Competition Task Force 2006

1
Competition Task Force2006
2
Objectives - April 2003

• Put competition into ALL AREAS of tournament
  skiing.
  
• Create an integrated rating/ranking system with a
  meaningful nomenclature from beginner to world
  class levels.
  
• Create a REASON for increased competition in
  tournaments
  

3
Why Change Our System?

• Current system places too much focus on ratings.
  Ski and your done.
  
• Local level competition needs more skiers to make
  an event. Age-based, rating system is
  individual-focused.
  
• Need a system that uses a similar structure from
  top to bottom, not just at the advanced levels.
  
• Establish a format for a National System of
  ability-based competition.

4
The Initial Proposal

• Concept was tailored to the existing base of
  tournament skiers because competition was limited
  at the local level.
  
• Nationals, Regionals and States were already
  competitive so they would fit nicely in a
  placement-based strategy.
  
• CTF suggested changing the qualification process
  for Nationals to an Advance By Placement (ABP)
  system.
  
• PROPOSAL FAILED In part because the change was
  too dramatic from the existing system.

5
Additional Steps Taken

• Rankings web site (TRA) became operational in
  September 2005 and provided a framework for a
  more interactive system of rankings and
  qualifying.
• CTF took direction from the AWSA Board to
  consider an alternate approach that would use a
  rankings approach and limit the impact on the
  National qualifiers.

6
CTF 2006 New Objectives

• Establish a Nationals qualification system based
  upon the AWSA Official Ranking List (i.e.
  12-Month Rolling).
  
• Utilize the current Ratings Committee procedures
  and percentages for establishing the projected
  number of qualifiers.
  
• Create new methods of Nationals qualification to
  encourage tournament participation and enhance
  Regional tournament competition, including
  Advance By Placement.
• Support the implementation of Zero Based
  Scoring in slalom to promote a
  nationally-recognized system for ability-based
  competition with built-in handicapping.

7
The ranking list dynamics

• Web based, 12 month rolling list on HQs website,
  constantly updated as tournament data is
  received
  
• Displays all skiers that have skied in a
  tournament including NSL events and ranks them by
  state, region, and nation
  
• Divided into 10 ability levels with levels 3-8
  being equivalent to the performance percentages
  previously used to determine the 5 rating levels.
  
• The CTF is still decided when changing divisions,
  if the parameters of the skiers new division do
  not change, if scores will roll over from year to
  year.
• A skiers rankings list average in each event is
  an average of his top 5 Slalom, top 3 Jump or top
  3 Trick scores achieved at any Class C or above
  tournament within the last 12 months.
• The current penalty system that has always been
  used for seeding still applies
  
• All tournament scores class C and above,
  including regionals and nationals, will be
  equally weighted.

8
Rankings List Champions

• Rankings list champions will be crowned based on
  the calendar year in each division for slalom,
  tricks, jump, and overall with recognition via
  certificate, and acknowledgment on the website
  and magazine

9
National Qualification

• All skiers ranked level 8 in any event or overall
  the Wednesday 3 weeks prior to nationals (cutoff
  date) will receive an automatic invite to
  nationals.
• At that time the rankings average of the last
  ranked skier in level 8 in each divisions/event
  will be established as the cut off average (COA).
  
• Qualifiers from the ranking list as of the CO
  Date are protected. A qualified skier cannot
  become unqualified, even though that skiers
  ranking value may drop below the COA, due to
  scores posted on TRA after cut-off date or older
  scores dropping out of the skiers ranking value.
  

10
Last Chance Qualifying

• After the cutoff date any skiers who did not
  receive an automatic invite can still qualify for
  nationals through last chance qualifying methods
  (LCQs).
• Last Chance 1 Skiers may qualify for Nationals
  by improving their ranking value above COA, at
  any time during the period from CO Date to
  Nationals.
• Last Chance 2 Skiers may qualify for Nationals
  by scoring at or above the COA at the Regional
  tournament.
  

11
Qualification By Placement

• Qualify By Placement 1 - Top 5 placements in
  each event and overall at Regional Tournament
  qualify for Nationals, regardless of rating or
  ranking.
• Qualify By Placement 2 - Top 5 placements in
  each event and overall at Previous National
  Tournament qualify, regardless of rating or
  ranking.

12
Comparison

• AWSA Board directed CTF to compare any new
  proposal to the existing system to insure the
  impact on the numbers of people qualifying for
  Nationals was neutral.
• Current system produces 2,083 national
  qualifiers. Of those, 1899 qualify by EP rating
  and 187 by regional placement.
  
• Proposed system would produce 2,099 Nationals
  qualifiers, with 1,860 qualifying by ranking list
  and 239 by regional placement.
  
• 137 new skiers would qualify for nationals that
  previously didnt while 165 skiers who previously
  qualified via ratings would not have made it via
  our proposal however, only 8 percent of those
  actually attended the Nationals last year
  anyways.

13
Qualifiers in Current New Systems
14
Important Benefits

• Promotes competition every weekend between skiers
  across the country.
  
• Focus on web-based ranking list means increased
  interaction between skiers and USA Waterski.
  
• Individual tournaments are more meaningful, since
  scores will be used in ranking value throughout
  the season.
  
• Enhances importance of Regional tournaments.

15
Additional Benefits

• Increased tournament participation.
• A first step toward a true competition based
  system.
  
• Rankings (vs Ratings) provide a more
  understandable format for new participants.
  
• The rankings list itself will provide value to
  USA Waterski, as well as its sponsors and
  advertisers.
  
• Structure promotes alternative formats, such as
  handicapping, ability-based groupings, etc.