Change to Nationals format? Division 1 and Division 2?

[Horton]

I have heard rumors of a Division 1 and Division 2 Nationals from a couple of sources. I understand it might happen in 2015.

 

I love the idea but my guess is the changes will not go as far as I would propose.

 

I propose the following:

Division 1 Nationals is open to Level 9 skiers and above. Everyone skis in age divisions. Eliminate Open and Masters divisions for Nationals. If possible it is a multi round event. As with the old model of EP ratings simply qualifying for Division 1 is an honor.

 

Division 2 Nationals is open to Level 6 though 8 skiers. If possible it is a multi round event.

 

I would also eliminate the requirement of attending Regionals. If Nationals is the the big event why do we make skiers travel (spend the money) to travel to regionals? Or spin 180 make regionals the big event and Nationals small. One way or the other.

[ntx]

With the exception of m 3-5 slalom most other events and division won't have more than a half dozen skiers at best in level 9. So you have a event with 3 or 4 skiers. If separate tournament, are they at the same site and time, or are we adding additional cost for families with skiers above and below level 9?

What about a skier in level 9 trick and jump but level 8 slalom? Do you have to ski two national tournaments?

Is the division 2 champ really the best in the nation?

[lpskier]

I have qualified for Nationals every year since I qualified the first time with an EP. Unless I am injured or have another "good excuse," I attend every year. I volunteer and I have judged. Although my average tanked this year due to missing the second half of the season for health reasons, under normal circumstances and with a normal slalom average between 98 and 99, I am almost a full pass short of Mens 5 level 9 and therefore would no longer qualify for "real" Nationals.

 

I would not attend a D2 Nationals (other than as a parent spectator), and therefore would probably not attend Regionals either, required or not. If I am not going to Nationals, I probably don't care about my ranking list average, so I probably would stop going to most (but maybe not all) tournaments. I guess I would still go to two or three a year at the sites I really like, but I would no longer need scores and therefore no longer go to the sites that aren't "spectacular" in my book. I would let my driving and judges ratings lapse as I would not have to worry about keeping busy at a tournament if I am not going to tournaments, and I wouldn't attend enough tournaments to remain current.

 

My tennis and golf games would improve, and I would have a lot mote free time and free weekends. I wouldn't have to sleep in a tent one or two nights a week, 12 weeks a season. On the other hand, my ranking list average would plummet, giving me an advantage at handicapped events.

 

I would personally find it insulting to be a Nationals level skier one year and, due to a rule change, a D2 skier the next. That rule change would likely end (or at least substantially end) a tournament skiing career that began 44 years ago.

 

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ ok then what? The current model is clearly broken and no one wants to be honest about it. Membership is is a huge nose dive and leadership is not changing.

[Ilivetoski]

@Horton but is changing the layout of how to get to one tournament (which will kill attendance at the other) going to make membership go up? Most tournament level skiers dont go to nationals every year and I feel like the ones who are going to go every year arent the ones who completely dropped membership because they had to go to regionals in order to qualify for nationals.

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ & @Live2ski‌ change is imminent and change is good. As members this is the only place besides the yearly membership meeting where you can debate your opinion. I suggest you thoroughly consider your position and write an editorial. There will be dissenting opinions and I say you should welcome them. Otherwise we simply live under a dictatorial monarchy.

[Horton]

I have no personal stake in the suggestions I made. If have you better suggestions pleae air them here.

[Wish]

Change..yes. This change...not so much based on above comments. On another thread I tossed out the idea of skiing state championship (some states could use a boost in numbers for states) to qualify for Nats (an out of state skier would need perm to ski as an out of state by that state). Regionals would be voluntary both by region and attending but would also qualify a skier if one is held. Somehow get enough upfront set USAWS $$s to hosting sites of Nats so more and diverse sites are encouraged to host and can be established (money saved on new OQ maybe). Get a cookie cutter program managed by highered AWSA staff that do nothing else but focus on Nats yr after yr and attend as on site managers taking as much of the burden off the site owners as the owners see fit (crazy tough job and that person(s) gotta have some serious people skills). Days of Nats... a format change, no idea here, to move them along quicker.

[sunperch]

That would be a hardship for families with kids. If one kid qualified for D1 and another for D2, a family would have to go to 2 Nationals or more likely, not go to Nationals. How would that work for 3 event? D1 for slalom but D2 for trick and jump???

[jcamp]

If the goal is more skiers, I say just lower the requirement to level 7 or 6. I don't buy the argument that it will weaken the level of competition. The top guys are still going to do what they are going to do, there will just be more people watching them (all those level 6 and 7 guys who otherwise wouldn't be there) and instead of placing first out of 35 skiers, they'll place first out of 60. How are those bad things?

[jcamp]

@Wish I don't think using states to qualify for nationals or regionals would work in many but the largest states. For example, I am the only ranked skier in my division in my state, and we don't hold a state championships.

[ntx]

@jcamp‌ this is not a change to grow nationals. This is a change to decrease it so that the slalom gods can have a national with multi rounds. It might be easier to break away and start the national slalom league.

[klindy]

@sunperch‌ the idea is to hold both D1 & D2 Nationals concurrently at the same site. So one travel required for families with one person skiing D1 and another D2. It would not be at different locations.

[ntx]

@klindy. If held concurrently what does this accomplish? You can't have multi rounds due to time constraints. Not sure of the benefit.

[Rpc29]

Why not just keep the nationals qualification requirements the same and eliminate the regionals qualifier (Maybe eliminate regionals all together?). There are a lot of people in my age bracket M2 who can't quite squeeze two big waterski tournament trips into the budget. You might get some better participation out of the M1, W1, M2, W2 age groups.

[thager]

Up the Nats requirements. Make Regionals optional with first three places qualifying for Nats.

[ntx]

@Rpc29‌ there is a large group of the sking community that regional is there big tournament.

[Wish]

@jcamp‌ the deciding factor on states would be up to the region. Have individual state chamoionships or several tied together in one for a qualifier (mini regional). But not both on separate dates. Gives skiers a better chance to qualify and not have to travel greater distances and drop dollars on single round expensive tournaments.

 

 

[gjohnson]

@Horton‌ What exactly is a D1/D2 format change attempting to accomplish?

[eleeski]

My first impression was that this is a ridiculous idea. But the more I think about it, the more merit I see. The details will make or break the plan.

 

D1 and D2 works very well for collegiate skiing. The enthusiasm and pride of D2 qualifiers is real. Same for D2 champions. Same for the bubble qualifiers of D1. Same for the D1 champions. It works!

 

How to get that effect in traditional three event skiing???

 

Eric

[thager]

Everyone is a winner! Good grief! Lets give out trophies for all entries. Ridiculous!!

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ I hear you. You hate the idea. Maybe there are more people like you and we should not make the change and maybe not. FYI the real change will not be what I propose.

 

@‌ntx in my solution the D1 and D2 Nationals happen at the same time an at the same time. Yes the D1 events may be smaller. Is that terrible? Maybe the D1 is E/L/R and D2 is class C. That means the total judging hassle of all of Nationals goes WAY down.

[disland]

I agree with @horton we need to try something different

[ToddL]

College is different than personal skiing.

 

There is a "team" effect that doesn't exist elsewhere. When a team decides it is going to compete at a tournament, the members are "encouraged" to come up with the funds and time to participate. Plus, they are all young and have more flexibility and control over their schedules. (No family, work conflicts.)

 

I just don't think personal skiing and collegiate skiing equate that easily.

[Horton]

@ntx

This is a change to decrease it so that the slalom gods can have a national with multi rounds.

 

That is exactly the opposite of the goal (as I see it). The idea is to take the best skiers and mover them a lake over (literally or figuratively). Then have a more general public Nationals with lower entry requirements. The idea is to appeal to more skiers.

 

And for me personally I would D2 with the goal of qualifying for D1.

 

Would you like the idea better if D1 was Level 8 & 9? Does that change anything or everything?

[ToddL]

Just brainstorming - What if placement at Nationals was a prerequisite of sorts for selection to US World teams? I know of skiers who only go to Regionals in the hopes of placing so as to qualify for Nationals (because they don't possess the ranking requirement). What if participation in Nationals was somehow tied to representing the US in a global arena?

 

[Horton]

Looking at my text messages this morning it looks like I stirred the pot a little with this. TO BE CLEAR I do not know what the format of the 2015 Nationals will actually be but I am pretty sure it will NOT be the proposal I made at the start of this thread.

[ToddL]

What I don't like is the conflict of the ranking list vs. Nationals champions. So, ski "A" is #1 in the list, but skier "B" took first place at Nationals. Who's the best? No definitive answer. I think that the rankings list should be a score based upon a few key performance indicators (KPIs)...

Ranking =

1) Skier's current ranking using current math * .75

2) Skier's national placement * .25

or something similar...

 

If the Nationals placement and the current rankings could be blended into a "Final" rankings list, then only one ski could claim "1st" in the US.

[ToddL]

Last comment for now... How do other countries deal with this? I never hear about drama, issues, conflicts from other countries regarding these types of topics. Maybe they have a solution. Maybe the US should "benchmark" other countries' approaches to rankings, national tournaments, etc.

[lpskier]

@Horton Okay, so what problem do you want to address? Declining membership? Declining entries at Nationals. The fact that Regionals are a pain in the butt for a lot of folks, particularly those that intend to participate at Nationals, and those in the Western Region? I am happy to ponder and offer my opinions and ideas, but I need to know the topic. Your posts above suggest all these topics are on the table. Is that what you intend?

[Ilivetoski]

@Horton I like the idea, just in my mind debate the amount of affect it will have on membership numbers. This would obviously look a lot like collegiate nationals, which I think having teams like Auburn, Clemson, and UCLA who otherwise wouldnt qualify for the tournament, is a good thing. Would it hurt a few egos? Probably. Overall I like and agree with this idea.

 

[skiray]

The problem, as I see it, there is a group of "elite" skiers that deserve an "elite" level Nationals without having to jump through traditional hoops. I'm for it, as a spectator. However, this group/philosophy is a contributing factor to our decline. We need an opportunity to grow the sport.

 

My suggestion. One event for the elite: Super Nationals (you can come up other a better name) Make it big, no entry fee, webcast, etc. Do something to make it elite.

A couple of weeks prior, have Nationals/Regionals/State for everyone. (WITH A TWIST) Make it 3 round 3 event but have it at multiple sites. First round for national placement. We need a way to provide a better experience for the masses. I know the purists hate the idea of have a tournament at 50+ sites. Apparently it could benefit some based on conditions. Big deal. Let's have a tournament that knocks out state, regionals and nationals in one weekend. I would ski at mine in TX and my brother would ski at his in GA. At the end there would be a national score sheet that would combine all the scores for national placement. Financially I'm good. We both have a day to compare our performance. If I want perfect conditions, I travel to Cottonwood... No travel restrictions, just entry limits to be managed by each site. Last thing, make it class C..

 

Elite skiers are awesome. They inspire the sport, but they don't pay the bills. We need more skiers.

 

[MillerTime38]

@lpskier‌ I think @Horton was just throwing an idea out and letting people offer their opinions.

 

Lower the qualifications for nationals and make regionals optional for qualified skiers. Even though regionals would be optional, I would still go if it was close to home as I suspect alot of other skiers would as well and I would go to Nationals every year if this were the case.

 

Then expand on the Big Dawg to include divisions for G3-W2 and W3+ and B3-M2 where the top 8 Nationals scores would qualify you into those divisions. This may help attract more of the level 8-9 skiers in those divisions and it would not really add a whole lot of time for 3 8 skier bracket head to head final.

[eleeski]

We already have a bit of a D1 D2 framework in place - the Open and MM separation out of the age divisions. The details are a bit lacking - nobody is really that happy with how that currently works. But it could work. I'm waiting to see the proposal.

 

I've heard that US Nationals is the world's biggest tournament (still) and Western Regionals is second. We need to lead with our own creativity. Good to see a discussion starting.

 

Eric

[Horton]

@lpskier‌ If my proposal was the model => the idea is to open Nationals to more skiers. What I suggest doing with Level 9 skiers is no different than what we do with Open rated skiers. Let them compete for the big medal and let the rest of the skiers also have a competitive event. Make it more fun.

 

As far as Regionals. Make one event that skiers can budget and plan for. Then make it fun. If that event is Regionals great. If the event is Nationals great. Just do not expect skiers to travel to both.

 

 

My bottom line is the current event holds ZERO appeal to me. I am always happy to promote other models.

[klindy]

Here's my understanding of the current idea. The proposal is oretty straight forward. Generally speaking the goal is to increase the participation at the premier event of the year - the US National Championships. Why more people? To promote participation and make the event more attractive to sponsors and vendors (primarily onsite).

 

To accomplish this adding a "division 2" event run concurrently (meaning literally D2 skiers ski right before D1 skiers) means more "placements"/medals since D1 hands out 3 medals and D2 would hand out 3. The thought is no additional officials or site requirements etc. Qualification requirements for the D1 Nationals would not change including regional placement and previous nationals placement. D2 qualification would be Level 7 skiers only. Alternatively we could simply "lower entry level bar" to include level 7 skiers but that would mean fewer skiers with potential to medal.

 

Some concerns I have include how to handle things like overall. What if a skier is D1 qualified in 1 event and D2 qualified in the other two. Do they qualify for overall in the D1 event, D2 event of neither? Also, logistically you have a mix of 5' and 5.5' jumpers in some events. If the event is run concurrently with D2 skiing first do you raise and lower the ramp multiple times or mix up the participants? Adding 300 skiers to the tournament. WILL increase the burden on officials and WILL increase the time required to pull the event. Not sure that solves the "family problem" of the kids skiing early in the week with mom/dad later.

 

@Horton the current level 9 skiers ARE Open Men/Women and MM skiers. if a skier is qualified their scores show up in the OM/OW/MM divisions ONLY if they actually competed in a tournament in those divisions. So a D1 nationals only incliding level 9 skiers would literally consist of three divisions and exclude the younger and older groups/skiers who can't achieve the OM, OW or MM qualification threshold. Likewise there are very few MM qualified trick or jumpers. So, absent any other changes a level 9 D1 Nationals would be and elitist tournsment primarily for slalom gods. Now if you want to suggest the "top 5% in each age group" or something that would be different.

 

Anyway, Im not offering an opinion on the current proposal here (at least at this point). I would agree that we need to do something different to at least spark some enthusiasm etc. All are good ideas that should at least be considered.

[Horton]

@klindy‌

Thanks for the REAL details.

 

When I read your comments above I told my wife that my "stupendously inaccurate" comments had been corrected. :)

 

My thinking is as follows. Currently the rule for Open and MM divisions means there is no National age group champ because skiers often ski in the group they think they will do best in. I say make all level 9 skiers ski in age divisions or make all level 9 skiers ski in MM or Open. Currently it is a mix and that does not make sense for a number of reasons - not exactly the subject at hand. I think that is a side issue.

 

Would my version make more sense if I said D1 is level 8 & 9? I actually think this is better than what I said at the top of the thread. The idea is to make a more fun event for Level 6-7 skiers. Clearly the prestige would be at D1 but how else do you make the event fun for a skier who is 2 or 3 passes behind first place?

 

[klindy]

@Horton‌ it varies a bit but level 9 is essentially the top 3-5% in an age group (relative to the threshold score for the open/MM divisions and specific age group). Whereas the level 8 (and above) cut off is the 70th percentile skier. Level 7 is the 50th percential etc with the lower levels broken up in 10 percentile groups).

 

Your question is whether it makes sense for a D1 nationals which includes level 8 & level 9. To me that's basically just slightly more restrictive from what we have today. Today s single (or two) event skier needs to obtain a level 8 or above rating to qualify. They could also place at regionals. And for three event skiers they can also qualify as level 8 in overall (the "fourth" event). I analyzed the path to nationals before and, if I recall (I'll correct this later if it's too far off), there were about 10% of the pulls (not participants) that were qualified by some means OTHER than level 8 or above. And the major portion of those who qualify thru regionals etc are from smaller regions or smaller divisions/events.

 

So, I believe, a level 8/9 only Nationals is basically a slightly smaller, 900 instead of 1000 pulls, event. Not sure what that accomplishes other than exclude those "alternative" qualifying skiers which largely affects less populated divisions and three event skiers. I'd also suggest that if you take that "10%" and move them to a D2 event they aren't much more likely to medal there than they would at a D1 event (based on a cursory review of their ranking list scores).

 

So again, what's the goal?? Increasing competition? Increasing participation? Adding people onsite so vendors have more people to attract? Perhaps it's to make more money (for eother AWSA or the host club). Whatever the reason the solution will vary depending on the goal.

[jcamp]

I say just lower it to level 7. I'd rather take 46th at the "real" Nationals than 1st in Div. 2.

[Horton]

The goal is more participation, more competition and more inclusive. We need an "elite" National champion and we need that to mean something but we could also use an event that is fun for the skiers who are 3 passes below the podium. Imagine more of a festival for the level 6 & 7ish skiers.

 

Today the top Level 7 in Men 4 slalom has a score 20 balls below the top skier in the age group. Tell that guy he is qualified & he might go. He shows up for his expensive single ski ride, he gets 50th or 75th place? Why would he come back next year?

 

Forget all my above ideas and answer me this one question: How can we structure an event where the level 6 & 7 skiers find it compelling? In my opinion the current structure might have made sense in 1970 and in 1980 but with crashing membership and participation a National event needs to be compelling to have value.

[Horton]

@klindy‌

Also I want to think you for participating in this thread. I have a feeling some folks want to strangle me today (the day before Christmas).

[Horton]

@lpskier honestly I do not know what the best solution is. I can tell you the sport has been doing the same thing year after year and membership & participation keeps going down. Sometimes I see my role as provocateur. If the result is self examination within the sport then I am doing a good thing. If we just argue and do the same old thing anyway then I am trying to teach a pig to sing.

[klindy]

How can we structure an event where the level 6 & 7 skiers find it compelling?

 

Isn't that the definition of the Regionals for level 6/7 skiers? So we'd have THE Regionals which gives you a shot at the Nationals and we'd have the "D2 Nationals" which is some sort of a nationwide regionals level event? Given that there are 5 regions that means there's a 20% lower chance of scoring s medal than there was at THE Regionals 2/3 weeks earlier.

 

I don't have an answer but I'm struggling with how segregating competitors actually creates more competiion?!

 

What if we use NOPS values to create some uber grouping where anyone of any age can compete with anyone else. How about creating a "Lewis class" (see competitive trapshooting) where you pony up $10 and the pooled funds pays the 80th, 60th and 40th percentile participant (you don't know what score hits until they are all in the score book). Since increased sponsorship (I.e. Money) isn't in the list of desired improvements, why not a multi site nationals where 3-5 sites run concurrent events where you can have a site champion and a "national" champ. Cuts down on travel expense....

 

 

[ntx]

I agree with @klindy. Regionals is the place for the level 5-7. If you wish to eliminate the regional requirements for nationals, then I think you have to eliminate qualifying for national thru regional placement. I strongly disagree with the forcing of level 9 to ski open. The age range can go from B3 on up. Nick Lange is a B3 level 9 jumper. He has to ski against Freddy?? Or Freddy has to ski m3. I also disagree that skiers will only ski in the place where they have the best chance to medal. If I am qualified to ski open I would rather compete against the best and finish last as opposed to winning my age group. Sometimes you do what works best. Level 9 has the option to skip regionals now but you must ski open. I would like to see more of the level 9 ski open. There is some peer pressure starting among some of the level 9 overall skiers to not ski age division.

[eleeski]

@Horton‌ What makes you think that this thread has any effect on why we might want to "strangle" you any more than usual?

 

Giving a skier a chance at the podium IS a big incentive - even if some deride the value of a D2 medal. And the top skiers are not particularly motivated by another medal (Horton?). Balancing that is the challenge.

 

Note that I ski Regionals and Nationals for the social aspects - "some of my best friends waterski".

 

Eric

[Horton]

@ntx I have told the following story so many times that i am embarrassed.

 

In 1993 I skied in M2 Jump. The guy who got first was Pro Tour jumper Mike Heath. I got second and I had an open rating at the time. Jody Johnson took third & got his open rating that day.

 

I would say that Mike and I should have skied Open and gotten last and second to last against Sammy, Carl, Swanson and the boys because we were both Open rated or the Open boys should ski their division. As it was I do not have a National Gold Medal because Mike CHOSE to ski Men 2 and not Open. You could say that Jody did not get the Gold because I CHOSE to ski Men 2. (I am pretty sure Jody has gotten a few golds since then)

 

We see the same thing with MM Slalom every year. Some guys ski MM and some ski age division. Some try to game it and see which will be easier to win that year.

 

I would like to see Open and Master divisions removed from Nationals. If you want to be National Champ => win your age division. I understand that means Freddy jumps in Men3.

[Horton]

@klindy‌ in Bakersfield sometimes we have the guys who run 35 or shorter ski out of our age groups to make the guys who are working on longer line lengths feel less pressure. They get to ski amongst themselves. It does not impact me but hopefully it is more fun for them.

 

In the end all I am promoting is reason for a level 7 guy to go to Nationals. If it is a bad idea it is not my first and really this is not even my idea.

[TylerR]

@Horton‌ I think you have the right idea, but are taking it to the wrong end. What I suggest is a changing of how we run the rankings.

All level 8 skiers and up are required to ski in the open or MM division. No changes suggestions or substitutions. They don't have to ski regionals to qualify for this.

Everyone below this line skis regionals to qualify and then goes on to their age ranked nationals. 3 event skiers who are going to try to ski overall are broken up by their 3 event overall score.

This allows the "elite" pros who dislike having regionals to ski their "elite" event without having a qualifier and allows everyone else to ski their division as normal, with the added bonus of bumping the guys who normally drop down and win age divisions out of the process.

[rayn]

First off, I have never qualified for Nationals. I strive for it and will go the first year I make it, after that - not so sure.

 

My take on this is you can expand the numbers that qualify but that doesn't solve the base problem that people seem to not find enough value in attending as I would after year 1. The numbers will go up but then dwindle again as the same problem exists.

 

I ski tournaments to test myself against myself or exceed my seed. @horton has said it before it is hard to justify a long trip + the $$$ for a one round tourney, when there are so many other tournaments around for us non-elites.

 

How about have Nationals stay the same qualification, but each day run a 2 round class C slalom simultaneously(maybe instead of practice-same or more money to the host site) to increase the value to the skiers. You get to choose any day but skiers whose event is the next day would get preference.

[lpskier]

Okay, much as I hate to admit it, I know Nationals is not just about me. That said, a great Nationals result for me is top half, so I am never contending for a medal. A D2 option could put a Nationals medal within my reach.

 

For me, qualifying for Nationals is the proud achievement. Just making it (although I am comfortably in the middle of the Level 8 pack) is a reward in its self. If the qualifications were lowered, the pride of qualifying would be greatly diminished for me, to the point where I might re-think my decision to participate. I might go some years and stay home others, probably dependent more on social considerations (who else is going) and where it is held. A Nationals Lite medal (D2) for a skier who had skied "real Nationals" just wouldn't be that meaningful, more like a States Medal (those, and Regional medals I have). I think D2 medals at the National Championships would probably diminish the experience for most of the current age group skiers, except those that just want a medal. (I'll come back to this point later.)

 

I think the current Nationals format is fine. If we add a second Nationals Lite tournament to the mix, there may be fewer sites that will be able to host. Adding multiple rounds compounds the problem. My sense is that practice is the only reliable hosting club money maker, and we might grow ourselves out of practice, and thus out of willing sites.

 

A multi-site Nationals will not result in an "On any given day" National Champion. The conditions at some sites will always be superior to the conditions at others. Nationals should be held at one site. While weather conditions throughout the day can change, seeded skiers will still all ski together in their own groupings and the playing field will be as level as it can be. With a multi-site Nationals, there will be controversies that skier X won because Trophy Lakes skis better than Pangaea, where skier y skied, or because it was sunny and calm at Bel Aqua while it was raining with a 30 mph cross wind at Sawmill. Some will argue that 4@39 at site A is as good as 1@41 at site B, and therefore the sites should be handicapped. The forums will be afire all winter. This will be better for SkiFly since we are civil and identified here but we are totally anonymous flame throwers over there. As far as I know, no other sport determines its national champion by holding multiple championships at multiple sites.

 

While I am thinking about it, I don't think it matters one bit if the number one guy or gal on the ranking list isn't the National Champion. Who (other than maybe the loser) cares? Again, I am not aware of any other sport with this dilemma. Neither the World, Olympic or National champions in snow skiing are by definition the ranking list champion, but the World Cup Champion is. Same in water skiing, I have no problem with that. The snow skiing World Cup Champion is the equivalent of the ranking list champion, except the World Cup is multi-nation and our ranking list is not. "Ranking List Champion" not a good enough title? Change the name.

 

I don't think we should eliminate a Regional championship, but I think it should be changed. Regional qualifications are set by each region, and that if fine. Keep that. A typical Regionals take three or four days and they are one round per event. If you want to shorten up the tournament and/or add more skiing by adding multiple rounds, or spread the wealth by making medals easier to win the problem is compounded.

 

I have previously argued in favor of splitting the Regions in two, making five Regions into ten (or more). Doing so will:

 

1) Make each tournament shorter by reducing the number of entries. This opens the door to 2) shorter Regionals or multi-round Regionals, or both.

 

3) Multiple Regions at least helps reduce the cost and travel times involved. Families in San Diego will no longer have to schlep to Seattle, and trick skiers in Maine will no longer have to side slide down to Virginia.

 

4) More skiers will win regional medals, theoretically inducing more people to attend, even the better skiers. Personally, I think we should support the Regional tournaments by only exempting level 9 skiers that are actually participating in a pro or Big Dawg event the same weekend as their Regionals.

 

5) If we want to add skiers to Nationals, change the Regional rule to qualify the top three (or five, whatever) skiers per event that aren't already qualified by other means, i.e. ranking list. This hurts absolutely no one, but would add approximately 30 more skiers per event, assuming that we have 10 regions. If some of these skiers choose not to attend, give their spots to the next folks in line at the Regionals to ensure you pick up the needed numbers. This could potentially double the size of Nationals based on existing numbers without overtly changing the basic qualification standards, and avoiding issues like "What if you qualify D1 slalom, but D2 for trick and jump," etc.

 

6) Regions could be split for all purposes, or just for Regionals. The existing Eastern Region could have the Northern Eastern Regionals and the Southern Eastern Regionals, with one Regional NVP and set of officers, regional meetings, etc., or we could have two independent regions, for example the New England Region and the Atlantic States Region, with two totally independent leadership groups, etc. The later option allows for more people to participate in leadership roles., and reduces the burdens on leaders as the regions are currently configured. I wouldn't be offended if people were offered the choice of which Regionals to ski in, within the existing regional areas. If it is easier for me to get to the New England Regions in Massachusetts rather than the Atlantic Regionals in Virginia, take youR pick, ski for a medal and or a Nationals entry at either site. If I want to go to the former Mid West Region, then you satisfy the Nationals Regional requirement, but no medals and no Nationals qualification.

 

I said earlier I would return to the D2 issue. D2 does work well in collegiate skiing. The vast majority of college skiers are D2 quality, regardless of what team they are on. If there was only D1, Bama, the two UL teams, A State, Florida Southern and maybe Rollins would be the only competitive teams, year in and year out. Why else would other schools even bother? D2 opens the door for the majority of college skiers to participate, and it is the big carrot for freshman who have never skied before or who have limited skiing experience to join a school team, my daughter being a very good example. She went from hating skiing ("Thanks, Dad!") to D2 National jump champion in seven semesters. I can see how D2 could be appealing to Level 5 and 6 skiers, I just see more damage done to the Level 8 skiers and the prestige of Nationals as a consequence.