Junior Nationals—Past, Present, and Future

The U.S. Cross Country Junior National Championships—originally known as the Junior Nationals, then called the Junior Olympics for a stretch, and now again the Junior Nationals—were first held in 1965 in Bend, Oregon. Those early events included all ski disciplines: cross-country, alpine, ski jumping, and nordic combined. They were hosted at venues that could accommodate the full spectrum of competitive skiing.

In digging into history, I found it surprisingly difficult to track down hard dates and specific changes. So, instead of presenting a definitive historical timeline, I’m going to share what I’ve seen and experienced over the years.

Early Days and the Shift to Cross-Country

The last Junior Nationals to include all disciplines took place in 1969 in Girdwood, Alaska. Starting in 1970 and through the later part of that decade, cross-country and nordic combined events continued together, but the overall focus began to shift toward cross-country skiing.

Between 1965 and 1975, there were no age group classifications at Junior Nationals. Based on my recollection, eligibility extended to what we’d now call the J1 age group. There was no Older Junior (OJ) category yet.

Somewhere in the late 1970s to early 1980s, age groups were formally introduced: OJ, J1, J2. More recently, those categories were replaced by U20, U18, and U16, aligning with FIS international standards. Other than changes in the format of the competition events, themselves, the structure of Junior Nationals has remained fairly consistent for the last couple of decades.

Divisions and Participation

Athletes now compete as part of one of ten regional divisions, with each allowed to bring up to 25 male and 25 female skiers across the U16, U18, and U20 categories. Some athletes may pre-qualify through national rankings or international results, which allows them to compete beyond the division quota.

Current Divisions

• Alaska
• Far West (CA, NV, HI)
• Great Lakes (MI, WI, KY, IN, OH)
• High Plains (WY, Eastern MT, ND, SD)
• Intermountain (ID, MT, UT, Western WY)
• Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, DE, WV, MD, DC)
• Midwest (IA, MN, IL, MO)
• New England (MA, ME, NH, VT)
• Pacific Northwest (OR, WA, Western ID)
• Rocky Mountain (CO, NM)

The Ongoing Debate

There’s been no shortage of conversations about Junior Nationals over the years. Topics have ranged from the inclusion of the U16 category, to the rising costs of participation, to the event’s role in the development pipeline. There’s also been discussion about whether the event should be managed more by divisions or clubs, and whether the U20 category still fits the purpose of the event.

Back in the early to mid-1990s, I spent four years working with Sverre Caldwell at Stratton Mountain School. Even then, discussions around J2 (now U16) participation were front and center. Around that same time, John Caldwell helped launch NENSA (New England Nordic Ski Association). I was an original NENSA Board Member, which made youth development a key priority. One of NENSA’s early initiatives was the creation of the New England Junior Festival—intended, eventually, to provide an alternative to Junior Nationals for the J2 age group.

That shift never materialized. The deeply entrenched belief in the value of Junior Nationals as a key part of athlete development won out.

Why Revisit the History?

I’m sharing this history because it helps illustrate just how much the program has—and hasn’t—changed in the past 60 years. Some people believe it hasn’t evolved enough to keep pace with the times or to support broader participation. Others are convinced that “This is the way we’ve always done it, and it works.” In my view, neither is entirely true.

In my earlier piece, “What’s the Hurry?”, I argued that our current system identifies and prioritizes talent far too early. We are selecting athletes at the U16 level and younger, despite a large body of research showing that it’s nearly impossible to accurately predict which athletes will succeed at the senior level. Early selection risks pushing kids out of the sport who might develop later.

Cost, Pressure, and the Case for Change

The financial burden of Junior Nationals is another serious issue. If a skier qualifies as a first-year U16, they could potentially attend six championships. Just the travel and participation costs over that period could exceed $20,000—and that doesn’t include:

• Club coaching fees
• Equipment
• Travel to qualifiers

When you add everything up, you’re looking at a potential $150,000 investment during a skier’s junior years. That’s not sustainable or accessible for many families.

Beyond cost, there are other concerns. Is it appropriate for 14- and 15-year-olds to be competing alongside 18- and 19-year-olds? Is there a clear and valid developmental rationale for putting U16s on a national stage?

In some regions, the answer may be no. Early selection and high-stakes competition at young ages may actually be contributing to dropout rates in older age groups.

Time to Rethink the Model

It’s time—long past time—to reconsider how we structure Junior Nationals. We’ve had the same essential age group model for over 45 years, but we now have decades of experience and research to suggest it needs to change.

My Recommendation

Remove U16s from the Junior National Program.
Instead, focus on:

• Local and divisional development
• Age-appropriate regional events
• Creating fun, inclusive, and positive experiences

At those younger ages, our goal should be to get kids into the sport, keep them in, and help them build the skills and mindset they need for a lifetime of skiing—whether or not they go on to elite competition.

In talking with peers and colleagues in the Scandinavian and Central European countries countries, asking for their views on this topic and what occurs in their country, we received the following responses from Trond and Knut Nystad.

Trond Nystad

In my mind it makes no sense to select young skiers to travel to nationals for a lot of reasons.

1. Travel takes up a lot of time and is very expensive.
2. Since there is such a large variation in biological age, you will end up selecting skiers who are biological advanced and the true talents are left at home discouraged and with no self confidence.  Most countries in middle Europe starts the selection/de-selection process too early.  The ones who were not selected quit, and the ones who were selected quit when they loose the “biological advantage.”
3. Young skiers from parents with a larger income have better/more equipment, leading to a selection of the ones that “have” as supposed to looking at long term potential.
4. When young skiers are “rewarded” with a trip to nationals they might get satisfied early and loose the long term drive.
5. No correlation between success U16 and long term success in endurance sports.
6. Money can be more effectively used by organizing a local race series where athletes get to compete in a lot more events.
7. Young athletes would benefit more from mastering skills needed in sports (and life) instead of being focused on selection races and results.

Young people perform just as well with less effort – Norwegian School of Sport Sciences

Knut Nystad (comments edited to key bullet points)

1. In Norway there is a separate championship for the U16.
2. Cost of attending is an issue, but the clubs take the majority of the cost, leaving only a minor part for each participant to pay. For the athletes that cannot afford it – most clubs have “need based” funds that ensure that everyone can participate.
3. Norway is a small country, hence traveling cannot be compared to the US. Does it make sense to have a championship for this age group? Maybe, maybe not.
4. For the sake of identifying talents you clearly do not need a U16 championships. We know that it is not a race that give any clear indication of talent, nor does it identify who will prosper and develop into international top level skiers. Many of the absolute best Norwegian skiers were way down on the results at this age (including Klæbo).
5. At this age there are some many factors that come into play – exposure age (how long have they trained), biological age (early/late puberty), equipment, wax, early specialization vs multi sport focus, parents, training group, quality of coaching +++ It is an unfair competition.
6. What about asking what motivates the athletes to continue develop? Truth is that young athletes are motivated by different things.
7. In my mind, the best way to identify talents, is by motivating as many as possible to have fun, be challenged, and keep on racing for as many years as possible.
8. So what is the correct strategy/answer? The one that motivates more athletes to stay longer in the sport. Does this mean yes or no to a U16 championship? This is for you to answer based on what is appropriate to get the sport of skiing in the US to prosper.

Closing Thoughts

Junior Nationals have served the sport well in many ways. But we have to recognize when a system, even one we may be emotionally attached to, is no longer serving all athletes effectively. If we truly care about developing strong, healthy, resilient skiers—for sport and for life—then we need to be willing to adapt. While Norway and Sweden have championship events for U16’s it doesn’t mean it is necessary or optimal for the U.S, given the size of the country, the cost, the culture, and the level of participation.

Let’s build a system that works for more kids, not fewer. That starts by taking a hard look at who we’re serving, and how we’re defining success.