"Building a Better Development System"

[Muleski]

This article appeared in today's premium section of skiracing.com. It's written by Sean Higgins, who was an outstanding junior racer in the Tahoe area, and later an All American at UVM. Sean knows this stuff, and he has obviously spent time with US Skiing's head of development, Chip Knight.

https://www.skiracing.com/premium/building-a-better-development-system

I hope that link works. May not as it's a premium article.

I'm curious to hear others opinions. IMO, the huge majority of this is nothing new. Much of this has been hashed over for decades. Such as why kids leave the sport, what do your USSA dues really do for you and your club? The effect of birth date. Kids born 1/1 have always blown away kids born on 12/31. And getting smoked is no fun.

The issue of resources is always there, and funding. I still find it unbelievable. The issue of USST "criteria."

I do think it's encouraging that more in the system are starting to think that their selection process, and pipeline is flawed. Hence getting rid of the men's D team and making less of an issue on the foolish U16 National Training Group.

I just hope the actual people can change. The USST, USSA and the enormous headcount who have done it one way up until now...or played a bit with it every few years.

Chip Knight was the ultimate "chosen one." He was physically huge and gifted before he hit the FIS ranks. January birthday. World Jr. Champ. National Jr. and Sr. Champ. I think he spent close to 15 years in the Team system, most on the WC. Multiple World and Olympic teams. Burke grad.

I am positive that he never got close to a podium. Pretty sure he never had a top five. He was a SL specialist for a lot of his career.

His career is one that cost the USST a fortune. With not a lot to show for it. He's a great guy, went on after retirement to graduate from Williams, coached at MMSC and then Dartmouth. Then hired by Tiger.

I know he's well intended. Tiger Shaw is as well. I'm sure the entire staff and current board is.

Just not sure how I feel about the article. It surely needs to change. But there is no way that everything can change to benefit every constituency. And without a LOT more money to work with. I think they have FAR too big a staff and payroll, for one.

The first thing another non profit or corporate entity would do is look at both increasing revenue and cutting costs, like duplicate or non essential jobs.

And not to be cruel, but the answer to finding more MS's is not to keep more kids racing for more years across the board. That may increase the revenue line, from dues.

The story of just how late a late bloomer Ted Ligety was has been pretty inflated all along.

 

[razie]

I think there's a lot of talk and rationalization...

The age thing has been "in your face" for a long time, and if it wasn't seriously considered that an age bracket discrimination starting in the middle of the ski training season doesn't make any sense, not even since the book "Outliers" was published, that's on whoever we rely on making the serious considerations that matter! To be fair, the coaching manuals do point out the distinction between developmental age and chronological age, but that's all.

The only mitigating factor here is that the age groups do include two full years, so a talent would likely show something by the second year in say U14... but still among all the other second year U14s... so hmm.

Nowadays, if someone would try to guess a stock's long term results, based solely on its past performance, you'd consider them nuts, given the current body of knowledge, but...the randomness of the results of individual athletes from U12 to U16 is still not seriously considered when selecting athletes... perhaps not randomness, but rather unpredictability "by numbers". In fact I think early success generally makes for less coachable athletes, but that's my anecdotal evidence-based opinion... and it doesn't certainly mean that I think we should give up on all U14 race winners, for sure

I am sure however that there are better selection criteria. Not based on the results, but I think there are... and I don't think it's a "Moneyball" thing either, as this is not a team building optimization issue, however related but more subtle... how do "they" recognize who is an "emerging athlete"? Good question! Would this athlete continue to develop with different coaches?

...it seems everything gets reduced to this, at least that's all the article talks about: let's select some athletes somehow and give them some resources.

On the other hand, this is sort of normal... when you have fewer resources, to worry about allocating them... but what if more attention to coach training would have more of an effect than "athlete selection" ? What if this was the one resource that mattered, in the long run: better technical coaching at the lower ages?

I remember Mikaela (or her mom) saying in one of the interviews something along the lines of her being lucky to have had an early coach that insisted on good fundamentals... why is that considered "lucky" ?

So... it doesn't look to me that they're looking in the right direction, although those are certainly good things to improve (club resources and more access/depth). I would however boil the needs down to two major directions: better (technical) coach training and better selection criteria. Just for the record, here's a matter of logic: the need for "depth" is only a function of your selection criteria...

 

[ScotsSkier]

Hmm, just a quick first response here.
I gotta say,.. an article basically full of nothing and predictable platitudes.... Where's the beef???!!

Maybe I am missing something but I have read it twice now and am still confused about what point they are trying to make. Oh, apart from that USST thinks the clubs have plenty of money and they can tap into it..... not jumping to conclusions but just reinforces my instincts that USSA has become a bloated bureaucracy more interested in sustaining itself rather than directing funds to support athletes. Kind of like those non profits that spend 90% of donations on "administration " ....

Tiger is a decent guy but too closely tied to the old boy's club and basically an administrator, not a change agent. If he was also bringing in lots more donations that might pass muster but he doesn't appear to be doing that either... I would be happier to see some more ruthlessness about cutting funding to those athletes who stay in the team for 10+ years and occasionally make a second run. A hard choice but if funds are limited you need to consider how best to use them

And when you look at how the Euros take advantage of NCAA as a development ground but we basically ignore it....is it really any surprise we struggle to make it in larger numbers? And that some talented athletes decide maybe making the USST is not the best career path...

And Razie, I am in full agreement with you on enhancing the quality of coaching at early stages of development. I do NOT pretend that having a certification is essential BUT expanding access to the programs and subsidizing some of the costs of certification to get more of those currently coaching - many of whom are just willing (or press ganged) volunteers - at least to a more uniform level of capability and understanding could be one of the best bangs for the buck we could get. And save a lot of time and effort getting rid of bad habits as athletes progress.

Hmm, hope they don't pull my license...

 

[oldschoolskier]

This is not only a ski issue or a USA thing, this a my kid is better than yours thing no matter the sport.

The short quick answer is:

• Fun. This is the hook.
• Skills. This is the essential.
• Strength. Later, thing long term, easy to add when ready.

Worry less about competing, more about skills development and fun. This way when the push comes, there is room left to grow and become the next great one.

The crux is that while easily said, this is the hardest thing to do as the kid, parent, coach and so on all want to have the best and as a result short cuts happen to keep up. This is bad for all.

Think turtle/hare story we all get it but very few do it.

 

[oldschoolskier]

In the sports our kids participate in we see kids training as much as 20-25 hours (or more) a week at ages as young as 11-12. While producing fast kids they are not being done any favors as the joints aren't yet ready.

Our daughter has gone through a funny growth spurt causing us to see a pediatric arthritis specialist (among other specialists) and his comment is that he sees tons of young teens with joint wear beyond what should be. This is over activity.

One of the parents put this in perspective, she used to ride competitively and said you can push a 2 year old horse to be a champion, but is only good for 5 yrs, or wait until 3 or 4 and have champion for 20 years. We treat our horses wiser than we treat our kids .

While the parents are the biggest pusher of make them faster and better, the coaches and associations have the biggest responsibility to prevent this by protecting them from our (parents) well meaning stupidity.

Slower long term development resulting in more higher quality athletes at an older age.

Otherwise, all we are encouraging is a shotgun approach, with 1 surviving it (maybe), no alternatives and the rest just collateral damage to get the next champion (maybe).

Currently we produce age group champions or World champions.

As to the fix IDK, but a change must be made at the top level and forced down on the lower levels so that playing field and apartant development is even and it ok to be slower but have better skills as strength is the easiest thing to add when ready.

Sorry for the rant, but hopefully part of this message gets across to the right people so change happens.

Thanks, compliments and respect to @ScotsSkier, @razie and others (coaches and instructors) that have the wisdom to try and lead the way (be it this sport or others).

 

[K2 Rat]

First off, "Best in the World" is so far from ever being a possibility for the US Ski Team. Because of the geographic and cost issues in this country, the best athletes in this country are not able to ski race. To compete against the world in any sport, you have to have the cream of the crop rise from a extremely large pool of gifted athletes. Forgetting about the proximity issue to ski resorts, the cost of ski racing makes this a sport for the more wealthy and that alone will make the potential talent pool quite small. In a small alpine country like Austria, the ability for a gifted athlete to ski race is so much higher than in this country.

I am with @ScotsSkier in that the arcticle is not really saying much. I guess because there is not a truly defined development system and, as the article says, not easy to create one. And skiing is not alone. Take a look at tennis and you will see other nations like Spain pass the US in men's tennis success. Although just about everyone in this country could get access to a tennis court, it is still predominately the "Country club" set that plays tennis and can afford all the required lessons. Take the Williams sisters out and we have not done much in women's tennis lately.

I agree with @razie, that we need better technical coaching especially at the youth development age. In the past 6 years, I have moved, on my request, from u16's to u14's and now coaching u12's. I am not blaming anyone, but a lot of the kids in our weekend club u16 program came to me with some bad habits, which at that age are hard to break. There are a lot of factors that go into this : coaching, attendance, interest level, athletic ability etc. ( As a side note, couple years ago my group of 35 u14's had a handful of decent athletes in it -- probably less than the Terrain Park group had) Trust me, I did not drop down in age because I think I can correct all the problems, but it is nice work with some athletes a bit earlier in their development. We do need a better way of improving our coaching ability. I have my USSA Level 2 certification, but I walked away from that wishing I had learned a lot more thru the process. Certification in the East can be expensive and sometimes difficult to attend and I am not convinced that process is the answer. I wish the USSA would put on various coaching webinars where everyone can "attend".

US Ski Team criteria -- that is a whole other topic. I will just say that it was crazy that a couple of years ago when our #2 ranked women SL skier, Resi Steigler, was dropped because she was just outside her age criteria. Yup, our #2 skier....

 

[Muleski]

Good points and good observations. This is not easy to "solve", or "fix." One of the fundamental issues has to do with gaining some concensus around the vision and goals for US Skiing and for that wide horizon of "ski racing."

In the Bill Marolt years, he and his group came up with the tagline "Best in the World," which frankly many of us howled at. And what did it mean? How do you judge or measure it? Well, it meant producing the most medals, WC wins, podiums among a very select group of individuals who came into the system. There was no goal to compete or unseat the Austrians in the Nations' Cup, which I agree would be more like Best in the World.

So we had Bode, winning the WC. We had Ligety emerge as Mr. GS, we had LV become the best in history at her craft. Mancuso had a knack to wake up in Olympic cycles, and was a media darling....so the average fan far overestimated her actual skiing {despite her amazing athleticism and talent}. As they all began to show some age, Mikaela just exploded on the circuit a 16.

Mikaela was SUCH a phenom and so prolific that she actually drove a lot of talented women out of the sport. I recall her just smoking our daughter who was a three year captain of a good NCAA program, when MS was 15 and our daughter 21. The kids her own age? It took some serious cheerleading.

In their wake was a just whole lot of road kill. Many an athlete has worn a USST jacket for a long time with almost no real results. Many entered the system and were bounced out very quickly. Depth was not on the radar screen. And developing "older" athletes, say 25+? Not on the radar. Has never been a focus. Perhaps now it will be.

The Devekopment Teams were a compete disaster. So many one and dones. There was no focus on long term development that seemed clear to many stakeholders. It was ugly.

In terms of fixing it, it is hard to know where to start. The very best programs do actually know how to pace and rest kids, and avoid the overtraining injuries that are now so prevalent in soccer, or gymnastics. Kirk Dwyer, now the ED at SSCV, former headmaster at Burke Mtn Academy and MS's youth coach is a huge proponent of periodization and rest. He is always talking and writing about it. His goal at SSCV is to prepare athletes to eventually win on the WC, by actually training less. Big changes underway.

The programs that I am familiar with spend a great deal of time on reinforcing basic skiing, even through the U19 years and beyond. When our son was in a slump in college, at 23, he drove to spend three days with one of his former coaches, and all they did for three days was free ski and tweak his boots. Got his touch and balance back.

You may have followed the first few FIS races of a young New Zealand teen, Alice Robinson. She will have 16 points on the first FIS points list, which has literally never happened. I can't even think of an analogy. I had a chance to connect with her coach of last winter, and asked him what they had done. First, they fixed her boots. And fixed her bindings. They got her on good skis, as a U16. I think she skied 188/30's. They worked on a TON of fundamentals, and kept at it, as she began to "kill" it for a section, then a whole run. Then they started on tactics. The whole year was really devoted to getting her to be prepared as best as possible to begin her FIS level racing. This coach feels that you want to be fast at 18, or 19. It's ALL preparation up until then. I may be foggy on some of that conversation, but that was the general message.

However, the biggest hurdle are often the parents. I have a friend who coaches U14's and U16's. He has coached a number of kids where Mom or Dad skied on the WC, and some where BOTH did. They are super easy to work with. They get it, and are very objective about their kids. They often talk about fun.

He has parents who are incredibly accomplished in other endeavors, generally have a lot of money, and almost always are used to pushing people to get their way. Very often these parents are dying to have their kids be ski racers. So they consider hiring personal coaches. They home school kids in mountain towns until they are old enough to be in a ski academy. No expense is too much. My friend calls these parents "bulldozers", and they are VERY difficult to slow down. They think they know what is best.

I know it sounds nuts, but if you have a serious U14 or U16, who you enroll in a ski academy{at about $60K} it is very easy to spend more than that annually on the other stuff. And slowing those parents down, to take a long term approach, and not focus on "results" is very hard. They measure everything else in life.

Therein lies one of the problems. It need not cost a fortune to develop really great skiers. It does not need to cost a fortune to enable a kid to learn to ski race, and really love it.

But to excel at it does require a TON of financial expense. Some talented kids with modest means are very well supported, but they tend to come from mountain towns. The demographic of many of this country's ski racers is one of relative wealth. They are kids who's families make a lot of expensive moves to make this happen, at younger and younger ages.

And I would venture that maybe once a generation we have an incredible athlete on the ski team. Maybe.

The sad, unfortunate, or realistic thing is that spending money and entering the arms race most often works. If the kids have heart, work ethic and drive, and some degree of talent, it can absolutely work. Does it create a logical pipeline to the top of the sport? No way. To be at the very top you do need some serious athletic talent....or you need the opportunity to make yourself into such an athlete.

Does it keep kids at it, and produce a lot of our best college ski racers? Yes. Not making the USST, "not making criteria", but skiing real well, and maybe even loving it.

Does the USST do a good job of identifying, selecting and developing the future best? That's a big question. And I have to think the whole system and process can be improved.
But, we need to be realistic about the athlete pool, and the expense.

Our best in the world group was so totally obvious that you could not trip over them. LV, JM, MS were so clearly world class at 13 that it was impossible to miss. Bode, by about 17 clearly had another gear and was just unique. Boys mature later. As he kept growing and filling out, it was obvious. He was also just a freak of nature athlete.

People talk of Ted Ligety being a late bloomer. Sort of. He grew up in Park City, skiing as soon as he could walk. His parents held him out of racing until he was 10. That is actually late in PC. He grew up in what may have been the best group of boys in the world at the time. People often mention that he failed to qualify for JO's as a J3. At 13. Well by the time he was 18-19, he won the silver in SL at Jr. Worlds against a WC field, and he was in the USST system. Not that late. He says the best thing for him was that he had to work his ass off, always. Was always working hard to catch people, then later to stay ahead of them.

The real late bloomers were the college guys who made team criteria, and who it seemed to many observers were treated as one year aggravation by the team. That seems to be better now. The reason the term late bloomer comes up is because at the time Ligety was 22 -24 or so, the USST thought a smart plan would be to take our fastest can't miss 15-16 men to Europe to ski on the EC. Just nuts. A lot of road kill. There is a huge void in a number of birth years where these kids were pushed too hard, too fast. One of the very best just hung it up at 18.

But getting that USST jacket was the goal for everybody. Was there really a logical plan? No. Just the same old same old. Nobody was suggesting to slow it down and methodically plan it out.

I wonder if Sasha Rearick's fondness for hiring ex USST athletes as coaches {often with zero coaching experience, no training, no college} just makes for more of the same. What else do they know?

The two best actions to me are killing the men's D team {and making the women's tiny}, and pretty much doing away with the kids NTG. And I guess the USST Academy?

Phil McNichol's comment about it being almost impossible to predict WC success based in U16 results is spot on. But for a couple of years anyways we were pre-selecting our future by picking those NTG squads. Caused more problems than good, I hear.

It's sadly the same in so many sports. One of my veteran ski coach friends, who has coached U10's through the World Cup jokes that he would love to raise the money to run a youth ski program, "The Arcing Orphans." He's find hard working, great athletes....with no parents to deal with. No parents in the kids ears. No parental expectations. He jokes about it for a reason. Ski parents can be brutal.

Agree with @K2 Rat's points
{and everybody else} USST criteria? Don't wind me up. I have seen ever iteration broken for at least 25 years. My favorites have been when athletes have made criteria, only to be told by the coaches to their face that the criteria "was too easy"....i.e. You should not be on MY team! Bode is very forthcoming when he rattles off the names of guys who could have had MUCH better careers if the USST had treated them differently.

This year, it's going to be pretty interesting to watch the US Men in GS. Kieffer Christianson just announced yesterday that he is retiring, at 25, due to his concussion issues. Before that, I think we were looking at up four non USST members starting many of the WC GS. I think it's going to be similar in SL. Three or four every time. Guys good enough to start every WC, but unable to "make criteria" and therefore paying their own way.

It continues to be broken, but I am optimistic that it will move the right way. I can be quite critical of Tiger Shaw, as progress has been slow. What might be more fair is to state that he took over a real mess.

My focus is alpine racing. US Skiing and Snowboarding covers it all. Lots of constituents, lots of headcount and staff. Not every alpine power cares about much more than fielding a Nordic team.

Always interesting.....

 

[4ster]

One of my veteran ski coach friends, who has coached U10's through the World Cup jokes that he would love to raise the money to run a youth ski program, "The Arcing Orphans." He's find hard working, great athletes....with no parents to deal with. No parents in the kids ears. No parental expectations. He jokes about it for a reason. Ski parents can be brutal.

I luv skiing with the orphans.

 

[fatbob]

As a for instance as an outsider how many Hispanic kids in the Vail and Roaring Fork valleys are on the slopes every day possible? Compared to kicking a soccer ball or shooting baskets?

These are the talent pool that is on the doorstep and I suspect never getting to penetrate the sport in great numbers. To be honest I've not got any ideas beyond that. I find abhorrent the idea that you burn out kids by 15 but certainly in women's skiing ( as in tennis and golf) this is the age you either start proving you've got it or not.

 

[Muleski]

As a for instance as an outsider how many Hispanic kids in the Vail and Roaring Fork valleys are on the slopes every day possible? Compared to kicking a soccer ball or shooting baskets?

These are the talent pool that is on the doorstep and I suspect never getting to penetrate the sport in great numbers. To be honest I've not got any ideas beyond that. I find abhorrent the idea that you burn out kids by 15 but certainly in women's skiing ( as in tennis and golf) this is the age you either start proving you've got it or not.

That's an interesting comment. I am very familiar with both the Aspen Valley Ski Club and SSCV {Vail}. ASVC is the biggest program in the country. The core part of their mission is to ensure that EVERY child in the RFV is able to get exposed to being on snow, and to follow their passions as they develop. 2300 kids.
They raise an awful lot of money. A huge number of those kids {maybe 500?} are outfitted with all of their equipment, including helmets goggles, clothing for free. And their program fees are full scholarship.

Gorsuch Sports is the central force behind the equipment. When you think of high end Gorsuch, think of 500 kids and their parents coming into the store on equipment night and leaving with huge smiles. It's a huge donation.

The AVSC just celebrated it's 80th anniversary. The have a tremendous race heritage. The WC finals were held there this past spring. Nothing is more important than getting every kid on snow. It's pretty neat.

Some of those kids are going to reach high, and be fully supported and funded along the way. Cool.

Ski Club Vail has a slightly different feel, and I think it's safe to say that their plan is to be unquestionably the best alpine club in the world. That's a lofty goal, but they are the USSA alpine club of the year a lot. They don't have a clear goal of getting every kid out there, but they raise a ton of money to make it affordable to anybody. Now keep in mind it is the Vail Valley. The club's tagline is, or recently was "For the Kids."

Another very cool program to get kids exposed to skiing, regardless of means, is the Doug Coombs Foundation based in Jackson Hole. Run by Doug's widow, Emily. Big partnership with K2. So cool. Google it. I think they work closely with the JHSC, which had produced some serious skiers, to say the least.

All good.

 

[Brian Finch]

Here's my ill informed angle: we're in trenches in this 'scientific method' of sourcing the best process & while that's logical it often neglects a plethora of variables.

I get this all the time in the S&C world, what's the best exercise to do?

The truth is we just don't know. Any one thing has a series of trade-offs. There are no free passes in strength & conditioning. Yet just doesn't stop people from arguing that squats are better than lunges or three sets of 10 is better than 10 sets of three.

What nobody wants to hear is that you should probably do a variety of exercises & have a variety progressions. Yet YOU SHOULD almost certainly cut out the beer, put down the Chito's, stop buying donuts, get 10 hours of sleep, drink water, eat vegetables and have some sort of conscientiousness.

Some of you have hears me tell the story of last season being involved in a local club and being obligated to provide on the hill support for races. I did start hand timing at a u 16 race and was appalled that nearly not one coach put a kid in the bindings and roughly 30%+ of the racers had boots with broken buckles, bolts missing, straps broken...... stop worrying about if you're on the ideal training program and make sure your boots actually buckle.

I'm with @Muleski in that plenty of talented people seem to languish for decades in the pipeline. Perhaps at start time to stop looking at talent as the pure guideline.

 

[Frankly]

I have no current experience or expertise these days but having returned from China, we learned that most kids receive no physical education in school because they're working so hard on math, chemistry, and physics. 6.5 days per week.

The Chinese athletes are identified early on the playground and from teacher recommendations. I'm sure it is also a brutal system for all involved. But the key point is that they really couldn't measure a 7-year old's athletic potential but they could pick out the enthusiastic, coachable kids that can learn technique and have the energy to train all the time.

So maybe less emphasis on early results and more on coachability and work ethic?

It sure would be fantastic experiment for a wealthy individual to comb through the lower classes looking for optimal candidates and then sponsor their longer term development.

~~~

Back in reality it seems ski racing success follows the popularity and availability of skiing. If skiing continues to be a sport of the upper classes confined to large consolidated resorts in idyllic mountain towns then perhaps the USST should flip things around? Charge those rich parents who want their babies to be on the WC... $500k a year, let them pay for a beautiful customized development program. Seriously.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Interesting conversation. Even US soccer which has big numbers and low barriers to entry has trouble keeping up with Europe and South America. I have heard that part of the Soccer problem is that in Europe young players with the most potential are identified and brought into the farm systems, whereas in the US parents pay for their kids to access the best coaches and programs. Not that they aren't skilled players however my town of 25,000 people has a much more developed soccer program than the adjacent city of 100,000, many of whom come from families with more soccer oriented cultures.

It's hard to tell if the problem you are discussing is a debate over how to handle the current small pool of competitive skiers at the top end, or how to integrate more potential racers overall. My kids are under 10 and have not expressed an interest in racing. However, from my experience in the Northeast racing is very cliquey and not exactly welcoming. While soccer might have too many clubs and too much money, at least they have a base to improve, whereas I don't see anyone trying to promote racing to outsiders at northeast mountains.

Admittedly most of this subject is over my head but from my perspective it wouldn't hurt to promote racing in general, hold fun races for kids, open the race course for free once in a while, hold some reasonably priced clinics, race ski demo days, put racing on tv at the lodge, lots of low hanging fruit.

 

[ScotsSkier]

Here's my ill informed angle: we're in trenches in this 'scientific method' of sourcing the best process & while that's logical it often neglects a plethora of variables.........

What nobody wants to hear is that you should probably do a variety of exercises & have a variety progressions. Yet YOU SHOULD almost certainly cut out the beer, put down the Chito's, stop buying donuts, get 10 hours of sleep, drink water, eat vegetables and have some sort of conscientiousness.

Some of you have hears me tell the story of last season being involved in a local club and being obligated to provide on the hill support for races. I did start hand timing at a u 16 race and was appalled that nearly not one coach put a kid in the bindings and roughly 30%+ of the racers had boots with broken buckles, bolts missing, straps broken...... stop worrying about if you're on the ideal training program and make sure your boots actually buckle.

I'm with @Muleski in that plenty of talented people seem to languish for decades in the pipeline. Perhaps at start time to stop looking at talent as the pure guideline.

hey, are you trying to destroy Masters racing???!!!

 

[ScotsSkier]

And in yet another example of US Ski and Snowboard nickel and dining membership to support their bloated bureaucracy, I just got an email from Skiracing.com (or Ski racing Media as they style themselves now) that the premium features, USSA members formerly got as part of their fees are now going to be chargeable...... so in addition to my $250ish for my coach/race licenses I now have to pony up another $36 for the premium features........still I am sure Tiger and Co are making every effort to reduce overheads and direct all the savings to support team member..... /sarc.....


"Ski Racing Media (formerly SkiRacing.com) recently rebranded to provide fans and community members with more innovative digital content across a variety of accessible platforms. All long-form Premium features and videos you’ve enjoyed in the past with your U.S. Ski & Snowboard subscription are now renewable for just $2.99/month."

 

[K2 Rat]

You may have followed the first few FIS races of a young New Zealand teen, Alice Robinson. She will have 16 points on the first FIS points list, which has literally never happened. I can't even think of an analogy. I had a chance to connect with her coach of last winter, and asked him what they had done. First, they fixed her boots. And fixed her bindings. They got her on good skis, as a U16. I think she skied 188/30's. They worked on a TON of fundamentals, and kept at it, as she began to "kill" it for a section, then a whole run. Then they started on tactics. The whole year was really devoted to getting her to be prepared as best as possible to begin her FIS level racing. This coach feels that you want to be fast at 18, or 19. It's ALL preparation up until then. I may be foggy on some of that conversation, but that was the general message.

Yeah, Alice is clearly one to watch. When the next list comes out, that should put her around 150 world GS ranking. Amazing for a 16 yr old ( even with a January birth date !) I don't think you want to compare her to Shiffrin, but her first 2 FIS races we 37 point races at age 15. A month later, MS scored an 11 and 15. I am not saying Alice will be the next Shiffrin, because I don't think we will ever see another one like Mikaela. But Alice looks like an incredible talent and is off the an amazing start. Like Shiffrin's first FIS races, Alice started near the back of the pack with bib 54.
Shiffrin could be the only one that you knew at the age 14 that she was going to go on to greatness. Her 11 second SL win in the Eastern J3 Junior Olympics was a pretty good indicator !!

 

[K2 Rat]

Here is another one to watch, but only a 10 year old Italian girl : Lara Colturi . Her Mom, Daniela Ceccarelli won the SG gold at the 2002 SLC games. And her Dad is a ski instructor/coach. She is dominating her age group in both skiing and figure skating. Who knows where she will end, but fun to follow her on FB or instsgram. The SL video was a year ago at age 9. And check out the video she just posted this week of her 5 year old brother skiing-- amazing !

 

[x10003q]

The pool of world class athletes for ski racing in the US is minuscule. As mentioned, it is mainly limited by location and money. If you do not have money, you better live in a mountain town if you want to race. If you have money and do not live in a mountain town, you better live close to skiing and your parents need to have plenty of time, in addition to the money. If you want any shot at the USST, you also must be physically mature to hold your own in your age group. The lack of focus on the NCAA programs looks like a major flaw, especially for the men. Lots of men finally get their "man" strength in the early 20s. Even with all that, world class talent is innate and cannot be manufactured.

The soccer system in the US is just now turning the corner. There are lots of people playing and I am even starting to see suburban kids play pick up soccer in the local parks. When you see kids (besides the Spanish/immigrant kids) playing the game for fun, you know soccer is on a good path. There is one way that soccer could accelerate the talent level at the top, but it will take some doing. They just need to convince all those NCAA D1 cornerbacks, safeties, receivers, running backs, and QBs that there are better odds of making money in soccer with better odds of avoiding turning your brain into mush.

 

[Rudi Riet]

"Ski Racing Media (formerly SkiRacing.com) recently rebranded to provide fans and community members with more innovative digital content across a variety of accessible platforms. All long-form Premium features and videos you’ve enjoyed in the past with your U.S. Ski & Snowboard subscription are now renewable for just $2.99/month."

Given Ski Racing is nothing more than the parroting PR puppet of USSA, I'm happy enough to read actual journalism from other sources to get my ski racing news. It's no big loss for me, to be honest.

And that USSA is now nickel-and-dime with regard to their PR wing - especially one that sends few, if any, reporters to the Euro racing circuits and relies too heavily on wire reports and stock photos - I'm happy to let it slide into obscurity and allow an actual news organization to pick up the slack, driven by journalists who have backgrounds in the sports they cover and who won't sugar coat the results of the "home team." I know it's wishful thinking, but it could happen with the right backing.

-----

To tack slightly regarding funding and development, look at professional road cycling. It was announced yesterday that the Cannondale-Drapac Pro Cycling Team - the team that produced the 2nd place finisher in this year's Tour de France and has done very well in the past few years (e.g. victory in the 2012 Giro d'Italia, victory at Paris-Roubaix) - is likely to fold before next season unless $7 million in additional sponsor funding is found ASAP. They're even trying to crowdfund to make up the deficit.

It's sad to see a huge pool of talented cyclists scrambling to find new teams, especially when most big-budget signings have already occurred. So many riders are signed with Cannondale-Drapac for 2018 and beyond, and in all likelihood not all of them will end up with contracts for 2018 if C-D folds by the end of September.

Jonathan Vaughters, directeur sportif for Cannondale-Drapac, has been pointing out for years the funding issues with professional cycling. Some teams are swimming in money (e.g. Team Sky, with the Murdoch fortune as its main funder), while others are barely eking out an existence from year to year. There's no parity, no regulation, a wild-wild-west setup where the haves and the have-nots are clearly evident.

How does this apply to ski racing? Look at the dominant teams over the years: most get their backbone funding from national sports federations that are paid for by their respective federal governments. They see the value in sport and are willing to underwrite the sporting present and future for their nations. The United States? They take an almost perverse pride in having no centralized national governing body for sport. And who suffers? The athletes, coaches, and other support staff.

Would moving to factory teams (like in F1 auto racing and, increasingly, in pro cycling) help? Maybe. But then you'd have another setup of haves and have-nots.

Anywho....