USST, "Project 26" Plans for the Future. New USST Criteria.

[Muleski]

Some of us received a recent email with this information in it. Today, skiracing.com published an article outlining the plans of U.S. Ski & Snowboard {I will try to get used to that name} for the future.....at least through the 2026 Olympics, hence the name "Project 26."

I want to read through it a couple of more times. I thought it might interest others. I have a few headlines:

1. There seems to be focus on identifying and developing Olympic "Medal Winners". That's almost more focused that the former "Best in the World" that landed us where we are today. What did BEST mean? Best team, most medals, most WC points? I do know that sponsors tend to like the Olympics. WC skiers, not so much.

2. In the criteria it is now clear that if you are nominated to the USST, and elect to not join the team, you're dead to them. They will not renominate you, even if you make criteria, unless you beg to be considered next time. I presume they are sick of younger racers passing up the opportunity to join what have been ineffective development programs, and having to write fat checks to be a part of the USST. I need to dig into this to see how that works with NCAA college racers who are fast enough to make criteria, but want to stay in school. It seems heavy handed.

3. The actual criteria based on year of birth, work ranking, etc. looks even more confusing to me than it already is. we sure like to get very precise re: age.

4. The D team is gone. Now the focus will be on partnering with the best programs, clubs, academies. I think that's very realistic, and smart, but no doubt some dreamers will think it's unfair or elitist. Keep on mind that Tiger has made a big pitch about grass roots racing. It's not realistic to expect those kids to reach the top, or it would be very rare. Certainly a number of big clubs are glad to see that being made "official" and the arms race for top level U16's, U19's {and l'll add PG's} will probably accelerate. It avoids this issue of D team nominees saying "No thanks." There will be a lot of exceptional programs, racing NorAms and Europa Cups, which will be very selective {and presumably expensive}. Bit look for more project work with them. Heck, they speak to identifying future medal winners as young as age 12.

The medals theme seems to downplay team, depth, long term, etc. I would like to see the World Cup be the focus, personalIy. I may be reading more into it than I should, and I will try not to jump to conclusions.

I also think this looks like it could be a smaller team, and perhaps fewer staff working with them in the past. OR.....the same number of people working with fewer athletes. I need to pay around with it, and see who fits where. It may be that it's not going to change much.

Need to read both of these:

https://www.skiracing.com/stories/us-ski-snowboard-prepares-for-future-success-with-project-26

https://usskiandsnowboard.org/sites/default/files/files-resources/files/2017-11/Alpine Team Criteria 2018-19_0.pdf


Read and share any thoughts?

 

[HardDaysNight]

Active engagement of club/college/etc. deeper into the development process very sensible.

Based on published criteria, automatic A team athletes would be an extremely small group, perhaps one!. Coaches discretion will dominate selections. It is insane to nominate athletes to the team at any level and not commit to provide the financial support necessary for them to succeed. Take care in the process and then put your money behind your judgement.

 

[Karen_skier2.0]

Cannot be a late bloomer with this system.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

It's a little depressing to see anything that makes the arms race worse.

 

[K2 Rat]

As @Muleski said, the new criteria is confusing. Trying to compare it to the past few years is hard to determine what the teams will look like, but here are some takeaways:

- Generally speaking it is harder to make a team and thus it could make the team smaller
- if you were a 26 yr old or older female or 28 yr old or older male, this year you had to make A team requirement to be named to the team. Next year, the B team does not put any age cap on it.
- Coaches Discretion is listed as part of A team criteria for the first time ( I looked only back to 2015)
- The language about those who have previously declined a team nomination not getting a new nomination ( unless you beg) has been in the criteria since at least since 2015. Maybe it will be enforced more ??
- The D team will not be a nationally managed team and it is nice to see a NCAA result become part of the criteria ( Top 5 for 19 and 20 yr old women ( top 10 for men), although not easy with all the Euros).
- They added " Only results and rankings from the 2017-18 season will be considered". I can't tell if this is really something new since years past the criteria was based on current WCSL or World FIS rankings.
- Alpine combined performance is no longer part of the criteria

A team - 1 top 15 WCSL vs 1 top 25 this year
- '18 Olympic medal ( normal in post Olympic or Worlds year)
- Unless Coaches discretion is used, A team may be pretty small

B team - hard to compare completely, but the 2 earliest YOB have a tougher criteria by 5 WCSL spots.
- WJSC medal --- this used to get you on C team, but "Project 26" I guess is about identifying medal winners
- For YOB 1997 women( men don't use EC results ?? ) : 3 top 5 Europa Cups and YOB 1998 : 3 Top 10 EC results. For the same age, these results would get you on C team this year.

C team - This year, the oldest eligible were YOB 1997 for women and YOB 1995 for men--- next year it is 1997 for both.
- For Women YOB 1997 -- Top 50 world ranking vs top 60 this year
- For women, they added a year of eligibility. But to stay on C team, your world ranking had to improve from top 110 to top 50.
-If you made the C team this year as a YOB 1999 woman with your top 170 FIS World ranking, you will need to be in top 60 to be renamed.
- For men YOB 1997 -- Top 115 world ranking vs top 150 this year.
-These WR criteria must be met along with certain Nor-Am standings

D team -- not even going to try to compare -- extremely complicated
- probably a good thing to keep the athletes with their home program


Except being very confusing, I am not sure what all this means.

I would think A team gets smaller, maybe B team grows and C team gets smaller.

Not sure how this will get us medals in '26 and beyond.

 

[Muleski]

Thanks, @K2 Rat.

Interesting, the first time the criteria was released, pretty sure there was NO D team included, so that must have been an "Ooops!"
The document. I guess has been cleaned up. Maybe I was blind to it, but it sort of jumped out at me. For example, I had not see a thing about the NCAA Championship results. I'm curious about who last made that criteria. Most are taking a PG year, two, or more. Hard to see how that age criteria works. I'm glad to see NCAA mentioned, though. I honestly think the NorAm rankings are more attainable.

The fact that the doc "disappeared" for about a day makes me think it was being cleaned up.

I honestly did not know that the wording about turning down a nomination and not getting another had been there in the past. I'm not naming names, but I know skiers who were nominated at lest three years in a row, turned it down, and dept being denominated. In ever situation it was based on two factors. One, the price tag that came with the nomination and two, serious questions about the actual plan for the season. Staying in a domestic program made more sense to those athletes. It created some "friction." If you're primarily a speed skier, or on that track, taking the nomination makes a lot of sense, and that had been the norm.

I guess having never heard of a skier NOT be nominated, and nominated again whenever they made criteria, I was just not tuned into that.
I've been more tuned into the "kids" who just fell short of the criteria. Maybe based on DOB.

I don't know. Just seems like a more confusing matrix. Somebody can take all of the current skiers, and those who were close and/or likely declined and based on last year's performance, run them through this matrix. No doubt that has been done by the USST dozens of times in modeling the desired result.

The missing info? Assume the A team will be fully funded. The B team, who knows? The C team, no. D team, bigger no. In the past, I think thee has been a bit of discretion that has cone on, when somebody may have dropped a "bar", but kept more funding than others. That stuff is obviously not published, and kept very quiet. Among everybody.

Not sure how it works. More confusing and complex than before. Still not really liking the "medals" focus, either. Just my personal bias there.

Added Edit: I was also not surprised to see no D team criteria the first time I saw the doc, as there has been SO MUCH discussion about doing away with it. An awful lot of differing opinions. And some clubs seriously making a case that they can do a better job. Coaching continuity, a real plan, etc. I think that all depends on the athlete, the coaches, the program{s}.

 

[Frankly]

 

[Karen_skier2.0]

Now that the Olympic Games are wrapping up, this gets back to the "Best in the World" vs Medal Winners debate. Project 26 is definitely medal focused.

From the freestyle perspective, I don't think a lot has changed in regards to team selection and the funding aspects are not delineated in the nomination criteria.

Project 26 is the foundation of criteria for naming annual A-B Teams beginning for the 2018-19 teams, as well as an innovative new methodology for inviting and managing athletes into the freestyle development program.

Key Project 26 changes include:
● Refinement of U.S. Ski Team programming to focus on winning medals with selection criteria specifically focused on athletes who are on track to win medals.
● Shifting from a national-managed D team to a shared elite development model between U.S. Ski & Snowboard and clubs.
● U.S. Ski & Snowboard to work more closely with regions and clubs to create a deeper pool of elite developing athletes.
● Direct resources towards high-level coaching expertise as well as club and coach education

I'm including the criteria below just to show how the selection criteria between Alpine and Freestyle Moguls/Aerials is vastly different.

World Cup Moguls

https://usskiandsnowboard.org/sites...s/2017/2018-19 Moguls Team Criteria Final.pdf

The following criteria will be used to nominate a maximum of (14) athletes, male and female, to the 2018- 19 U.S. Freestyle Mogul World Cup Team (A) and (B) Teams. Athletes above the maximum quota that have satisfied B Team criteria may not be named to the U.S. Ski & Snowboard Team

A Team:
1. Medalist from the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics
2. (1) World Cup win (single moguls) and (1) top 3 or (2) top 6 results
3. (2) top 3 World Cup results and (1) top 6 result
4. Top 8 in FIS World Cup Mogul final standings
5. Coaches discretion - U.S. Ski Team staff may nominate additional athletes based upon factors described below.


B Team:
1. (1) top 3 World Cup result in the 2017-18 season and (1) top 6 World Cup result
2. (2) top 6 World Cup results and (1) top 10 World Cup results
3. 2018 NorAm Grand Prix Champion
4. Top 12 in FIS World Cup Mogul final standings
5. Coaches discretion - U.S. Ski Team staff may nominate additional athletes based upon factors described below.

World Cup Aerials

https://usskiandsnowboard.org/sites...s/2017/2018-19 Aerial Team Criteria Final.pdf

The following criteria will be used to nominate a maximum of 10 Athletes based on World Cup Quota to the Aerials 2018-19 U.S. Freestyle Ski Team A and B Teams. Additional athletes above maximum quota that have satisfied A and B Team criteria will be named to the C Team. Athletes may be subject to individual criteria. Maximum team size should not exceed (16) athletes in Aerials.

Aerials A Team
1. Olympic medalist from the 2017-18 season
2. One World Cup win in the 2017-18 season
3. Two top 3 World Cup results, in the 2017-18 season
4. Three top 6 World Cup results in the 2017-18 season
5. Top 8 World Cup Aerials final standings
6. Athletes selected by coaches discretion

Aerials B Team
1. One top 3 World Cup result, in the 2017-18 season
2. Two top 6 World Cup results in the 2017-18 season
3. Top 12 World Cup Aerials final standings
4. Top athlete using an average of the top four FIS event scores not presently named from the above criterion
5. Athletes selected by coaches discretion.

Aerials C Team*
1. Top 15 World Cup Aerial final standings
2. One top 10 2017-18 World Cup (including Olympics)
3. 2018 NorAm Grand Prix Champion in Aerials
4. First place finish at the 2017 U.S. National Championships with minimum scores 85 women, 115 men.
5. Athletes selected by coaches discretion

* In order to be eligible for selection to the U.S. Freestyle “C” Team athletes must be capable to perform Back Full(bF) in all ranges and be capable of consistently performing and landing (bLL).

 

[Ohioskier]

@Muleski I read some of the comments were trying to find potential medalists as early as 12 years old. Not sure that’s best approach. That really pushes parents to specialize at a young age and push skiing development early. Skiing full time at 8 years old to be best at 12. You had made comments about our failures are due to not having Lebron skiing. This program limits your talent pool of 20 year olds based upon development at 12-16. I listened to an interview with Charles Barkley with Dan Patrick and when asked why he didn’t play for Kentucky. Charles said I was a 6 foot overweight point guard until after my junior year. I had a big growth spurt and turned into a forward. Well if this is the current ski plan was used Barkley would be written off. Now he’s a Hall of fame basketball player.

I’m not an expert but just saying limiting and making decisions based upon what someone does or appears to have potential to do at 12 and limiting others isn’t best for sport. I completely understand this isn’t basketball or football and the skill set is more difficult to achieve. I still feel that kids should play multiple sports including team sports and have a well rounded life.

I encourage parents to read the Mike Matheny manifesto. He is a major league manager for the Cardinals. Pretty successful manager and franchise.

http://mikematheny.com/sites/default/files/docs/MathenyManifesto.pdf


I hope they figure out some way to develop high school programs and more youth programs that are reachable for any economic class that is within a commuting distance to any ski area large and small. Lebron James couldn’t afford to go to an expensive club but I bet is a better athlete than anyone on current US team.

Again outsider here so maybe none of this is feasible but just some thoughts.

 

[Muleski]

I don't believe that I said that about LeBron. In fact. if I did it's a typo or an autocorrect as I firmly believe that our challenges have nothing to do with NOT have a LeBron on skis. I think I've posted a number of times that at the U16 years, when we seriously start to identify talent {it also happens a bit as second year U14's}, we are as "loaded" with talent as another country.

Actually the Matheny Manifesto is very well read among top level ski coaches. One that I know says in an ideal world, he'd coach a team, "the arcing orphans." Meddling clueless parents are a significantly bigger problem than lack of ski talent, in many of the top clubs. Every girls parents remind coaches of just how young MS was when she was first on the WC. Racing a full NorAm schedule at 15. It's non stop. Every year you need to "politely educate" a new group of parents.

You seem to be fixed on the late bloomer thing. You also seem to think that having decided to live in Cincinnati, a serious ski racing career should be an option for kids in your community. The many dozens of families who relocate to make this happen do not feel that way. Can everybody do that? Of course not. Very few can. And the answer to "does it make sense" is a personal one. I think most parents, who have the perspective if having now adult kids who did it would do it again.

Guess what......nobody said this was fair. I'm just trying to be realistic based on a lot of things. One acknowledged key goal is getting kids on snow, as often as possible, for as many miles as possible and as many days, on challenging terrain. AS young as possible. The Buck Hill loyalists might debate the terrain piece and ignore the many months that families like the Ankenys and others spent training in CO, and summers in the Southern Hemisphere once they were about 13. Many Twin City families.

MS's youth coach, Kirk Dwyer, has "a bit of experience". He moved from being the head of school at Burke Mountain Academy to become the executive director at Ski Club Vail two years ago. He's a very firm believer that you need a mix of time on snow and rest, periodization. Vail Ski and Snow Board Academy starts in the fifth grade. It is a public ski academy for Eagle county residents. Kirk and his board are working with local schools to get kids on snow, multiple days, mid week at younger ages. They may need rest, but they need a huge amount of volume on snow.

Nobody is saying don't play soccer, don't bike, etc. Most of these kids do. Tess Johnson, a 17 year old moguls Olympian, I believe is a very skilled soccer player, still playing on her school team. Along with some 40 point FIS skiers. If you live in Jackson WY, and are a boy, you very well might grow up skiing with NCAA or USST aspirations, while playing football for the local HS team. It's a VERY different dynamic in a mountain town. Some have kids playing pretty high level hockey and ski racing until they pick one at about 16.

The push from Kirk is that almost everybody who's "in the sport", working in the sport, and has some wisdom recognizes that mileage is critical. And, that regardless of how athletic you are {you could be somebody who passed through puberty late and literally "tested" as off the charts as an athlete later}, you simply can't catch up. None of the guys or girls ahead of you are going to stand still.

Some of us have seen dozens and dozens of kids, with a huge amount of support, try to catch up. I have NEVER seen it work. With a lot of great kids. Now, I will say that I've seen the entire "deck gets restacked" when kids pass through puberty. Some kids who were really great at 10, are not at 14. Some who were not, do emerge. But it's degrees of "great." I'm thinking of specific kids who have been at it for hundreds of days before puberty.

I'd also suggest that playing multiple sports for a well rounded life is, IMO, important. I recall when our son was eight, that he tried out for out town's travel soccer team {because his friends were.} We got a letter a week or so later, congratulating us. It also said that there would be NO acceptable excuses for missing practice, and that {I'll never forget this} "playing time will be earned based on practice and game performance. Our objective is to win games, and breed champions to win future state championships......" I called the author the next AM and said "No thanks. Out." This guy was just clueless with NO real background at youth sports. Just breeding eight year old champs. I had another person telling me that my daughter giving up lacrosse after 8th grade {because she was headed to a ski academy} was "criminal" because she would be a "can't miss Division One All American." My mom was a college lacrosse coach. This lady was a bit optimistic. One thing was sure, she couldn't do both and aspire to play, at a high level in college. Not even 15 years ago.

I played three sports {including NCAA skiing} for all for years in college, and also spent a lot of time on a bike as well as on a tennis court and squash court {two of my wife's college sports.} I raced sailboats in the summer, and worked two jobs. That was 40 years ago. Impossible today.

I believe in being well rounded. But the world of youth sports, particularly in teen years is different. In our town, one of the best athletes in a generation was a three sport athlete, picked one to play at a D1 school with a top ten program. He's great athlete, but ALL of his college teammates largely concentrated on the one sport in HS, and their skills {not athleticism} is higher. If he had done the same, he'd be a superstar. He may never play more than a few minutes in four years of college. Being "well rounded" means not one thing to his college coaches. And he would not be playing any of the three sports he played through high school, after college.

The great thing about this sport is that you can ski race in all sorts of ways, enjoy the competition and do it for a lifetime. But we're not going have "late bloomers" coming out of nowhere to emerge as WC contenders. It may not be fair, but the USST has enough challenges without trying to find the extra funding to find the elusive late bloomer, who knows where. The current pipeline indentifies plenty of athletes.

I have 40+ years of pretty deep experience in the ski academy world. I've seen a lot of good athletic kids enroll as 9th graders, who did not have the experience of most of their classmates, and have never seen one catch up by the time they reached 18. Dozens and dozens of kids.

You go to the U16 Nationals, and every single future member of the USST in their birth year will be there. Just the way it is.

It's probably sad, for many, as their kids simply do not have that opportunity. Some families have very different priorities, and ski racing gets dropped quickly.....at least as at a high level pursuit. Changing that is hard.

Have any friends with kids at an IMG academy? Or playing high level hockey, with NHL hopes? It's almost the same. Every single one of my son's hockey playing buddies had gone to a prep school with a top level program, and then played two years of junior hockey. So the alpine skiers and hockey players were all 21 year old freshmen. Some are playing in the NHL.

I would have loved if my kids could have played a number of sports all along, and then decide on one, or two to play through college, maybe as seniors in college. Not. A. Chance.

And nobody is "limiting" ,or "eliminating" anybody at 12. No. They are suggesting to let the kid ski a lot in the winter. And their idea of a lot may be different. But the top coaches in this game can look at a 12 year old and might say "Wow, this kid has it," having seen others who did, as well as others who flamed out.

Also keep in mind that many of the best ski racers in the world are NOT exceptional athletes. Not even close. NBA athletic talent....no.

Our issue is not talent.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Also keep in mind that many of the best ski racers in the world are NOT exceptional athletes. Not even close. NBA athletic talent....no.

Our issue is not talent.

Not trying to be argumentative but I don’t know what this really means. How many “NBA athletic talent” types are any good at anything except basketball? As you rightly point out, sports that require a high degree of technical skill are, at the top level, basically closed to those who haven’t acquired those skills at a young age. Regardless of “athleticism”, and even in my seventh decade, I guarantee that I’ll kick Usain Bolt’s arse at skiing, Michael Jordan's too.

What are the attributes, beyond just opportunity, that those who “get” skiing at a young age possess? I’d love to hear thoughts.

 

[Muleski]

Not trying to be argumentative but I don’t know what this really means. How many “NBA athletic talent” types are any good at anything except basketball? As you rightly point out, sports that require a high degree of technical skill are, at the top level, basically closed to those who haven’t acquired those skills at a young age. Regardless of “athleticism”, and even in my seventh decade, I guarantee that I’ll kick Usain Bolt’s arse at skiing, Michael Jordan's too.

What are the attributes, beyond just opportunity, that those who “get” skiing at a young age possess? I’d love to hear thoughts.

Well, everybody who I have "rubbed elbows with" in the high end sports world generally point to NBA players s being the "freak of nature" guys in terms of pure athleticism. Speed, strength, coordination, body awareness, eye-hand......you name it. I would bet that very few major league baseball players or NFL players would excel in the NBA. Now think about other "individual" sports, tennis, golf. Track and field, cycling swimming. Every one has a handful of starts who are no doubt great athletes, and some who are also incredibly well skilled. But, again in my seven decades......I have never said anybody say "best athlete ever." I would venture that some sports that I just don't follow DO have some in that discussion. Soccer, aka "the real football", rugby players at the highest level. Maybe a decathlete or two.

Not many are going to turn into good skiers! As you point out, I think it's very different skills! Would LeBron be a world class gymnast, table tennis player, or whatever? Have my doubts.

I've seen Drew Bledsoe, former Patriots QB ski before. He's pretty darn good on skis, as the "average guy" goes. He also grew up in Washington state and has skied since he was a toddler. I've seem Tom Brady on skis....not so exceptional. Ha!

In this country, we're not coaming playgrounds throughout the continental United States looking for six and seven year olds who somehow magically "project" as skiers. Unless there is some secret project underway!

With some experience, and having hung around enough, one can recall a few young kids who just stood out and and at very young ages looked like they had it. Most already had a awful lot of time on skis. This was no body type or raw athletic assessment. More of a combination of things. Maybe I'll try to track down some video of 12-14 year olds and you'll see.

When a 12 year old, or somebody who has gone through puberty, shows the ability to really make turns, and is basically quicker, stronger, faster, naturally sees a line, is easily coachable, would project to grow into a skier's body {it is a strength sport these days}, all of it is very clear. I've had the chance to be at a lot of the bigger youth events in this country and abroad, and these kids stick out.
Julia Mancuso stuck out at 13. LV did as well, but for different reasons. Bode was a great athlete and kind of a disaster as a skier. Julia was an amazing athlete.....at everything. LV, not so much.

Hard to articulate.....but mileage and time, and opportunity, and coaching.....all building the foundation are critical. I have yet to hear that we need to find a 10 year old LeBron and get him racing. That's not a new idea, BTW at all. Just has never "worked", to my knowledge.
I don't see how it can work.

I am also always reminded that being a great skier does NOT make one a great athlete. Nor the reverse.

Macel Hirscher had probably been on snow for 1000 days by the time he was 7-8. Building touch, and a full bag of skills. So, yes, that's, IMO, the key......can't beat mileage.

I've never been identifying 12-14 year old future stars. But having watched 13 year old MS win her J3 JO SL by about 12 seconds, it was pretty obvious that she was headed to the top.

 

[HardDaysNight]

Ja. Agree with all the above. Since I asked the question about attributes I’ll volunteer one. I have never met a top level ski racer who was stupid. Not talking about academic achievement necessarily but mental acuity, “processor speed”. Plenty of other athletes are dumb as rocks, not skiers.

 

[Ohioskier]

@Muleski I’m just referring to selections and 15-16 years being a bit young. I also understand the concept of everyone else not staying still. If your telling me we have plenty of talent at U16 but we can’t field a competitive team in Olympics or World Cup outside of our 3 top skiers where does this talent go?

In regards to me or my children sure we aren’t in a skiing Mecca but we get the miles in have good coaches and are comfortable with things. Night skiing gives us a lot of time offsetting short season. If I wanted to push my kids I could easily afford to and would purchase a condo somewhere in Vail and be there all winter. At this point I’m content with her enjoying skiing and other things we have in life. If I push now could she have a shot absolutely. Is that what she truly wants to do or best for our family not at the present time. As of now worst case is I have a few daughters comfortable skiing anywhere in the world. Nothing wrong with that. Honestly raising a World Cup skier isn’t something that interests me that much I want her to enjoy the sport and if that is in the cards it will just happen. If not I’m not mad.

My thing with late bloomers is that if you push too early to hard there can be a burn out period. If there is plenty of talent and has been at U14 and U16 why doesn’t it translate to the highest levels? I suspect there’s a high percentage of kids that are just done afterwards.

My problem is really in sports in general. We presently have parents that push and expect a level of success for their kids that may or may not be realistic. It happens at such a young age now. Traveling teams for kids under 10. I’ve talked to parents of kids playing more games than minor league baseball players at early teen years. Where does it stop or end?

Add up all the money parents invest in skiing or any other sport in America and I suspect that the price paid is higher than anywhere else yet we don’t seem to dominate. Like I said I’m not some disgruntled parent because I feel like my kids at some disadvantage because she isn’t. I just look at how far as society we are taking sports.

Mule I’m sure you guys did it right balanced things out etc. I’m not saying those parents are wrong we all do what we feel is best. I just think things have gone too far with some parents and travel sports.

As an American I just hope we figure out how to convert the talent at U16 to the World Cup level.

 

[Muleski]

What I'm suggesting is that a few years ago, when establishing the National Training Groups {NTG}, the USST began to identify, and name, groups of high performing U16's and U19's. They also made it a priority to bring them, and other identified high potential skiers, together for a variety of projects to train and selection projects to field American teams to compete in the biggest youth races in the World. Events that we had not been participating in: Seven Nations Cup, Jr. Hahnenkamm, Pokal Loka{Slovenia}, YOG. This is a way to gauge how our kids stack up, and to give them exposure to big events. We have done very well at these events. Not coincidently, these kids tend to dominate our U16 Nationals. And the next year, as first year FIS skiers, then tend to do very well, right away.

The biggest Jr. race event in the sport is FIS Jr. World Champs. U21's and under. We have done pretty well, in spots, at the recent Jr Worlds. In fact, we have always had success there. MOST Jr. world medalists, if not already skiing on the WC {Clement Noel of France} end up as WC regulars. Americans have won, for example, the DH in the last two years {Alice Merryweather, Sam Morse}. River Radmus is a well recognized phenom. There are a lot of other ways to quantify our current depth at these ages. Like the FIS point lists by age, and world rankings. We're deep, and talented. If you go back and look at a decade plus of results, you see a lot of very familiar names. Early. I think that Hirscher and Mikaela skied in perhaps four Jr. Worlds. While on the WC.

What happens to "them?" That is the big question and has been a big problem for the USST. I do not have the answer. A lot of similar kids decide to head to college, but seriously they are pretty much world class. Maybe it's "I'm nt quite good enough to score o the WC, so I'll ski in the NCAA. I believe that you could point a dinger at the USST, and say the 4,5,6 years ago we did NOT do a great job with developing 17 and 18 year olds into 22 year old WC skiers. Or very few. We have birth years with no skiers on the USST.

There is a pipeline, it's a strong one, and trying to find late bloomers is just a non-starter.

I'm just explaining how it is. The majority of these kids come from the "usual suspects" of ski academies and clubs. An academy like Burke has produced something like 100 USST members. Again, not advocating for anything, just fact.

It's tough, and it's probably not fair. It feel that families need to know how this works, and to in a way "begin with the end in mind." In our family we wanted our kids to be exposed to ski racing, and if they liked it, fine. We'd see where it went. It worked for my wife and me as kids. The end game.......be strong skiers and love the sport...for a lifetime. At either side of 30, it seems to have worked.

There's a balance between doing what seems right, and helping a kid become dominant on the WC. See MS. Hardly a normal childhood. See every single European ski academy.

It's just the way it is. And as I am getting tired of posting, there are SO MANY ways to expose kids to ski racing and to enjoy ski racing. It is rarely about fielding a WC team, or an Olympic squad, let alone a medalist or WC winner.

You can learn to Iove some form of ski racing pretty much anywhere.

Feel like I'm either missing something, or we're going around in circles.

 

[Ohioskier]

@Muleski that makes a lot of sense. I agree the sport is great for all levels and goals.

I think when I say late bloomer I’m just thinking of getting kids to the top levels and not peaking earlier as teenagers. I just don’t understand how so many parents invest so much and we don’t have a dominant World Cup program. Hopefully this changes that.

You are also right parents all over know or can figure it out early what they need to do if they and their child want that top level. Life isn’t fair and it costs to do what you want sometimes. I don’t fault anyone for what choices they make.

 

[BC.]

I encourage parents to read the Mike Matheny manifesto. He is a major league manager for the Cardinals. Pretty successful manager and franchise.

http://mikematheny.com/sites/default/files/docs/MathenyManifesto.pdf

As a teacher and HS coach for 25+ years....this is a must read for parents.

 

[Comish]

My observation after reading the above and some of the other posts on the USST and how we compare to the rest of the world, is that it has to be damn hard for a 16 to 20 year old who is trying to make it to the A team, to come up with the check to write to the USST. If we truly want to develop these athletes, and we have a deep pool of talent, you have to figure out a way to support them and that means athletically and financially. To only support the MS and LV's of the world, who already do fine with endorsements, leaves a huge void below them, which is the area we need to actually develop, not cast aside and make it as difficult as possible. Not sure how we can expect the "kids" to develop, if they can't afford that check to the USST. Seems like that pushes some to NCAA, to decline the invitation, and figure out alternative methods of affording the whole circus.

It seems crazy to me that the B and C teams have to pay to be on the team. I think we likely lose more talent from this issue, or blown knees, than others, but again, I'm no insider, just an observer.

I recognize that the USST funding is definitely different than say the Gov. sponsored Austrian team, but I also am not convinced its that dis similar from say Norway, who has obviously been quite successful. I do know that one of Norway's focuses is about the Team, not the individual, and by developing a Team, you raise the level of the individuals.

Heard a fascinating talk by Bill Demong. Really well spoken guy. My understanding is he is the first Nordic Gold medalist from the US. The essence of the talk, was the power of team and that for the US to develop as a Nordic team, and specifically for him in the Nordic combined, they had to develop a team. This is a team in all the facets of a team, not just in name. Bring everyone together, train together, eat together, and ultimately everyone learns from each other and most importantly the individuals pushed each other rising the level of the whole team. Prior to that, they all trained all over the country, came together for big events, and then retreated to their home base to train. Very powerful talk. Those jumping skis are F'n huge!

Take it back to the B, C, and D team members. If we make it hard to be on the team, how do the individuals become a team? How do they thrive off each other, push each other, learn from each other and feel like they are genuinely part of a team? That doesn't mean they don't have to help the Team fund raise, but that is different than writing an individual check from their account.

 

[Karen_skier2.0]

IMO it is a shame that so much of the expenses for the B & C teams are related to travel. There are pie charts from the USST that break down the expenses that athletes have posted on their rallyme and gofundme pages. I just question why we cannot help these athletes get access to sponsors for these travel-related expenses as a team?

This may sound dumb (but I'm of the opinion that every little bit counts)--why doesn't the US Ski and Snowboard Team promote a smile.amazon.com account where 3% of purchases are donated to USST as a non-profit. How about donating air miles? I've read my share of the board meeting minutes on the web site, and it gives a lot of insight into their priorities. IMO the main changes for grassroot development has been restructuring dues including adding a general membership and lower costs for families. I still don't see any major changes that positively impact funding for B & C teams.

Fundraising is hard. There is no mistaking that. Getting sponsorships for individuals and corporations has to be exponentially more difficult. I have no answers and my dad's saying keeps coming into head "Unless someone is willing to pay to watch your sport, you're an amateur."

When LV, MS, and Shaun White were all in the spotlight at the Olympics, I think that this actually unintentionally hurts the other athletes. When you see these athletes in all the commercials before any medals are won, it makes it look like they all must be doing well. There is such a misconception out there that an Olympian--especially a gold medallist--is "set for life". Whether it be skiing or gymnastics, many athletes turn to NCAA competition in order to ensure that they at least get a free education out of their sacrifices via scholarships.

I think NBC didn't go too far into the backstories and sacrifices of the athletes this year. At a certain point, everyone has a story--financial or otherwise--that brings emotions to the games. There were many commercials to donate and shop at the USOC, but not much focus on stating that American athletes don't get anything from the government--and not even too much from the USOC (depending on the sport).

I'm just waiting for the numbers to be released as to what the USST committed to for the number of medals at the games and who gets what bonuses. They discussed that the main players' bonuses were dependent upon these numbers, but you can tell that they were not allowed to disclose those numbers.

 

[Bolder]

I am not going to read through this whole thread. If the issue isn't "talent," then it's either a failure to identify talent or a failure to develop talent.

I remain convinced that the US will have to rely on unicorns like Mahres/Bode/Vonn/Shiffrin/Ligety because of the sheer size of the US ski infrastructure, and the fact that skiing is so expensive here compared to Europe. Just spend a little time in any small European ski station to see what I mean. It's a winter sports culture in hundreds if not thousands of Alps towns, where the vast majority of year-round residents are blue collar or middle class shopkeepers are tradespeople/teachers etc. You don't have to be a private investor or lawyer or neurosurgeon to finance your kids' career or move the family to vail etc. (though plenty of Euro champions have come from wealth). But if you have more "very good" skiers in the pipeline, then you'll eventually find "great" skiers.