As the parent of a high school senior, I am gaining significant insights into today’s college admissions and the world of collegiate ski racing. One striking observation is the limited availability of funded college ski teams, which narrows the options for high school ski racers aspiring to race in college. Additionally, at the highest level of NCAA skiing (often referred to as “D1 skiing”, though actually composed of NCAA Division I, II, and III schools), many team roster spots are allocated to foreign athletes with extensive Europa Cup and World Cup experience. This further reduces opportunities for U.S. ski racers.

This article does not address whether collegiate skiing leads to the Stifel U.S. team and, in the end, World Cup success. This topic has been extensively covered by this publication, ranging from supporters who see it as a viable option (as seen here, here and here) to detractors who argue that collegiate skiing does not provide sufficient training for World Cup-level performance (as discussed here and here). For the record, I view any route, including collegiate ski racing, that allows an athlete to develop to World Cup caliber performance as a valid path. As U.S. Soccer states in its talent identification philosophy, “Players develop at different rates and their performance trajectory is non-linear.” The U.S. ski racing pipeline needs to accommodate these non-linear and different skill and performance development rates.

Instead of further delving into the debate about U.S. Ski Team pathways, the primary purpose of this article is to suggest that there are other consequences of a marginalized collegiate ski racing environment. Specifically, with a thriving, coordinated, and well-marketed collegiate racing environment, the U.S. pipeline for World Cup-caliber athletes, via whatever pathway, will thrive. 

The Retention Problem

The U.S. Ski and Snowboard Long-Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model for alpine ski racing recommends athletes participate in numerous sports. The objective of the LTAD is to develop well-rounded individuals with athleticism, particularly concerning balance, coordination, and quickness. Within Phase 3 and extending into Phase 4 of the LTAD (roughly age 10-15), the athlete should “keep participating in various activities and sports. Begin to identify with primary vs. complementary sports.” Unfortunately, the problem for U.S. ski racing is that the athletes and their parents identify something other than ski racing as the primary sport.

The conventional wisdom, often repeated by coaches, parents and program directors, is that participation begins declining at the U16 age. Competing demands for a student-athlete’s time force a choice. Those demands may be a desire to hang out with friends, participate in other sports or activities, or academic pursuits. Logically, the conventional wisdom makes sense. However, the data paints a worse picture.

The U.S. alpine ski racing athlete population peaks at the U12 level and then precipitously declines. The chart below uses data from the 2021-2022 season and shows how the total number of male and female competitors has been distributed over recent years.

While the limited available data can’t show causation or even correlation, I posit that there is such a sharp drop in the athlete population because there are few opportunities for competitive collegiate ski racing. Many strong athletes, and especially their parents who invest in their future, opt to concentrate on other sports that offer better chances for an athletic scholarship or at least an edge in college admissions through recruitment to a varsity team. 

The 22 NCAA schools in the EISA and RMISA leagues take approximately 40 athletes of each gender in any given year. Foreign-born athletes often secure many of the limited NCAA alpine roster spots. For a U.S. athlete, it usually involves taking one, two, or three PG years to lower their FIS points to an acceptable level and become competitive on the NCAA circuits. The reason for this is the relatively unique age eligibility rule for skiing. While most athletes only have 12 months to commence NCAA sports after high school, skiers (and ice hockey players) have three years or until their 21st birthday to enroll (technically, DIII schools have no age limit). To put that in perspective, the high school class of 2024 has until the fall of 2027 to enroll and begin competing in college without losing eligibility. 

Thus, many student-athletes and their parents will assess the limited opportunity landscape and consciously or unconsciously decide that focusing on another sport with hundreds of college teams, collectively accepting thousands of athletes each year, offers a better chance for competing and getting recruited for collegiate competition. It’s not logical for student-athletes and their families to invest in and pursue a sport where there are so few opportunities after high school and requires time away from the traditional American education track. This is likely a significant reason why so many younger ski racers leave the sport of ski racing.

The objective of U.S. Ski & Snowboard should be to keep the U12s through U18s in the pipeline so that the maturing athletes develop into better skiers and racers. A whole population of athletes leaves alpine ski competition that could mature into great collegiate ski racers and even World Cup-caliber racers. We’ll never know if the U12 that left to focus on soccer or lacrosse or some other sport could have been a World Cup contender. Eliminating attrition from the U12 population would almost double the total racer population. Aside from the potential increase in US racing accomplishments on the world stage, increased membership means more revenue and value for marketing partnerships and more long-lasting ties to the ski racing community.

To maintain our racers’ interest in the sport beyond their U12 days, what actions can and should be taken?

Reducing the NCAA eligibility grace period

The age eligibility should be in line with nearly every other sport, in that an athlete’s eligibility clock begins to tick 12 months after they graduate high school. While the NCAA sets the eligibility limits for collegiate racing, U.S. Ski & Snowboard and its membership can significantly influence this change. It is difficult for a 17- or 18-year-old to take a year or two off from school to pursue a sport with significant uncertainty about whether a college roster spot will be available in two years. And that decision becomes even more complicated when considering the expense associated with a PG year or two. Let’s remove the requirement to make a choice.

The effect of this change should make collegiate ski racing more attainable for skiers coming straight out of high school. Yes, the point profiles of athletes joining college ski teams as a first year will increase slightly. While I don’t think the U12 athletes and their parents are thinking about how to score a 45-point race, I’m sure knowing that high school ski racers can go straight to college and compete rather than having to take PG years will have a retention effect on the junior ski racer population.

Marketing of collegiate pathways

U.S. Ski and Snowboard has started addressing this area, but there’s still more to do. They conducted a webinar on this topic last fall. It is an excellent first step. There is considerable interest in understanding what collegiate ski racing is available and to what type of racers.

Everyone, including ski academy racers, weekend club racers, their families and coaches, wants to know how student-athletes can keep competing in college. I learned this firsthand when my son organized two webinars last year, one with a panel of college coaches and the other with current college ski racers. Hundreds of people registered for the webinars, and hundreds more have watched them on YouTube. There is a need for more information and the complicated collection of leagues makes it even more important to educate the broader ski racing community. U.S. Ski and Snowboard should come together with USCSA and NCAA to inform the community about the options and their similarities and differences.

Data collection

If they aren’t doing this already, U.S. Ski & Snowboard needs to collect data on all the members who don’t renew. More data is required to understand why the membership population declines so dramatically. A survey should include everyone who hasn’t renewed their membership yearly, around December or January. The aim of the study should answer some basic questions: Why are they leaving? What will take skiing’s place? What would have kept them in the sport? If timed correctly, the survey will likely have a retention benefit as well — reminding or convincing people to renew their membership.

Collegiate memberships

Many other organizations in the ski industry and beyond offer collegiate rates to customers. U.S. Ski & Snowboard should as well. Make it cheap for a high school ski racer to keep their competitor membership once they move on to college. Racing in scored races shouldn’t have to stop once high school graduation happens. Aside from maintaining membership numbers, this will likely have additional benefits in dispersing lower points to areas that traditionally don’t have them. A region like western NY and the Finger Lakes has many former ski academy skiers attending colleges in the area. If just a few of them show up to scored races in the area, penalties could decline significantly, from a ~120-point penalty to a ~80-point penalty. In addition to the penalty benefit, having fast skiers to race against helps demonstrate fast skiing to younger athletes and raises the performance bar.

Minimize fees for scored collegiate races

U.S. Ski & Snowboard should reduce the fees for scoring collegiate races in addition to lowering collegiate membership fees. A racer’s points are much like a golf handicap — the athlete wants to get it as low as possible. The desire to measure one’s progress in ski racing doesn’t end with high school, so let’s make it easier for athletes to keep working on their point profile. If current unscored collegiate races become scored, racers can continue on their path of points progression. I don’t suggest all USCSA races become scored races. However, U.S. Ski & Snowboard should minimize any obstacles, whether related to costs or rules (e.g., the USSS-Uni equivalent of an FIS-Uni race for start list adjustments), to let regions and divisions implement them as they see fit.

There are many other initiatives that U.S. Ski & Snowboard can work on with the help and coordination of the NCAA, USCSA, and the schools to further the goals of building a robust collegiate ski racing environment. It’s essential for the health of the competitor pipeline. I do not propose limiting the number of foreign athletes allowed on college teams or in FISU or other races. International skiers racing in the U.S. is healthy for the sport. However, reducing the eligibility grace period will likely reduce the number of foreign athletes taking roster spots on college teams.

All the above, except the eligibility rule, is solely within the purview of U.S. Ski & Snowboard who can easily implement these changes with minimal cost. These changes need time to be established and show success. It will be several years before this season’s U12s reach college, so we must be patient. I expect that an invigorated collegiate ski racing environment will yield an increase in junior participation and eventually increase the number of athletes ultimately capable of success at the World Cup level.