How Did We Get Here?

By Published On: November 3rd, 2014Comments Off on How Did We Get Here?

Examining the routes that led American ski racing astray

At the junior ages of alpine ski racing, we are challenged by declining numbers and not meeting our performance potential. This ultimately doesn’t bode well for the performance of our elite teams.

Tiger Shaw, the new USSA CEO, is correctly separating the discussion of performance and participation — tasking two national committees of staff, trustees, industry reps and representatives from clubs, academies and colleges to study elite athlete development and sport participation. While they are related, there is tension between the two objectives that produces different strategies. These two key issues may be more closely interlinked than we might at first think. Following are some possible causes of our declining performance and participation.

USSA President and CEO is right in separating performance and participation task forces, but the two issues are intertwined. USSA/Tom KellyUSSA President and CEO is right in separating performance and participation task forces, but the two issues are intertwined. USSA/Tom Kelly

Age Grouping vs. Ability Matching

Age-group competition was broadly introduced more than 30 years ago to encourage younger skiers by giving them the chance to compete among their age peers in championships. Today, age has become virtually the sole competition grouping through U16. Wide variation in maturation, experience and abilities in these age groups tends to discourage the later-developing athletes, who are constantly comparing themselves to the current top performers while the same top performers are at risk of stagnation by not having sufficient challenge. Only a few are in the right competitive environment for their experience and ability level.

Nearly 20 years ago, three-time overall World Cup winner Phil Mahre warned about the possible negative impact of “age-class” skiing as compared to his own and his world champion brother Steve’s access to rise to the level of their competition as pre-teens. Not only were they continuously challenged, but their advancement also maintained an appropriate competitive environment at lower levels.

As most U18s are now pursuing a FIS race schedule, there is little interaction between U18 and younger athletes because of the equipment handicap for GS. Adding to this is the little value placed on USSA points and rankings. There is a lack of meaningful opportunity to compete across the FIS/USSA age break, and far too many U18s are forced onto adult skis, pursuing FIS points and full-time, performance-focused programs.

Placing first-year FIS athletes on equipment designed for adults racing World Cup and entering these athletes into FIS races where they measure success by whether they are six or eight seconds back from the winner is an environment that neither encourages or motivates. Research conducted with subjects ranging from humans in various domains to lab animals has shown that closely matched competitive environments promote effort. Too far behind or ahead and the effort soon diminishes. In other words, feeling competitive is likely to lead to more satisfaction and promote greater effort. This leads to improvement and creates a virtuous cycle of better performance and increased confidence followed by greater effort. Both retention and performance are positively affected when abilities are more evenly matched.

Sport Structure and Pipelines

“Winning at every level” was the mantra of then alpine director and soon to be U.S. Ski Hall of Fame inductee John McMurtry in the 1980s. What this emphasized was success at a level as the standard for advancement to the next level. Whether racing USSA, FIS, Europa Cup or World Cup, athletes proved their readiness for the step up by performing successfully where they were currently qualified.

Standards-based advancement applies to both local ability groupings and to larger geographic groupings. Athletes who rise to the top of their local series advance to statewide series, from statewide or divisional series to regional series, and so forth to national and international competitions.

Some of these structures exist and are effective today. Others are either not enforced or have been eliminated altogether. In many cases, the world has become our oyster. Points won’t be good at next weekend’s regional FIS race? Travel to another region. Can’t get into the regional FIS race? Travel to Canada. Need another low-point slalom opportunity as a U16? Travel to a division where pace athletes are racing in costumes. All of these types of examples can be rationalized by athletes, coaches and parents for the experience, fun, increased competition, culture, etc. The very real effect is an acceleration of the expectations and expense of the sport. More time, energy and money is spent on competing, which may leave less for investing in training and improvement.

Ski racing has lost its “series” focus. Appropriate series were historically followed by the broad group of athletes until a qualification through performance had been achieved for the next level series. Competition was local or divisional for most, and only top performers were qualified or required to travel more extensively. Today, ski racing is opportunity-focused: where the best points are, the best hill for scoring, the smallest field with the lowest penalty, etc. Few standards exist to create barriers to unnecessary or inappropriate travel, competition or expense.

In the interest of fairness and openness we have created a system that is fundamentally unfair benefitting those with resources — financial resources as well as, programs, coaches, information, relationships, etc. — over performance.

Only a few juniors are in the right competitive environment for their experience and ability level. Sarah Brunson/U.S. Ski TeamOnly a few juniors are in the right competitive environment for their experience and ability level. Sarah Brunson/U.S. Ski Team

Selection, De-Selection or No Selection

This is perhaps the trickiest topic. In order to be competitive with the world, international benchmarking is important from an early age for a competitive national program. The best from our nation need to ski against the best from other nations, just as the best from a region need to compete against those of another region. Does that mean that a large number of athletes require this experience at each level? If athletes are not “winning at their level,” do they need the additional experience at a higher level?

While this can be valuable for the individual, it is ultimately most important for the system to benchmark the level of competition against our international competitors. We cannot develop in a vacuum. When a nation shows strength in children’s competitions and junior world championships, it’s usually a precursor to World Cup and Olympic success in that generation — sometimes, but not always, by the same skiers.

An argument often made about elite selections, particularly at younger ages, is concern about “de-selection.” When only a few are selected, the rest are de-selected and discouraged from continuing at a time when the final outcome is still very much in question.

Casting a wider net seems a reasonable response. More athletes are included, providing opportunity to a greater number. However, the deeper the selection goes, the greater the number of legitimate contenders for the final spots, and the greater the disappointment for those just out. (There may have been three contenders for the third spot and likely ten who had a chance for the tenth spot.)

There is always pressure to increase quotas, select more athletes and increase team sizes to exclude fewer athletes from selection. The majority of effort and controversy always surrounds the last 10 to 20 percent of selections. This is universally true, whether teams for States or Olympics are being selected.

Left in the wake of the Whistler Cup are even more international competitions: is this the right allocation of resources? USSALeft in the wake of the Whistler Cup are even more international competitions: is this the right allocation of resources? USSA

One of the arguments for withdrawing from the Whistler Cup, first at the U14 age group level and then altogether several years ago, was the feeling that regional selections of only three U16s and two U14s of each gender left many similarly competent skiers at home. There was also sentiment that the competition was expensive, using up funds better spent on summer camps.

In the Whistler Cup’s place Can-Ams were created for U14s, allowing a much larger number of skiers to participate in international competitions. Many of these skiers were already appropriately challenged at their regional championships and much greater resources were needlessly spent on similar competition outcomes. Is something that is necessary as the next challenge for the narrow top tier also beneficial to the broader majority of competitors?

The introduction of the annual U16 Assessment and National Championship replaced the Whistler Cup as an opportunity for the top skiers from each region to experience higher level competition. But increasing the selection size carries the risk of discouraging some of those selected and more of those left at home.

Of these exceptional current performers from each region, there is no escaping that at the championships, one-third are above average, one-third are average and one-third are below average. The de-selection of those left at home may be more discouraging as the number selected increases. Is the chance of de-selection leading to drop out with three athletes picked increased or decreased when a greater number of athletes are selected?

At the FIS ages, the rush for FIS points has added multiple levels and more races. Where one level of FIS racing once served as the pinnacle of the sport fed by multiple levels of USSA racing, there are now usually multiple levels of FIS racing and little meaningful USSA racing. That raises the question: Who needs FIS points? Presumably the correct answer is: those athletes who need to be appropriately seeded in an international field of ski racers. In other words, those skiers who have risen to the top of the national system. In practice, the answer is: anyone 16 or older.

Second only to Italy in total number of FIS licenses issued and with nearly twice as many as the next nation, the U.S. may have too many athletes who are following a “professional” sport program. It raises the question of how many athletes should be competing in internationally sanctioned competitions and be subjected to the associated costs and regulations.

fis-licences-issued-by-nationNumbers based off the 13th FIS points list of 2013/14

Professionalization of Sport

How we “play” the sport has changed significantly in recent years. Along with the increasingly complex and global pipelines, there are ever-increasing expectations that the programs around the country have responded to meet. “Raising the bar” is healthy competition among programs until overreaching to expand resources raises costs, requires more investment of time and greater commitment from everyone. It leads us to a sport structure that doesn’t offer a recreational option to a large majority of participants, only the “all-in” performance option to a shrinking population.

A successful national system must ensure accessible, fun, healthy and fulfilling competition for all participants while identifying and aggressively advancing prospects to help create the role models and national success that inspires participation.

Next month: Beginning to look for solutions

Share This Article

About the Author: ...