Is anyone going to nationals?

[mmosley899]

@eleeski I thought the trick judging was too strict also. I was happy that I stood up both passes but I was cut 900 points including a WB...a trick I have been getting credit for for thirty years. I think that is the first time I have ever gotten no credit on a WB? WTF...

[eleeski]

@rawly So crack whores make officials cranky? Or is it when the cops bust all the crack whores that upsets the officials?

 

FWIW , Kirk and I stayed in a cheap Bakersfield motel a couple weeks ago without incident. @Horton to sponsor Nationals in Bako next year!

 

Eric

 

One bright spot in the numbers is that more skiers are three eventing (rides per skier is increasing).

[Than_Bogan]

You got no credit on your WTF? ;)

 

I heard a lot of very knowledgeable trick skiers disagree with the strictness. I know nothing about tricks, but I know whom to trust about it!

[eleeski]

@mmosley899 You would have scored the WTF if you had Gatorade lid bindings. (Insert smiley or wink emoticon.)

 

Almost every trick has some deviation from the strictest interpretation of the rules. What is allowed is very subjective and reflects the individual judge's bias. I know and have worked with many of the judges we sent (and I count them as good friends). But I avoid tournaments where they are the majority. Why such a strict panel was sent is curious. And certainly not reflective of the tournaments where the qualification rankings were obtained. To those who say make all tournaments strict, I say that the sport is shrinking fast enough. Let's not discourage skiers like Mike by completely discounting his tricks. (A zero score IS completely discounting his trick). Partial credit solves the issue as long as the deductions are small.

 

Eric

[mmosley899]

@eleeski and @Than_Bogan I thought I got credit for the WTF! Maybe I got too sloppy with my tricking, but my daughter is a great trick caller having worked regionals and nationals as a trick judge and she questioned how I stood up the pass without getting credit for some of the tricks. Very discouraging score!

[MattP]

@mmosley899 have you watched the video of yourself on waterskiresults.com?

[klindy]

@mmosley899 sorry Mike but I just watched the video and I'm going with the judges on this one. Tough or not I think the credit/no credit looks pretty close.

 

For whatever reason you had a hard time finding the top of the wake (it was really rounded too). Most of your wake tricks were barely in the air.

[mmosley899]

Thanks @klindy I'll work on that. If the wake was rounded did the driver have the boat in trick mode?

[waterskigirl]

@klindy thanks so much for the numbers!!!!

[klindy]

@mmosley899 what boat were you using? I assume nautique?

 

I'd bet it was in trick mode. Just something about the speed vs rope length vs water or whatever.

 

I had some sloppy tricks too. Much better than regionals and I got credit for more.

 

Go to waterskiresults.com and all the videos are posted there for the whole tournament. I frankly don't see much I'd call "too strict".

[waterskigirl]

If the numbers bare any true meaning after all these years heading back to Bell Aqua would be a good idea for our sport and the number of skiers that would attend Nats...you go Bell!!!!

[webbdawg99]

That's pretty cool that they posted the trick video on that website. Now.....can I see my slalom video? :#

[jcamp]

I had a great experience at Nationals and my boat crew was on the ball. My low score was my fault, not the driver's, judges', weather or even the cheap beer I drank the night before (on second thought, maybe the beer did play a part).

 

Huge props to the ski Club of the Palm Beaches for the best-run Nationals I've ever been to.

[Zman]

@webbdawg99 Adam, good skiing by the way. Yea, wud be cool if you can see it on video.

[Edbrazil]

Note to @eleeski

Back in the Olde Daze, trick judging had an option for a 10% or 20% deduction for tricks not done

in good 'form'. Of course, also had rideout bonus, ramp tricks, ski overhead bonus, and a full or

most of a full pass on 2 skis.

[Than_Bogan]

On that participatoin data: The rides per skier has increased rather steadily and quite significantly from 1.5ish to 1.8ish.

 

That surprises me quite a lot, as I feel the overall trend has been toward specializing in one event. Maybe it means that multi-event skiers are much more likely to attend Nationals these days. It sorta makes sense because their trip gets them multiple chances to ski. Maybe "we" should try to capitalize on that in some way? Or maybe we have to give the specialist two rounds somehow -- or even "1.5" rounds like in your second round you have to start at the shortest line you ran (like a runoff). Btw, that is not a well-thought-out idea, just came to me.

[MattP]

@klindy what year was the ranking list levels implemented and replaced the EP system?

[klindy]

@MattP it was phased in but fully implemented for the 2007 ski year therefore used for the 2007 nationals.

[klindy]

@Than_Bogan I believe your logic is right that the nationals (and by definition the regionals) attract skier who ski more than one event. I also know many skiers that would consider themselves 'slalom specialists' who pull out a trick ski or something.

 

I also think that one driver is the way the entry fees are structured. The incremental cost to ski two (or three) events encourages putting more skis on the bag. During our discussions for the D1/D2 nationals idea one thought was to change the entry fees slightly to take advantage of the increased "rides per skier".

 

I will say that the data suggested that skiers who attend nationals have somewhat stabilized and the trend to ski more than one event has continued as well. When you dig deeper into the data (skiers/events by region) you see quite a few things happening. For example, anytime the national has gone to a new site (new from the previous year) the 'local region' skiers really increase while the longer traveled regions and those where the regionals were 'remote' from the bulk of the skier population tend to decline quite a bit. But tends to balance in the 600-650 range.

 

Also note that the ranking list levels haven't changed in several years. That may play a factor.

 

If you can remember the surveys that were sent out earlier this year they were designed to learn more about why skiers didn't attend or attended regionals and not nationals.

[webbdawg99]

@Zman Thanks! But I don't want anyone else to see it...just me! Ha My technique is terrible! One of my ski buds best summed it up one day when he said to me, "Man, you should be really happy! You can run 4@38 any given day and you still have a LOT to be working on!" I didn't know whether to thank him or slap him!

[ntx]

 

I wonder if the ranking list (easy access to scores from around the country) is hurting the numbers at nationals. Prior to the list, you had no knowledge of your standing against others across the nation. You had to go to nationals to see who was the best. Now you get updated standings after each tournament. If you know you are 40th ranked are you likely to go ski??

 

As I understand it, part of the goal of the list was to increase local participation by adding a penalty to skiers with fewer than three tournament (2 in some cases) I am not sure if that is working or not. Locally for us, it looks like most of the tournaments are full. Maybe it is decreasing the numbers at Nationals.

 

[klindy]

@ntx I agree with your idea that the ranking list increases the visibility of scores across the country and may discourage folks from coming to nationals to see who's the best. With the rating system if you had a couple EPs you probably knew a few of the skiers around the country who were I the same category. But you certainly didn't know them all.

 

I don't believe going back to a rating system is the right answer. I think the visibility of the ranking list is good and most skiers appreciate it. What we need to do is find a way to leverage that data better than we are today.

[Kelvin]

@Klindy - with the current ranking system, the numbers of skiers that actually qualify for nationals has decreased over the years. M4 is a good example - several years ago there were 200 skiers qualified for nationals and about 100 actually made the trip. Now about 100 qualify and 50 make the trip (my numbers are directionally correct, but not dead on accurate). Also, over the same amount of time, the score needed to qualify has increased by 2-3 buoys.

 

How about running changing the national placements to both a scratch system AND a handicap system. Top 5 scratch skiers get their awards. Then everyone else (with at least 5 tournaments in the books - ala Horton's rule) gets thrown in for a Handicap Top 5.

 

This would give the lower level guys with no chance at a medal something to shoot for - skiing against their ranking list score.

 

It would need more thought, but I think @horton is on to something with his new format.

[Horton]

I do not think my Cash Prize rules work for big events but I do think if you copy the rules minus the cash part you have a recipe for a fun local tournament.

 

We need fun events. My rules or otherwise

[klindy]

@horton agreed!!

 

At the Little Mountain Pro-Am we rankled all the entries from highest to lowest. Then paired #1 with #30, 2 with 29 and so forth. For scoring we deducted 6 from your current AWSA average and your team score was plus/minus from that adjusted average. In a multi round situation it's consistency that wins. With the mix of skiers we had there it was surprising who ended up on the podium.

 

One thing for sure - it was a lot of fun!!

[Drago]

I have found that Handicapping does not work for "elite" skiers.

If you have ever been in a runoff, that is the feeling we need everyone to have at Nationals

[BRY]

Here is a snippet from an e-mail thread I received back around March of 2015:

 

In terms of the overall participation rates, below is some statistical history which may help put things in to perspective. While the total USAWS member is declining along with AWSA Sport Division membership, participation at the AWSA US Nationals is actually declining at a much slower rate. In fact, by percentage of AWSA membership, participation actually INCREASING. For reference, the Ranking List appeared in 2007 prior to that the Rating System (EP’s) was used to determine Nationals qualification (along with placements).

 

....... Total

....... USAWS AWSA % AWSA to Nationals % of AWSA

Year Members Members Total Member Skiers Members @ Nationals

2005 23539 12418 52.76% 845 6.80%

2006 23193 11886 51.25% 756 6.36%

2007 22521 11306 50.20% 668 5.91%

2008 21179 10446 49.32% 793 7.59%

2009 17572 9016 51.31% 729 8.09%

2010 18083 8988 49.70% 740 8.23%

2011 17445 8611 49.36% 655 7.61%

2012 17580 8408 47.83% 654 7.78%

2013 16285 7675 47.13% 661 8.61%

2014 15763 7208 45.73% 621 8.62%

 

So with the previous numbers from @Klindy it is shown that of the target pool, AWSA members, participation at Nationals is up and rides per skier is up.

I infer from this that Nationals as it is successfully serves AWSA members, that it is not necessarily "broken". Room for improvement, sure.

 

EDIT: the table reads

 

Year, Total USAWS Members, AWSA Members, % AWSA to Total Member, Nationals Skiers, % of AWSA Members @ Nationals

 

I couldn't seem to get the table to retain format. ???

[eleeski]

@Edbrazil Partial credit judging in the past? I have been told that couldn't be done but if it was done in the past, it certainly is possible.

 

If you have a copy of those old rules, I'd love to see them.

 

We are not doing everything right - as the numbers show. I believe that the Nationals numbers mirrors the decline in AWSA members. I get the reluctance to change, I enjoy the tournament scene as it is. But I'd like to have active members at my lake to ski with. I'd like to have more friends travel with me to tournaments and Nationals. I'm fixated on tricks because it's decline is most severe despite the popularity of wakeboarding (which really is a version of tricks). Change things to encourage skiers and attract wakeboarders. The experience of @mmosley899 and the huge group of kids who complained about their judging is certainly not a step in the right direction.

 

Eric

[BRY]

BTW, a shout out to the Ski Club of the Palm Beaches and all the other workers at Nationals. Thanks and great job.

[klindy]

Thanks @BRY that's also some data I put together for the task group that was looking at increasing participation at the Nationals. It reads familiar! :smile:

 

For the Nationals itself it boils down to what you want to achieve. If your goal is simply to increase competitors, a two pronged approach which attracts the top tier currently qualified that don't come along with potentially lowering the performance threshold for entry will get you there.

 

If the goal is to maintain or increase true competition or improving value or making it more 'family friendly' in terms of non-skiing activities then you need to take other approaches.

 

[ToddL]

Reposting the table for @BRY...

 

 

USAWS AWSA % AWSA to Nationals % of AWSA

Year Members Members Total Member Skiers Members @ Nationals

2005 23539 12418 52.76% 845 6.80%

2006 23193 11886 51.25% 756 6.36%

2007 22521 11306 50.20% 668 5.91%

2008 21179 10446 49.32% 793 7.59%

2009 17572 9016 51.31% 729 8.09%

2010 18083 8988 49.70% 740 8.23%

2011 17445 8611 49.36% 655 7.61%

2012 17580 8408 47.83% 654 7.78%

2013 16285 7675 47.13% 661 8.61%

2014 15763 7208 45.73% 621 8.62%

 

 

TIP: (GEEK Warning) When pasting formatted text into a BOS post where you want to retain the fixed character spacing, try entering the code tag: PRE inside of < > signs, then at the end do the same with the tag /PRE inside of the < > signs. This tells the web browser to display the text in pre-formatted mode. /GEEK

[BRY]

@Toddl Thanks