Should AWSA break away from USAWS

[Jody_Seal]

I read it! It is continued USAWS spew and dribble that we have heard for a number of years. As long as we are associated with Corky The Clown this sport will never be a legitimate recognized sport in the eyes of potential sponsors and to general sports enthusiasts. It is hard to grow a sport with out an acknowledged Professional division. Without and acknowledged professional division platform young aspiring athletes will not go and ski at the highest level as their is not much of a future for them, it is simple economics. Their in lies the direction of our sport and The BOD just will not recognize it as potential for growth. They keep going back to the ever useless Grass roots programs or whatever they keep changing the names of and again failure.

The Olympic drive was a joke to begin with and it was foretold by many that it was a hopeless cause and that failure was imminent. These basically are the same guy's who are on the BOD and have Hired Mr.Crowley to oversee the USAWS day to day business. Mr. Crowley has done a fair job so far as doing the BOD's bidding. The problem is the direction Mr. Crowley has been given is not in the best interest of three event waterskiing.

Yes AWSA should get out and away from the umbrella group as they are bringing us down and utilizing funds and resources generated by AWSA to prop up the other sport groups. These funds and resources could be better utilized with in our own organization for the betterment of the sport of competitive three event waterskiing. Their are also plenty of insurance company's out their besides Global! Why Global?

[Horton]

Jody,

Grass Roots is the right idea. I do not think it has been implemented correctly but if we did that right it would be good for all.

 

I suspect that Jody and Joe are on target but more important is that HQ sees that the membership is speaking its mind.

[Horton]

@boarditup I think I disagree but we need disagreement at this point. Thank You.

[Mateo_Vargas]

I like the current Grassroots program and think it's under utilized so maybe it needs a little more word of mouth advertising for more clubs to use it. $25 per event sanction fee and you get $100 for trophies and $100 for T-shirts. Only need a trained driver and a safety coordinator. Use any boat you want. Make your own rules to make it fun. Only $35 yearly membership fee. Minimal paperwork.

 

For the past 5 years the Berkeley Water Ski Club has run their Ski League under the Grassroots program, over 60 events.

 

What else could you want for a better Grassroots program?

[Horton]

@Mateo Vargas

You are special. Joking aside, I know what you have done. I think it is super cool and impressive. The problem is I have never heard of anyone else doing what you do. I am sure someone else out there is doing it.

 

As I stated in multiple threads last year I propose that we bring back the old novice division. Basically we integrate grassroots into every class C tournament. We make a specific effort to make new people feel welcome. There is a perception outside of our skiing community that you have to run 41 off before you can ski one of our tournaments. That makes me furious and anyone who seen you ski knows that is not true. If we just allow the new people to ski at a discount and jump through hoops to make them feel welcome we will grow the sport.

[Mateo_Vargas]

Grassroots can be run with a Class C. Clubs that want to grow the sport just need to set up the event that way.

 

What I still don't understand is why USA Waterski and INT are separate organizations?

[wski1831]

The Grassroots is a good program that should be integrated into C tournaments. The incentives should also support the loyal customers not just the new ones. After all who is going to put on the Grassroots tournaments. This would also let us do this in one tournament instead of two.

 

[ForrestGump]

AWSA was here long before USAWS and was just fine. It would be just fine again if we weren't part of USAWS.

[skidawg]

YES!

[RichardDoane]

I'm with @shane, let's pass the savings on to ourselves, and everyone having a tournament this season should include a Novice group, guarantee 4 passes per round with a drop at each end, and set the novice entry fee at a bargain.

[boarditup]

One of the main benefits of the INT it is ability based, rather than age based. You compete with other skiers of same ability level and make friends that way. You do end up with teens against middle-aged people, and that works well. The state tournaments do lead to a potential invite to the US Championships (or regional championships some years). It is an entirely different approach and vibe.

 

Additionally, the INT does not have the same onerous system for the qualification of officials. It is much more participatory for newer people to the sport.

 

The INT serves the towed water sports by putting together the disciplines that the public participates in on the water - slalom, wakeboard, kneeboard, wakeskate, and wakesurf. In general, ski jumps are absent from public water and trick skiing has been replaced by the wakeboard. INT reflects that the mass skiing culture has changed.

 

It would be impossible for AWSA to change into the kind of organization that the INT is. The INT could morph into the AWSA, but why? We would loose the unique nature of the entry into the sport. When I was an INT coordinator I urged everyone to join USA WS just for the political clout that comes with numbers. I am not sure how many did, but several skiers are now competing in AWSA tournaments every summer in Michigan - including the collegiate level for many of the former young kids.

[Horton]

@Mateo Vargas

INT is a marketing organization. Basically a business. INT's success depends on the membership being happy and growing. INT is run by one guy who is a successful in his own business.

 

AWSA was founded as a sporting federation (the right idea at the time). AWSA was designed to create and enforce standards. Clearly AWSA does more than create and enforce rules but that is the core of it's DNA. AWSA is a bureaucratic beast.

 

The delta is that INT has a friendlier culture and does a much better job of recruiting new members but AWSA events are more appealing to me because I want higher standards of driving, judging and water conditions. If I were a noob, INT is clearly more appealing.

[disland]

Here at Princeton lakes we have done grass roots programs and tried to encourage our members to ski tournaments. The $35 USAWS membership fee is a tough barrier. They should have a $5 or $15 Class N membership fee. Get them in and then the next year they will step up to class C and they will be hooked.

[Horton]

@disland I am not sure about that. INT is far from cheap. I like the idea that we charge less but I do not think it is the key factor.

[Jody_Seal]

Dont get me wrong on my assessment of the current entry level program coming out of USAWS, it is something that is very much needed to grow the sport and entice skiers to compete in tournaments. However USAWS has done a poor job implementing the ever changing programs.

I think where They are missing the point or points is that USAWS/AWSA is set up on a platform of " Their shall be no distinction between amateur and pro". I have already been told That is only a stigma but yet it is written into the rules and bylaws of the associations. Set up and build a true recognized professional level of the sport where our US athletes can survive and prosper we will see a trickle down effect. Everything and issue seems to be connected and have an impact either good or unfavorable in our sport. If we have a true professional level younger skiers are more enticed to become professional skiers, Parents stay in the game longer, media feature's the sport in a legitimate light, because the sport has become visible sponsors are more likely to invest, sponsors and the sports industry become more profitable because of the increased number of market influence from product exposure. It worked for wake boarding and they did it without USAWS! It is a cycle that can be created, USAWS is not that vehicle to Create it for AWSA or the sport of tournament waterskiing.

 

The insurance debacle is one thing that is unfair to our sport and " AWSA division" having to pay for the problems of another sport group just is not right! USAWS has the ability to negotiate seperate specific policy's for the needs of each sport group. However they failed three event in that aspect and have continued to propagate the idea that our sport is the same as watching Corky and his band of misfits drag sharkbait behind the boat. "Towed watersports", I am beginning to not like those words as they do seem to equate us to tubing! I am surprised that USAWS has not started a new Sport group based on tubing called "TIT's" ! Tubing in tournaments!!!

 

 

[klindy]

Frankly I think the competitive segments of the market are quite small regardless of what discipline you look at. Being "affiliated" with other towed sports doesn't help competitive 3 event anymore than AWSA "supports" wakeboarding in the eyes of a boat manufacturer. The weekend wallys and other folks who would likely never see a ski lake, wakeboard tournament or the Masters are the target of the Water Sports Industry Association. The "water sports" afficianatos as a whole are FAR bigger than those of us interested in COMPETITIVE Towed Water Sports. If you don't think so, you haven't been at a boat show lately! This year the Dallas Boat Show had ONE slalom boat (a Malibu) and at least 25 wakeboard boats (CC, MC, Malibu and others). They market to the weekender who has money and time....as competitive folks, we just need some of the same goodies.

 

Keeping all the competitive water sports under an umbrella organization makes sense as long as there is synergy as a group. Common rules (think drug testing, etc.), common causes (like the increased regulations mentioned above), common products (insurance?!) are where the synergy can potentially be found.

 

My question is is what does AWSA REALLY gain from being a stand alone organization? I'd predict the same number of rules changes, same tournaments, same dues, same folks in charge, etc. Another words, same ole, same ole......

 

I think a better approach is to appreciate whatever commonality we have and leverage it wherever possible. Question what we do to be sure it adds value - for example I'd look hard at the whole insurance thing...it MIGHT make sense as a liability solution for lakes/clubs (common cause again) and it may make sense for boat owners but I really question the need for individuals to be covered. I also believe the individual coverage is where the biggest exposure risk lies and has the highest costs. Discontinue the insurance and you can significantly cut the membership dues. It's only secondary insurance anyway.

 

I'd also recommend (from a competitive standpoint) looking at other successful single player sport organizations like golf and tennis for guidance. The USGA is a great example of how a competitive sport can grow significantly by leveraging the non-competitive players (weekend wallys who still need clubs, balls and a place to play). You can establish your own "without course" club just as easily as one with a course. A straight forward handicap system which lets any ability player COMPETE with a far better player - and uses practice to establish your handicap! I'd bet the cheapest golf course in the US cost more than the most expensive waterski lake ever built. And there's a LOT more golf courses than lakes!!

 

The overall point is we keep contracting into a smaller and smaller group of 'speciality' competitors. We need to think outside the box to find ways to grow and leverage that growth for our collective needs (better equipment, etc). Then and only then will we (the competitive groups regardless of discipline) have the opportunities found in other sports.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure breaking away from USAWS is any better than staying with USAWS...other bigger issues are at work here.

[disland]

@horton I wasnt suggesting INT. I was suggesting they do it for USAWS

[Horton]

@disland

Yea I understood. My answer was clear as mud.

[RichardDoane]

there used to be a $10. "day" fee for new skier to ski a class F/N AWSA event, that could be applied to that year's membership, it was a good thing that should still be available to encourage new skiers to begin the addiction..

[Horton]

@klindy As I understand it all of USAWS has insurance problems because of a few very bad accidents in the last year. None of which were AWSA. I am unclear on the exact facts but you get the idea.

 

If my neighbor and I get our insurance together I have to pay if he lives more dangerously than I do. AWSA is capable accidents but we are generally a controlled group.

[ForrestGump]

I don't agree on the ramifications of splitting off in regards to losing political power. With only 16k members total, it wouldn't matter if you're talking 9k(awsa) or 16k(usaws total), the difference in numbers is not particularly relevant in the grand scheme of things. Government entities who regulate waterways, laws, etc don't care if we have 16 members or 16000 members. That's small potatoes.

 

Splitting off only makes sense if the split doesn't take the existing USAWS executive management with the AWSA. They have continuously failed us in representing the interests of the largest constituent base in their organization.

 

And I completely agree with Jody. Why in the hell is the statement about not differentiating between pro and amateur in the rules. That's ludicrous.

[Horton]

@ShaneH

Agree on everything but no not understand the argument about Pro- Amateur.

[klindy]

@Horton I understand there were a few bad accidents and none of them where AWSA. I don't know all the fact either but we're on the same page. My question is more fundemental. What is the rationale for AWSA/USAWS/whatever division providing secondary insurance to it's members? No question it helps some folks who are uninsured or underinsured. But I'm questioning the cost/benefit of the whole scheme.

 

Competitive waterskiing is a sport which includes risk of injury and, perhaps even death. I accept that risk whenever I participate. I do have health insurance and, in the past, I have used the AWSA secondary insurance to supplement my deducibles, co-pays, etc. Point is, I understand it's usefulness but it's the "cost" that seems to be currently out of line.

 

Which other competitive sport associations provide compulsary insurance for their members? Frankly, the insurance is what's been largely responsible for the increased dues costs, the additional back ground checks, and addtional tournament paperwork. Why, really, do we need it?

 

My point is the post above is competitive waterskiing should look at other individual competitive sport associations for ideas. There are other far more popular sports out there which are more expensive and have similar challenges such as handicapping, pro vs amateur, etc. We seem to be satisfied with the status quo on how things are done and instead of questioning the individual issues individually, we're discussing starting our own thing.

[behindpropellers]

Interesting comments.

 

Personally, I think USAWS needs an overhaul. Its time for new blood.

 

I am the current President of Chippewa Lake Watersports association. I started our club in 2010 as it started moving from a private lake to a public lake. We will be public this summer.

 

Last year we had: Slalom Course for public use, 1 night a week where we supplied a boat/driver/coach on the course, Lane Bowers professional barefoot instruction for 2.5 days, and to top it off we had a figure 8 barefoot tournament at the end of the year. Everything was successful.

 

I have two complaints:

 

1. I can't get anybody with passion and dedication to help run the club. Everybody likes our slalom course and everything else but we need some people to help keep the gears turning. I don't know how to change this.

 

2. USA Waterski. (some things minor some major...no particular order)

 

a. I go to renew our insurance, call up and say I want to send the check. Their answer...."you have to fill out these 10 pages of paperwork, we can't use your data from last year" another 2 hours of mine wasted filling paperwork and faxing it in.

 

b. I call up and ask "what driver rating does a person need to drive a figure 8 barefoot tournament?" USAWS..."Hmmm we don't know"

 

c. If I have a special event and need to insure a boat for 3 days I can't do it. I have to buy a full year policy.

 

d. The driver requirements require more than what it takes me to retain my Pilot's license.

 

e. Saftey Director.... Unattainable. If I wan't to get people safety certified I have to fly somebody in. Why can't we just use a certified CPR/lifesaving instructor and go over the additional boating stuff ourself? And then....when a person gets the rating...if they want to be an instructor they have to go to tournaments. What does going to tournaments have to do with being rated to teach the class? Its a joke.

 

 

Here is what I think:

 

Erase the part on your membership where it asks what sport discipline. If you are holding onto a handle behind the boat you should be part of USAWS.

 

There should be a trained driver (initial) where you can tow anything. From there it should be different driving ratings. Just like the FAA uses for a pilot license.

 

Its time to automate the f&*^ing data on the website. No more PDFs. Hire some people to make the system work better.

 

Safety directors are a good thing. 10% should be taken off any member with this rating.

 

Its time to clean house. Anybody who has been on any board for more than 6 years....they need to go. Time for new blood and new ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ntx]

@behindpropellers

Yes and no with regards to drivers rating. The same way that I would not think about driving figure 8 barefoot, I hope that a barefoot driver does not think that he can pull me 180 feet in jump. For that matter, I don't trust many slalom only drivers to do that. Because you can drive a slalom skier thru -38 does not make you a jump driver.

[ODBF]

Many of the arguments for AWSA to split away from USAWS and become what it once was are comical. The serious lack of understanding of what AWSA was and why the creation of the current body were needed is wide spread on this board.

 

AWSA was not some 3 eventers utopia before USAWS somehow muddled the water with a bunch of ski racers and show skiers. AWSA was started and run by show skiers and some of those show clubs developed into 3 event clubs. Not the other way around. I have in my possession about 30 years worth of AWSA documents which includes most of the communication from head quarters as well as between members of the AWSA board and many of the yearly meeting summary reports.

 

From all of this info it is very easy to see that AWSA was not what many of you think it was. 3 event (4 event for years) was a major focus but far from the only focus. Hell I have boxes of paperwork that just focused on the creation of a kite flying nationals. (kite flying is sweet if you have ever seen it)

 

So my point is when you discus breaking away don't act like its going to take us 3 eventers back to our core as we have never had one. USAWS has given AWSA and the other divisions something they never had before, the ability to focus on one type of skiing while other groups focused on other aspects of skiing.

[ForrestGump]

ODBF, I dont feel like the discussion with most people is about moving back to what it once was. It's about getting representation for our core. Which most people have felt we have not had since being joined with USAWS. The reality is, perception is the reality. And if the perception is that our USAWS executives are out of touch with the goal and desires of 3 event skiing constituents, then they are out of touch with the goal of 3 event skiing.

[jdarwin]

@ODBF - I too have many documents from AWSA's past. One thing that is constant from the review of those documents; the primary objective of AWSA was to be a sanctioning body for our sport. Considering that 90% + of the events currently sanctioned by USAWS are AWSA events, a proportionate amount of the resources should be directed accordingly. Currently, that is not the case and causes the greatest angst among AWSA members.

[ODBF]

@ShaneH Am I incorrect that the old AWSA created USAWS so there could be specific units of the group that focused on each sport group? By that I mean AWSA created USAWS so its not like they joined anything. They already covered all of these sports.

 

@jdarwin If you look at total numbers of participants in each of those events you will see that 90% of the participants are not in AWSA. I am a 3 eventer at heart but I have show skied and skied in the NCWSA as well. Show ski tournaments have thousands of competitors per event. From my experience with the NCWSA they want nothing to do with AWSA. I can not speak for Jeff or the regional chairs as it has been a few years since I was involved with NCWSA but they are proud to be separate from AWSA as college skiing is the only feeder into AWSA that there is right now. They would be lost in the mess that is the AWSA if they were involved.

 

I quit skiing tournaments in my state years ago because the leadership for my state, and in my view the country, lost their way years ago. A complete overhaul is needed to get this sport growing again.

 

My previous post was not for or against creating a 3 event specific group, it was just pointing out that people on this board, yourself included, are viewing the past thru rose colored glasses. If people want a group that focuses on 3 event then talk about the pros and cons of that.

 

I personally think forming another group is a bad move. It would not be as troublesome in some parts of the country but in some states it would force many skiers to pay dues to both groups. I have many friends in the midwest that show ski and three event and many of them would not pay dues to both organizations. I grew up spending my summers with a ski club that did shows to pay for us to go to three event tournaments. I spoke with several of them about this and they say they would stop going to 3 event tournaments and just use their own course. Our sport is not mutually exclusive, there is a lot of cross over that splitting USAWS would damage. We as a sport are not strong enough to bear a break up. We are already a small sport.

[Onside135]

@ODBF

Show ski tournaments have thousands of competitors per event.

Really?

 

but in some states it would force many skiers to pay dues to both groups.

It would give people the "option" to pay dues to either one, or both. Fixed it for you...

[ODBF]

@onside 135 Yes, most show teams have 100 or more members and some are over 200 members. The Wisconsin State show tournament is the largest waterski tournament by number of pulls. They are pushing 30 teams competing over 4 days as well as a day of individual competitions. I have traveled up there to watch it a couple times, and I have to say the show skiers know how to put on a very enjoyable event. There is a large beer tent, lots of bleacher seating, tents to get out of the sun, food vendors and equipment vendors all over the place. If you average 100 skiers per team which would be a low estimate you have 3000 skiers at this one tournament and most of the skiers are on the water multiple times.

 

I have been involved with many tournaments over the years, some pro as well and the show skiers are a great example of what we should be doing, but instead our sport likes to say "oh thats just corky the clown, we dont want that". As a 3 eventer that wants to see our sport in front of big crowds again it is very disappointing to see this attitude from our leadership.

 

so to answer your question, yes, really.

[ODBF]

also @onside135 to your second point, my points may fall flat on a site that caters to slalom skiing and some 3 eventers but many of us in this world like to 3 event as well as wake board, hydrofoil, show ski, collegiate, etc. Why force the issue. If we want more money as a sport division why don't we push USAWS to drop the insurance? Well...because then we will have to show proof of full insurance at every event we go to. Our problem is not our sport governing body, it is our sue happy society and the lawyers that push it.

The blame going to show skiing for the jump in fees this year stems from one accident. A show skier on a small team in southern Florida was killed when he hit the side of another boat. This was a tragic freak accident that could happen in any of the divisions. I have seen skiers hit shore at three event tournaments, saw a skier break his neck barefooting and one break his neck jumping at a state tournament. We are in a dangerous sport, things happen that are out of our control. Instead of trying to lay blame lets push USAWS to do what governing bodies are supposed to do and push for legislation that blocks no ski rules on lakes and fights local environmental groups and helps us build more lakes.

We live in a time when people get millions of dollars for spilling coffee on themselves at McDonald's, insurance is not going to get cheaper by breaking our sport into smaller sections.

[ODBF]

@OB I am not saying we need to change 3 event skiing to be like show skiing. I reread my post about it and I did not explain what I meant very well. Show skiing in itself is goofy but it introduces more people to water skiing then any other discipline does. My club when I was growing up skied several shows a week all summer in front of crowds of anywhere from 2,000 on a slow night to 15,000 or more. We gave lessons to anyone that wanted to learn to ski as well, and as the majority of the skiers were 3 eventers we taught what we loved. We also brought in anywhere from $200-300,000 a year in donations and advertising. That money went a long way to help promote water skiing in the area. That club over the years has taught thousands of people how to ski and influenced thousands more to buy a ski and give it a shot at home.

 

The club also hosted a 3 event tournament for 37 years, and would still today if local regulatory conditions allowed it.

 

So yea, its just ridiculous as you said...

 

My point is not changing 3 event to be like show skiing, its that if our sport wants to survive we do what show skiers have done and move our events to where the people are. I never suggested that pyramids or swivel skiing are the answer to 3 event. But we can learn from the business decisions these clubs make and how they promote their events. They get people to come watch while we have empty beaches at most of our tournaments.

[Dusty]

I was involved in INT (as a skier/official) at its outset. There were/are growing pains. There was conflict with USAWS re: insurance coverage, under the 'umbrella'. Ultimately, I believe, the prime mover shopped outside and obtained his own insurance. INT remains viable and is still attracting skiers et al, to the events and they are still having fun doing it.

The insurance thing can be done without inclusion of the riskiest groups. Perhaps they can pay their own event premiums?

 

To be fair, I don't see that what AWSA once was, needs to be reacquired. The sport of 3-event has changed in a lot of ways- (probably for the better, but really, it should not take the presence of 9+ officials on site, to pull one skier.) As far a relatively safe venue to compete, we rock. In a letter from Mr. Crowley he remarked that a serious injury claim happened at a 3-event tournament when a jump ramp fell on someone when it was being moved. OK- that's bad. But- 1) Why is (shore?) based activity like that being insured? and 2) How is that a rated driver error? (I have towed a few jumps in and out of the water, and have found they are difficult to whip around behind the boat/truck much); and 3) Where is the relevance with an open container ticket? and 4) Who made the connection between drivers and injuries or fatalities? USAWS, the insurance carrier, or the accident investigators? Who made the drivers the easy target?

 

To me, the issues are not so much where we have been- They are- what direction that USAWS is heading now. There is clear evidence that it is unresponsive to its largest paying membership. As Behind propellers mentioned, some questions presented USAWS are not answered. Why? 3-event pays and keeps things running, and receives under 6% in return? USAWS is lumping us with groups apparently riskier, and less well regulated. There is an obvious lack of leadership. Instead of restructuring the insurance requirements, they make them more convoluted, and effectively destroy the viability of many clubs' ability to even hold practices and afford landowners some insurance 'insulation'. What we receive from HQ are platiudes, and unworthy arguments about "safety" being so paramount, that even one accident prevented, is worth selling out an entire group of officials.

I don't see HQ as taking this thread's type of content seriously... yet... I don't believe they recognize any risk to the umbrella organization.

What happened back in the day to enable AWSA to become a viable organization, took a lot of work. With the communication, and organizational advantages we have now, as Joe mentioned- it could be done simpler, cheaper and with more responsiveness to the members. I think if we really wanted we could do it in a year or less.

We deserve better, and if HQ keeps putting us on mute, I think we ought to walk.

[ForrestGump]

Spot on Dusty!

 

[Horton]

I am going to have to re-read all of this. I do want to thank you guys for a honest and friendly debate.

 

@ODBF I was under the impression that there were more claims from show skiing last year than the one you mention

 

[liquid d]

You'll need at least 8 to 10 years of claims history to have meaningful data. 3 event skiing had some serious injuries in that time period also, including a death.

[ODBF]

I guess the main question is, what insurance will a seperate 3 event organization supply and how will splitting our pool of payers in half cut our rates at all? Does the governing body really need to supply insurance? Should this be something that lake owners handle?

 

Do I like the direction USAWS has been going? Not at all, I think the entire organization from top to bottom needs to reevaluate what they want our sport to be and how best to serve the paying members. Does that mean I think we should leave? Of course not, because we are not children who can just stomp off and pout in the corner when things don't go there way. You fight to fix it, you buckle down, do some research and come up with a proposal to fix what we have. If you think AWSA is not representing you then go and push for greater autonomy. Breaking up just causes us to lose even more of what little clout our sport has in the eyes of legislators.

 

I don't know exact numbers (I could look it up but wont because...f doing work when hungover), but we have something like 15-18k members right now, which is pitiful as it is, but you break that in 2 and you end up with two groups that become more polarized against each other and have less respect in the eyes of the legislators that USAWS should be lobbying lawmakers to put forward laws that help us as a sport.

 

@Horton there are many injuries every year in water skiing. We are competing in a dangerous sport, if some how an extra 10 or 20 bucks a year is going to bankrupt participants in our sport then they really need to reevaluate their life decisions. We are adults that play with 50k dollar boats, 2 thousand dollar skis, and burn 100 bucks in gas for a day on the water. I know of the one death on the Southern Extreme show team, I believe there may have been another serious injury on a team in Alabama, but I do not know if that was during a sanctioned event or not. I can not remember another death in years before that.

[boarditup]

As a lake owner, I need to have an insurance policy in place for the lake to be used for any organized event. If there is no insurance, there is no event. If I would attempt to get individual event insurance, the cost is prohibitive and the time commitment is prohibitive as well. There is always an overwhelming desire on behalf of the insurance companies to have a standardized form, coverage, and cost. Adding complexity adds cost and administrative overhead. I see a slalom-only tournament is low risk. Jumping and show skiing as high risk. Other events somewhere in the middle. We simply do not have enough participants to justify splitting the organization up. I do believe, however, that insurance should be by event and not tied so much to the membership fee.

 

I don't have a big problem paying for insurance as part of any event, even practice as I am consuming the service at that time. I just don't know how to administer that well.

[Dusty]

For ODBF and others. I respect your arguments and right to disagree completely. I'll take the whipping for not being more clear in what i suggested, why, and not providing a 'solution'.

$12.50 I really wont miss- couple of six-packs of decent microbrew. The records check I have a serious problem with. Mine is clear, by the way, I'm not beating the drum in self-defense.

My problem is with the method and mechanism. It is a pure sell-out of over 800 3-event drivers. It penalizes volunteer officials after the fact, without prior notice. It was introduced in a blind-sided manner. Our Board members did not disseminate the information until the decision had been made and the plan in place. There was no membership input that I am aware of?... Anyone?... (I am often wrong or wrong-headed and normally stubborn. I'm OK with that.) Lastly, now an insurance company is effectively managing driver qualification.

I am not convinced MVR checks are a valid way to achieve whatever goal is being pursued. I KNOW many MVR records are flawed, incomplete, or even just plain inaccurate/fraudulent.

USAWS came to the point where it began offering insurance coverage to skiers, and then broadening the coverages. Probably as a marketing ploy to attract skiers and clubs to membership. (I don't think insurance guarantees safety- that is the resposibility of skiers, officials etc- NOT an insurance company.)

 

Solution- If INT can operate with its own insurance, obtained through the open market- I suspect USAWS can too. I am not certain, but I don't think INT is going to be requiring MVR records checks for the drivers- but it could happen. Maybe a review of what is actually covered by the insurance could be conducted, with changes, amendments, discipline specific premiums, or even reductions made. (Now I'm talking crazy... I know- People have a 'right' to insurance, and in a well-planned redisribution of wealth, someone should give it to them...)

 

Solution- USAWS could figure out how not to lose money on running Nationals or publishing a magazine. (No real reason to if they can raise dues though.)

 

Solution- USAWS COULD become a more responsive, accountable organization. But it is not apparently listening to the membership. Removing Directors or Board members may be a first step- it may be too late. No one wants to lose face, by being roasted by me or anyone else. But someone needs to at least tell them "uh, maybe not such a swell idea fellows... you are really pissing off some folks out there". The carrot and stick approach is often used to influence human behvior- The 'stick' USAWS has is that they certify the driver certification process. If we want to drive in a tournament, we WILL comply or else! The 'stick' the members have is to leave as the sugar daddy paying the lion's share of the bills within USAWS.

I don't recall a carrot being used in this instance- and I am kind of weary of being the 'stickee'...

This is labor/management kind of stuff, and we are kind of not really labor, and USAWS HQ is not management- THEY are supposed to be the 'employees'. This is the classic 'tail wagging the dog' deal again.

 

To paraphase a famous quote- 'Those who would give up freedom for security (insurance), will end up with neither'.

 

 

[ODBF]

@Dusty I actually agree with much of what you are saying. The records checks are overboard I think. But at the same time when you get car or boat insurance thru someone else they do check your records as well.

 

My club when I was growing up did not use USAWS insurance and things worked well most of the time. Are there other clubs/lake owners that use other insurance companies? What do the costs look like?

[Dusty]

To ODBF-

I am unsure of the costs. I think if INT can manage it though, a nationally recognized organization with a 40+ year history, can too. With the USAWS direction now I will posit that many clubs may be purchasing their own insurance.

When i renew my car insurance- they get an absract of my driving record over the past 3 years. Accidents, tickets etc. generate 'points'- 'x' number of points raises my rates. I understand that completely. Lots of points, (assuming I haven't gotten suspended, for same)= higher premiums or cancellation. fine- i still get to drive but pay more. Maybe there are even expensive probation conditions like ignition interlocks etc. I can still drive- on roadways with LOTS of other people.

 

Here we have USAWS saying 'well, you have a DUI, not only have you been spanked by the courts over there, we are also going to also spank you for 3 years and take away a voluntary priviledge, and you will have to redo everything when/if you return to the sport- thanks for the help and don't let the door hit you in the ass when you exit'. No appeal, no recourse.

I am not feeling the love from HQ here. Anyone esle?

[jdarwin]

Good discussion. As a board member, I feel an obligation to the membership I represent. Many of my views are those of the membership at large - not just my personal opinions. The larger issue is the decline of the organization. The sport of water skiing in general (slalom in particular) and USAWS are mutually exclusive. The sport is not dying. And yet, the governing body of the sport is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day. I don't pretend to have all of the answers but at some point soon, we must begin to reevaluate USAWS's place in the water ski universe and how it can once again positively affect the competitive aspect of our sport.

[Dusty]

Amen Joe- and better said too.