Things that promote accessibility for getting into ski racing

[nnowak]

racing in the midwest is great, and many current and former USST athletes grew up in the midwest. There were several FIS series in the midwest last year.

1. Giant's Ridge Recreation Area, 4x SL, 12/10-12/11
2. Spirit Mountain, 6x SL, 12/30-1/1
3. Lutsen, 4x GS, 1/2
4. Buck Hill, 4x SL, 1/14-1/15
5. Mt La Crosse, 4x SL, 1/21-1/22
6. Nubs Nob, 6x SL, 1/21-1/23
7. Buck Hill, 4x SL, 2/3-2/4
8. Mt La Crosse, 6x SL, 2/10-2/12
9. Lutsen, 4x GS, 4x SL, 3/23-3/26

Looks like you are counting individual runs and not races. Some of those races had less than 20 women starting and the number of men wasn't much better.

 

[nnowak]

You said it here.

You clearly don't understand Sky Tavern. Its a non profit that gets kids on snow.
Cameron wants to do a few things that will get the race team involved in the community surrounding Sky Tavern. There are various ways that he can help with synergy between the two organizations and help make ski racing more accessible for these kids.

From my own experience:
Start Haus donates a bunch of older race skis left over from their consignment sale as well as a bunch of random ski boots to the Sky Tavern Race program.
When they schedule their "fit day" Philpug, Andy Mink and I go there to help the kids and parents figure out what they need and fit them into ski boots.
These skis and boots are FREE to the kids.
I can totally see Cameron and the UNR Team getting involved in events like that.

No, I don't "understand Sky Tavern", but your previous post on the topic only mentioned that the University of Nevada team might practice at Sky Tavern and nothing about partnering with the non-profit program.

 

[S.H.]

Looks like you are counting individual runs and not races. Some of those races had less than 20 women starting and the number of men wasn't much better.

No, it's because on the same day if there's a men's SL and a women's SL, that gets counted as 2x SL.

The claim was there aren't FIS races in the midwest. There are. Whether or not people are participating is a different issue.

 

[sparty]

I'd love to see more of this! Props to that coach, we need more folks like that. Non-elite ski racing is super important, and what I love more than anything on the elite side (and I've been involved in both).

+1. The program I worked for in Montana had a lot of kids on equipment that came out of one of the coaches' garages. He was incredibly good at finding and holding on to used gear... almost too good, in fact. Occasionally we had to twist his arm to discard a pair of skis that deserved retirement; in particular, I remember one time that a smaller U18 cracked the sidewall on a pair of slalom skis that had to be at least six or seven years old, and I almost pulled the bindings and left the skis in the hotel dumpster to keep him from trying to fix them. I didn't, and sure enough, he looked at the skis and started talking about epoxy. Kenny Rogers has some relevant advice.

That program also had U18s who had to miss training days because they were working so they could pay for travel costs for the next race weekend.

So that other has a whole lot going well, including a pretty large U10/12 contingent, and a lot of kids who end up with good technical skills and a love of skiing (granted, it helps when your race gets cancelled due to snow and you get to freeski Bridger Bowl on a three-foot day). But the chance of anyone relying on the (relatively) low barrier to entry getting beyond regional events was pretty slim; the one guy who put himself in contention for a spot on a competitive collegiate team did so with a couple of years in a bigger program out of state (including a PG year), and that takes significant financial resources.

 

[nnowak]

Our daughter who was on skis before age 2, started with the local development team (D-Team) at age 6, transitioned to USSS a year later, will be a first year U16 with USSS this year, and also races for her high school team. She is not the fastest in the region, but is often on the podium. It is probably safe to say that we are right in the thick of youth ski racing.

Youth racing in the US is a hot mess.

In our area, most of the ski resorts host a D-Team with roughly a dozen weekend practices and four or five local races per season. Costs are relatively reasonable, equipment requirements are minimal, and the programs cater to a very broad range of skill levels. At least at the younger ages (under 12), D-Teams are a great option, but enrollment drops off precipitously in the older age groups. Some of the older kids are leaving racing altogether while others are moving to more rigorous programs like USSS or high school teams.

The problems really start when you move up a notch to USSS. Program fees are roughly quadruple what the D-Teams charge. Equipment costs go up exponentially with the need for SL, GS, and SG skis, multiple pairs of poles for each discipline, shin guards, chin guards, pole guards, back protectors, race suits, hard sided helmets, etc. Travel costs also get insane with over half the weekends in the winter spent in hotels. Unlike D-Team, where you could get by with a yearly tune at the local shop, being competitive in USSS require someone to be tuning skis multiple times per week and again before a race. I am not necessarily suggesting that any of these aspects need to be limited or banned, but it is a massive commitment of both time and resources for both the child and the parents. The bigger problems with USSS is how the racing is structured. First, you have the kids siloed into age groups with 2 year increments. Competition at the U14 and younger "non-scored" races gets stagnant as you are generally competing against the same narrow pool of athletes at every race. The racing doesn't really get intersting until you get to the "scored" level which is typically U16 and up, but some races also allow U14's to "ski up". In our area, scored races can have fields of well over 100 athletes for both genders and there is far more variability with who makes the podium. U14 and especially U16 is when athletes start qualifying for and competing in regional and national championships. Qualifying for championships used to be based on season long standings, but now most are just based on a single weekend of races in the spring. Basically, all of the races prior to mid February are now meaningless. The biggest problem with USSS starts after U16 where USSS basically falls apart. For example, in our region, Super G "Speed Camps" are available for U12, U14, and U16. There is no "speed camp" in our area for U18s. When it comes to races, any kid older than U16 who is truly serious about racing long-term switches to FIS racing to start chasing points. If you want to make the roster of a Div 1 college team, or have a shot at the US ski team, FIS points are all that matters. Only a small handful of U18's still participate in the local USSS races, and the FIS races in our region can have field sizes that are 1/10 that of big "scored" races. Chasing FIS points means a LOT more travel. While there are a handfull of FIS races within our region, they often don't attract the level of competition that would give you the opportunity to lower your points. The leads to even more travel. A side issue with FIS and USSS racing at the youth level are the scoring systems that heavily favors 1st place wins over consistency.

Finally, there is high school racing. In our state, high school racing is open to anyone in 7th through 12th grade and the kids only race slalom. Program fees vary wildly by school, but they are all significantly lower than USSS. Equipment requirements are pretty much down to a helmet, chin bar, and goggles. Just like D-Team, skill levels vary wildly with everything from top level USSS racers to foreign exchange students who have never even seen snow before. While there is still individual scoring and individual state champions, high school racing adds team scoring to the mix. If there are 60 kids at a race, 1st place gets 60 points and 60th place gets 1 point. Depending on the race, either 4 out of 6 or 6 out of 10 racers count towards the team score. If a couple of your top racers crash, a slower kid on twin tips can be the deciding factor for the team result. The bigger schools with enough kids also field junior varsity (JV) teams that race alongside the varsity teams. Compared to the other youth racing options, high school racing is the only one where kids with less than top level skills can still experience victories. It is also the only one where the kids really and truly are rooting for their teammates.

Basically, D-Team works well for 12 and under. USSS works well for 12 to 15 year olds. High school racing works well for 7th grade through 12th grade. FIS works for anyone 16 and older who is willing to spend the winter traveling across the country. There is no continuity and only FIS points will get you onto a college team. After high school/college, racing options get limited and training options are almost non-existent. You also have the disconnect of most kids primarily focussing on slalom while most adult "beer" leagues run Nastar style GS.

So how do we fix this mess, get more kids into racing, and keep more kids in racing?

I have a few thoughts....

Just like terrain parks, ski areas could start hosting open slalom courses. Maybe it would only be at certain times or on certain days, but it would definitely help if more people could experience a race course outside of a formal team. Not brushies, not stubbies, but 60" "hero" gates. As it is currently, the general public's only interaction with racing is typically the "closed for training" banners blocking off entire runs.

D-Teams should merge with the adult leagues. The adults might need to cut back on the "beer" part of beer league, but it would show younger kids that they can keep racing as adults. It would also open up more training options for the adults, especially for slalom. Maybe more importantly, it would allow entire families to race together.

USSS needs to completely restructure the racing. Change the U18 cutoff so that you are not eliminating half of the high school seniors. Another small change would be to stop classifying age groups based on a January 1st cutoff. Friends in the same grade at school are often only racing together every ether year if their birthdays are on either side of January 1st. Incrementing groups by 2 year age classes is fine for the younger kids, but somewhere around age 12 it should switch to ability based grouping. Maybe have 3 different ability tiers. If you are consistently placing in the top 10% for your group, you get bumped up to the next tier. Place in the top 10% at a championship and you get bumped to the next tier. Ability based groups would allow the truly exceptional kids to experience higher level competition sooner and the slower kids would have long term goals to work towards. A national championship for the top tier would also be a perfect scouting opportunity for the universities. Any senior placing in the top 10 should be guaranteed a division 1 spot.

Something needs to be done about the disconnect between FIS and USSS for 16-18 year old athletes in the US. Jumping to FIS at age 16 is great if you are a phenom like Mikaela, but is a very expensive waste of time if you are not. Regional issues are also compounded at the FIS level. You may need to travel 5 states away to get to a FIS race where the competition is at a high enough level to have a chance of lowering your points. I would almost be tempted to say that we shouldn't even have FIS racing in the US for anyone in high school. Maybe access to FIS needs to be a 4th tier after the 3 USSS tiers I mentioned above. Alternatively, maybe there shouldn't be USSS racing in the US and it should all fall under FIS. Right now, most of the USSS racing is utterly meaningless as FIS points are the only thing that really matters.

The current college racing situation is probably the smallest part of the puzzle, but as it is currently structured, it provides very little incentive for US athletes to continue with the sport. The NCAA needs to institute dramatic restrictions on the number of foreign born athletes on college ski teams. I would suggest under 20%. Alternatively, base acceptance on USSS points and ignore FIS points. If a foreign kid wants to move to the US and race USSS for a couple years to prove themselves, then let them on the team, but prioritizing a predominantly European rankings system seems wrong. The fact that Italy has roughly 25% more registered FIS alpine athletes than the USA should be a clue that FIS points are a bad metric for US college team selection.

While she loves racing, our daughter is already planning to drop out of USSS after U16, but she will continue with high school racing. Chasing FIS points in our region is relatively pointless and U18 USSS is a hollow shell of U16.

 

[nnowak]

No, it's because on the same day if there's a men's SL and a women's SL, that gets counted as 2x SL.

The claim was there aren't FIS races in the midwest. There are. Whether or not people are participating is a different issue.

People aren't skipping the races. It is just that very few people transition to FIS in the region. A small portion leaves the region altogether, typically for Colorado, and roughly half of the kids in the region just quit racing after u16.

 

[skiJ]

No, it's because on the same day if there's a men's SL and a women's SL, that gets counted as 2x SL.

The claim was there aren't FIS races in the midwest. There are. Whether or not people are participating is a different issue.

I will move forward, and respectfully,
I did not claim there aren't FIS races in the midwest ,

I said midwest clubs are not sending kids to FiS races "all the time" and the lutsen series was the only one I was aware of.
I am not trying to be clever, and there is a difference.

None of the youth programs (four) I have been associated with was involved with FIS - four club programs, three of which are high school ski teams.
none are affiliated with FIS -

FIS' expansion is fine (with me) - it's not my segment ;

I have tried to bring each of my comments back to growing ski racing.
I have seen it be an important foundational piece for four families of my friends. And
for me, That's probably more important than where the next recordbreaker comes from !

... carry on... skiJ

postscript.

my Thanks to nnowak for your thoughtful, insightful post -
I hope some of the administrators and managers with USSA/S and FIS are working to reconcile the organizations ( though there does seem to be more separation than redundancy. ) And
I have not been involved with anyone that raced FIS in more than a decade ( and at that time it was Very much an exception. )

again. carry on...

 

[crgildart]

bc they focus on Tech skiing more….

They are all in on bump skiing too..

 

[jt10000]

D-Teams should merge with the adult leagues. The adults might need to cut back on the "beer" part of beer league, but it would show younger kids that they can keep racing as adults. It would also open up more training options for the adults, especially for slalom. Maybe more importantly, it would allow entire families to race together.

There are one or two events like this at the hill we ski at, with a lot of interest particularly from the younger kids to see if they can beat adults including their parents.

But they are one-offs, not a series.

 

[Tricia]

No, I don't "understand Sky Tavern", but your previous post on the topic only mentioned that the University of Nevada team might practice at Sky Tavern and nothing about partnering with the non-profit program.

In my original post about the topic...

His speech was on point about how he wants to include the community as a whole and was happy that the welcome party was being held at Sky Tavern because programs like that are important.

I was being vague because we don't know exactly what he intends to do but its clear that he intends to have some kind of community efforts between the UNR race team and Sky Tavern, and he also mentioned including some of the local ski areas like Rose and Diamond Peak.
It gave me a sense that he wants local kids from these smalller areas/programs to know that there is a hope of becoming a collegiate ski racer.

Think about it. They could have had his welcome party anywhere on the UNR Campus, but it was held at Sky Tavern.

 

[nnowak]

In my original post about the topic...

I was being vague because we don't know exactly what he intends to do but its clear that he intends to have some kind of community efforts between the UNR race team and Sky Tavern, and he also mentioned including some of the local ski areas like Rose and Diamond Peak.
It gave me a sense that he wants local kids from these smalller areas/programs to know that there is a hope of becoming a collegiate ski racer.

Think about it. They could have had his welcome party anywhere on the UNR Campus, but it was held at Sky Tavern.

I am not going to speculate on why the introduction was hosted at Sky Tavern. My issue is with your suggestion of inspiring the local kids that "there is a hope of becoming a collegiate ski racer". Until the NCAA changes their rules on foreign athletes in college racing, that inspiration would basically be a lie. Even more so if you are talking about lower income kids racing on free gear. If you can't afford to spend $10,000 a year just on hotel nights, there is little hope of getting your FIS points low enough to qualify for a college team.

This actually brings up another problem with USSS accessibility. USSS made a half-hearted attempt to reign in costs for younger athletes a few years ago. For U12 and younger they banned tuning benches in the race venue, banned separate race vs. inspection skis, and banned race suits for only certain races during the season. USSS completely ignored the burgeoning race calendars with numerous away races that require hotel stays. One weekend in a hotel can easily cost far more than a spare pair of skis and a race suit. In our region, U12 had 8 race days on the calendar that would have required hotel stays. At U14 that skyrocketed to 17 hotel nights with an additional 6 in Vail if you qualified for the regional championships. Our team is centrally located. The hotel numbers are even worse for other teams throughout the region.

 

[Rod9301]

I have two kids, 11 and 14. The last 6 winters we spent in the French Pyrenees.

They both were in ski race programs.

The cost, last year was 400 usd per person, including two pairs of skis, slalom and gs.

The coaches were former racers, half used to race world cup.

And this is why France and Europe in general does so well in ski racing.

I don't know the exact costs in the US, but they seem to be an order of magnitude higher. In order for a kid to train in the US, the first gateway is that parents have to be affluent. So this cuts down drastically the talent pool.

The ski club my kids belonged to was entirely volunteer, except for the coaches.

In the US, there is the greed factor, most kids programs are for profit, and i believe for most sports.

And why would a ski resort charge fees for training?

 

[crgildart]

And why would a ski resort charge fees for training?

Liability insurance..

 

[Brian Finch]

And why would a ski resort charge fees for training?

Racing is seen as a Revenue Line Item- it’s purpose is to make money.

Even typing this, it sounds ridiculous & short sighted.

I (and many, many others) will often give away old gear or set up local kids.

Heck, 1 year we gifted a new FIS setup to a coach who was skiing on her 20 year old slaloms despite being a dominant former College / NorAm standout. Keeping this person engaged benefits the hundreds of racers she’s interacts with each season.

 

[nnowak]

I have two kids, 11 and 14. The last 6 winters we spent in the French Pyrenees.

They both were in ski race programs.

The cost, last year was 400 usd per person, including two pairs of skis, slalom and gs.

The coaches were former racers, half used to race world cup.

Maybe not world cup level, but most coaches here were former racers too.

And this is why France and Europe in general does so well in ski racing.

I don't know the exact costs in the US, but they seem to be an order of magnitude higher. In order for a kid to train in the US, the first gateway is that parents have to be affluent. So this cuts down drastically the talent pool.

Program costs are roughly 5X to 25X what you were paying in France. This only covers the coaching. Season passes, all gear, and race entry fees are all extra expenses.

The ski club my kids belonged to was entirely volunteer, except for the coaches.

Mostly true here too. Besides paying salaries, a large portion of the team fee also goes to paying all of the travel expenses for coaches at races.

In the US, there is the greed factor, most kids programs are for profit, and i believe for most sports.

Not at all. Most US training teams are 501C3 non-profits.

And why would a ski resort charge fees for training?

There are multiple reasons for "lane fees". Liability insurance, mid-day grooming to clean up the mess of ruts after the courses are pulled, sometimes extra staff are needed to run lifts solely for the racers, etc. A more subtle, underlying issue is that ski racing does not have the universal favorable view in the US that it might enjoy in Europe. I have been on the hill doing coursework and had people swearing at me from the chairlift because they were outraged a single hill was closed to free skiers. For many resorts, ski racing is just something they "tolerate".

 

[ScotsSkier]

Kinda hard for the local community to feel included when only 2 of the 6 women on the team are from the US and all 6 men are foreigners.

not actually correct. They signed 3 US women (2 local) and 1 US man ( again local) this season. And while UNR may be doing photo ops at Sky Tavern, last season they were training at Mt Rose ( full disclosure, I am head coach there) where we were loading at 6.30 am for them. And yes my Far west athletes had several opportunities to train alongside them.

and to get back to the original point of the thread. I’m sorry but there appears to be some almost bipolar thinking. We want to reduce the costs of ski racing to get more people involved. But then we also seem to have this utopian idea that that by itself will get more of our athletes to the top level while somehow ignoring the costs involved in that - travel, hotels, equipment, training etc. I don’t somehow see top level racing going to1 pair of skis…. So where does the funding magically appear from to provide all the subsidies to support this desire to bring a whole lot more in? just being realistic

so what is the preferred objective?

 

[nnowak]

not actually correct. They signed 3 US women (2 local) and 1 US man ( again local) this season. And while UNR may be doing photo ops at Sky Tavern, last season they were training at Mt Rose ( full disclosure, I am head coach there) where we were loading at 6.30 am for them. And yes my Far west athletes had several opportunities to train alongside them.

I am just going off the roster posted on the UNR website. Regardless, the point still stands that a significant percentage of Div 1 NCAA racers are not US born.

and to get back to the original point of the thread. I’m sorry but there appears to be some almost bipolar thinking. We want to reduce the costs of ski racing to get more people involved. But then we also seem to have this utopian idea that that by itself will get more of our athletes to the top level while somehow ignoring the costs involved in that - travel, hotels, equipment, training etc. I don’t somehow see top level racing going to1 pair of skis…. So where does the funding magically appear from to provide all the subsidies to support this desire to bring a whole lot more in? just being realistic

so what is the preferred objective?

There are two different issues; getting kids into ski racing and keeping kids in ski racing.

 

[fatbob]

and to get back to the original point of the thread. I’m sorry but there appears to be some almost bipolar thinking. We want to reduce the costs of ski racing to get more people involved. But then we also seem to have this utopian idea that that by itself will get more of our athletes to the top level while somehow ignoring the costs involved in that - travel, hotels, equipment, training etc. I don’t somehow see top level racing going to1 pair of skis…. So where does the funding magically appear from to provide all the subsidies to support this desire to bring a whole lot more in? just being realistic

so what is the preferred objective?

Exactly.

You can have a fun participation sport where you keep it as local/ volunteer as possible with possibly homestay exchanges for visiting athletes, donated space on the hill etc.

Or you can try to establish a full competitive development pyramid at significant cost.

Blending the two seems pretty hard. Verging on impossible when you consider the profit motive of major resorts and indeed the competing recreational market needing that space on the hill, those hotel rooms etc.

 

[Lauren]

I am not going to speculate on why the introduction was hosted at Sky Tavern. My issue is with your suggestion of inspiring the local kids that "there is a hope of becoming a collegiate ski racer". Until the NCAA changes their rules on foreign athletes in college racing, that inspiration would basically be a lie. Even more so if you are talking about lower income kids racing on free gear. If you can't afford to spend $10,000 a year just on hotel nights, there is little hope of getting your FIS points low enough to qualify for a college team.

I'm not sure why this would be a lie. Maybe I'm missing something? I just took a look at the UNH roster (I'm an alum there, so figured it'd be an interesting place to look)...just over 1/2 the women's team is from the US, and 2/3 of the men's team from the US...with a handful of students even being from the mid-west.

When I was in early high school, I wasn't sure if I wanted to continue my athletic career past graduation (not ski racing). Part of that uncertainty was due to self-doubt on my ability to play at the next level. I am forever thankful for a local UNH player from my hometown that helped coach our high school team and became a mentor of mine. She gave me the hope and the inspiration it took to take me to the next level. I think it's awesome that there are teams/coaches that are making this type of commitment in their local area.

Now...the cost of the sport is a tough one, and one that will be a lot tougher to overcome. I completely understand that travel/hotel room costs, added to the cost of equipment, is not an easy one for many families to stomach. But I'm really not sure what the answer is to that...

 

[nnowak]

I'm not sure why this would be a lie. Maybe I'm missing something? I just took a look at the UNH roster (I'm an alum there, so figured it'd be an interesting place to look)...just over 1/2 the women's team is from the US, and 2/3 of the men's team from the US...with a handful of students even being from the mid-west.

Take Nordic out of the equation. For Alpine, 4 out of 10 are US born for the women, and 3 out of 10 for the men. Nordic is basically the opposite with 8 out of 12 women being US born, and all 10 men are US born. All of the mid-west athletes are on the Nordic team.

This Nordic vs. Alpine demographic disparity is something I noticed in the rosters of many other universities. Is the US flooded with super talented Nordic athletes, but there is a shortage of similarly talented Alpine athletes in the US? Or, are there systemic structural issues in the US alpine pipeline?