I meant to respond to
@Started at 53's inquiries. Forgot to, and just saw the thread.
Good question. The USST has had different goals and strategy over the years. To be honest, it's been all over the place. The one constant has been that the organization has always struggled to either manage their budget, or to raise enough money to fund things. Some suggest that we simply can't support as many "disciplines." Too many mouths to feed. Others feel that we are missing the boat by not ramping up things like skier cross. we cover it all. And if you have a passion for one specific discipline you can't imagine it being dropped. Looks at women's ski jumping.
You may recall that the USST's tag line, developed under Bill Marolt, the CEO at the time, was "Best in the World!" At the time, he took a lot of heat, as by any measure we were not the best, or close. Shortly there after we began to have some consistent individual performance that absolutely was the best. Bode was unquestionably the best multi event skier on tour for a while. DR was at the top. Vonn, Mancuso{on big stages}, later the emergence of MS. Right now we have the best female speed skier in history, and Mikaela, who most will agree is the best SL skier ever, and soon will be there in GS. A healthy Ligety is pretty darn strong.
But what determines "Best in the World?" There is this thing called the Nation's Cup, and it goes to the team that has the best season on the WC. It's huge deal for the big ski federations. The Austrians would like to own it. This year on the women's side, the Italians snuck in to take it. This year our women finished fourth. The men eighth. Sixth overall. Pretty far back. Some people think it's a big deal. If my federation won, I would.
In alpine racing, and even at the better ski clubs, there has been a historical "thing" whereby a disproportionate amount of time, resources and talent has gone to push a very small handful of people. I have seen it at some of the bigger ski academies. You might have a FIS womens group of 12, but it's real clear that the focus is one or two. The same thing has taken place on the USST. And the USST is not alone. The worst example, which sure "worked" was Slovenia and Maze. She had the record season, and she and he boyfriend/coach bled the system and almost finished it off. Amazing to see how great things are for them, interns of a real team of many, with that show gone.
MS has her own coach, her own assistant, her own physio, etc. Atomic provides her own tech, and her own boot tech. No sharing. When Bode and and Ligety were both skiing, they were the multi event team {a team of two}. I think they had three, maybe four coaches, and a
whole lot of support. Same for LV. At times much more on her own. But the focus and goal was to get medals. Get WC wins, and WC globes. And, they have executed pretty damn well on that plan. That's hard to argue with. The future is a bit concerning. Other than MS, this is going to take patience and time.
Taking the other side of the coin, we have not much depth, not much bench strength. We push kids who are young, and throw them out of the system too soon. You will hear of one shortly and it infuriates me. I feel very strongly that it is all because of mis-management of resources, and too much love for the chosen ones. In that respect we are unique. We bounce people VERY young. The Euro's do not. Not as much. If it's never going to happen, sure. We seem to drop people with the goods to succeed.
As far as age, women are ready and peak at younger ages than men. We used to throw them in the breech too young. Skiers gain a lot with experience on the WC, familiarity with the venues, and the whole show. For men, particularly on the speed hills, but even on the super demanding tech hills, years of experience is often required to capitalize on. Not everybody is a HK, or Hirscher. Travis Ganong is really just hitting his stride as a speed skier, at what, 28? I like to look at the Norwegian team. A real team.
So, it's not an easy equation. Who do you keep? Who do you cut loose? At what ages? Do you rely on "objective criteria", or lean more on "discretion?" Do you let more people be part of the team, and have them pay their way? This season we are going to have at least two guys {maybe three} starting every WC SL who are good enough for that, but will not make the team at the ages of 26 and 27. That is NUTS. These guys, properly supported might be great skiers. They are bigger, stronger, skiing faster and more consistently than ever. The criteria at their ages is a bit ambitious, being polite. Yeah, good enough to start every WC, an already assured of that, but not "on the team." Huh?
I have had conversations with USST coaches in the early summer, before the training season really began, and they have singled out an athlete or two, made the comment that they "snuck in" by just making criteria and that they are never going to make it. And than, having done NOTHING to help those athletes in the course of the year, patted themselves for being right and being such great evaluators a year later when the athlete was dropped. That was years ago, but there is some of that thinking that goes on. Some of our athletes who hang on the team for years were "chosen ones" who were can't misses at 17, and guess what, have pretty much missed for a decade or even longer. "Chosen ones."
That is a mess. The USST really prides itself on how many of their current coaches are American, and even on how many are USST alums. Some with almost zero coaching experience before going the USST. I really don't know if that is good. There are great catches who learn the craft in other countries, starting to coach and learn at about 18. They are serious. Do we ignore that talent pool? They problem upset they system.
Talk to 10 people who have some insight and experience with the USSA and USST, and I will guarantee that eight will express incredible frustration with this financial picture. It amazed me that with their operating budget they can not assemble a development staff to raise the money to fully fund this deal. It's not a huge amount of money. Some think this is harsh, and "mean." They have people who work hard at development and PR, etc. In a real corporate world, very nice and good people get cut loose daily because the results are not there. We need to improve it.
The national team lists are coming out all over the world. Some of these team rosters look HUGE compared to ours, and its my understanding that none of these athletes are reaching into their pockets. Some have "jobs" with the government as police officers, or army officers, and happen to be assigned to the country's ski team. The sport is just a bigger part of most cultures, and the governments and sponsors recognize it. The sponsors are big.
You have some older athletes on last years USST roster. Where they there? Bode, Mancuso? Ligety is struggling to stay healthy. Vonn is at the end of the road. There are also a lot of holes in terms of birth years.
The ski team development{skiing development, not fundraising} system has been open to a lot of criticism. Most thing that it's much improved since Chip Knight took it over, and since they realized that keeping many younger athletes right with their clubs for the most part, supplemented by many "projects" made sense. Naming a D team of 8 or so, and dropping 6 form the system the following spring didn't make much sense.
I hear more people being quite critical, rather than thinking this is working very well. Some expect a complete housecleaning after the 2018 season. CEO on down. Complete reboot. I don't know about that. I do look at the roster of management and coaches, good people, and think that a lot might be ready for a change.
And some new blood and thinking might help the team.
Julia and Bode were on that roster because they technically were "injured" with frozen FIS points. It's a game with Bode, Bomber, and that whole show. I assume that he will be off the list, despite the fact that he has yet to use that word retired. Mancuso is likely in a situation where she gets one paycheck size when she is competing, maybe the same if "injured." If she retires, then she is negotiating for a LOT less money. So, there is this cat and mouse game that goes on. Not a fan of it.
I would not look at it in terms of their taking a spot that the younger kids could have. Not like a 53 person NFL roster. They are not using any real resources when sitting on the sidelines. Better examples are these on the A team, who have clearly plateaued, still compete, and are not doing much, and costing money. Tim Jitloff is one. How long? But clearly a chosen one. I hear that he is on the team because he is a great training partner for Ligety. Often beats him soundly in training. Then look at race day. Lots of questions.
There is anything but complete transparency on this stuff. Objective criteria to be nominated and make the team, yes. It gets very mixed in terms of the athlete management. To the point where people decline to join the team. That is an indicator that something is wrong. Often the price tag is too high. Congrats, send us a check for $35K, and include your credit card number......
Off the soapbox.
