If you have 3 L/R scores in the past 12 months, should that fulfill the Regional requirement ?

RichardDoaneRichardDoane Posts: 3,912 Mega Baller
Just wondering what the ballers think about alternatives to the current rules relating to Nationals attendance.

Give us your .02 please.
BallOfSpray Pacific Northwest Vice President of Event Management, aka "Zappy"
MattPHorton
«1

Comments

  • HortonHorton Posts: 23,532 Administrator
    Same answer as I always give.....

    It depends on the purpose of Regionals and Nationals.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

    O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

    dislandmnewthdbutcher
  • bigskieridahobigskieridaho Posts: 571 Crazy Baller
    I am gonna ski at least 4-5 including two at BroHo this summer @RichardDoane So that should count for something.... hoping to progress more this year.... would love to hit up Newberry, just sayin.
    RichardDoane
  • DragoDrago Posts: 841 Crazy Baller
    No, well Yes,
    There should be no Regonal requirement
    RichardDoaneMarcoMattPMillerTime38
  • DaveLemonsDaveLemons Posts: 263 Solid Baller
    No way I would ever ski 3 L/R tournaments in a year. I have to travel 4 hours to get to the nearest tournament. I haven't looked but I'm guessing twice that far to get to a record tournament.
    davestaxidermystudio.com
    HortonaupatkingRichardDoane
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 643 Crazy Baller
    edited January 5
    Pretty much every sport I can think of gives a bye to its top teams/athletes. It is a reward for working hard all season. I don't understand why it seems like a lot of people are against it in waterskiing. I think if you qualify for Nationals by level 8 ranking or higher you should be allowed to register and pay for regionals but be allowed to not participate if you choose. This lowers the cost of Nationals attendance for the very elite and would allow a few skiers who may not stand a chance at the podium at regionals to do so. I feel it would grow Nationals from a tournament of the best of who could afford two vacations in 3 weeks to the best in the country. For me having the best of the best at Nationals competing is more important than some silly requirment about regionals. Every year I am tempted to go to regionals get up and pull out for my gates and throw the handle. Then pump the first and scream I am going to Nationals!!!
    Travis Torley
    MattPdvskierMateo VargasRichardDoane
  • RazorRoss3RazorRoss3 Posts: 1,165 Mega Baller
    My short answer is yes but lets extend it beyond that to if you've put up good scores at local events you're good to go.

    My very, very long answer is below.

    There are a few topics within this that I would like to address:

    1) Rather than a dual method qualification system should we move too strict State > Regionals > Nationals qualification or to an outside system based on the rankings list.
    2) If we move to a qualification method outside of the State and Regional level events, should they continue to exist?

    1) Rather than a dual method qualification system should we move too strict State > Regionals > Nationals qualification or to an outside system based on the rankings list.

    Should we make a hard move to a single method for qualification? I think we should, and my personal choice would be a move to qualifying outside of the State/Regional events. If the way to qualify for Nationals is by skiing a large number of local events that should keep local event attendance high, more money to sites that could potentially allow them to do things like host more open ski nights which could help at the grass roots level. Also more skiers at more local events would build a stronger local ski community which I believe would create a benefit. In addition to this I believe it would increase nationals attendance because without having to travel for regionals skiers and families would have more money left in the travel budget and less making up to do for missing a weekend at home for regionals which might make Nationals make more logistical sense.

    2) If we move to a qualification method outside of the State and Regional level events, should they continue to exist?

    My answer here is yes for State, maybe for Regionals. I think the idea of a state tournament would be fun, it would bring everyone together, award medals, and I think would simply be a fun event. Regionals on the other hand I think would be hard to maintain without it being a requirement for Nationals because it requires a lot of travel and time. So while some people may enjoy seeing how they stack up against their region it simply may not work. I don't see keeping it as detrimental though so I would not vote against it's continued existence.
    RichardDoane
  • MillerTime38MillerTime38 Posts: 239 Solid Baller
    Agree with @drago and @Dirt

    RichardDoane
  • klindyklindy Posts: 1,910 Mega Baller
    @disland I think splitting the west into two smaller regions is a mistake. I think the board and it's structure is far too big and unwieldy now. It's hard to get any meaningful change approved.

    That said, I totally agree to allowing the west (or any other region that makes sense) to holding two or more regional tournaments each year. Hold them on the same dates, spread them out and allow for separate and combined scores.
    Keith Lindemulder
    AWSA Vice President
    MattPRichardDoane
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    edited January 6
    Wait, wait, wait...

    Is there a suggestion to stratify the tournaments such that Regionals contains no existing nationally-qualified skiers?
    Would this then mean that State tournaments would contain no regionally-qualified skiers, too?

    So, basically the suggestion is that:
    The State tournament is like a last chance qualifier (top places) for Regionals and open to any skier who has not already qualified for Regionals.
    The Regional tournament is like a last chance qualifier (top places) for Nationals and open to any skier who as not already qualified for Nationals.

    Hmmm... In some ways this might increase participation. Here's why -
    If non-qualified skiers have to ski against all the already qualified skiers, it is unlikely that those non-qualified skiers will take a place on the podium. However, if the tournament only contains non-qualified skiers all trying to grab those last spots, then it may be more attractive to compete for them.

    It makes sense, except for the LOC concerns about $$ if none of the already qualified skiers show up. Maybe they are all welcome to ski, but their scores are not factored into the placement for those podium spots to get a ticket to the next level.

    So, basically every skier is classified as either a National Competitor, Regional Competitor, or State Competitor. The respective tournament is for the skiers with that classification. The State tournament is one pathway to graduate to a Regional Competitor designation. The Regional tournament is one pathway to graduate to a National Competitor designation.
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
    Than_BoganRichardDoane
  • HortonHorton Posts: 23,532 Administrator
    @dirt makes a really good point. At a time when membership is down so far it's too much to ask for people to take off that much time from work / travel to two separate events unless they have disposable time and income.

    @ToddL I know there's a point somewhere in your thousand word essay but I'm not exactly sure what it is

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

    O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

    RichardDoane
  • lpskierlpskier Posts: 1,819 Mega Baller
    Often the first L/R tournament in the East is Regionals.
    John Wilkins- Si non pro sanguine quem ludus ne. #iskiconnelly
    RichardDoane
  • HortonHorton Posts: 23,532 Administrator
    edited January 6
    @ToddL The funding of the event and the validity of the event are completely different issues. Define one and let that drive the definition of the other. You can't solve multiple problems in tandem.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

    O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

    RichardDoane
  • dislanddisland Posts: 1,053 Crazy Baller
    @klindy My input of the west region splitting was only as it relates to regionals. I totally agree we need for less bureaucracy not more. I am only observing that the complaints about costs seem more acute for the west guys and i get that. Here in SCR you can almost always drive to regionals and get decent hotel rates and so on, so it seems like less of a problem.
    Dave Island- Princeton Lakes
    klindyRichardDoane
  • RichardDoaneRichardDoane Posts: 3,912 Mega Baller
    @klindy it's hard to get an LOC to host a Regionals event, so even harder to get two in the same region. Paying a regional entry fee and then not going is a dumb idea IMO. +1 to @Dirt 's comments. We should start another discussion about the unnecessary bureaucracy of the AWSA.
    BallOfSpray Pacific Northwest Vice President of Event Management, aka "Zappy"
    skier2788
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    @Horton - you got distracted by the funding comment. It was only a preemptive rebuttal about regionals losing those skiers entry fees as an excuse to not try something different.

    The real focus is on the idea that @Dirt started and I expanded upon:
    Skiers who are already nationals-qualified should be excluded from the podium spots at Regionals. They can ski and get a score, but for podium ranking, they will be skipped over. Thus, the podium equates to top skiers who weren't already qualified and now are able participate at nationals.

    Now, take that same idea an apply it at State:
    Skiers who are already regionals-qualified should be excluded from the podium spots at State Champs. They can ski and get a score, but for podium ranking, they will be skipped over. Thus, the podium equates to top skiers who weren't already qualified and now are able participate at regionals.

    Benefits?
    1) Skiers no longer have to ski lower levels if already qualified above.
    2) Skiers who aren't yet qualified can compete against one another to win qualification via the podium.
    3) The podium has more meaning for those competing for it.
    4) Not-yet-qualified skiers are more likely to compete since they see the podium spots not all consumed by already-qualified skiers.
    5) Already qualified skiers can still participate and record valid score, but don't consume podium spots.
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
    dislandRichardDoaneBruce_Butterfield
  • KelvinKelvin Posts: 944 Crazy Baller
    @ToddL I submitted a similar rule proposal this year, except it excluded Masters and Open skiers from the Top 5 at regionals if they decided to ski age group.
    Kelvin Kelm, Lakes of Katy, Katy Texas
    dislandRichardDoane
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 643 Crazy Baller
    @RichardDoane if skiers pay an entry but don't attend maybe that is a way to make hosting regionals more appealing and not a dumb idea. Besides it would at least be a start. I will gladly pay my entry and not attend vs. being forced to attend and spend considerably more money on travel and lodging for a tournament that all I have to do is obtain skiing position
    Travis Torley
    RichardDoaneDrago
  • RichardDoaneRichardDoane Posts: 3,912 Mega Baller
    @skier2788 - but if you already have the qualifying score for Nationals attendance, why should you be forced to throw money at an event you're over-qualified for ? My choice of words was poor, paying to not attend is a "wasteful" idea, not "dumb", sorry.

    @ToddL - I was hoping this discussion would stimulate ideas like yours, thanks for your input. We are on the right track, because something must be done to improve the present situation.
    BallOfSpray Pacific Northwest Vice President of Event Management, aka "Zappy"
    RazorRoss3skier2788unksskis
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 643 Crazy Baller
    I pulled these number from another older thread on this topic.

    A few things to ponder: Over 60% of the Nationally qualified skier's did not attend the national championships. Over 75% of slalom only qualified skiers did not attend nationals.

    Would increasing the number of qualified skiers really do anything?

    IMO we need to make it easier for those that are qualified to attend.
    Travis Torley
    DragoRazorRoss3RichardDoane
  • HortonHorton Posts: 23,532 Administrator
    edited January 7
    @ToddL That is maybe the least logical thing I have ever heard. Because I am qualified for Nationals I can not win a medal at Regionals?

    Do you have any idea how many skiers are qualified for Nationals but have almost no chance of a medal? Those same skiers have some chance to win Regionals but you want exclude them?

    Lets take me for example. My current national rank is 24th. Chance to be in top 5 at Nationals almost zero. My current regional rank is 4th (not including the 10 or so MM that could move down for the win). You are telling me that because I have earned the right to get my ass kicked at Nationals I can go compete at Regionals?

    With those rules I am demotivated to go to both events.

    Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

    Connelly / DBSkis /   Denali / Eden Ski Lake  / Goode / HO Syndicate / MasterCraft / Masterline

    O'Brien / Performance Ski and Surf / PTM Edge / Stokes / Reflex / Radar / Wakeye

  • RazorRoss3RazorRoss3 Posts: 1,165 Mega Baller
    Nationals qualification should be based on the nationals ranking lost with a minimum number of tournaments requirement. No state or regionals required. You could still have the events but they would have no greater impact on nationals qualification than any other event.
    skier27886ballsRichardDoaneHorton
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 643 Crazy Baller
    I was trying to think about Nationals a little bit differently. What if we made it so that the only way to qualify for Nationals was to place top 5 at state and then top 5 at regionals. It would make Nationals very small with only 25 competitors max in each division but it would make Nationals a very prestiges event while also making regionals more important.
    Travis Torley
    Bruce_Butterfield
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    @Horton - I get your point on the idea. I considered it, too.

    Actually, I now like @klindy 's alternative idea even better!
    In summary: Everyone who shows us skis. Podium is the top skiers who skied. Qualification to the next level is awarded by walking down the list of placements until the appropriate number of invitations are awarded to the top not-yet-qualified skiers.

    Basically, this preserves the nature of the event's competition, but adds the attraction of more opportunity to become qualified for the next level! This should help make participation more attractive and further increase the number of qualified skiers for the next level.

    @skier2788 - yeah participation rates are low. Distance and travel costs are the primary barriers.

    However, I suspect there are three demographics which are most likely to attend nations: 1) local qualified skiers, 2) those likely to podium, and 3) those who just recently qualified for the first time or only occasionally qualify.

    By extending qualifications down the placement list to the top N not-yet-qualified, we would be more likely to create more skiers in the 3rd category, who I believe are more likely to attend nationals.
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
  • skier2788skier2788 Posts: 643 Crazy Baller
    @ToddL this is going to come across really elitist and I apologize now for that but by allowing another 3 to 5 skiers qualify per division aren't you just watering down the competition at Nationals? If we are just wanting huge numbers at Nationals why not allow everyone to go?
    We are probly just attacking the same problem from two different directions. Are you looking for just sheer numbers at Nationals or a high level of competition?

    This idea does nothing to make regionals important to the level 8 and above skiers.
    IMO you have to make regionals worth my time and money to attend or let me skip.
    Travis Torley
    RazorRoss3
  • ToddLToddL Posts: 2,701 Mega Baller
    @skier2788 - good point. no need to apologize.

    I just don't like the pay and skip solution. So, I started down this path after reading the other posts. Maybe it's a rat hole. Keith got it back on track a bit with the alternative. Still, the question of "to what end?" is a valid one. @Horton keeps coming back to that question as well, and for good reason. All of these bandaids are all just peripheral and temporary until the body of skiers and its governing body comes to one conclusion about the purpose/definition of nationals given today's context.
    -- The future of skiing depends upon welcoming novice skiers regardless of age to our sport.
    skier2788
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?