Mrg

[highpeaksdrifter]

I've only been to MRG once and the conditions sucked, so I don't have enough personal experience to say much about it. I've heard enough about it though to believe I'd like it.

Now think about this for a moment. MRG is clearly an AZ favorite. I believe AZ is probably a fair sampling of dedicated advanced and expert skiers, of which there are many thousands in the Northeast.

If banning snowboarders, not making snow, and having a single chair has such broad appeal why do you think they are the only ones to do it?

I’m not trying to be sarcastic, I’m asking a legit question.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Most antequated ski areas like Mad River Glen go out of business if they're not updated..you can go to NELSAP for dozens of examples but Mad River Glen has such a loyal following that I always see it being successful. The average skier/rider only goes a few days a year so they're not experienced enough to appreciate MRG. Alot of skiers/riders are older and only go down groomed trails due to back/hip/knee problems. Alot of skiers and riders are into the park scene and MRG wouldn't appeal to them because as far as I know..they don't have rails and big mo-fo booters. Whats left are the hardcore..bumpers, treesters, rip down ice, crud, powder, 30-150 day a year skiers and riders. I don't think there are enough of the in the Northeast for 5 mountain like Mad River Glen. Out west there are lots of places like Mad River Glen..Bridger Bowl and Wolf Creek Colorado come to mind..with basic amenities and an emphasis on skiing. I'm glad snowboarders are banned from Mad River Glen cause they f#ck up the bumps..that's my take on why there aren't more places like Mad River Glen..although Magic is back in business and that's been called the MRG of southern Vermont..Holla

 

[madskier6]

Because they don't have the great terrain that MRG has along with the loyal following that has developed over the years (at least to the same degree as is present at MRG). Perhaps another reason is that not many ski areas that were on the market were given the chance to be sold to a cooperative like Betsy Pratt did with MRG and the Co-Op. Any other potential buyer wants to maximize revenues by blowing snow, allowing snowboarders & having more groomers. Since the Co-op is not interested in making profits (other than to yield money to invest back in the mountain), they can do those things & the loyal skiers will back them on that.

I may be completely wrong on these points but that's my opinion.

 

[millerm277]

If banning snowboarders, not making snow, and having a single chair has such broad appeal why do you think they are the only ones to do it?

It doesn't, that's why they are the only ones to do it. (Alta bans snowboards as well though). It's a niche mountain aimed toward avid skiers. (not the 5 time a year person, and not the person with unlimited $$$$).

Also, it doesn't hurt that they get lots of natural snow, have incredible terrain, a loyal following, and no debt.

 

[Greg]

Because they don't have the great terrain that MRG has along with the loyal following that has developed over the years (at least to the same degree as is present at MRG). Perhaps another reason is that not many ski areas that were on the market were given the chance to be sold to a cooperative like Betsy Pratt did with MRG and the Co-Op. Any other potential buyer wants to maximize revenues by blowing snow, allowing snowboarders & having more groomers. Since the Co-op is not interested in making profits (other than to yield money to invest back in the mountain), they can do those things & the loyal skiers will back them on that.

I may be completely wrong on these points but that's my opinion.

Jeff nailed it! Terrain. Along with the vibe, decent natural snowfall and the lack of grooming is what does it for me. You owe it to yourself to revisit when the conditions are better, HPD.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

It's due to a whole slew of factors, many of which have already been mentioned. I'm going to list the ones that come to mind, and many of them may have already been said.

First off, to be successful in a small niche market like that of MRG, you have to be the only one. The minute there are multiple outlets for a niche market, the individual areas fail. There simply are not (imo) enough skier visits in New England to support two areas catering to the same small niche market.

Second, you have to have a renowned reputation to draw that niche market. For MRG, it's skier-only steep natural terrain and very basic amenities. There's a following for that, and they go to MRG. MRG has long had a reputation as being one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) mountain in the East. Therefore, the greatest percentage of hardcore skiers, including many west-coast skiers, make it a point to get to MRG. You'd be hard pressed to find another mountain in New England that has terrain like MRG.

Of course, the coop makes a difference. The coop dues and fees and various other things bring in the extra cashflow that they miss on number of skier visits. Skier-only areas can work out west without the coop setup because the rockies get such a significantly higher number of skier visits. Alta, Taos, and Deer Valley are not lacking skier visits in the least. But remember geographics as I mentioned earlier... they're all pretty far apart (even Alta and Deer Valley, in relation to the number of skier visits in Utah).

Even if the niche market could feasibly support another area in New England, it would likely have to be in Northern Vermont high in elevation to ensure snowcover. If no snowmaking is part of the deal, then it isn't likely going to work elsewhere. MRG averages well over 200" per year, and they still have trouble during some months. If snowmaking were added at an area for this market, first off you'll lose some following by principle. Second, you'll be increasing you operating expenses exponentially, and the area will fail.

In summation, the niche market is just not large enough in New England to support an additional area to cater to it. MRG's the one, and they've got it down.

There could certainly be areas that choose to cater to some other niche market. You can use your imagination and come up with some concepts. But the one HPD speaks of is taken.

 

[deadheadskier]

MRG is succesful for a number reasons, most of them already listed. One thing that I would point out is that I do not think MRG benefits itself by not allowing snowboarders. You are eliminating 20+% of the market by doing so. Would they lose some skiers by allowing snowboarders? Yes, but I doubt they'd lose as many skiers as they would gain in snowboarders. That being said, it's the co-ops vote/choice and it works for them being a non-profit.


Do I think another resort could take the same approach and be succesful? Yes, but not one that currently exists. Do I think another could do as well as MRG, no. Part of that is culture and the other part of that is I'm not certain a mountain exists in NE that has 2000+ verticle of north facing terrain that receives 250 inches of snow a year. Further to that, if such a mountain does, is it developable? Probably not. Even more important to success than that is does such a mountain exist right about the street from a major resort? Definitely not and let's not kid overselves, a HUGE part of MRG success is it's proximity to Sugarbush. Without Sugarbush, I highly doubt MRG makes it.


What I think we do see is other mainstream resorts adopting some of MRG's philosophies over the past twenty years. Twenty years ago, how much glade skiing did you see on New England trail maps? Very little. Now, every mountain has its share, though few do it well. Jay has done it the best and I think they've done so out of need. They could've turned that mountain into a groomers paradise like all the places in southern New England, but realized because of accesibility, they would never be successful, so they differentiated themselves with glade skiing.


All this said, I wish there were a couple more MRG type places in New England, but even less defined than that. Give me a Poma lift up to the top of a mountain and nothing but well managed glades and a couple of cat tracks defining the ski area boundary. That would be great.

 

[Greg]

It's due to a whole slew of factors, many of which have already been mentioned. I'm going to list the ones that come to mind, and many of them may have already been said.

First off, to be successful in a small niche market like that of MRG, you have to be the only one. The minute there are multiple outlets for a niche market, the individual areas fail. There simply are not (imo) enough skier visits in New England to support two areas catering to the same small niche market.

Second, you have to have a renowned reputation to draw that niche market. For MRG, it's skier-only steep natural terrain and very basic amenities. There's a following for that, and they go to MRG. MRG has long had a reputation as being one of the hardest (if not THE hardest) mountain in the East. Therefore, the greatest percentage of hardcore skiers, including many west-coast skiers, make it a point to get to MRG. You'd be hard pressed to find another mountain in New England that has terrain like MRG.

Of course, the coop makes a difference. The coop dues and fees and various other things bring in the extra cashflow that they miss on number of skier visits. Skier-only areas can work out west without the coop setup because the rockies get such a significantly higher number of skier visits. Alta, Taos, and Deer Valley are not lacking skier visits in the least. But remember geographics as I mentioned earlier... they're all pretty far apart (even Alta and Deer Valley, in relation to the number of skier visits in Utah).

Even if the niche market could feasibly support another area in New England, it would likely have to be in Northern Vermont high in elevation to ensure snowcover. If no snowmaking is part of the deal, then it isn't likely going to work elsewhere. MRG averages well over 200" per year, and they still have trouble during some months. If snowmaking were added at an area for this market, first off you'll lose some following by principle. Second, you'll be increasing you operating expenses exponentially, and the area will fail.

In summation, the niche market is just not large enough in New England to support an additional area to cater to it. MRG's the one, and they've got it down.

There could certainly be areas that choose to cater to some other niche market. You can use your imagination and come up with some concepts. But the one HPD speaks of is taken.

Extremely well thought out post. It was one of your best, BMM. Not that I agree totally. I think there is room for another ski area with similarities to MRG. See this thread:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/16382-there-market-mostly-expert-ski-area.html

 

[nhski]

Extremely well thought out post. It was one of your best, BMM. Not that I agree totally. I think there is room for another ski area with similarities to MRG. See this thread:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/16382-there-market-mostly-expert-ski-area.html

I agree with you Greg, i think multiple MRG like mountains could exist. They have the terrain and snowfall....that's all you really need. Groomers, man made snow, parks, etc. are all fun on skis, but what drives me is untracked and the steeper the better for this point in my skiing career. I think a lot of people and a growing number of people feel the same.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Do you think the next generation of skiers/riders will want MRG to remain preserved??? I just can't see MRG with a butter box and a sound system along the halfpipe..I like the food at MRG alot better than most ski areas..they have darn good chili and tons of micro-brews..I've never skied MRG on a weekend and wouldn't want to do one lap per hour..although 3 laps per hour off the single or double is plenty for me..

The vert challenge they have is insane..as part of the triple crown challenge. Plus they have the tele-fest to keep the hippie granola vibe alive.

Fun Fact..Montpelier..has one of the highest per capital granola consumption in the United States...for serious..I read it in Seven Days..hahahaha..MRG is cool. I always wished they had a combined MRG/Stowe pass..

 

[Greg]

Do you think the next generation of skiers/riders will want MRG to remain preserved???

Yes.

..although 3 laps per hour off the single or double is plenty for me..

Call-out time. Can you really squeeze in 20 minute runs off the single at MRG? Doubtful. 2 runs/hour is pushing it. 40-45 mins/run for this gaper.

 

[kcyanks1]

Call-out time. Can you really squeeze in 20 minute runs off the single at MRG? Doubtful. 2 runs/hour is pushing it. 40-45 mins/run for this gaper.

The ride up is 14 minutes, if I remember correctly. 20 minute runs would probably be pushing it even with no lines.

 

[Greg]

The ride up is 14 minutes, if I remember correctly. 20 minute runs would probably be pushing it even with no lines.

Anyone that can to T2B at MRG in 6 minutes is the man...

 

[kcyanks1]

Anyone that can to T2B at MRG in 6 minutes is the man...

Well I might have been off a bit .. NYTimes says 12 minutes: "It takes 12 minutes to ride the single-chair from the bottom to the top, a rise of 2,037 feet." (http://tinyurl.com/ys9gpp [nytimes.com])

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Extremely well thought out post. It was one of your best, BMM. Not that I agree totally. I think there is room for another ski area with similarities to MRG. See this thread:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/16382-there-market-mostly-expert-ski-area.html

Thanks, Greg.

I do agree, in fact, that there is a market for an expert-only mountain. I guess my point was more focused on another mountain catering to the same market. MRG does not only cater to the expert market. They offer a variety of unique features, one of which is its historic significance and antiquated (in a good way) infrastructure and atmosphere.

So yes... I think there's room for a no-frills expert mountain. There's not room for another area serving the same market as MRG (which is more than experts).

56 days till I'm ski lift served at Copper! :razz:

 

[ski_resort_observer]

I agree with you Greg, i think multiple MRG like mountains could exist. They have the terrain and snowfall....that's all you really need. .

If that is all you need there would be multiple MRG's. The 2 important things your missing, that others have mentioned, is that it is owned by the skiers that ski there and the dedication to having no debt. The big decisions are made by the co-op not the paid management. Last year when MRG missed the Xmas holiday there was alot of pressure from some members to install more snowmaking. The co-op and Eric stuck to their guns plus there really isn't enough accessible water.

Interesting comment that MRG would not exist without the Bush. I think it could but that's just my take. On the other hand folks do come to the Bush and ski a day at MRG. We have had a "ski the valley" package for years where you can ski at either. Don't think it's been a big seller for some reason.

 

[KingM]

I think the relationship between MRG and Sugarbush goes even deeper than that. SB is incredibly generous with the local schools. They have a great program where about 3/4 of the local elementary school kids go skiing once a week from Jan-March. These kids grow up and become local SB and MRG skiers.

Also, here at the inn, we also get hardcore MRG skiers who split their time with SB because that's how they get their more casual buddies to come to the Mad River Valley. I think SB's reputation also benefits from MRG's renown. Some of this is SB's own efforts to make itself a skier's mountain, but there's no question that they're helped along tremendously by MRG's edgy reputation.

 

[nhski]

If that is all you need there would be multiple MRG's. The 2 important things your missing, that others have mentioned, is that it is owned by the skiers that ski there and the dedication to having no debt. The big decisions are made by the co-op not the paid management. Last year when MRG missed the Xmas holiday there was alot of pressure from some members to install more snowmaking. The co-op and Eric stuck to their guns plus there really isn't enough accessible water.

Interesting comment that MRG would not exist without the Bush. I think it could but that's just my take. On the other hand folks do come to the Bush and ski a day at MRG. We have had a "ski the valley" package for years where you can ski at either. Don't think it's been a big seller for some reason.

I disagree. If a new mountain opened up with kickass terrain and good snowfall, you don't think it could survive? I don't care who owns it or what financing is going on. There is a growing number of people who want to ski in that type of envirnoment. Look at the growth of backcountry skiers. Take a poll, seem how many people would visit a new mountain that has the features listed above.

 

[tjf67]

I am reading that everyone thinks that MRG is a very successful mountain.

I have no idea but are they?

I would think if you had two bad snofall seasons in a row they would be gone.

I

 

[Greg]

I am reading that everyone thinks that MRG is a very successful mountain.

I have no idea but are they?

I would think if you had two bad snofall seasons in a row they would be gone.

I

This is a bit dated, but see Q&A # 8 from the 2004 challenge:

http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2004/response.htm?resort=madriver

There's also a lot of candid info in the other MRG challenges:

2005: http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2005/response.htm?resort=madriver
2006: http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2006/response.htm?resort=madriver
2007: http://skiing.alpinezone.com/articles/challenge/2007/response.htm?resort=madriver