Hey Gang,

I wanted to reach out to everyone to help address some questions, concerns and frustration regarding the U12, U14 & U16 Championships procedure.

Let’s start with the qualification method used for the Piche Cup (U12) and U14 Championships (U14). We currently use the best 3 of 8 runs from our 4 regular season races for these events. The reasoning behind this method has been questioned by some parents as being unfair because it doesn’t provide any sort of handicap factoring for differences in course difficulty or slope pitch.

Changes in snow conditions and contours along with complete freedom on the part of the course setter for each run (not to mention the large amount of subjectivity that occurs when determining the “difficulty” of any given course) make the determination of a fixed handicap for any discipline on a specific slope. Essentially, we can’t create a system similar to stating “par” on a hole of golf because our conditions and courses vary so wildly in comparison to the relatively static and predictable nature of a given fairway or green.How are we to address this obvious need though to determine some form of handicap? Those of you who have or know U18+ racers should be familiar with how this is done, it’s called the USSA/FIS points system. I won’t go into tremendous detail, but essentially the handicap, or “penalty”, for each race is determined by the pre-race ranking of the top 5 entrants and top 5 finishers. The idea here is that, as does happen, tougher races attract better racers and as such should have a lower penalty, whereas easier races won’t attract the same level of competition and should have a higher penalty.

There is one reason why it would be difficult to institute this system for U12-14’s and one reason why it’s unnecessary. It’s difficult to institute because the method used to determine penalties pre-supposes that 5 entrants and finishers already have standing USSA/FIS points. Unless we somewhat arbitrarily assign points pre-season, which would be extremely subjective, unfair and open to vast interpretation, we simply can’t calculate a penalty with this tried and true method. The reason it becomes unnecessary is because we race in a “closed” circuit that doesn’t allow for out of region racers or races to have an effect on our standings. Since we expect all racers to compete at all four races, it’s irrelevant if one race was harder than another. If your time was closer to the winner on a shallow slope and you were further back on a steeper slope, that makes perfect sense. The “tougher” a race is, the more spread out the field will be. Essentially, our system handicaps itself.

I suppose there’s also the argument that we need to account for differences in body size and strength. Again, doing so is extremely subjective and borders dangerously close to being discriminatory. Since we are dealing with growing racers and because there are countless examples of the smaller and weaker racer beating the taller and stronger one, instituting something akin to wrestling weight classes also just doesn’t make sense. We are dealing with kids in the very midst of their skiing development, and the suggestion that a 13 year old who’s the size of most 21 year olds (as was my personal case when racing) just because of size and weight is grossly unfair.

Next, let’s examine the qualification method used for post-season U12-14 events (U16 method will be discussed after). We assign “place points” for each completed run. First place gets 1, second place 2 and so on. This method differs from the USSA/FIS method which assigns points based on the time difference between you and the first place finisher. In this system, first place receives 0 points, everyone else calculates the difference in their time from the leaders, enters it into an equation along with a multiplier that changes based on discipline (this multiplier helps to account for the fact that shorter races – SL – tend to have more closely clustered times than longer – DH – races do). Our place point method does make the job of the top kids a bit more difficult, but in general, as you progress through the field, it actually tends to act as a handicap. I am open to hearing any argument against the decision to use place points in favor of USSA/FIS Race points.

Finally, we can examine why we choose to use best 3 of 8 runs for U12-14’s (and best 3 of 7 races for U16’s). One concern I’ve heard is either that this system doesn’t account for when a racer is better at one discipline and not as quick in the other. This simply isn’t the case with either age group. By imposing no restrictions on a need to complete a certain amount of SL and GS, there exists the possibility that even the first place ranked racers could be there based solely on one discipline. The counter argument I’ve heard is simply that there should be a provision that racers need results in all disciplines. The single best argument against this is the US Ski Team (and other national teams). More often than not, you’ll see competitors who may podium in one discipline but not the other and still be at the top of their game. Case and point is Ted Ligety this past week at the FIS World Championships at Vail. This system affords a generous “amount of fairness” to athletes who excel in one or both disciplines. No system is perfect or without flaws, but the method we use to determine the post-season qualifiers is a VERY good compromise with all factors considered.

We need to first start by once again clarifying, the U12 Championships are NOT a post-season event that needs to be qualified for. The biggest error here is perhaps the decision to retain the “Championships” title. This event largely replaced to old J5 Festival, and is simply a two-day fun race that’s open to all Tri-State U12 competitors. Aside from awards given to the winners of the races themselves, this event does not count towards any standings or qualification procedure for post-season events.

The only U12 event that exists post-season is the Piche Cup. It is quite wrong to think of this as a “true” post-season race. While it does have limited entries granted to each Eastern USSA region, competitors here are not trying to compete for any further post-season qualifications or races. It’s best to think of this race as an award to those top U12 competitors from each region. Everyone needs to bear in mind, that the general consensus amongst USSA programs nationwide is that the major focus at the U12 level needs to be skill development with a growing emphasis on race technique and a small introduction to line/course tactics. As development happens at different paces for different racers, it sometimes becomes worth establishing small competitive goals for the top competitors – result: Piche Cup. The idea is not to punish racers who didn’t place in the top of their groups, but rather to give them some race experience and then end the year with more training time. Just because the regular season races have completed doesn’t mean training has ended.

U14’s are now unique in that they are the only group that retains a middle-level post-season race that separates the regular season races from Eastern Regional competitions. There are a few good reasons for this. First, much like the U12’s, U14’s (with the exception of the top performers), should be spending as much time training as possible. Were they expected to compete in 7 races like the U16’s prior to knowing who will be going to the post-season, their focus and time would drift from training to constant focus on the next race. This type of pressure and time-commitment is wholly unnecessary and counter-productive to what our U14 training program is looking to accomplish. Much like the U12’s giving the U14’s four races with each run counting is more than sufficient to both allow for adequate race experience and the ability to fairly determine the top performers in this age group that should forego training for the rest of the season in favor of further race experience.

Second, the U14 program is also a much larger program than the U16 program (which as discussed below, also no longer has a true “Championships” race). As there are far more racers, having an intermediary step between our regular season and Eastern Regional competition makes sense. In addition, unlike the U16’s who compete against all Tri-State regions at each race, the U14’s from our region (W.Mass) only compete against the other two regions (E.Mass and CYSL) at championships. Were we to combine all the regions at every U12-14 race, not only would we be making drives out to Boston and Connecticut for races, but each race would have somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 competitors – and that number of competitors at a single competition simply doesn’t work.

Finally, there have been several complaints regarding the number of racers that we were allocated quota spots for at the U14 Championships. As it stands, there were roughly 240 U14 Tri-State racers registered across all three divisions of Tri-State this year. There are going to 120 competitors at Championships, meaning the top HALF of all racers are coming to the next level of competition. To be quite frank with everyone, this is even an unnecessarily large number of competitors. There has not been a year in recent memory where the racers who won and moved on from the Championship event did not come from the top 25% of those who competed at Championships. Has there been the occasional “sleeper” who seemingly came out of nowhere? Sure! But even then, they haven’t come from more than halfway back in the field on average. Basically, were we to cut the field to 60 racers, there would be no real change in terms of who ended up winning the event. Running the event with 120 racers is thus, more than fair and accounts for any reasonable chance of racers that may not have been able to pull together races during the regular season, but end up having a stand-out performance at Championships.

Much like the U12’s, the U16 Championships event is NOT a true “Championship” event. While in this case, the races DO count, they are simply two additional races that are part of the normal season that just happen to be clustered together on the same weekend and that have a cook-out after the Saturday race. Again, perhaps this might be a case where a title change is the only change that is warranted. The reason there is no longer any local Tri-State level Championship event for U16’s a two-fold. First, the U16’s entire race circuit now includes all three regions, and is smaller in comparison to the U14 field. As such, there is no longer a reason to trim the three regions fields and bring the remainder together for a combined event. Second, the U16’s have a limitation the U14’s do not have. As part of the transition between un-scored U14 competitions and nationally scored U18 competitions, U16’s standings are based on their best three RACES not RUNS. The reason for this is to start factoring the ability to complete two consecutive runs into the overall standings for the year. This is important because as U18’s races only count if two runs are completed.

Starting to get the racers ready and ranked for this inevitability as they age is both a training tool and a good way of once again separating those who require more training and those who need more race experience. As outlined by USSA, U16’s inherently should be getting more gate training and race experience – this is already accomplished by our training schedule and the longer (7 races) race series. Those racers who do complete at least three races and qualify for Eastern Regional post-season will continue to expand their race experience as that is the most beneficial track for them to take. The remaining racers, as with all the other age groups, that aren’t continuing to compete are best served by continued training until the end of the season.

I write this to you all in the hope that it will help alleviate many of the questions and concerns expressed to me over the past few days. It can always be painful to deal with the reality in a competitive sport that some people will win, some people will not. This is true wether you’re a racer or a parent of a racer. What we sometimes fail to remember in this competitive environment is that not winning is NOT a sign of failure. It is simply part of the process. There will be times of perceived success and times of perceived loss, but so long as steady progress is made along the way, THAT is what counts. We can all argue and bicker back and forth about what constitutes fairness in this sport, and while small improvements can be made from time-to-time, in general alpine skiing is quite fair. It’s racer vs. the hill. Sure we all have different skill levels, strength and body size, but as we are dealing with children who are in the midst of growing, and doing so at different paces and times, it will always be nearly impossible to create a totally level and even playing field. Moreover, a level playing field is not and has never been part of ski racing. We try and create an environment that fosters development, introduces competition and the glory of success and pain of defeat, and most importantly, helps sculpt some of the best alpine skiers, sportsmen and people you’ll find anywhere. If our racers end up taking the lessons and skills learned at Catamount and each and every other Tri-State and USSA program and progresses through the development path to become an Olympic champion, that’s great, but each and every racer I grew up with and know reflect on their time as a ski-racer as something that gave them some great life-lessons on motivation, commitment, setting personal goals, athleticism and the list goes on. Those are the reasons I’m still involved in youth alpine ski racing, NOT because I still have Olympic aspirations for myself or anyone else.