still be a requirement that you ski three tournaments in order to avoid penalty. That would be a true average. I've had some bad tournaments, where I ski bad all three rounds. They just get thrown out at the bottom of the list. Of they were within the average it would tell my complete story.

[Horton]

I totally chase tournaments to get my 3 score average up. That is the game I play.

 

There is very little competition in So California at my level. One guy at my level and one that CRUSHS everyone.

 

I have to go 5 hours north or south for more literal competition. I ski for me and I measure myself on the ranking lists.

[webbdawg99]

Again, back to the participation theme. If ALL your scores were averaged, you may be less likely to participate in more tournaments at the prospect of hurting your ranking score. However, under the current system, you can only HELP your score, not hurt it.

[PurdueSkier]

My thought was not that ALL scores be averaged, but that all scores be eligible for the 3 score ranking average (maybe this becomes a 5 score average or something different).

[disland]

every score should not count because many times you may go to a tournament that gets blown out or his hard to ski at. You wouldnt want people not skiing just becuase its windy to protect their average

[Horton]

@PurdueSkier‌ what is the advantage?

[MillerTime38]

@PurdueSkier‌ save your breath (or fingers from typing) people only ski tournaments to see how high they can get their rating. That is what I leaned after posting something similar to your suggestion.

[6balls]

Give me enough chances at 3 rnd tourneys and maybe I get 3 scores into 39 while missing the majority of my 38's (which is the case). In the rankings I would compare favorably to the guy that runs 2@39 virtually every time his ski touches the water...but he's the far better skier.

 

Have to score it somehow, though, and I see some advantages for the current system and don't necessarily have a better idea.

 

 

[Chef23]

I think of your ranking average as similar to a golf handicap. A golf handicap isn't representative of your average score but rather your best scores or potential as a golfer when you play well. I think your ranking average is the same way. Representative of your ability as a skier in a good set. I am fine with it the way it is.

[eleeski]

Historically, the rankings list was for seeding at Regionals and Nationals. Then it was assigned more importance as the primary means of qualifying for Nationals. Only very recently did AWSA publish rankings list champions and send them commemorating certificates. It certainly seems that AWSA is headed the opposite direction from @PurdueSkier‌ proposes.

 

Conditions at Nationals are typically very good. The best drivers, equipment and judges should lead to the highest scores. Weighting the best scores in qualifying may be the best seeding technique. Usually one of the top seeds wins so the process seems to work.

 

Publishing some sort of consistency ranking could be useful. That data is sort of available by choosing a competitor and looking at the all scores feature. If they skied a bunch of tournaments and got only a few good scores, they might be a bit more vulnerable.

 

Still, if skiing more tournaments can only improve your score, you are more likely to enter more tournaments. A good thing.

 

Eric

 

Disclaimer: I am very good at working the rankings system. I like it!

[PurdueSkier]

Good comments, thanks. @Horton‌ it isn't so much an advantage, as it is a lack of disadvantages. For those skiers who ski lots of tournaments, averaging the top 3 or 5 scores from all tournaments all rounds will only increase your ability to increase your average and ranking. For those of us that don't get to ski as many as we would like, it allows multiple scores from the same tournament to count and we aren't hit with a penalty for too few scores. For those who ski lots of tournaments, it probably wouldn't change your overall ranking by much (assuming you are a pretty consistent skier). For those that only ski a few tournaments a year it might be a better representation. This also rewards skiers that ski well multiple times in the same tournament. If you have 2 or 3 good rounds, they all count.

[Horton]

There are no perfect solutions in life

[PurdueSkier]

Maybe not but some may be better than others.

[ToddL]

The only perfect solution is Perfect Stack which is why it is so elusive.

[klindy]

@PurdueSkier‌ we can certainly look at different options. Maybe it's the top "x" score regardless of where or maybe "no more than two". Perhaps we need to use more scores (5, 10, top half) or whatever. Perhaps we use the top three and find a way to "average in" the rest as some kind of 'reality adjuster' to better reflect your true average.

 

Point is the committee is open to recommendation. Contact your committee representative with any suggestions. In the Midwest it's Jeff Surdej. For a complete list look here - http://www.usawaterski.org/pages/divisions/3event/AWSACommittees.pdf

 

We have an active discussion on a couple topics working now with plans to present a few committee recommendations at the mid-winter board meeting.

 

I look forward to your suggestions.

[ToddL]

@klindy - "Perhaps we use the top three and find a way to 'average in' the rest as some kind of 'reality adjuster' to better reflect your true average. "

 

OK, this is interesting... I like where it is headed, but a tweak.

 

Keep the current method. Let's call that result the Top Avg Score.

Then, let's throw out the bottom 3 scores as a blowout tourney control. With the remaining scores from all rounds at all tournaments, calculate the Typical Average Score.

 

Now, calculate the Final Score as: [(Top Avg Score * 3) + Typical Average Score] / 4

 

This weights the current Top Avg Score 3 times against the 1 time of the Typical Average Score, before averaging them together to get the Final Score.

 

It keeps the benefits of the current solution with weighted impact. It adjusts for typical average. And, it excludes the bottom scores to protect against a few blowout scores.

 

The Final Score should slightly raise consistently skilled skiers in the rankings and slightly lower the fluke PB skiers back closer to their average but not that much.

[Dusty]

The rules were written that multple rounds in one tournament is still only one tournament. You can only have a max three rounds per tournament (nd I think only two per weekend at a single site.) With record events things get even further restricted. One thought to consider- say all three rounds did make three submittable scores, and say the second two rounds got so blown out everyone was mopping rounds 2 and 3... You'd likely not want a couple of 0-6 scores to 'average' in with your best- especially if you had only a couple scores to use...

[LeonL]

@ToddL, your formula has some merit, however it may be beyond my math skills. It's definitely beyond my ability to explain. I have enough trouble explaining the current system to some skiers.

[Horton]

The current system is simple. Are very many skiers really unhappy with it?