Should AWSA break away from USAWS?

[Wish]

With the recent posts... was just wondering the general feeling.

I hit the return button before I had added the last choice.... I do not know enough to decide.

 

Also, my choice would most like be just that. Don't really know enough to decide.

[RichardDoane]

the focus needs to be on 3 event skiing and Junior Development, let the show skiers, racers, hydrofoils, and everyone else pay their own way

[klindy]

It's not all about sharing the cost. As I recall the push for Olympic recognition was about revenue as much as it was about the competition.

 

The USOC provides grants (many equal to or greater than the entire USAWS budget) for Olympic sports. Also there is additional funding for athlete training and other costs as well as medal bonuses etc. Point is there is a real financial benefit to bein recognized as an Olympis sport. Additionally there was (not sure if there still is) grants available for Pan Am level sports (which waterskiing is). The funding is/was not near the same level as Olympic sports but it was far better than non recognized sports.

 

To qualify the USOC (or the IOC) requires there to be only one "national governing body" for a sport. USAWS was created at least in part to be the single source of rules and control of all types of "towed water sports". Aligning with world rules etc all basically follow from there. The "prize" for recognition is/was significant and arguably worth the effort.

 

Obviously that opportunity has passed us by. Whether it shows up again is anyone's guess. Whether its worth supporting the effort get cable wake boarding to an Olympic level probably depends on if/how any available grants get 'shared' across all disciplines.

 

There certainly are many more details and I can't even pretend to know them. But bashing the former effort is pointless and what needs to happen now is a real, honest evaluation of potential, possibilities and probabilities. The same risk/reward evaluation many of us do daily in our businesses.

[ScaredOfCorbets]

As of now, AWSA is contributing to wakeboarding bid to the olympics. 3 event is a long long shot to be considered to the games as I see it, unless they are cable driven. I think

AWSA can/should find a better use of the membership funds, since olympics is out of reach.

[Razorskier1]

I think the problem I have with USAWS is more about bureacracy than money. Seems like every year there are more rules and more paperwork (and more money), none of which provides much in the way of benefits.

[Horton]

I hope HQ sees this. I hope they understand that there are more readers of this web site than AWSA has members (19k unique visitors in the last 30 days). I hope that they understand that we are frustrated because we want a better AWSA. We want to grow the sport, not watch it die. The Ballers are not in danger of extinction but AWSA seems to drive members away every year.

 

[gregy]

I don't know enough to make an educated decision here. I have been involved in a lot of strategic decision-making in business. There's a set model for it. Define the problem. Define alternatives. Weigh out the advantages and disadvantages of each. Etc.

 

We definitely need to make the sport as easy to participate as possible. I'll been in other clubs type organization were they legislated themselves out of exsistence. You make it difficult to participate or take too much of the fun out, people will go elsewhere or just not participate.

[Wish]

HQ may need to see more then 38 votes though. Keepm coming. It's anonymous.

[Inboardfix]

Prior to the vote to incorporate AWSA into USAWaterski (several years ago) @Jodyseal and I were waiting out a storm under the roof of the boat house where I keep my boat. Jody was up in arms about it saying one day we'd all be sorry if this proposal passes. Jody, not sure if you remember our conversation but basically I wasn't nearly as concerned as you. Well my friend, you were right, I was wrong.

[ForrestGump]

Personally, I don't think that USAWS headquarters really cares. They have their agenda. And don't seem to particularly care about the desires of their membership. Reminds me a lot of the political situation in our country these days.

[thager]

It's time to go Joe!! I don't need USAWS' worthless insurance, olympic wet dreams or bureaucratic BS. Only skied three tourneys last year and I don't need any tournaments to have fun!

[ToddL]

For a successful secession, you need these elements:

1. IWSF recognition of the new league for elite skiers

2. National records continuity from current to new

3. Meaningful insurance

4. pathway for growth of new competitors

5. Junior development programs

6. Solutions for clubs to thrive

 

Some of the above are what can take an organization down the slippery slope of bureaucracy...

[Dirt]

I agree with the above posts. This may be much of the reason there are very few pro events and none are televised. Maybe with a new or refocused governing body we can start furthering 3 event skiing again.

The driving and judging requirements are very restrictive and discourage involvement.

[jdarwin]

@ToddL - I'll add the two most important items: sanctioning of events and management of the rules/rulebook. To me, those are the two primary objectives of AWSA. It seems the insurance is the glue that holds AWSA to USAWS. If someone could underwrite AWSA as a separate group, perhaps secession would gain traction.

[klindy]

Is the insurance really necessary? Maybe a boat deal for those who want to use the carrier and perhaps a general liability/club policy but seems the secondary policy is the primary cost driver and I still don't see the value.

[klindy]

@ToddL @jdarwin the only difficult item is the recognition by IWSF. All the other items (except the insurance) are managed by the sport division already. The key is not the development of a new AWSA but the willingness of USAWS to let the sport division go. I haven't looked at them in a long time but there could be some language in the current by laws which discuss this issue.

[ForrestGump]

I don't see USAWS letting go of AWSA without a serious fight, as that essentially nullifies them as an organization.

 

[Texas6]

@Shane, speak for yourself on the simplicity of the nationals qual's, you forget how good you've become:). You still have to bring it to qualify for nat's

[ForrestGump]

@Texas6 WHAT? Maybe I'm experiencing early senility, but I don't recall saying anything about Nats.

[Texas6]

@Shane, my bad, I may have actually posted this to the wrong thread somehow. I thought I read that you said "qualifying for nationals was too easy as it is". My apologies if I read that wrong, and I was just passing along a compliment about your progress in recent years. You still have to be damn good to qual

[ForrestGump]

Oh, but that wasn't in this thread. Keep in mind that I was on the bump for M3. Raising the qualifications would have put me out for sure. And I'm ok with that cause the difference between me on the bump and Jay Leach was ridiculously huge. So in that regards, I do think it's too easy. And thanks! Merry Christmas!

[Wish]

I see the vote count rising. That's a good thing. Would be neat to see it hit over 100. That would be a pretty good sampling. After reading the other threads on this I want to change my vote to yes.

[Dusty]

The last time I viewed the USAWS budget report I do not recall seeing income from USOC or the Pan Am organization. So the value of affiliation seems limted- other than potential future positions for current USAWS headquarters officials? I am often wrong though. I am good with that.

[lottawatta]

I don't pretend to be an insider. However, the last I heard, was that our only remaining benefit from our alignment with the usoc was limited support in the form of healthcare benefits for a limited few of our elite athletes. I don't know if that is true or not.

[thager]

If the majority remains silent we get exactly what we have coming.

[Wish]

Don't remain silent, VOTE!!!! It's your civic duty......or so I'm told. This may not be an election but it could have cosiquences either way. Do you want to just sit on the sidelines? VOTE!! It's anonymous.

[gregy]

After reading through all the threads here I voted to seperate. Seems to me the AWSA group is footing the bill in more than one way for the other groups.

[Marco]

Ditto what @gregy said...

[h2oski]

Next month when I pay my dues, I'll be wondering if I'm supporting other groups besides 3-event.

[ForrestGump]

uhhh..... there's no wondering. You are!

[Jody_Seal]

Well! That's 80 votes total with a majority of BOS participants stating they want a change in the machine! AWSA will never be able to PRY them selves away from USAWS. too many ego's and and not enough common ground and underwritten policy's that would prevent A pull out or break away.

 

Quote (Spock) "Logic clearly dictates that the need of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (Kinda Cheesy) however AWSA situation That logic does not apply and rings true, with USAWS in reality it is just the opposite.

 

Most of you have a couple of weeks or more until your regional winter meeting's. If you can not make the meeting then Get in contact with your state counsel-men, committee member's and committee chairperson's and your regional directors and let them know how feel about whatever issue or issues you are concerned about. Other wise status quot will belong to the few!

[ToddL]

@Jody_Seal

Here are the links to the representatives for the regions and AWSA

 

[ToddL]

At 81 of 84 votes thus far that is 96% responding for some separation. I have seen a lot of polls, but anything over 66% in favor of someting is a clear message.

 

HOWEVER... In M4 alone, there were 471 competitors on the rankings list for the past 12 months. In M3, there were an additional 294. In M5, there were 439.

 

That's a total of 1204 skiers just in those 3 divisions alone. With 84 votes, this voting sample represents less than 7% of that population. I stongly doubt 7% of any membership will be able to drive such a major change in the organization.

 

Yet, this organization is not entirely imperical in its operation. So, if those 81 voters are the top skiers/most influential/etc. of the organization's membership; then their votes may prompt some official discussion at the leadership level...

 

So what? Until this poll is distributed to a majority of the AWSA membership and the sample/response size is significant, there may be no substantive discussions about real changes.

[Kelvin]

If each of those 84 votes represented a councilor for their club that actually attended a mid-winter meeting it could have more influence.

[Wish]

Consider polling sample data for elections or policy changes, local and national. Typically less then 1%. This is a sampling. It has merit and weight. I would add that if a letter of sorts could be circulated (perhaps on BOS as a printable or downloadable), signed and mailed or signed on line and sent to the policy makers, that could have an impact. I by no means am qualified to write such a letter but would most likely sign it and send it as I have done others that have come across my desk in the political arena.

 

However, I think more votes are necessary and will help. Am I missing something. Really cant think of a reason not to vote. It's anonymous. Tell your friends, neighbors, countrymen ;-) VOTE VOTE VOTE.

[klindy]

http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/USAWSBylaws.pdf

 

USAWS Bylaws can be found on the above link. Amendments start on page 18 (Chapter XI). Not a simple process but also not impossible to make changes.

[Marco]

I wonder how many non-Ballers are aware of the issues surrounding AWSA/USAWS and the benefit to AWSA that would result from secession (sp?). I've never heard these issues discussed at any tournaments, or with any AWSA member friends and aquaintenances. Makes me wonder if this topic is even on the radar screen for a majority of AWSA members.

[Horton]

@Marco I think the below link should tell a bit about who sees what.

 

The site has more than doubled in size since the this data was captured. In the summer there are about 7,500 visitors per week.

 

http://www.ballofspray.com/home-v16/2011-survey/survey-part-3

[ToddL]

@Horton - do you have the raw data for analysis? If so, I would be interested in knowing how many of your survey's respondents said that they do NOT belong to USAWS (AWSA) but DO ski the slalom course. That population is the ones that either:

1) left competition for one reason or another, or

2) do not see a need to compete, but still enjoy challenging themselves via the course

 

Either way, these folks are the ones that AWSA should be focused upon. They should ask themselves, "Why are we not attractive to these skiers? Why do they choose not to compete? What can we do to make our organization and competition attractive to these skiers?"

[Marco]

@Horton - I assume the data on the pie charts was taken from a BoS poll? If so, it confirms that a majority of Ballers are USAWS members, and as such probably have some understanding of the issues at hand if they read these threads. But what about the multitudes of USAWS members that are not Ballers. They might be totally in the dark about the USAWS/AWSA relationship.

 

Correct me if I am wrong about the data pool for the pie charts...

[OldSkoolSkier]

I personally feel and am fully confident that AWSA can survive on its own. If you want to grow the sport of 3 event or "traditional" skiing then you need to cut ties and revamp the system. It is obvious that the sport hasn't improved much in the last 10 years doing it their way.

 

You either get the right people put in charge or keep complaining for the next 10 years.

 

I once had grand visions of being an olympic athlete but fully understood that it was a pipe dream since a boat was involved. We need to drop the olympic dream and start growing the sport on its own. Don't laugh but the sport of rodeo has done just fine by itself without relying on the USOC. If you look back in the past, the sport of waters skiing had a better presence in the national eye before we set up USAWS and joined up with USOC.

 

 

[Horton]

@Marco and @ToddL

 

That poll data is almost 2 years old. It was a reader poll done in the spring of 2011.

 

BallOfSpray has more than doubled in readership since then so that data is just a reference point now. I assume that as a percentage, less of the readership are now USAWS members.

 

The site had an all time peak for Unique Visitors last July with 28,686. The peak for 2011 was in September and was 16,680. I assume the number of readers that are USAWS members has increased but as a percentage they are a smaller part of BallOfSpray becasue site has grown far beyond that.

 

I hope to do another poll this year but it requires a sponsor. I can not get enough good data from a voluntary poll unless there is a prize. It requires that the readers give a valid email that then is given to the sponsor and not everyone is happy about that. It needs to be an "enter to win" something like a ski. The 2012 poll is really not very good because the enter to win prize was not super sexy and the of respondents was about 1/2 from the year before.

[Dusty]

Given the method and mechanism that HQ used (after the fact) to 'inform' the membership of the changes- and the placating responses from HQ after we discovered what they had 'accomplished'- I seriously doubt that our officials have any capacity to listen to the membership. Had they been interested in facts, opinions, history, options or ideas in the first place, this change would not have occurred the way it did.

Mr. Crowley wrote earlier this year about what he called "push back" over the driver rules changes. To me his language sounded dismissive- which truthfully annoys me nearly as much as the entire behind our back sell-out they 'accomplished'.

Bad form to gripe with no solution- so here is one in the form of a question. As I understand, INT manages to hold their events with their own insurance carrier and policy. Why can't we do as well? We do this stuff safely and we do it well, in spite of USAWS meddling- we might even get a rate!

JDWSA sounds good to me!

If we build it will they (IWSF) come? I think they would, when they come looking for some waterskiers and not the various other "towed water sports"...

 

[ForrestGump]

In my correspondence with Mr Crowley, he was absolutely dismissive. And yes, that completely annoyed and irritated me. Obviously, contact with representatives from the IWSF would need to be made. Does anyone know who that might be?

[kfennell]

I see that the IWSF member that lives in the US is

 

Vice President

Mr. Jim Grew

Country: USA

email: jimhgrewjr@cs.com

 

Or you could try the preseident:

IWSF President

Mr. Kuno Ritschard

Country: SUI

email: president@iwwfed.com

 

 

And ask what it would take to start an independent sanctioning body that would be record capable?

 

Edit: Maybe this guy?

Tournament Council Chairman

Mr. Robert Corson

Country: USA

email: bcorson@comcast.net

 

[Jody_Seal]

Ok! let's say a grass roots new national organization is created. Do you really care starting out that any tournaments are recognized by the IWWSF?

I would think that for starters the initial goals would be to set competition standards that appeal to membership and are on par with that of any world organizing body. Recognition of a new organization by the current world body will only come when the USAWS membership is depleted or truly overwhelmed by a rival entity!

 

On another note the IWWSF gentleman listed above are probably going to laugh at someone asking about setting up another organization, They have already climbed the ladder and are sitting on top!!!! Get It?

[Dusty]

Jody is right. How do we shake the ladder? As it stands USAWS holds a monopoly on the representation of 3-event with the IWSF. I doubt there will be any changes from the top down... (Abdicating the throne(s) or even symbolically falling on their sword(s) seems unlikely...)

Maybe we have to vote with our feet first. If USAWS had no skiers to represent, then IWSF would be more inclined to look to a governing body that did. Especially one that melded with the rules and practices commonly in use, that kept proper records, set appropriate standards and procedures, and properly enforced them?

[The_MS]

Here are some of the responses from a note I sent to some regional EVPs.

 

I looked over the information you sent me. You may have a point that AWSA needs to separate from USAWS, but doing a survey on BOS will not get the information out to the AWSA membership/Midwest Council/AWSA Board of Directors. If you and the 80 other respondents formulate a plan such as give AWSA the reasons to separate from USAWS, what are the benefits of separating from USAWS? Tell the membership/council/AWSA board how USAWS is hurting AWSA. You are correct our numbers are going down, what can AWSA do to get those numbers up.

One person mentioned going to the council meeting and stating your opinion. I have been involved with MWSA for 30 years and not once have I seen you at a local meeting to express your viewpoint on what you like to see done. Step up and become more involved at the state level, then the regional level to get your point across. Just telling me that AWSA needs to separate from USAWS without a list of good reasons doesn't hold a lot merit to your cause. If you want to see something done, give me more information than a BOS survey. I will listen to what you have to say, but I need more information before I can fully present your case to the council/board of directors.

 

This is an excellent response to those who are wanting to rant without asking good questions. It is important to understand the situation or argument before jumping on a bandwagon. We are an organization (AWSA / USAWS) of pretty smart individuals and yet we work against each other because many have a personal agendas they want to serve. Your suggestion for those who have issues with the direction or the policies of the organization is BRILLIANT! If anyone has a problem - bring us a solution (at least an idea)! If you have a concern - voice it but ask for the information that you need to understand the situation (don't rely on rumor). And if you feel the need to voice your opinion - include your name (only 50% of the link I saw had the guts). We can better ourselves when we know the problems - but we all must contribute to the solution.

 

From Bob C.

Happy New Year!. Note: I am currently out of town and have limited access to e-mail until I return to the office on Jan 2 but an early morning rant is a good way to start the day. Good Morning! And, so you know, misinformation (and resulting conclusions) drives me crazy.

 

I find a lot of this AWSA undercurrent very troubling at many levels. Misconceptions and inaccurate information abound, leading to “conclusions” that are based not on fact but on rumors and what people want to believe. It’s just not reality.

 

First – governance. The USA Water Ski Board of Directors creates policy. The USA Water Ski Executive Committee manages the day-to-day issues between USA Water Ski board meetings. Policies can be changed. The construction of the USA Water Ski EC and BOD is heavily weighted with AWSA representatives. If AWSA (or a faction within AWSA) want changes to policies, then there is a procedure in place.

 

The role and authority of HQ is misunderstood by many. Headquarters (and its staff) do not set policies but manage the affairs and provide the structure for USA Water Ski. Staff implements Board policies. A good example of that is the new risk management policy on rated drivers having to drive for all sanctioned activities. This policy was proposed by the Risk Management Committee and approved by the USA Water Ski Board, consisting of representatives of all nine sport disciplines (including AWSA). Implementation of this policy is done by staff so HQ staff is on the frontline for all complaints. If AWSA (or any other faction) believes this or any other policies are in need of change, change it. The system for change is in place. HQ staff will still be here to implement the will of the Board.

 

Headquarters provides the operational infrastructure with the membership functions, database management, ranking lists, magazine and website creation and management, competition entry systems, sanctioning procedures, etc., etc., etc. HQ staff is charged with being protective of USA Water Ski assets. We rely on volunteers and paid professional services for much of what we provide. You have a staff that is very protective of all USA Water Ski assets – without question.

 

 

 

The insurance issues have been extremely problematic. Please read the recent EC report if you have any questions. I’m sorry but people die in this sport – it happens about every 3 to 5 years and the history is available to any prospective insurance company. The latest fatality in 2012 was an AWSA-related person. The most costly payout by USA Water Ski insurance providers was due to a fatality at an AWSA tournament. In 2010, we had two fatalities at NSSA sanctioned practices. And there are numerous claims/payouts for non-fatal injuries – ski jump seems to cause a higher number of injuries (concussions, dislocations, broken bones, etc.). People who state that AWSA has no fatalities or injuries are just not operating in fact and thus are not forming rational conclusions. People who state that the insurance coverage is bogus aren’t aware of the $940,000 in payouts over the past few years while paying only $450,000 in premiums during that time period. And of course, the insurance companies are going to make every effort to defend the claims to minimize payouts – they are just not going to write a check for every law suit brought against USA Water Ski.

 

 

 

The driver program requirements seem to have created a tipping point. It certainly helped with insurance renewals but potentially will drive away some members and clubs. We hear that at HQ. We will not know the actual impact for a few months. However, this new requirement has encouraged our insurance providers to continue to provide coverage at a rate we can barely afford. Finding that balance is always challenging. But, most important, we will never know how many injuries/fatalities we have prevented by implementing the driver requirements for all sanctioned practices and tournaments. This education can only be helpful.

 

 

 

But, bigger picture, people just want to ski with minimum regulations and resulting burden. I understand that. But there need to be rules and regulations. Rules of competition were created and have evolved over many years. Standards for the best officials, drivers, etc., need to be in place. People expect to have rules until the rules don’t work for them individually. Then it seems to be human nature to blame the rules for something that occurs that an individual doesn’t like. Change the rules – again rules evolve.

 

 

 

Succession talk just doesn’t make any sense. Work within the structure for meaningful change. It is possible. I see so much wasted energy on all sides of this issue. That energy should be put to positive initiatives. Additionally, the USA Water Ski surveys do not have the widespread negativism that comes out of the few people at Ball of Spray. These surveys have been completed by thousands of members. In fact, the results are very fair and provide us with ideas for the future.

 

 

 

Every NGB has their detractors and has people who are great at “throwing grenades.” I’ve seen that for 20 years with other situations. I have some “good” stories, but only after a few beers. I’ve seen NGBs “blow up” but I’ve also seen organizations evolve appropriately and go through cycles. If we need to change a course in an area, then we can do it. I believe the group in this e-mail thread feels this way but let’s try to find ways to channel all of this energy into positive initiatives for the greater good.

 

 

 

OK, no more ranting for this morning but I feel better. I will be back at HQ Wednesday afternoon. Cheers!

 

 

 

[Horton]

1.7K views on this thread so far. Not trivial.

[ForrestGump]

An AWSA board member and I were having an interesting conversation yesterday that ties into something that my insurance guy had told me. This board member questioned why USA Waterski was in the insurance business at all? If you go out on your mountain bike and fall and break your arm there's no one providing supplemental insurance. At a Crossfit competition, no one is providing supplemental insurance. There are a ton of examples of sports we participate in which aren't insured or insurable. Which ties into what my insurance guy said recently when I asked him about an umbrella policy for myself. He said you invite litigation when you have a high limit insurance policy. Something to think about.