As the season gets underway, US Ski and Snowboard released the 2023-24 Alpine Team nomination criteria. If the updated criteria could be characterized in one word it would be this: Simplified.
This is good news to anyone familiar with the intricacies of past criteria. To Chief of Sport Anouk Patty, simplification was a key goal. The main goal, however, was to create criteria that offer a clear and achievable path for the fastest athletes in the country to advance, compete and ultimately succeed on the world stage.
WHERE SCIENCE MEETS ART
Simplifying can be challenging. Patty likens criteria to a Rubik’s Cube. “There are so many pieces. If you ease one up, you run this risk; if you tighten up another one, you run that risk. So, it’s a constant balance of trying to be tight with the criteria to get the right team but loose enough that you capture athletes who have potential.”
The process is very data-driven. “I think people don’t always realize that there’s so much data that goes into this,” says Patty. It is also, she explains, an art. For data to drive good decisions, it needs to work in concert with judgment and context. “That’s where it was really, really important to have coaches involved.”
Patty stepped into her role on April 15th and immediately dove into Team Nominations for the 2022-23 season, using the existing criteria. Over the past three months, she led a group that enlisted the entire current US Ski Team coaching staff to update the criteria. They incorporated input and perspectives from current US Ski Team athletes as well as the broader ski racing community. “We wanted feedback and we took it,” says Patty. “We made a lot of iterations on it.”
THE PROCESS
To start, the group defined goals for each team A through D (see “What’s In” below). Once created, these goals helped identify areas for improvement and define the criteria for each level. “Then we dove into the details, choosing markers and then back-testing, choosing a new marker, then re-back-testing,” says Patty. To do that, they looked back five years and ran athletes through the criteria to see what athletes each proposed marker would have captured or missed. Patty credits USSS Sr. Manager of Data and Analytics Gus Kaeding with that heavy lifting. “He worked tirelessly to check and recheck everything we changed.”
By using the vast resource of coach and athlete experience—from within and outside the team—then supporting it with rigorously tested data, the group created nomination criteria that, Patty says, “we all feel really good about.”
WHAT’S NEW
The criteria are simplified, both in concept and in presentation. For example, the B team criteria used to take an entire page —for men and women each. It included everything from World Junior medalists to NCAA champions to NorAm and Europa Cup standings to WCSL and FIS rank. It also had five different age-based standards for men and six for women. Now, with its focus on World Cup ready athletes, B team criteria for men and women has a pathway for athletes up to and including age 30 and is captured in five total bullet points.
Before the unveiling, Patty walked athletes through the criteria captured in two matrices (see graphic). One represents World Cup Start List and World Rank; the other represents competition markers. An athlete can qualify through markers on either matrix. In addition to year of birth, each matrix shows athletes’ ages during the competition season for which they are nominated.
WHAT’S IN
Team Goals: A quick explanation of the level of competition and performance expected for athletes on each team. Criteria reflect these goals. Roughly:
A Team –Athletes on the World Cup who are today’s podium contenders
B Team – Athletes with good World Cup results and near-term podium potential
C Team – Developing athletes with top results on various domestic circuits and Europa Cup, who are expected to begin the transition to World Cup.
D Team – Strongest 1st and 2nd year FIS (Ages 17 & 18) tech skiers in regional competitions; 3rd & 4th year FIS (Ages 19 & 20) athletes with strong NorAm/National Championship results and/or strong tech World Ranks or exceptional speed World Ranks
WHAT’S OUT
Complicated Clauses:
Gone are the many “and” clauses involving combinations of multiple competition and world rank markers. Except for the D Team (see Age World Rank below), athletes can qualify based on either World Rank or results. At the A and B team levels, rankings are based on the World Cup Start List (WCSL) and results in World Cup or Europa Cup competitions. At the C and D team level, rankings are FIS World Rank and results are from Europa Cup, NorAm, National Championship and World Junior competition.
Restrictive age bands:
The B Team now includes athletes through age 30 (up from 29). Results markers at the B Team level are tighter, but World Rank thresholds are looser across the board. Criteria do tighten with age, but less dramatically. For example, the C Team includes athletes through age 24 (up from 21). “This is where NCAA skiers who are doing really well, and either winning carnivals or going to NorAms or Nationals, can just come in,”saysPatty. She notes that the C team is a dynamic zone for athletes moving up through the team, as well as athletes who have stalled or faltered and need to regain footing.
Age World Rank:
This marker used for younger athletes will no longer be used. For younger athletes, using world rank alone in criteria has incentivized “point chasing,” which often misrepresents long term talent potential. Instead, younger athletes must also distinguish themselves at the NorAm and National Championship levels. Patty says, “We do want to incentivize them to go to those big events where they can have head-to-head competition and demonstrate their potential.”
Season Standings in NorAm and Europa Cup:
Athletes can qualify through results by performing on the Europa Cup or NorAm circuits without chasing the entire circuit. “We wanted to consider the cost of competition,” says Patty. “It’s okay if athletes just go to a few of these competitions and do really well.”
WHAT’S CHANGED
Getting Back to Speed:
Gone too are the tech markers for athletes aged 19 and up (previously they applied through age 21). Patty explains: “We have a legacy of speed in this country, and we’re making it a little bit harder for ourselves by not pulling for those athletes who have demonstrated extraordinary potential at a younger age.” The tech markers are in place for athletes 18 and younger, incentivizing them to compete in multiple events and develop technical skills. Very quickly thereafter, however, the research shows that if you’re fast, well, you’re fast. “It takes a long time to develop a speed athlete,” notes Patty, “so if they’ve already demonstrated some skill, why not bring them in and we can further develop them.”
Less Discretion:
Though discretion will be available if needed, the updated criteria aim to reduce it significantly. In recent years, complicated criteria led to discretionary team nominations that approached and exceeded 50 percent. By using a data-driven process, that is informed by common sense and rigorously tested, the intent is to broaden the pool while increasing objectivity. The organization’s goal aligns with guidance to NGBs from the USOPC and is for 75 percent objective picks.
Tenure Tweaks:
Two-year tenure is automatic for A Team athletes and those named to any team objectively for the first time. Injury protection is more flexible, based on the severity of the injury. Athletes who sustain a season-ending injury before Feb. 1 will be renamed to the same team the following year; those with severe injuries who need longer to recover to peak performance get two years of protection.
THE TAKEAWAY
Patty hopes the thoughtful, data-driven approach to criteria will help drive inclusivity and encourage US skiers to aim high. “I want to make sure people know that at any time, if you’re skiing fast, you have an opportunity to get on the US Ski Team.”
2023-24 Alpine Criteria Rankings Matrix
2023-24 U.S. Alpine Team Nomination Criteria
About the Author: Edie Thys Morgan
