Are the wealthy ruining our ski teams?

[East Coast Scott]

I'm not asking that question, but the article somewhat states it.

“It has gone from expensive to astronomical,” Porino said. “And no one really understands why or whether there has been any value added.”

U.S. Alpine skiing's worst Olympics in 34 years exposes deeper issues in program

 

[wiread]

I've never done more than ski recreationally. I don't really follow it. It always has been kind of a self limiting sport anyway. Most of us don't have mountains in our backyards and it's not cheap. But Youth sports in general in the US are killing sports. It's all becoming pay to play. it's a business, big, big business and people get all excited about their 10 year old just killing it next to other 10 year olds. Still doesn't mean anything.

We're excluding a large number of kids before they even start to develop. By the time they do, they have zero love, passion, or interest in a sport where they've been excluded from the start. Many are injured and severely so, others are burnt out by the time it matters. almost 20 years ago now, where we lived had their little league team in finals of the world series. I think only 1 or 2 of them were even playing by the time they graduated high school.

Our developmental ages have basically become a battle of attrition to see who can reach the stage to where it may really matter. Forced to compete before they even understand competition. All star teams to win, because winning is fun, but when everybody gets better and winning doesn't happen every weekend, they quit having never learned the joy of sport. That basic principal that keeps you in it when it gets tough, and it will.

I took my 8 year old to Cub scouts 2 weeks ago and guess what was going on in the elementary school gym? Baseball tryouts, in February in Wisconsin, for 8-9 year olds. and from there they probably went to their paid coaching programs till 9 or 10 that night. The kid who's playing catch with his dad or hitting balls in his yard or the kid that will throw a ball up for 3 hours straight just so he can practice swinging because he loves baseball won't get a look when he's 13 because he didn't play by the pay to play rules when he was 8.

In a small twist of irony, I as a parent who grew up playing every sport I could, am starting my kids skiing, so hopefully they don't even find the traditional winter sports like basketball and will want to go skiing instead of to a paid coach to work on his swing in January. But we'll never move to a mountain to further their ski career, so it's just for fun Something they can compete in if they want to, and something we can enjoy as a family until we can't anymore. I figure if parents are now spending thousands for basketball/volleyball and baseball lessons year round, not including hotels, travel, etc, Skiing is now "cheap" to me LOL

But even as bad as other sports have gotten, I imagine skiing has gotten even worse right along with everything else. I never had access to skis when i was a kid. I could grab my brother and wrestle in the yard though or any of the other sports out there. But we need to focus on raising healthy kids who love the sports they're doing, not focus on turning our 12 year old into the best 12 year old that ever lived and we'll be better off in the long run. that goes for everything.

 

[East Coast Scott]

I've never done more than ski recreationally. I don't really follow it. It always has been kind of a self limiting sport anyway. Most of us don't have mountains in our backyards and it's not cheap. But Youth sports in general in the US are killing sports. It's all becoming pay to play. it's a business, big, big business and people get all excited about their 10 year old just killing it next to other 10 year olds. Still doesn't mean anything.

We're excluding a large number of kids before they even start to develop. By the time they do, they have zero love, passion, or interest in a sport where they've been excluded from the start. Many are injured and severely so, others are burnt out by the time it matters. almost 20 years ago now, where we lived had their little league team in finals of the world series. I think only 1 or 2 of them were even playing by the time they graduated high school.

Our developmental ages have basically become a battle of attrition to see who can reach the stage to where it may really matter. Forced to compete before they even understand competition. All star teams to win, because winning is fun, but when everybody gets better and winning doesn't happen every weekend, they quit having never learned the joy of sport. That basic principal that keeps you in it when it gets tough, and it will.

I took my 8 year old to Cub scouts 2 weeks ago and guess what was going on in the elementary school gym? Baseball tryouts, in February in Wisconsin, for 8-9 year olds. and from there they probably went to their paid coaching programs till 9 or 10 that night. The kid who's playing catch with his dad or hitting balls in his yard or the kid that will throw a ball up for 3 hours straight just so he can practice swinging because he loves baseball won't get a look when he's 13 because he didn't play by the pay to play rules when he was 8.

In a small twist of irony, I as a parent who grew up playing every sport I could, am starting my kids skiing, so hopefully they don't even find the traditional winter sports like basketball and will want to go skiing instead of to a paid coach to work on his swing in January. But we'll never move to a mountain to further their ski career, so it's just for fun Something they can compete in if they want to, and something we can enjoy as a family until we can't anymore. I figure if parents are now spending thousands for basketball/volleyball and baseball lessons year round, not including hotels, travel, etc, Skiing is now "cheap" to me LOL

But even as bad as other sports have gotten, I imagine skiing has gotten even worse right along with everything else. I never had access to skis when i was a kid. I could grab my brother and wrestle in the yard though or any of the other sports out there. But we need to focus on raising healthy kids who love the sports they're doing, not focus on turning our 12 year old into the best 12 year old that ever lived and we'll be better off in the long run. that goes for everything.

You are for sure correct about youth sports. If a kid doesn't participate in AAU basketball, it is held against them when it comes time to tryout for the school team. Basketball was fun when I was a kid, I may have played year round off season but at my pace and around the other seasonal sport I was playing. It is much different world today for kids and sports. It is a huge expensive year round commitment for them and their families.

 

[scott43]

I don't really care that much so I don't pay that much attention to it..but..professionalization of youth sports. Zach Hyman's dad tried to buy up numerous GTHL youth hockey teams in Toronto. Why would he do that? Probably to monetize the product. It's already very expensive to play high level hockey in the GTA. I pay about $300 for 26 "hours" of shinny. Higher level kids programs pay about 20 times that for double the icetime. Parents have to pay to watch their kids games. How many families can afford $5-$7k for a year of hockey? Not to mention the "dry land" training programs in summer required by the teams.

As far as skiing, most kids come out of either Alpine Club or Craigleith here in Ontario. Both are private clubs and rather spendy. We really don't have the academic path for skiing as I've seen in the US..and it would be private anyway.

I would say, the best athletes aren't represented in ski clubs..the best athletes who could afford to be there are represented. But really, I don't understand measuring a country's importance based on Olympic medals to begin with. How about we measure child poverty?

 

[Rod9301]

In France, where i spend my winters, my kids, 10 and 12, are in ski race teams. The cost? Under $ 400 per child, and this includes two pairs of skis, tuned by their coaches once a week.
Ski passes, 70 usd per season.

Coaches, former world cup competitors.

The reason it's so cheap is because the clubs do it to support kids, not to make money.

 

[scott43]

There was a tradition of "not for profit" hockey..that's unraveled here a fair bit. Even soccer is really rather expensive when you consider they're playing on a potato field that's as hard as concrete by July.

 

[scott43]

How a dad with NHL dreams bankrolled a hockey empire

Stuart Hyman bankrolled a vast hockey empire, buying teams where his sons played and even a scouting service that ranks NHL hopefuls.

www.thestar.com

 

[Philpug]

I don't think the wealthy are ruining it, I think the costs are so astrominical that only the wealthy can afford to do it and compete. The costs are really limiting the pool we have of athletes that will be able to compete.

 

[crgildart]

I don't have a boot in the scene today, but back when I skied USSA there was definitely ONE family who sponsored easily 90% of the operating costs for USSA Central Freestyle at the time. The oldest kid was also the US National Men's Champion (3X IIRC), oldest daughter was the Women's Champion once. I competed against their youngest kid. It was actually 100% a good thing. No way there would have been enough revenue for operating expenses without that sponsorship.... or the entry fees for the competitions would have been WAY more than myself and at least 50% of the other competitors could afford.

I do see how some rich jerks could have massively abused that power and control. Fortunately, I didn't see that happening back then. There are loads of organizations where when one family kicks in most of the operating funds the control freak instinct kicks in and sours a lot or all of the other participants/members.

 

[Philpug]

Even though it is getting less and less every year because skiers are starting earlier in freeride, big mountain and freestyle but many of the better athletes started out in racing and moved away from it for many reasons one of the main ones being cost. Most of these other disciplines do most of these parents aren' buying racers and trainers (or A/B skis) for SL and GS and then SH and DH skis, special suits, the list goes on for what a racer needs and as they get better more an more until the parent waives the white flag and says enough ... this is before all the coaching and travel. Many of the most talented kids are getting priced out of racing and are moving away from it what is sad is that some of the kids move away before they are either physically or mentallly strong enough to see their potential.

The question is how do we get the cost limitations out of the decision process whether the best racers stay in the sport or move on?

 

[Pdub]

Interesting article. The quote from the 2014 Ski Racing article about colleges filling their alpine rosters with foreigners due to limited American talent rings even more true today. My HS son is racing New England FIS so I've seen first hand that on most days 10-15 of the top 20 male finishers are foreign: Norway, Sweden, Germany, Chile, UK, you name it. They are all D1 college athletes. Most of them born 1996-1999. That's right, 25 year old Norwegians are filling college podiums. The top programs seem to be at least 50% foreign, at least on the men's side. And really old for college.

So I look at it the other way. Maybe the older foreign influx to college racing is actually hindering development of American talent. Most male alpine skiers won't realize their potential until they are 20+ years old, but there's nowhere for that to happen except in a D1 college program or an $80k/yr parent-funded multiyear PG situation. Which is incredibly risky, lonely, and delays college not to mention life. No guarantee of making a team after all that time, effort, injury and cash. How else is someone supposed to develop once they are 18? (Except make the USST at age 18, but can USST really pick the 17 year olds who will be fastest at 25? And the number selected is too small to move the needle.)

So if we somehow eliminated foreign athletes form college skiing (and maybe even restricted college skiing to 23 and under) then at least we would have a viable and affordable way of developing American alpine talent.

There are so many other aspects to this. E.g the professionalization of collegiate sports.; the fact that European teams seem to consider the American college system a free training ground for their borderline athletes... I'm just an observant parent of a junior athlete so forgive me if I have gotten the wrong impression! And I do realize it's nowhere near as bad for the women athletes.

 

[Mel]

Ski racing here is very expensive in terms of $$$ and time for most kids to participate, and we lose out both on some kids who would really thrive in racing and the kids who burn out. Here, one of the "recreational" U12 teams at a famous ski hill costs ~$4000-5000 for team fees and race entries per child, not including ski passes, travel, and gear. To get the Rocky Mt passport (which gets you weekend access to most of the local and less local hills that races take place at, and you're expected to visit all of them at some point) is >$7000 for a family if you don't have any renewal discounts. Skiers are expected to have 55-70+ days on snow per season (in a place where there's very limited night skiing), plus two afternoons per week of pre-season dryland training, and parents are expected to volunteer for ski sale/swaps, fundraiser events, and races. From friends who did it for a few seasons, they calculated that their kids missed 1-2 days of school per week (average) and it cost them ~$30,000 per season for two kids, once they included fees, passes, hotels, meals on the road, etc - not all of it mandatory, but also with some not-so-subtle pressure to spend money at certain businesses associated with the club or staff. One parent needs to be available full time to drive them to races and training, often anywhere from 1.5-5+ hours driving each way. And unless you're coming up through one of these teams, you don't really have a shot at being seen and supported to even get to an advanced local level. There's also no post-secondary skiing like at US colleges, so no other route for support once you age up to that level. For the kids, it means not getting to go to birthday parties, clubs, or other activities and missing a lot of school during a 6 month long ski season. And these are 10-11 year olds! We never considered even letting our kids try ski racing as the time commitment and $$$ were excessive.

There's also a private school here dedicated to stage sports parents who want their kids to be professional athletes. Much of the increasing costs and expectations are driven by adult expectations, not by any evidence that putting children into early high volume training and specialization leads to better individual or sport outcome.

The issues higher up in the food chain (eg college-level, transition to professional) are very important, but the reality is that unless we have a system where kids can try ski racing young without needing parents who can afford it (and without making it a part-time job for a 10 year old AND their parent), the talent pool will be restricted by factors that have nothing to do with talent, motivation, or potential. These pressures are present in all sports, but I think the inflation has been really noticeable in sports that have been more expensive and time consuming to start with.

 

[Rod9301]

Interesting article. The quote from the 2014 Ski Racing article about colleges filling their alpine rosters with foreigners due to limited American talent rings even more true today. My HS son is racing New England FIS so I've seen first hand that on most days 10-15 of the top 20 male finishers are foreign: Norway, Sweden, Germany, Chile, UK, you name it. They are all D1 college athletes. Most of them born 1996-1999. That's right, 25 year old Norwegians are filling college podiums. The top programs seem to be at least 50% foreign, at least on the men's side. And really old for college.

So I look at it the other way. Maybe the older foreign influx to college racing is actually hindering development of American talent. Most male alpine skiers won't realize their potential until they are 20+ years old, but there's nowhere for that to happen except in a D1 college program or an $80k/yr parent-funded multiyear PG situation. Which is incredibly risky, lonely, and delays college not to mention life. No guarantee of making a team after all that time, effort, injury and cash. How else is someone supposed to develop once they are 18? (Except make the USST at age 18, but can USST really pick the 17 year olds who will be fastest at 25? And the number selected is too small to move the needle.)

So if we somehow eliminated foreign athletes form college skiing (and maybe even restricted college skiing to 23 and under) then at least we would have a viable and affordable way of developing American alpine talent.

There are so many other aspects to this. E.g the professionalization of collegiate sports.; the fact that European teams seem to consider the American college system a free training ground for their borderline athletes... I'm just an observant parent of a junior athlete so forgive me if I have gotten the wrong impression! And I do realize it's nowhere near as bad for the women athletes.

How can you call the American college system a free training ground for European skiers?

At 60,000 a year for college, it's not free at all, compared to a few thousand in Europe?

I'm glad to see propaganda is successful.

 

[Tricia]

Even though it is getting less and less every year because skiers are starting earlier in freeride, big mountain and freestyle but many of the better athletes started out in racing and moved away from it for many reasons one of the main ones being cost. Most of these other disciplines do most of these parents aren' buying racers and trainers (or A/B skis) for SL and GS and then SH and DH skis, special suits, the list goes on for what a racer needs and as they get better more an more until the parent waives the white flag and says enough ... this is before all the coaching and travel. Many of the most talented kids are getting priced out of racing and are moving away from it what is sad is that some of the kids move away before they are either physically or mentallly strong enough to see their potential.

The question is how do we get the cost limitations out of the decision process whether the best racers stay in the sport or move on?

Before I read your post I actually pondered Race Night at Start Haus, even 10 years ago.
The racers were getting race program pricing but it was still a huge outlay of cash and that was just the equipment, not the coaching/program, season passes, travel expenses...

I remember a kid who's parents had just purchased two pair of SL and two pair of GS, race helmet, hand guards, race suit, back protector (and the list goes on) and the kid asked about a pair of skis for free skiing days, so dad picked up a pair of skis that were not race related.
That alone prices some families out of the market.

 

[silverback]

I don’t think those 25+ year old European “students” that fill D1 college teams pay that much. Maybe the token American kid does though.

The US tax payers pay a huge sum to universities large portion of college costs at both public AND private schools. After the US training and education, most foreign skiers move on to represent their home countries.

Taxpayer subsidies that cover the operating costs of most colleges and universities ranges from around $8,000 to more than $100,000 for each bachelor’s degree awarded, with most public institutions averaging more than $60,000 per degree. Even Harvard with its huge endowment is subsidized by the tax payers.

 

[Muleski]

@Moderators......

Suggestion to move the thread to Racing and Competion?

I'll weigh in later. Close to this one, too.

 

[Pdub]

How can you call the American college system a free training ground for European skiers?

At 60,000 a year for college, it's not free at all, compared to a few thousand in Europe?

I'm glad to see propaganda is successful.

What I mean is free to the athletes, and that's what matters for athlete development.

Maybe I'm wrong but I assume these star European skiers get a free ride at UVM, Dartmouth, DU etc. Or perhaps their national teams pay if they are full boat? Either way I bet the European athletes are not self-funding the way Americans are.

 

[Muleski]

What I mean is free to the athletes, and that's what matters for athlete development.

Maybe I'm wrong but I assume these star European skiers get a free ride at UVM, Dartmouth, DU etc. Or perhaps their national teams pay if they are full boat? Either way I bet the European athletes are not self-funding the way Americans are.

Yep, not entirely accurate. Now schools like CU, DU, and UVM.....even UNH and actually even St. Michaels{which is a NCAA D2 school....NCAA skiing includes all three divisions under the same umbrella} CAN if they have the budget and desire offer a full athletic scholarship.

My son is a pretty in demand coach, and he's joked with me that he will not take a head college job unless he "can buy my athletes. I don't want to deal with admissions, or an need based aid." And, that's how coaches like Andy LeRoy, formerly at DU, now CU essentially describe it. He wants the best team and could care less about what country you come from.....or how long you are there. All that matters is what your FIS profile looks like, and your upside.

Dartmouth, as part of the Ivy League has NO athletic scholarships, and for the first time ever, the upcoming entering classes will be able to offer need based financial aid to foreign students. ALL of Dartmouth's foreign skiers have been full pays. Tanguy Neff, the most recent phenom, comes from a well to do Swiss family. Now he's on the Swiss WC team. I do not believe that the Swiss system provided him with much of anything.

UVM? Bill "Ratchet" Reichelt, once told me that all he cares about is having the fastest six skiers {three of each gender} representing them at the NCAA champs. So he's not all worried about having a full squad of 10 to pick 6 to win each carnival. But.....he always seems to have at least five of each entered entered and they often all score in the top 10. And yes, he gets a lot of legitimate WC potential skiers. Many. And the handful of the best ones are on scholarship. He's had others who......come from wealthy families.

St. Mikes has a nice coach relationship with a couple of Norwegian academies and programs. Kids come here and get an education. He gets a better team. Win-Win. I think almost all pay. And none of them are heading to the EC or WC. Grapping podiums and top tens in Eastern Cups? Yes.

Middlebury? Great school. Great geographic reach. Lots of "RWK's".....rich white kids. They have a lot of sort of international skiers, as well as real ones....once again often well to do Canadians. They pull some great American kids. And Midd and Colby, the proportion of skiers who's parents are paying the full $75K plus is disproportionately very high. It all factors into the business of the schools and athletics. North Americans will pay the full freight to get degrees from a few of these schools.

Very different in the EISA and the East versus the West.

A few of these coaches and programs....most of the top ones have gone over the ledge on this. More so in the West. Look at Westminster and their program in recent years. Many different passports. Or USCSA Sierra Nevada. They have been all foreign in the past.

I think the real fact is that these foreign kids are often simply faster. Not that hard to see.

Still really hard for some American families to come to grips with. Particularly those who have been very fully invested.

 

[Pdub]

Ski racing here is very expensive in terms of $$$ and time for most kids to participate, and we lose out both on some kids who would really thrive in racing and the kids who burn out. Here, one of the "recreational" U12 teams at a famous ski hill costs ~$4000-5000 for team fees and race entries per child, not including ski passes, travel, and gear. To get the Rocky Mt passport (which gets you weekend access to most of the local and less local hills that races take place at, and you're expected to visit all of them at some point) is >$7000 for a family if you don't have any renewal discounts. Skiers are expected to have 55-70+ days on snow per season (in a place where there's very limited night skiing), plus two afternoons per week of pre-season dryland training, and parents are expected to volunteer for ski sale/swaps, fundraiser events, and races. From friends who did it for a few seasons, they calculated that their kids missed 1-2 days of school per week (average) and it cost them ~$30,000 per season for two kids, once they included fees, passes, hotels, meals on the road, etc - not all of it mandatory, but also with some not-so-subtle pressure to spend money at certain businesses associated with the club or staff. One parent needs to be available full time to drive them to races and training, often anywhere from 1.5-5+ hours driving each way. And unless you're coming up through one of these teams, you don't really have a shot at being seen and supported to even get to an advanced local level. There's also no post-secondary skiing like at US colleges, so no other route for support once you age up to that level. For the kids, it means not getting to go to birthday parties, clubs, or other activities and missing a lot of school during a 6 month long ski season. And these are 10-11 year olds! We never considered even letting our kids try ski racing as the time commitment and $$$ were excessive.

Around here (western Mass) it is different in that you can get your kids started in racing far cheaper. For a U12 I'd say about $1000 for gear, $750 for weekend training, $500 in race fees, $400 for a season pass, and maybe $200 in gas (all venues are within 1.5 hrs). Surely I'm missing something but you could easily get your 10 year old introduced to ski racing for under $3k per season.

But if they stay in it the cost escalates pretty fast. And starting around 2nd year U16 the only way to contend for college is to go the Academy route, which is at least $75k/yr all in. So the early stages are within reach for many, but elite ski racing is out of reach for most.

 

[Pdub]

Yep, not entirely accurate. Now schools like CU, DU, and UVM.....even UNH and actually even St. Michaels{which is a NCAA D2 school....NCAA skiing includes all three divisions under the same umbrella} CAN if they have the budget and desire offer a full athletic scholarship.

My son is a pretty in demand coach, and he's joked with me that he will not take a head college job unless he "can buy my athletes. I don't want to deal with admissions, or an need based aid." And, that's how coaches like Andy LeRoy, formerly at DU, now CU essentially describe it. He wants the best team and could care less about what country you come from.....or how long you are there. All that matters is what your FIS profile looks like, and your upside.

Dartmouth, as part of the Ivy League has NO athletic scholarships, and for the first time ever, the upcoming entering classes will be able to offer need based financial aid to foreign students. ALL of Dartmouth's foreign skiers have been full pays. Tanguy Neff, the most recent phenom, comes from a well to do Swiss family. Now he's on the Swiss WC team. I do not believe that the Swiss system provided him with much of anything.

UVM? Bill "Ratchet" Reichelt, once told me that all he cares about is having the fastest six skiers {three of each gender} representing them at the NCAA champs. So he's not all worried about having a full squad of 10 to pick 6 to win each carnival. But.....he always seems to have at least five of each entered entered and they often all score in the top 10. And yes, he gets a lot of legitimate WC potential skiers. Many. And the handful of the best ones are on scholarship. He's had others who......come from wealthy families.

St. Mikes has a nice coach relationship with a couple of Norwegian academies and programs. Kids come here and get an education. He gets a better team. Win-Win. I think almost all pay. And none of them are heading to the EC or WC. Grapping podiums and top tens in Eastern Cups? Yes.

Middlebury? Great school. Great geographic reach. Lots of "RWK's".....rich white kids. They have a lot of sort of international skiers, as well as real ones....once again often well to do Canadians. They pull some great American kids. And Midd and Colby, the proportion of skiers who's parents are paying the full $75K plus is disproportionately very high. It all factors into the business of the schools and athletics. North Americans will pay the full freight to get degrees from a few of these schools.

Very different in the EISA and the East versus the West.

A few of these coaches and programs....most of the top ones have gone over the ledge on this. More so in the West. Look at Westminster and their program in recent years. Many different passports. Or USCSA Sierra Nevada. They have been all foreign in the past.

I think the real fact is that these foreign kids are often simply faster. Not that hard to see.

Still really hard for some American families to come to grips with. Particularly those who have been very fully invested.

What about the age issue? Isn't one reason the Europeans are faster is they get training and support beyond age 17? Seems American kids have no way to improve once they hit 18 because they are done with the Academy and there aren't many D1 spots offered at that age. In fact 19 or 20 seems to be the average age of a freshman college skier. This forces them to go the multi PG year route. My son did part of his HS at an academy and the majority of his buddies are about to embark on a very expensive year or two of training with no guarantee of a roster spot at the end. The rest have bailed on racing. My point is that some may have tremendous potential but they are too young and undeveloped to ever see it through. If college started with more 18 year old Americans then the teams would have fewer 30-40 point freshman but maybe they'd end up with a bunch of 25 point 22 year olds contending for USST. Just wondering if the colleges could be an avenue for USST/Olympic alpine development.