2017 Nationals - WBP's Discussion with AWSA

[lpskier]

@ALPJr Well, that would be interesting. Slalom at John's, trick jump at Twin? Or just practice at John's? Or are you saying both sites have decided to bid?

[ALPJr]

Just an idea. Not affiliated with either site. Worked for the iron man slalom-cycle-slalom tourneys in the late 90's

[Edbrazil]

And, there is always the 2-lake Pangaea site in Canajoharie, NY. Where the Jr. US Open

was held this Summer. Would have to be a guaranteed no-loss situation for the site

owner. Plenty of camping there. Even soccer fields. One lake is 3-event, and the other

is mainly SL, but could also have TR.

[MikeT]

I vehemently disagree with allowing level 8 and 9 skiers to pay their way out of regionals. We have local tournaments. Make them fun and as easy to get into as possible as well as making them tournaments where high level skiers can count on a getting a quality certified ski ride. The Regionals and Nationals are the two "major" tournaments for the USA Waterski Amateurs. I have for one have always looked at these tournaments to measure myself against the best regional and nationals skiers. You would ruin the regionals and degrade it if that rule was ever allowed. Some level 8 and 9 skiers would not go which would lead to other 8 and 9 skiers to not go because it would be, why bother going unless it was in close proximity. It would turn into a large local tournament. Then what do you have. My position is preserve that requirement to go to regionals. The Nationals is a National Championship. Not everyone qualified can go but there is always a large nucleus of good skiers there and a large group of aspiring skiers who feel honored to ski in the tournament. They come for the experience. If the Nationals is not your thing there is nothing that will get you to go. Why are the numbers down at Nationals, (900-1000 from the 80's) you just need to look back to the 80's when Pro Waterskiing was on ESPN for those years when the waterski population exploded. Invest in the Pro Tour. The Big Dawg is the best thing going.

I came up in Men 2 and 3 during that era. Men 3 slalom had upwards of 180 skiers at Nationals. So considering the overall numbers of tournament skiers presently I'm guessing the Nationals numbers are in proportion

[lpskier]

@MikeT Mike, I agree with you about preserving Regionals as an exceptional tournament. On the other hand I see people struggle with the cost and the time off. If you are a Western Region skier from Seattle, you are flying to Newberry Springs for Regionals next summer and then flying (perhaps) to WPB for Nationals. There are no good solutions that will keep everyone happy. I think need to open our minds and experiment to see what works best for the largest group of people.

 

"If you build it, he will come."

[jcamp]

@MikeT Not being on TV anymore certainly has an effect on Nationals participation, but I'd say the largest impact is the demographic forces that are out of skiing's control, and are not exclusive to skiing. It's the baby boomer generation moving through the age brackets. Not to mention the reduced buying power of middle class america coupled with a dramatic increase in the cost of participation. Skiing has problems for sure, but not all of them are of their own doing.

[klindy]

@MikeT @lpskier One potential idea I've floated a few times was allowing for the Regionals tournament to be held simultaneously at multiple locations. Clearly it makes more sense for "large" regions (large can be geographically or skier population, etc.).

 

For example, instead of finding a 2-3 lake site somewhere in the region and forcing people to travel 1/3 of the way across the country, allow for 2 or 3 sites to coordinate a regionals. I am not advocating splitting the regions into smaller regions! You can have a "site" champion and you can have a "Regional" champion which would be the combined scorebook from multiple locations.

 

There are some issues I realize are challenging. If there are 2-3 locations, a skier can go to any of them regardless of location. So if a skier feels a site is less desirable than another, they can choose whichever location they want to maximize their potential.

 

Some drawbacks are the total officials needed and I believe we need to spend some serious time really looking at why we have all the officials we have currently. That said, since the tournament becomes a bit more manageable from a time/days perspective on-site officials can likely get the job done. Honestly it would be like having only 2-3 "local" tournaments across a region on the same weekend which happens every weekend anyway.

 

We'd lose some of the camaraderie and social connection that comes along with Regionals/Nationals currently but the multi-site potential and doing things like having "virtual" run-offs where coordinated schedules allow can make up for some of it. The ease of making FaceTime, Skype and Facebook Live connections along with webcast potential and real-time posting of scores/scorebooks makes information sharing potential.

 

It's not a perfect plan but it does provide a way to preserve the current rules where you must ski Regionals to be able to ski Nationals. It also conceivably can allow for more people to be able to ski Regionals (noted as one of the "big tournaments" every year for a large contingent of skiers). It potentially reduces travel and the associated time and expense.

 

[disland]

I suggest we divide the western region into north and south. Its seems this is a bigger problem for those folks

[PatM]

I agree with @MikeT and @disland . Regionals should be important. I think the biggest problem lies with regions being to big in size. If you make them smaller it would be easier travel to the events. I'm in the East and we are probable one of the smaller sized regions geographically. In the West it is ridiculous how big of an geographical area they cover. Also at the same time make it easier for sites to hold the event. Lighten up on the judges would probably be the number one answer. There are a large amount of quality drivers and judges (@MikeT is one of them) who can't be used because they are not three event judges. Also not everyone who is an official can commit a whole week to the event. If scheduled in officials may find it easier to commit a day or two.

[klindy]

@"Pat M" See my suggestion above

 

@disland splitting larger regions into smaller regions only makes governing the organization more difficult. There's already a small army of people who show up for the two AWSA board meetings each year. While diversity and multiple ideas are surely helpful, the size of the board makes change difficult. Therefore splitting into more regions isn't the answer (in my opinion). However finding solutions which solve the travel, geographic challenges and size of Regional tournaments without making the organization more difficult to manage is the challenge.

 

Even the Southern Regionals being in KY or AL means long travel for those in FL, etc. Likewise, the opposite is true. Same thing can be said for the Midwest. Point is some regions may be better candidates for a multi-site Regionals than others. If the goal is to minimize travel, time and expense and still have a quality representation of athletes attend a multi-site approach has a lot of benefits.

[pregom]

@ALPJr your idea of using Webster Lake in Mass caught my attention, given that it's where I normally ski (with the Nipmuc Ski Club). I have seen that picture from 1964. My understanding is that it was at North Pond. These days Webster Lake is very busy - closing it for the tournament would probably require an act of God... It would be nice if it happened!

[lpskier]

@klindy I like your thinking, but the problem would be an adaquate number of senior trick judges to cover several record trick tournaments at once. I suspect it would be easy in the south and impossible in the East.

[Than_Bogan]

@lpskier The silver lining is that the East is geographically small and probably doesn't need to split up in any way.

[lpskier]

@Than_Bogan true if you live in in Mass, certainly NY. If you live in Maine and Regionals are in Va, maybe a different story. We pulled course two today. Course one comes out tomorrow. I assume you guys are done too? . :-(

[Edbrazil]

1968 Easterns in Dexter, Maine. Loooong way to go. Maine is big. Mapquest gives the

drive time from Portsmouth, NH to Dexter as just short of 3 hours.

Good thing about the event was that Wayne Grimditch posted the first 100 footer in Junior

Boys. Next year, Wayne won the Worlds in jump. Not a Jr. Worlds, but the Elite Worlds in

Denmark. Something you are extremely unlikely to see happen these days.

[disland]

@klindy Your saying we cant split a region because of board meetings and governing. Lets get out of the box. How about we split the regions and cut the number of board members for the whole country in half at the same time

[Than_Bogan]

@lpskier Done!? I think not! Lots more crazy tech to test! :)

[klindy]

@disland I get it...but along the same lines of getting out of the box, what's wrong with a multi-site Regionals? Let's add another dimension to the competition.

 

And it's far more than just the number of Board members. There is overhead to running a region. Splitting the regions into more smaller regions just slices up the same pie even farther. For example, even an electronic version of the Regional guide still costs something to produce - both time and money. Print version even more. Why double up?

 

For all but two weeks of the ski season each region schedules and administers local tournaments. One of the other weeks is the Nationals where currently no other tournament can be held. The remaining week is the Regionals tournament where a multi-site Regionals effectively mitigates at least some of the heartburn for travel and costs, allows for smaller sites to host, etc.

[MikeT]

PROBLEM: Complaints of to much travel and expense over a 2-3 week period to attend regionals and Nationals. How to motivate people to want to attend both.

1. @horton @"Pat M" Start promoting and recognizing regionals as a major tournament. Get people interested in going to the their regionals. It's the first step up from the local tournament scene. It's easier and less costly in many cases to go to and get people interested in the idea of traveling and experiencing a regional tournament over a National tournament. I understand the travel that other regions have that we here in the east do not have. The competition at all the regionals is top notch. It's a big deal to win a Regional Championship as well as finishing in the top five. Make people aspire to go. I don't agree with the "regional buy out" idea. That will destroy the regionals. In some ways I think the regionals are more important to more people to Nationals, with emphasis on "more people"

2. Feature the Regionals and the tournament winners on the USA website much more, as well as the regional websites. Bring more attention and prestige to it.

3. Send out invitations to the regional qualifiers. I thought it was neat to receive an invitation to Nationals last year. Think how upcoming skiers will feel to receive that in the email. I got an invitation last year to attend NASTAR nationals for ski racing. It was cool. I didn't go but just the same I achieved a level in the rankings and that feels like I've accomplished something

4. @disland has an interesting idea. The obvious drawback to skiing at 3 different sites on the same day is people skiing in different conditions and the advantages and disadvantages. But what would be better, that, or do as some people have suggested to increase the amount of regions we have to a higher number and therefore decrease the geography of the region. What if we did 7-10 regions? Could that help solve the attendance problem? Not a bad idea. We'd all probably dislike that idea but we need to get real with that problem.

5. Ok USA waterski has not innovated the tournament format since I began skiing. It's been the tournament organizers doing it on their own. Below the surface there many many sites using many different creative scoring formats. I've heard of a few and I can imagine there are others. Than Bogan, Randy Youngsma and myself Mike Tilton run the NE Slalom Championship and with me as a golfer saw the potential to utilize the golf handicap system in our tournaments. Why, because it is just plain ridiculous to have skiers come to a "competition" and be the only skier in that division. Ok so maybe there is 2, 3, 4 but still what fun is that. We've all learned to resign ourselves to the idea that all that matters is our personal score for a rating, because some skiers have no competitors there to ski against.

6. The NE Slalom Championship in New Hampshire has two divisions. Open which are skiers of all divisions and ages who run into 35 off or better skiing against each other. Boys 3 to Men 7 all together. About 10 skiers. Then 20 skiers men, women boys and girls using their handicap adjusted score where everyone starts on a level playing field. USGA Golf tournaments have been using this for years. NASTAR ski racing does the same.

7. Bring everyone together with the handicap system. I worked with Dave Allen among others to get the system incorporated into the ranking system. Allot of people don't know it's there. There is a framework already created. It needs refining but just the same.

8. You want to help create more interest and reasons to attend your Regionals and Nationals. Add to the existing "gross score format" a new layer or group into the existing tournament. The top skiers ski with their "gross" score or actual score as always and then you add handicap competition levels. In golf they call different Flights. Top Flight, First Flight, etc. Call it whatever you want. The 10-20 handicap group is another way to express it.

9. Skiing should be more ability based. This will increase the sizes of the division. Make winning and competing mean something. The framework is there.

10. Look what other sports do and pick out their good ideas.

[dave2ball]

Here is an out of the box idea. Due away with the regionals all together. Take the top 75 ranked skiers each division. have a LCQ 3 weeks before the nationals. 1 LCQ in each region and take the remaining top 25 scores

To round out the out the top 100 skiers in each division.

During the week of the nationals have the big dawg finials and also bring back the US Open to run on the final weekend of the nationals as it used to be many years ago.

The overall number of skiers would increase. The best amateur plus the pros and the big dawg taking place in one week on one site may bring in more spectators thus in time growing the sport.

USA Waterski seems to be very reluctant to change anything to bring in new people and grow the sport, yet they wonder whey the numbers are down each year. Not only in memberships but also in national entry's.

I too remember the days in the 90's when there were 180 M3 skiers and 100 M2. To get back to thoses good ol days is going to be hard.

[MikeT]

@lpskier Yeah Than and I usually go to the end of October or first week of November. It stays decent enough down here Mass still for some good skiing. Then we're done and then I pivot to ski racing

 

[bigtex2011]

@MikeT all good ideas and very time consuming so I appreciate it. It really doesn't make since to me as someone who qualifies for nationals to have to ski regionals. I like skiing regionals because I have more of a chance to get 3,4 or 5th. I would be more apt to do one or the other due to time constraints. I went the BOS Sacramento and Austin this year instead of nationals. I want my local regional host to keep their heads above water so I'm willing to pay for the opt out. By me not going to regionals, others have an opportunity to place and go to nationals based on the current model. (I.E 3rd,4th or 5th.) When we do go to nationals we are looking for a vacation/ski week. Usually 3 will ski and the other 2 are chomping at the bit to go to the beach or shop or bike ride etc...

 

Going to BFE regionals because nationals is in West Palm and the family likes Florida is a pain in the hind quarters. Making a handicap system in my opinion isn't going to change that

 

Thanks, CS

 

 

[lpskier]

@MikeT I didn't catch you after our event to complement you on absolutely killing it at Nationals. Great skiing!

 

I like your thinking. I agree we need to experiment with different formats where we can. Matt Richardson and @Nleuth have a head to head round at the Digger Dog with each skier starting at a line and speed based on scores from prior rounds, so you could run 35 and be beaten by a kid still skiing long line. It's fun and the younger skiers love to beat up on the old boys. I see lots of enthusiasm with that format.

 

Unfortunately when you and I started out in the 60's, slalom and in particular jumping was as rad as it got. Now you have guys doing a double back flip on a snowmobile, etc. Tough to compete with that stuff for cool factor.

[unksskis]

Moving Nationals to the end of July will get more people to Nationals, and then, fittingly to some suggestions, move Regionals even earlier, have multiple locations, whatever you want to change, but don't make it the cost that it currently is. The number of quality skiers missing Nationals, and even Regionals, due to school sports starting is shocking, let alone some schools start the week of Nationals. Time to accept we're not the primary sport in that situation, and to retain skiers and participation, Nationals needs to be at the last of July.

[ToddL]

Ski year - change from Aug 1 through July 31. Nats in July. Hmmm. Why not?

[jcamp]

Man, making Regionals and Nationals even earlier would be brutal for Eastern Region and northern skiers. The first tournament of the year usually doesn't take place in the east until mid or even late June.

[Horton]

I am far more interested in many smaller events that are fun for everyone than one HUGE bloated event that cost skiers an astronomical amount per round. Why not innovate at a more local level and then have a very small elite nationals for the Level 9 skiers. What we as skiers want is enjoyable events that we can look forward to and that are not a hassle. A huge Nationals does nothing to grow the sport but I think a lot of smaller inclusive and fun events could.

[jcamp]

It is easier for many people to justify attending nationals if more than one family member qualifies and skis in it. If you make the entry too elite, I suspect many people won't go because their kids/spouses won't make the cut.

 

Quick question @horton, how many 8-10 year olds skied in the BOS cash prize events?

[Horton]

@jcamp the percentage of kids in my events is about what you would expect. I can think of only one pre-teen who has skied in my format. At 3 out of 4 events I have run I have paid out at least $500 to juniors. Those kids were super happy and I bet want to do it again.

 

I am not saying my format is the perfect solution. What is right about the BallOfSpray Cash Prize events is that I looked what I want in a ski event (what I thought most skiers want in a ski event) and designed around that. Everyone skis 3 times and as much as possible everyone has a chance to win or at least be in the money. What I did not do is try to force old ideas on today's skiers. My events make sense to me and may not to you but I wish more skiers would try to design different formats and put on unique events. Freak'n innovate!

 

@Mark_Matis more than 1/2 of the skiers I ski with are totally uninterested in Nationals. To @jcamp's point most of the ones I know that go only go for their kids. How about an Elite nationals and a 3 event "Everyone Skis Overall" Nationals but give up on a massive event with kids + 3 eventers + all the slalom skiers event.

 

Hell I don't know .... let's have Trick Nationals. I am not going but the skiers who love trick will be in Heaven. @eleeski Get on this. You are in charge.

 

 

[Horton]

another idea. How about a 3 event kids nationals at a site with a bunch of Class C events going on for the parents at the same time? Innovate!

[Horton]

And when discussing these or other ideas about Nationionas please disregard the opinion of anyone who has multiple National titles, or no longer skis, or has been in water ski politics for 20+ years or is otherwise predisposed to simply dislike change.

Mmmm ok made enough enemies for the week.

[dchristman]

Yes! Trick Nationals! Let's have some 4 round cash prize trick tournaments, too! Excellent idea, @Horton :p

[lpskier]

Nationals in July would happen right about the time our water at home hits 70 in northern NY. Not that bad really.

[Drago]

@Horton separate kid's nationals with tourney for parents attached: I literally said that 10 yrs ago to someone that made decisions. Matter of fact, lots of these ideas have been around for lots of years. Gotta say, though, handicapping Nats sounds crappy

[Edbrazil]

Regionals/Nationals proximity. At times, the Easterns would take place on the weekend

before the Nationals. Don't think that has happened recently. In 1965, with the Easterns

the weekend before, the last event: Men Jumping, finished in the dark. As in DARK. That

was back when you got 3 jumps, 2 passes, and a fall out of course.

Next year, that got changed in the AWSA Rules to just 2 jumps. Fortunately, that didn't

last long, and we got the current situation of 3 jumps/passes.

[ToddL]

The key take-aways from @Edbrazil 's posts are:

Things were different before, current rules are not the original rules

Change has and can happen

How many people want to go back to the rules of the 1950's?

 

If we make changes for the better now, will the skiers of the future be saying, "man, who wants to go back to those crazy rules from the turn of the century??"

 

[Dirt]

There are many good ideas here. Maybe the problem is that there is no agreement on the changes that would make Nationals great.

 

Reading all the threads on changing Nationals, Regionals and tournaments in general, there does not seem to be any agreement on what would be better.

 

Multi rounds. Keep it the same. Slalom only. Kids Nats. Sooner. Have to ski Regionals. Have to pay to not ski Regionals. Handicap. Must ski Open/Masters. Get rid of Masters.

 

Many of the posters did not attend Idaho Nationals. It was really fun. Could it be better?

 

There was practice on site and nearby, cheap camping on site, great weather, great viewing of both lakes at the same time, a live band, a mobile bar, banquet on site, a mechanical bull and night jump.

 

Is the biggest problem that there are no bids for Nationals because HQ takes most of the money? If the site got a lot bigger piece of the pie they could afford to do more of a festival like Broadside did.

[Dirt]

I may have read the dollar amounts wrong or misunderstood some of the financial posts so forgive me and please correct me.

 

If we dumped the paper/magazine Regional guides wouldn't that give HQ enough dollars to reduce Nationals entry fees a bit and give the LOC all of the money from Nationals?

[Edbrazil]

One good thing about events in the early 1960's, when I came back to competing in Men,

was that there was competition for placements. Even in local events. Which were not

typically at great sites. There were awards, mostly trophies, but also useful stuff, like

handles or towlines. A lot fewer divisions, of course. With the situation now, tournaments

aren't really tournaments, except for Regionals, Nationals, and of course Ca$h events.

Now, the events are qualifiers for Rankings

[skibackwards]

I've counted level 8 and 9 skiers and counted how many went to Nationals. Men I were close to 25/85 22/58 26/53 S, T, J. Men IV 27/104 7/28 6/18 WI 19/52 13/37 12/30. Just how do we change these percentages. OR does level 8 go to far down? I haven't counted Jr's yet

 

[klindy]

@dirt you said -

 

"There was practice on site and nearby, cheap camping on site, great weather, great viewing of both lakes at the same time, a live band, a mobile bar, banquet on site, a mechanical bull and night jump.

 

Is the biggest problem that there are no bids for Nationals because HQ takes most of the money? If the site got a lot bigger piece of the pie they could afford to do more of a festival like Broadside did."

 

Note that NONE of that has anything to do with the format of the competition - multi-round, prelim/finals, whatever. Point is, it's interesting to me that what made this past Nationals so successful had nothing to do with the rule book really. Seems to support the festival atmosphere approach instead of the 'high end' nationals championships where only the very top of each group compete.

 

 

[lpskier]

Broadside Harbor was the cat's nads. Let's "Make Nationals Great Again!"

[skidawg]

LOC has to have a reason to go through all the work. Why should usaski get the big bucks and do little work? LOC should keep largest part of money- make a weeklong ski festival and it will make itself great again

[Razorskier1]

I've never gone to Nationals or Regionals, so maybe my views aren't valuable in the same way as those who have. However, my primary reason has been that each require a commitment of a lot of time and a lot of money to ski one round. I like to ski. If I stay home, I can ski 2 or three times a day. If I go to a local tournament that is 3 rounds, I get to ski a lot and have fun with friends. If I go to Regionals or Nationals I travel a long ways, spend a lot of time and money, and ski once. In the end the calculus is really that simple for me. You will see me at 3 rounders and at 6 round weekends and at the BOS Austin -- that's pretty much it.

[Than_Bogan]

@Dirt It is definitely seeming like that is the biggest problem.

[dave2ball]

I don't go to nationals for one reason. Between traveling to the regionals which include food hotel entry rental car or gas plus airline ticket to Idaho which is an out of the way for cheap tickets add in the above food hotel car the cost would be over 1600.00 for 2 ski rides. Too much money. And that didn't include my family.

If they could make it more affordable maybe the numbers would increase and that would increase revenue.

[skidawg]

I have been trying to go to nats because of my kidos-they have over the past years had legitimate chances at podium. I personally prefer BOS cash set up and second choice is big dawg format- but you can never go wrong with 6 round weekends with friends- more bang for the buck

[JWebSki]

I really think Nationals should be an event that people feel special just qualifying so so they are more likely to go. While I like the idea of the ranking list I think there is too much emphasis on it. Why go to Nationals when a local tournament helps your rankings list equally as Nationals? We need to put more emphasis on placement at tournaments versus scores. Winning Nationals should be the greatest amateur achievement in our sport!

[dbutcher]

Nationals are still special, especially to those who qualify for the first time. The first time I qualified for Nationals (I think it was 1983) wild horses could not have kept me from going even though I knew I had no chance of winning. When I got there, I was amazed to learn that many people qualify for Nationals but don't go. I am now one of those, but Nationals are still special. Ranking lists are nice and indicative of the best skiers, but the person who wins the Nationals is the best skier that day. There is no "pressure" like Nationals "pressure", at least to me an amateur. I'll never forget the National tournament at which I fell at buoy # 1. As I was taking my walk of shame back to the starting dock, a gentleman said to me - don't feel bad, you are a winner just by being here. That helped a little, and it showed the significance of the Nationals back in the 1980's.

[Texas6]

@Dirt - The sites making money sounds like half of the problem to me. The other half being a combination of distance to travel for a single ride, cost to travel said distance, and declining numbers in the format.

 

The sites can make money, but it's a boatload of work, the ROI is pretty ambiguous, and the sites do the large majority, if not all of the work. You would certainly have more sites jump up and down, if the payout was either fixed or a variable well defined range backed by simple, understandable, metrics. But it would make things a hundred times easier if the governing body had a project mgr of sorts (any one person dedicated to the success of the event alongside the sponsoring club), working with sites to ensure all of the items on the list move forward as needed.

 

Honestly, I've convinced myself that Nationals would be better off if it were conducted regionally, along with a class C for other skiers who didn't qualify for Nationals. You would still get a good number of participants and spectators regionally, local clubs could manage the volume and workload far easier, you could provide 2 or 3 rounds to all of the competitors, including Nationals competitors. And regardless of the region, all nationals competitors would still be competing for the national title. You could potentially do them the same day (unless vendors wanted them staggered so they could attend them all), creating an environment where skiers all over the country at various sites can see the scores from their age groups real time. That sounds fun to me