• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Bolder

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Posts
486
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.

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.

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

Edited your message for brevity. as an observer and not an insider, I find it slightly unbelievable that we can produce, as you say, so many good junior racers but so few WC skiers.

Thinking about the "What happens to 'them' " point: it could be that ski racing isn't valued enough in the US compared to Alpine countries, so NCAA and promise of a good education is just as tempting as slogging it out on the WC scrabbling for 10th places.

I think we are going around in circles. Again, from an observer perspective, the plan is 5 % and the execution is 95 %. Every plan looks good on paper.
 

Bolder

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Posts
486
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.

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.

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'm going to take a bit of issue with the idea that there are "freaks of nature" in the NBA. No one gets to the NBA on athleticism. I lived across from one of the streetball meccas in NYC for a few years. There were kids out there from dawn to dusk in the summer and after school. Every day. They were developing that awareness, speed, strength etc. -- sure, you have to have a certain body type, but after that, these are acquired skills, not inborn. Same with soccer. We live in Paris now and the kids from the banlieus are out there EVERY DAY, rain or shine, kicking a ball around, playing pickup. We like to think that a LeBron or a Neymar or a Messi was somehow born with their skills, but I think the truth is they had the drive to develop and perfect those skills.

So I don't think skiing is any different. To say that someone like LV isn't a great "natural" athlete is a little unfair. There is clearly a range of body types that are "acceptable" for skiing, and she surely fits into it. Just as Charles Barkley and Ralph Sampson can both be basketball stars, so can cannonball shaped Beat Feuz and slender Mikaela Shiffrin be ski stars.
 

Started at 53

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Posts
2,129
Location
Not Ikon, UT
I think you would be hard pressed to prove body shape equates to athleticism.

I think that the kids playing pickup games weeds out the “non-natural” from the genetically gifted over time, think who gets picked first in the pickup games as time goes by.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Muleski

Muleski

So much better than a pro
Inactive
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,243
Location
North of Boston
Think I should jump back in here.

My comments on "athleticism" are ALL related to the question that people raise all the time: "We're a nation of 300 Million people with some of the most exceptional athletes on the planet; why aren't we dominating alpine ski racing?" It's not a new question. I've probably heard it asked a few thousand times. Insert any name you want, and wrap to around "What if........was a downhiller? He'd KILL it!"

So that leads to the discussion of the reality that being a word class ski racer is absolutely not tied to being a top .01% athlete. In fact many of our current best ski racers, and many recent ones were far from great athletes. And that's world wide. Some are, but they are in the minority. In our own country, Mikaela Shiffrin is NOT a terrific athlete. Lindsey Vonn absolutely is not. Ligety is not. Really great athletes compared to the general population, Yep. Compared to professional athletes in other sports, who are recognized for their athleticism, No.
Hirscher is a great athlete. Bode is often referred to as the most athletic guy to ever ski on the WC. The woman considered to be the best pure athlete to ever to ski for the USA? Mancuso. So one does not lead to another.

I had thrown out NBA players as an example of incredible athleticism. Every one? No. Manute Bol? No. I know an NBA GM pretty well. He happens to have been a pro athlete in two sports, and probably could have played two individual sports as a pro. He knows athletes. I've been able to hang around a bit with him, and I stand by my observation that what these guys can do with their bodies is amazing. BUT, as has been pointed out, these guys begin to develop their skills as soon as they can pick up a ball and shoot at a 6' hoop. They spend their entire lives developing their skills, their coordination, their muscle memory, and on and on. Got it.

Fact is that the same thing happens in ski racing. The people who end up at the top of the sport, which is a tiny pyramid, refine there skills over a life time. And increasingly year round. Yes, culturally there is still enormous difference between this country and the historical powers. Kids here want to be the next Tom Brady, or Lebron, or a leader in any number of other sports. In Austria, they want to be Hirscher.
If you are incredibly talented, and willing to work like a dog on that playground or in the gym, you might aspire to the NFL, NBA. MLB. And you might earn a ton more money and alter the course of your family's lives for generations. I'm watching pretty average NFL players signing $50Mil plus contracts today. That's not happening in skiing! A generation ago, European guys who I knew had grown up in tiny mountain towns, with parents who might farm, or work at the ski station, work for the railroad, run a small guest house. Yes, some actually skied to school. Their dream was to ski on the national team and then retire to their village and build a small hotel. There wasn't Hirscher money in the sport. But it was a huge motivator.

OK, 2018 in the USA. If you ski race, and can aspire to do so at the WC level, it starts YOUNG. You must have mileage. You can't catch up. This is where refining the craft trumps athleticism, assuming that everybody has a great work ethic. So, you either live in a mountain town, or your family puts you into one. Maybe mom relocates. It's no longer "enough" to ski weekends and show up at a ski academy in the 9th grade. Not a chance. You can't catch up. Please don't argue that point. It's fact.

The process involves being on snow as much as possible. "You can't fake mileage." And you can't catch up as nobody else is slowing down. What we know have, in the USA are high potential ski racers who are either from families who have resources, or from mountian towns where they gather a LOT of financial support. Good local kids who the community will rally around. Pretty much one or the other. No middle ground. There were some in a bit of the middle ground 15 year ago, not now. Now, some people scream that we "don't get the best athletes that way." Yep, probably true. Remember, we're looking for the best ski racers. Others scream that it's not fair. Nope. it isn't.
If you are of modest means, and you have a kid with what you think is potential at 8-10 years old, move to the mountainn town with the best program, and a big endowment, and upend your lives. Life very modestly die to the cost of living. Work as many jobs as you need. And make sure your kid{s} eventually grasp what you did.

Now realize that at the very same time, there are people moving to the same town and program who can and will spend whatever they think will "work." $250K a year a kid. Yes, that IS going on.

Right now in the USA we have some incredibly strong, motivated and super fast U14's and U16's. We have really good first year U19's. All of these expenses, year round training, the best in coaching, the best of everything....works. WE could look at international youth race results and you'll see that we are not just good. We are really good.

So, you are probably thinking this is either BS or nuts. If we are that good, then what happens at the WC level? We aren't that good. Are we? what defines good?

No, we are pretty much in a crater, with old skiers at the end of their careers, some youngsters, Mikaela, and a whole lot of birth years where essentially there is nobody to maybe one. The USST went right down the tube in terms of athlete development and planning for the future a number of years ago. I think it's a better since the change in leadership, but it has a long way to go. The way that we selected USST D team athletes, and washed them out, or crapped all over NCAA programs, picked a couple of chosen ones, etc. just.....FAILED. We sucked at it. And a lot of it should have been clear.

The college thing is a huge hot button for me. I'm not going to fly off on that tangent, but for many years NCAA college racing has worked to develop a lot of foreign athletes now in the WC, yet it has always been a red-haired step child to the USST. Horribly so. Very much so at the coaching levels until recently. Dumb.

Another very intersting thing is what many, many savvy coaches refer to as "The Mikaela Effect." So....has Mikaela Shiffrin been good for USST and USSA skiing, or not? Net plus, or not? I'll say that the opinions are very mixed. We have a young lady who is likely going to be the best technical skier in history, at the least, winning medals and WC globes by the ton, in a USST uniform. And we have nobody around her. We have birth years well ahead of her, through hers, where everybody quit. Gone. For a variety of reasons. One was that when she was 14, she was being discussed everywhere by the USST leadership as "the future of the USST." The resources that have gone her way are beyond huge. Very good skiers, who could right now be doing well on the WC just bailed. Some went to college. Some quit. This weird kid, socially awkward, with the intense domineering mother is going to be the future? Now wait a minute, her MOTHER is telling our people what to do? HER mother is telling USST coaches and leadership how I should fit in? Huh. Yeah, we have MS.....and no tech team whatsoever. None.

There was a time a few years ago when we had 3-4 girls who were right on her heels, and nope, all energy into MS, some driven by her mother not wanting anybody else close. Is that how you run a national team? Of course not. We chose to.

I saw this coming when Mikaela had her real coming out party at the Eastern J3 Junior Olympics at Sunday River. I was "working" the race series. My daughter had been at Burke for an Eastern Project the week before; she was a FIS racer. She told me that I should ask the Burke PD about this J3 who was not only training with this elite FIS group, at 5-6-7 years younger, but killing them in SL. GS? No.
So, yeah, that's when she won the SL by almost 12 seconds, beating future NCAA All Americans. There were potential USST athletes In that field, for sure.....and they all left that pipeline. She was exceptional, and the entire team starting drooling over her.

Now, very knowledgeable families and coaches basically made it clear that her upbringing in the sport, and in general was not normal. Or close. What ensued was that the Shiffrins had a plan as soon as their kids could walk, and that to ensure success, you needed to follow a similar path. Maybe not quite as nutty, but basically on snow almost every day of the winter.....in her case at age four. I prefer a lot of skiing and a lot of terrain, to endless drills with Mom. To this day, MS really does not like to free ski. She loves to practice and drill.

The USST has such a hair on fire frenzy about her that there are dozens of very high potential athletes who were essentially left in the shadows. Coupled with that were some pretty lousy development programs, mediocre coaches, and in general.....blahness. So we are completely rebuilding on the womens side.

Now we're doing pretty well in speed. Real well. We won the womens DH Nations cup for their season, yesterday. That's great. The speed team is actually a team. And in addition to the WC group we have 3-4 exceptional young ladies ready to jump in shortly. Breezy Johnson is the same age as MS. She's the real deal. And unlike the tech world of MS, Breezy has teammates, younger and older. That is an area of hope, right now.

On the men's side, similar issues. On the tech side, we put a LOT into Ligety and Bode. "Best in the world." We had some really unfortunate injuries, like Nolan Kasper in SL. And we seem to have a lot of guys who had a LOT of talent at 20, 21, who just never developed. Something went wrong. Right now, on the speed side, we have a lot to be encouraged about. Johno McBride came back to coach them this year. I hope he stays. He's working with these guys, and they are coming on strong. He has a handful that may ski on the EC next year, more than the WC. Again, vis a vis world age group peers, these guys are right there. Bryce Bennett and Goldberg are very good. Sam Morse is going to be great.

I think that Chip Knight is working very hard and doing a god job as the development director. It seems like a lot of good things are going on. We can't basically ignore the big clubs and academies, or be at odds with them. We can't dismiss the NCAA; we should use it. We have a pipeline, but we need to develop these kids. The right way. Fingers crossed.

I personally think that Project 26 and "Best in the World" are a disaster. It's more of the same. I would prefer a team. Right now our athletes are always worried about funding, money, and such....and they are always close to being dropped. It creates an environment where though they publicly state that they are all supportive, they are in fact competing with each other. I think it needs some tweaking.

The issue of funding, and athlete funding? I don't run the USST or USSA. I'm not a kid, though. The organization is slated with headcount, not athletic related jobs, and a lot of salary. Much can be trimmed. On the fundraising, or the "other development" side, they need to make the call to bring in people who are best in class. Not the crew they have. Nice people with connections to the team. The spouse of a former Olympic gold medalist, etc. Get the broom out.

I'm somewhat experienced at this. If you hire a real pro, who would not be cheap, and give him/her an open checkbook to build the right team, and plan, this is doable. Its been half assed for years. Like trying to strong arm your board for big donations. My thinking is that you could spend $2Mil or a touch more, and raise $10Mil, maybe $15Mil. At any rate, I think you could make it all go away.

And then you can actually get a board who have a clue about this, will engage, show up at meetings and help. Right now it's like they want the $50K check, and no more. Make it more about energy, advice, guidance and more and not all about the check. Non Profit boards that fall into it all being about the money tend to suck and accomplish very little. Just saying.......

No reason we can't be very, very good. But this is NOT about better athletes, about finding the right body types, about "late bloomers." Not about the next LeBron being on skis. You can't imagine how many parents have tried to engage me about late bloomers and the awful lessons of early college recruiting in sports like soccer and lacrosse. Not totally uniformed. It's not the same at all.

To have a chance in this sort, you now need to be on snow an awful lot. I would say at least 100 days a year at about 10. I anticipate plenty of people thinking "that's crazy." Not saying it isn't. Mikaela might have been closer to 150 or more at that age.........

Sadly developing world class ski racers and raising kids can have some degree of conflict, IMO and IME.

My $.02
 
Last edited:

Karen_skier2.0

AKA - RX2SKI
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
659
Location
Johnstown, CO
Think I should jump back in here.

My comments on "athleticism" are ALL related to the question that people raise all the time: "We're a nation of 300 Million people with some of the most exceptional athletes on the planet; why aren't we dominating alpine ski racing?" It's not a new question. I've probably heard it asked a few thousand times. Insert any name you want, and wrap to around "What if........was a downhiller? He'd KILL it!"

......

Others scream that it's not fair. Nope. it isn't.

I always think of our nation of 300 million and would rather look at a smaller group--the number that live in cold climates and in mountain towns. I wonder what that number would be?

Life isn't fair--that's a fact of life and you better learn that quickly. Of course I would like to see more kids developing and fulfilling their dreams, but sadly this is not the case.
 

hbear

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
890
I'd imagine it would still be a pretty big number....most certainly bigger than our entire Canadian population.....

As posted it's less about total participation as the US certainly does have exceptional juniors....but how does the national team support and further develop those "kids" towards the next level. At the higher levels it does get cost prohibitive for most and it's not like the USSA doesn't operate with a fairly significant budget....much greater than Alpine Canada.
 

S.H.

USSA Coach
Skier
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
1,822
Location
New England --> CO
If this has been posted elsewhere, I missed it.

Dan Leever (who certainly is in the know) recently posted a manifest on facebook that addresses many of the themes in this thread: .

Transcript, for those who don't want to click:


What’s wrong with US Ski Racing?

As a student of the sport of ski racing, I have devoted thousands of hours to understanding development trends. Much of this work is captured in what is referred to as the “Leever Study”. You can find it here. tafski.org

For years I operated outside the US Ski Team system as I believed the USST “just didn’t get it” and would never change. Then when Tiger Shaw became CEO he invited me to get involved. I joined the board and served on several committees in hopes of influencing change over the next couple of years. Alas, it was to no avail. At the last board meeting, I resigned my board seat on the Foundation and US Ski and Snowboard in recognition that change was not going to occur. I had intended to just quietly go away, but upon reflection, I just couldn’t. I love this sport and it wouldn’t be right to just walk away. Here is the background.

I believe USST is irreparably broken. In my view, there is no incremental approach that can turn around our situation, as evidenced by our abysmal performance in alpine at the recent Olympics. Two medalists, superstars Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn, for a total of 3 medals for the women, none for the men.

What is wrong?

First and foremost, US Ski and Snowboard does not sufficiently respect the athletes. The USSA should be all about the athletes. We should have virtually no administrative and support staff until we fully fund all the athletes on any team. Park City is full of people who should be employed only AFTER the athletes are funded. We need to care deeply about each and every athlete.

US Ski and Snowboard acts as an athlete management body. We organize camps and travel and competitions pretty well. But, that’s not the primary strategic initiative we should be pursuing. We should be developing, not managing these athletes. If we have a group of athletes under our charge who are not progressing, who bears the responsibility? The current system says, “you didn’t make it, you are cut from the team”. It’s YOUR fault…Hogwash. No, I believe it’s OUR fault.

We should never disrespect an athlete who is representing the USA at a World Cup. How is it that, as I understand it, a College athlete was invited to start a World Cup this year, but had no support. In fact, there was no one at the start to put her in her skis! We must do better.

We have an ethical and moral responsibility to develop our athletes as humans, not just as ski racers. The idea of forcing our athletes to make a “Hobson’s Choice”, chase your dream and give up your education, or, pursue your education, and give up your dream, is reprehensible at the most fundamental level. This is a fundamental issue for which there should be no compromise. We must fully embrace NCAA skiing. There is millions of dollars of funding available in the NCAA system. The NCAA programs can do a perfectly good job of developing athletes in-season, the biggest gap is in the prep period. This should be easily doable and affordable for USST. There may be a real phenom who comes along once in a great while, where it makes sense to forgo an education, think Mikaela Shiffrin, Ted Ligety, Bode Miller, Lindsey Vonn, Julia Mancuso. But for all the rest, college is a better track. To dangle the carrot of a USST jacket as these athletes forgo college for years of PG, or post high school, which leads to what? You get appointed to a USST team and spend years more without a system to develop you. Many athletes blow through their eligibility and lose the opportunity to be educated and experience college skiing. If I may digress for a moment, I believe college skiing is the pinnacle of the intrinsic joy in ski racing. One would be well advised to attend a NCAA regional or National event to see this first hand. It’s a shame our governing body is denying our athletes that experience. For men especially, athletes are nowhere near fully physiologically developed as 18-20 year olds. Pursuing an education while they “grow into” their bodies is a far better use of their time. I am not suggesting the college system is perfect. There are rule changes that are necessary if college skiing is to deliver on it’s full potential. That is the subject for another day.

We need to think deeply. Simply saying, “this is what the Europeans do, so we should just copy them”, is overly simplistic. I spent a lot of time interviewing thought leaders in Europe. Virtually none of them thought Americans should simply follow the European model; i.e. work into Europa Cups and then to World Cups. Europeans are in their home territory for virtually the entire season. If they have a short break they can go home and see their parents, boy/girlfriends, get laundry done etc. Euros are not living out of a suitcase for months on end. Yet, blindly follow that path is precisely what we do. This is a huge difference. The Europa Cup is arguably harder than the World Cup. Getting beaten down and demoralized on that circuit is not a winning developmental strategy. We need to have a robust NorAm circuit, especially for tech, with minimum penalties. The approach of gaining a six point profile in North America, and then test yourself at the World Cup from an advantaged start position, is a well-trodden path, which the USST still denies. Look at Erik Read, Johnathan Nordbotten, Leif Haugen, etc.

USST shouldn’t be selecting athletes to live a full-time gypsy lifestyle at 18-20 years old. They should simply offer developmental opportunities during the prep period and at major races, for as many athletes as possible, then see who bubbles to the top in NorAms. If an athlete is not winning NorAm’s consistently, they should keep developing through the college system until they are. Erik Read was an excellent model. He went to DU, competed in NorAms, got six points, tried his luck on the World Cup the following season. It didn’t work out the first time, so he spent the next season back on the NorAm circuit, scoring six points again. Then he went back to Europe in his third season of this progression, and this time was successful getting traction on the World Cup. Meanwhile earning a degree from DU (finishing this spring).

The most recent example of a NCAA skier following this path is Brian McLaughlin of Dartmouth College, who accomplished this as I was writing this memo. After winning the NCAA National Championships in GS he went to the NorAm Finals and locked up the season standings and six points. He will have start rights to every World Cup next year and enjoy a start position in the low thirties. Brian has been supported by Peter Dodge the men’s coach at Dartmouth in the winter. Brian was also a member of the National University Team for two years. After the team was eliminated, he continued to train in the preparation period under Peter Lange, the former N-UNI coach and now Team America coach. Team America is a privately funded team.

The leaders of US Ski and Snowboard have said that their focus is on World Cup podium-track athletes. I get that athletes not on this initial progression are outliers. However, we do not have the depth of athletes like other, predominantly European, nations that allows us to only rely on phenoms. We don’t have that luxury, so we need to think differently, and commit resources to a wider base of skiers. Promoting the culture of ski racing is also important. We need fans, and a broad base of supporters. We can’t have a USST of ten athletes and disrespect all the others, and expect to have a thriving sport. Without a robust college circuit, there is no long game for 99% of our junior racers. Without a long game, how do we expect the grass roots of our sport not to wither and die? Think about it.

In fairness to USST, they are making some changes for the better. They have eliminated the full time D Team. Opting instead for a more local approach to development, supplemented by the USST. We’ll see if they support the NorAms and college racing.

There is much to be done. The first step is treating the athletes with upmost respect, valuing the many years of dedication in their journey. Our athletes are not assets to be managed. They are real men and women, and are the core of US Ski and Snowboard. It’s about time we treated each and every one that way. US Ski and Snowboarding needs to put the athlete at the top of the pyramid. Everyone at USST should be subservient to the athletes. We need to demonstrate that respect by radically restructuring the budget so that every athlete is fully funded.

Submitted by Dan Leever
 

hbear

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Posts
890
The College option is one discussed many times, and frankley used in other sports where having "time" to develop is beneficial before going to the ultimate world stage....all without the stressors of significant travel, worrying about starving, and getting an education while contiuing to develop physically and mentally. I worked with Athletics Canada (Track) in a previous life and this is the common development theme for their athletes (UST&F as well).

Agreed very much on budget and bloated admin.....there certainly is value to staffing, but it's important to be cognizent on the costs and how much is being spent on this vs. what the athletes are benefitting from it (cost/benefit analysis).....if the goal is to develop athletes, then priority should be to funding those very athletes. It's quite simple and something that just doesn't apprear to be happening as effectivly as it should.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Muleski

Muleski

So much better than a pro
Inactive
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,243
Location
North of Boston
Thanks, @S.H. for posting Dan Leever's FB post/manifest. Pretty timely. And it's been "making the rounds" for sure. Widely so. Dan has a really unique perspective, and first hand insight. I personally think the USST would have a better future with his continued involvement. Sorry he's out.

I agree with a ton of what he's saying. The bloated headcount, frankly questionable positions and even departments, the fact that the central focus is not on the athletes. The dreaded funding gap. He doesn't get into the compensation for the coaching staff; that's an issue. If we had fewer, maybe we could reallocate the $$$, and hire the best.

Like anybody, I think that Dan comes at this with his own set of lenses. Much of it relates to the experience and path of his son, Alex. Or with his decision to form Team America, because he felt the USST had it wrong. Dan doesn't get into the topic of private coaching, but that's on his radar. He's been about "elite" and getting potential elite racers training with the best to pace them, early on.

Alex has spend a lot of time on the NorAm circuit, and in the NCAA as a skier {and captain} at DU. It's real easy to get enamored with those two worlds and to think that it's "the solution." Some feel that "The Leever Study" would have been better conducted by a real research firm, and that some of the outcome might have been a bit less predictable.

Whenever anybody mentions NCAA skiers who have gone on to be real scorers on the WC, they mention Leif Haugen, and Jonno Norbotten of Norway. More recently Erik Read of Canada, and David Ketterer of Germany. I think that it's a BIG leap to attribute their WC success to the NCAA and NorAms. Three of those guys were already on the WC before college. And during college. One's a good friend of my son's. One semester he went to class something like three days. A lot of online, and international travel.

Dan mentions using NorAm results to work your points profile down to 6, the minimum penalty for NorAm results. A six point profile typically gives you a World Ranking of 31-33. So as Dan notes, he assumes that that advantaged start position sets you up well to succeed on the WC.

The facts prove otherwise, particularly for Americans. Brian McLaughlin's recent NorAm results are nothing new. He's a great guy, and a great skier. About to graduate from Dartmouth, age 25. His results are remarkably like those of Warner Nickerson, who also had a six point profile, ended up making USST criteria, and in a career that lasted maybe 5 years on the WC, I think qualified for a second run twice. Maybe once.

So properly managing and coaching Brian is VERY important.

I think the piece that Dan is hopefully just not overlooking or dismissing as much as he seems to be, is that the Europa Cup IS an important step. Yes it's hard. With 6 points, you might start farther back in a EC race. The competition is brutal. He hills are hard, and not as well prepared as the WC. They are nothing like the "hero" surfaces that tend to be skied in most NorAm events.

The beds are lousy, the food is weird, everything is different. The travel is brutal. Yep. I suspect that Alex did not like it, and that Dan had heard a lot about it. For an American kid, it's NOT fun. Does it have to be?

I don't have the answer or plan in terms of how to integrate that level of competition, and how to manage it. At one point we had a Europa Cup team on the USST, with dedicated coaches who largely skied those events. We still have our younger men skiing a lot of them, particularly in speed. I agree that it can be hard and demoralizing. But the experience works. Our last really consistently good SL skier, Nolan Kasper, won the Europa Cup season SL globe the season before he broke out on the WC. He was winning NorAms as a junior, and really earned his chops on the EC.

Many coaches think it's important. Almost every one that I know. However, probably not all of those interviewed for the study. And in all honesty, the guys that I know may have been part of our problems and NOT part of the solution. I absolutely can see Euro coaches thinking that we should stay in North America, as it is so much less work and struggle. I don't think all of them realize how different the EC and NorAm circuits are.

Dan is spot on that this thing is broken. And like others who have been involved, he became very frustrated at the unwillingness of the institution to really drastically change and reinvent itself. He no doubt feels it needs to be blown up and completely redesigned.

I am certain that many agree. The "development" piece is just one element. I actually think we're doing better there. They must look in the NCCA more.

And as long as we have foreign coaches, in the NCAA, incentivized to win the NCAA's with whatever athletes can can recruit word wide, that will not change. Less than a third of the NCAA champs womens' field were American. In the men, we had an odd year. Almost half were American. The percentages change in the top half of the field of 28. These guys have contacts around the world, and seek out great skiers.

Recruiting scholarship athletes in Europe, in WC finish corrals doesn't help this problem. And no offense to our neighbors form the North, but we have a lot of Canadians.....while Canadian college skiing is "not so great." At many, many government funded institutions. It kind of feels wrong, but so does calling it out.

NCAA and strong local clubs, academies and regions seem to be the key to development, pre-Europa Cup.

So glad that Dan went to press. Smart, experienced guy. Hugely supportive of the sport.
 

ella_g

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Posts
206
Thread drift ... but Breezy Johnson showed up unannounced for Duals day at IMD champs, hung around and watched and cheered the kids on. She seemed legitimately psyched. Super gracious & humble, made all the kids feel like a million bucks. :golfclap:
 

Comish

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Posts
72
Location
Somewhere snowy :)
Thread drift ... but Breezy Johnson showed up unannounced for Duals day at IMD champs, hung around and watched and cheered the kids on. She seemed legitimately psyched. Super gracious & humble, made all the kids feel like a million bucks. :golfclap:

Similar experience this past weekend with Stacey Cook showing up to the Mighty Mite "World Championships" at Mammoth and leading the "parade of nations" (6,7 and some 8 yr olds) down Broadway this weekend was awesome. She was apparently sick, but still showed up. Very cool way to support the next crop coming up. As the guy skiing w/ the Mexico flag and 2 kids in the parade, its their favorite event of the year. One of mine, doesn't even want to go to U-10's because she loves this event so much!


Thanks for posting Dan's essay. Interesting reading. At some level, if it needs to be blown up, that is going to fall on the Board, which unfortunately almost never happens...
 

BGreen

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Posts
537
Location
Colorado
I have to admit that I’m coming around to Dan’s view of Europa vs NorAm. Sending athletes to EC is an important training tool, but keep it to a few races to build experience. It’s dog eat dog, and if you can’t make it on NorAm, you won’t make it on EC. Ski NorAm to get to minimums and then start back of the field at WC. EC is a huge field trying to get top 10 or top 3 WC is 60 trying to get top 30.

NCAA is harder. It is a valuable development program because of all the Euros. It is worthless to Americans because they can’t get on a team because they’re filled with Euros with WC experience. If you ban the Euros, it’s value as a development option diminishes immeasurably.
 

newfydog

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 23, 2015
Posts
834
What is wrong?

First and foremost, US Ski and Snowboard does not sufficiently respect the athletes. The USSA should be all about the athletes. We should have virtually no administrative and support staff until we fully fund all the athletes on any team. Park City is full of people who should be employed only AFTER the athletes are funded. We need to care deeply about each and every athlete.

Unfortunately, this is a long standing tradition.. Clear back in the 1970's Cindy Nelson, a teenage phenom on the USST was told she could not race in then Yugoslavia because they did not have the funding to get her to the race. Her family and friends scraped together the money and flew her over there. The team then decided she could not start, because their authority would be threatened if anyone with the money and points could race without the team making the call. They wasted an athlete's trip and a start slot just to assert their authority.

Cindy went on to 26 WC podiums and an Olympic medal. but understood from an early age that the USST puts the athletes second, It has continued to this day, with families being asked to pay for a spot on the USST while the management collects out sized compensation.
 

James O

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Posts
50
Location
S.F., CA, USA
Thread Starter
TS
Muleski

Muleski

So much better than a pro
Inactive
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,243
Location
North of Boston
Quote from this article on skiracing.com https://www.skiracing.com/stories/sasha-rearick-appointed-as-head-alpine-mens-development-coach: “In Spring 2016 we began a comprehensive study of our own alpine development system and those of other major nations in our sport. As a result of that study, we created ‘Project 26’..."

Surely other major nations in alpine ski racing do not measure their success by 1 two-week period every 4 years? Silly really...

This has been under wraps for a while, and it's a controversial move. IMO, it is a TERRIBLE move. Sasha has done a horrific job as the mens head coach. Not a "poor" job, a terrible job.

So, why on earth would you take this guy, who has been part of a system that HAS FAILED, and RUN the mens side, and have him RUN DEVELOPMENT. This is our most important need.

This just smells of the same good old boy thing. Tiger Shaw is in his job because he was a former athlete and an insider. He is by many accounts a weak leader. So, no shocker that he didn't tell Sasha that it was time to cut all ties. He hear that rather than making the tough call, Tiger dislikes "hurting" people.

Rearick is worse. He's one of the champions of the time when we decided to hire if at all possible ex USST athletes to coach. Not the best coaches available....the best former athletes. They are almost never the same.

Sasha, to my knowledge has never developed an athlete. He was a "player coach" on a crappy college team, which he was too slow to ski on. He was hired at GMVS as a young coach and three years later went to work for the USST in a gopher role commonly referred to as a gate bitch. And he's been climbing that ladder, as our results sink, ever since.

Sorry, I feel firmly that he brings nothing to the table. He's pretty arrogant, and it will be interesting to see how effective he is in working with the various big clubs and academies, and the coaches who actually know how to develop younger athletes.

This is a decision that shows no creativity, and just smells of keeping the company man in the company. If the decision was made to keep Tiger in his job {which I believe has been made} and if this his his idea of how to go about his most important hire, we are just wasting time. ANOTHER wasted year coming up.

Sasha has been the final vote, for the men, on who makes the team. As in who the discretionary picks are. Who gets picked up and who gets cut. Think he's handled that well?

Mark my words. ALL of the USST's energy on the mens side is going right into River Radamus. Sasha has been telling people that he is the future of the USST, much like Mikaela was similarly handled.

Very disappointed. It's a real mess. No change. Normally, when you have to take a senior guy out of his job, you must take him out of the organization. It's not fun, it hurts families, but it has to happen.

Not with the USST. Nope. Same old, same old.

Tiger and Sasha, and Patrick Riml should ALL be leaving. Part of the problem, not the solution.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,449
How was Phil McNichol viewed back in the day or in retrospect?
 
Thread Starter
TS
Muleski

Muleski

So much better than a pro
Inactive
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,243
Location
North of Boston
Where will the impetus for meaningful change cone from? Seems like not the board.

Look at the composition of the USST board, and the USSA foundation. It's one of two groups. Former athletes, and former USST "people", some current USSA sr level execs, and predominantly very weathly people who have the capacity to give a LOT of money, and many seem pretty disengaged. A lot of investment bankers, PE guys, VC's, finance entrepreneurs. Bush guys. The half dozen who are very engaged are likely pulling their hair out.

Tiger has, IMO, almost no real oversight or pressure. He has plenty of time between quarterly board meetings to have his people craft his presentations and sell the story. Must get awkward, as Marolt is still on the foundation board.

I have served on non profit boards, and for most it's like buying a merit badge for a big gift. When you start asking questions that you need to, a lot of these people squirm in their seats as they can't stand to be "mean." BTW, I have served after being asked to help...not due to the check!

The staff of the USST:USSA is absolutely bloated for an organization of this size. It's more than the top incomes, it is also too much headcount.

Very disappointing and as Newfy says, nothing new. If this were a "real" business it would have folded a long time ago. It needs a complete overhaul, and doing it with the same crowd is probably not going to happen....

Ugh.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Muleski

Muleski

So much better than a pro
Inactive
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
5,243
Location
North of Boston
How was Phil McNichol viewed back in the day or in retrospect?

I think Phil McNichol was viewed VERY well. People get real passionate about this {I'm an offender!} and can get worked up. I think that Phil had serious supporters outnumbering the detractors, on a ten to one count. He spent 11 or 12 years with the team, and left after being the Head Mens Coach. Same position as Rearick. Phil left, I think in 2008, when things were going quite well. He didn't leave because of performance. He was just fried. That job, done right, is incredibly grueling with time demands and travel. It's brutal for anybody with a family. My understanding is that he was just fried, or publicly said so.

BUT, I also suspect that he was sick of the USST. That's just a guess. He ended up running Bode's Team America, and had Forest Carey also coaching. He then did a number of things, like promoting Rockfest.

I think that Phil's current the top guy, with a title like "Executive Director" at Sun Valley. I would assume that he likes that job, and that he loves living there with his family. McNichol might be a great guy to consider for a job like Riml's, with is essentially the Alpine Director. The boss of the Head W and M coaches. He's NOT the guy to be the CEO. I feel strange that this place needs a seasoned business leader.
Somebody who grasps the sport and all of the nuances and idiosyncrasies, but knows how to run, shape, turnaround and lead. I don't think that's in McNichol's wheelhouse. This is a big job. They undershot it, IMO, with Tiger. They had a powerful guy with Marolt, and Marolt had not oversight, IMO, and did whatever he wanted in that job.

Jobs like McNichols are pretty treasured, and they are some of the few in the business that pay well. Not ever ED job does, at all. I suspect that his does. This is a factor on the USST coaching side. The jobs just have not paid well. In the past, having the experience in the jacket, which automatically comes with a level 500 USSA coaching certificate {international experience}, seemed to get these guys lined up for great club jobs. I think that's been "exposed" as being a bit oversold. There have been recent ex USST coaches who have simply not done well as youth coaches. Why should they? Not like they coach a lot on the USST.....a lot of it is logistics. Lugging stuff around, driving vans around Europe, etc.

I would "guess", with some level of comfort, that Sasha Rearick was recently looking into the possibility of a top club job, found none that were open and/or a possible fit, and accepted this deal with the USST. I would have preferred to see them cut him a nice severance/transition package.

There are some great coaches who I would like to see in the USST system. But it's hard to make that work. I think the hiring model is strange. Of course you then have the teams within the team.....whole different issue.

But, yes, I'd say that Phil McNichol was very well regarded. And yeah....he has a nice job these days!
 

Sponsor

Staff online

Top