or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Squaw has a no-blackout college pass for $389
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Squaw has a no-blackout college pass for $389 - Page 2

post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

All I can say is, at least they've gotten past the absurdity of a college pass that's blacked out during college vacations.

beercheer.gif

Amen Brother!!

post #32 of 46

I'm not sure my UC Davis son ever paid off his pass vs retail day tickets. The UCLA son, no chance. But having the pass gives us hope of being able to see our kids while on vacation. It's good on so many levels. Plus they will bring friends without passes who will buy retail tickets and ski Big Blue - keeping the mountain profitable and relevant is a good thing for all of us.

 

Regarding GNAR, while I am the best skier on the mountain, have you seen those chutes listed in the book? Extra credit points are all I can hope for! Choosing lines that challenge the skillset of your peers and playing with those adds a fun new dimension to the day. That's the GNAR attitude that is all good! And keeping up with the kids is critical for my skills.

 

College skiing is not drunken debauchery. Alexn, come ski (and have a beer afterward) with us and our college friends and you'll appreciate the value of these kids.

 

Eric

post #33 of 46

My response to this entire thread: Uh... so... you've been to Squaw before, right?

 

I'd say the majority of the drunken debauchery and GNAR-ness is generated by 20-something's out of college, not the actual students.

post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

My response to this entire thread: Uh... so... you've been to Squaw before, right?

 

I'd say the majority of the drunken debauchery and GNAR-ness is generated by 20-something's out of college, not the actual students.


Isn't the idea of GNAR just to have as much fun as possible skiing, regardless of your ability?  I don't mean the people who are actually playing GNAR the game and skiing naked, or whatever, but this thread seems to be lumping the game in with the message it was meant to convey.

post #35 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diphalic View Post


Isn't the idea of GNAR just to have as much fun as possible skiing, regardless of your ability?  I don't mean the people who are actually playing GNAR the game and skiing naked, or whatever, but this thread seems to be lumping the game in with the message it was meant to convey.

 

Yes, of course.  I'm pro GNAR and much prefer it to the snobby squaw vibe that was starting to take over otherwise.

post #36 of 46
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by eleeski View Post
Regarding GNAR, while I am the best skier on the mountain, have you seen those chutes listed in the book? Extra credit points are all I can hope for! Choosing lines that challenge the skillset of your peers and playing with those adds a fun new dimension to the day. That's the GNAR attitude that is all good! And keeping up with the kids is critical for my skills.

Yes, I have ;-)  

 

No one wants to rob anyone from the fun on the mountain.  But, I am trying to make a bit more subtle point.  GNAR was a spoof on the stereotypical Squaw smug jerk skier persona, but that smug jerk is an undeniably good skier and the extra credits have to be taken in context.    See, calling your mom in the middle of one of the chutes is one thing and maybe (barely) funny. Calling your mom in the middle of the Shirley 1 on a crowded day is (a) not funny and (b) stupid and dangerous.  Ditto for BN: BN-ing Palisades or the VIPs involves a certain willingness to risk massive tender parts damage and has to be admired at least somewhat. BN-ing Mountain Run is sociopathic and hopefully will get you off the mountain in no time.   Radness yell on an average day on top of the Exhibition will be annoying even to people who know what GNAR is, for people who don't it will be just bizarre.   I am not saying that only the Squallywood stars have a license to play GNAR (what was that bit about the Squaw elitist attitude???wink.gif)    But I do see the focus shifting from great skiers doing silly things to bad skiers doing silly things, and I think its different, and I definitely saw some people overplay this.  On the other hand, everyone needs to have fun and challenge themselves, so in the end its all good.  

post #37 of 46

Alexn, you've seen us on top of Exhibition?! Anytime I call Mom it's good. We will GNAR hound you mercilessly when you ski with us! Even if we go to N*.

 

It's the college grads who are trying to decide is skiing is a reasonable career who are the most obnoxious. Of course you are complaining about my Shirley radness yells 30+ years after I lived on the launch ramp in Tahoe City in my Datsun Roadster (the lake never froze so I could always bathe - I might have been a bum but not a dirty bum). I guess that attitude never goes away - I've skied through expensive passes and cheap ones.

 

Give the college skiers a break and they may end up at Squaw forever! I'd call that good.

 

Eric

post #38 of 46

I got my no-blackout (gold) pass for $699.  The college kids' is $389.  So, they pay 55% what I pay.  I don't think that's absurd.  Their disposable income has to be way less than 55% of mine.  Heck, their ability to even get to Squaw has to be limited.  Not everyone has a car with 4WD or chains and the gas money.

 

This is probably good for a small number of kids at local places (UNR, SNC, Jessup, Chico, Davis, Sac State, community colleges, etc.).  And those kids would probably have to make skiing a major priority to fork out $389 for a pass; it's a lot of money to them.  I don't expect hordes.

 

The big question is where is Squaw/KSL headed in their "social engineering".  When gold passes dropped from $2000 to $1000 and then to $700, a lot of people complained, mostly on powder days.  I was pissed when the kids pass rose from $12 to $39, even though it didn't affect me.  The thing is, pricing models have a big effect on who skis the mountain.  Some of this is beyond Squaw's control, as Vail is driving a lot of it.

 

I think it's a no-brainer that as the average cost of skiing goes down, more people will do it.  Normally, Squaw can handle a lot of people.  There are some days, however, when I think it could be cool to open up Solitude/Shirley early and transport people there and back without opening up the whole upper mountain.  Not very easy, I know.

 

Edit:  Just saw this come across the transom:  Homewood's college pass is just $199.  Cost-concious college kids may opt for something like that over Squaw at almost twice the price.

post #39 of 46
Thread Starter 

Xela makes a very good point-  pass and ticket prices are social engineering.  The Cushing model was to get them in early with the cheap kids tickets and then keep only the committed skiers with  the expensive pass.  $1,800 pass was taking it to the extreme, it was not a very good business model and it failed soon after Cushing was gone.  It's a good thing it failed, my family budget thanks KSL for that.  I think kids pass price raise was a dumb decision, before a family with kids was a head skiing Squaw over Northstar (even though N* had superior service).  It does not affect me personally, but I have enough friends who are price-conscious and reduced kids ticket price would have brought them to Squaw.  KSL certainly takes a wider slice through the skiing population.  I don't begrudge anyone their cheap pass.  I am just happy that I can aford my gold pass for the next season smile.gif

 

The powder days clusterF&ck is a recurring story, and I think there is not much Squaw can do about other than changing the Snow King lifts to high-speeds and/or replacing the KT with an 8-passenger gondola (which is probably what they will end up doing at some point anyway as a natural connector to Alpine.  I can't imagine the gondola clearing the Fingers cliffs area without significant rerouting.   Skiing Shirley in a storm would not work because of the avalanche danger from the Funnel/Attic areas. Solitude should be OK, but it is a lot of work to get people there for a short slow triple.  So high-speed Red Dog and Resort chairs remain our best hope. 

post #40 of 46

There was a rumor going around that Red Dog was going to be replaced with a high speed 6-pack.  I suppose that wouldn't be until 2013 / 14 at this point, though, if that was true.

post #41 of 46

Likely won't improve Squaw Creek until KSL owns the resort.

post #42 of 46

How about a high wind, high speed lift on Scott? Don't know if the wind gods would let that work but there's a lot of storm day terrain that might draw folks away from Squaw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

   See, calling your mom in the middle of one of the chutes is one thing and maybe (barely) funny. Calling your mom in the middle of the Shirley 1 on a crowded day is (a) not funny and (b) stupid and dangerous.  

 

How about the guy I saw on the phone standing in the choke of Keyhole open bowl?

post #43 of 46

^^ The way the wind blows in there sometimes at AM I'm not sure a new Scott chair would make much of a difference most days, although it would be nice to have in general.

post #44 of 46

The main lift upgrade on Alpine's current menu is the Hot Wheels replacement, which should go in next summer, assuming all the approvals are forthcoming.  At the All-Valley Meeting earlier this month, they gave more details, including that it will be a detachable quad, there will be an unload at the current topstation, and the lift will then make a 30-degree right turn to terminate in the vicinity of the top of Sherwood Cliffs -- as far as I could tell from the maps, a little below the top of Robin Hood.

post #45 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDad View Post

The main lift upgrade on Alpine's current menu is the Hot Wheels replacement, which should go in next summer, assuming all the approvals are forthcoming.  At the All-Valley Meeting earlier this month, they gave more details, including that it will be a detachable quad, there will be an unload at the current topstation, and the lift will then make a 30-degree right turn to terminate in the vicinity of the top of Sherwood Cliffs -- as far as I could tell from the maps, a little below the top of Robin Hood.

 

That's a fantastic change in general and will make AM so much better on storm days when only Roundhouse and the dreadfully slow How Wheels are spinning.  Although I wonder how much more wind exposure the trip up to Sherwood would create in that scenario.

post #46 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayT View Post

That's a fantastic change in general and will make AM so much better on storm days when only Roundhouse and the dreadfully slow How Wheels are spinning.  Although I wonder how much more wind exposure the trip up to Sherwood would create in that scenario.

 

I'd imagine not much.  I ski the ridge I'd expect it to follow fairly frequently, and do so in large part because it's consistently wind-sheltered (and holds great snow as a result).  Of course, removing the trees from the lift line may affect that protection, but I don't think the effect is likely to be major.  The biggest downside from my perspective is that it's going to open up some of my favorite hidden terrain to the eyes of the masses.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Squaw has a no-blackout college pass for $389