Jump to content

Who are the Ballers?


Horton
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow. That's a pretty extreme skew towards money. Horton's gonna get deluged with banner ads from Rolex and Porsche.

 

Obama gets wind of this, there's gonna be a "baller" tax bracket, and we're going to have "take back the lake" picketers camping at our tourney sites. The SEC will demand that ballers publish the percentage of their take home as compared to the average skier, and the PCAOB will begin auditing the AWSA audits of driving paths.

 

Pelosi will demand that we run hybrid power plants so that our boats do not exceed 25 mph, and ration gas, only allowing us to buy it if we agree to pull a non-baller half the pulls. Boats, as killers of jet skiers, will require a 45 week "cooling off period" before they can be purchased, only by those who have no arrests. Drivers will only be allowed to drive a tourney if they have never had a drunk driving record.

 

Tourneys will be forced to shut down until we can modify our tournament participation demographics to prove that we are not enforcing a de-facto age/race/sex discrimination program against all categories except those who find Thekrista attractive while at the same time being twice her age.

 

A commute trip reduction task force will be set up, and require, by law, that we post carpooling flyers at our sites, and provide counseling to all ballers on the evils of driving alone to the lake.

 

The government will decry the fact that many people can not afford their god granted right of owning a tournament boat, and will require FannieMae to grant boat loans based upon desire to own a boat rather than income.

 

Injuries received while skiing will be excluded from Obamacare coverage, as such injuries were prima facia evidence of wanton spending and excess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

@OB The data sample is good.

 

@klindy Actually there were 662 responses. I weeded out the dups and the international for the resulting data. International skiers were included in the drawing.

 

The sample does seems heavy with USAWS skiers. They are core enthusiasts. As a snapshot I feel really good about this data.

 

There were 40K Unique Visitors in August and 38K in September so 600+ data points is not really all that big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@mattp good point! Still would have thought a stronger majority would have been members. I am not a stats guy but the survey was of ballers and not just average joes, would like to think that a stronger majority of skiers would be members and support the national govering body. Leads me to believe that skiers may only be joining out of requirement (tourney participation, club membership or private lake insurance etc.). Just a thought but why are 44% of survey takers not members?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Hell @skoot1123 did not think about joining USAWS until today because of something that was mentioned on the site. He is an avid skier and member. Why he is not a member I have no clue. Most people have their "reasons". I believe all skiers tournament or not should be members the body does way more than sanction tournaments. There are benefits and the greater the member base the greater pull and standing USAWS will have when trying to do their job.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller_
@MattP agree. I'm guessing the word is out there for folks that want to ski tournaments and find out you have to be a member. Others who may not be interested perhaps are not getting the info. Something I'm sure is being worked on as we speak by USAWS. I'm sure @The_Krista has seen this. By the way, she "liked" me. I think I blushed. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

With the high number of private lake skiers I would have guesstimated that the number of non boat owners would be much higher than 6%.

 

Good news for ski builders, the less than one year old skis and intentions to buy a new one in a year is high.

 

Not many new skiers here.

 

Apparently boat builders look at the income surveys too, as does Goode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

IF the samples are taken randomly, the number of samples you need is essentially independent of the size of the population. For a question with just two options, there is a fairly well established formula to compute the 95% confidence interval, and it depends only on how many samples you TAKE, not the size of the population you are sampling. (For the ultranerds in the audience: 1) That's not quite true if the population is "small" enough. 2) The formula actually relies on a Gaussian distribution being a tolerable approximation of a binomial distribution, which is a good assumption if the number of samples is "large" and the measured result is NOT near to 0% or 100% (i.e. the vast majority of respondents picked the same answer).)

 

Here's a calculator. 600 samples should typically get you within about 4 percentage points of the correct population value for a 2-answer question:

 

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

 

Unfortunately, this data was taken by volunteering, which is not legitimately random. So any statistician (and I'm not one of those, but have taken the basic math behind it) would have to look for any reason for a systematic sampling bias. I'm certain there is a little of that, but my guess is that this is fairly representative of the BOS population. I basically just have to assume that everyone in the BOS population really wants a free Goode, and that eliminates a significant amount of sources of sampling bias!

 

Overall, I'd say: Well done, Horton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member

@OB In that case, you can simply view my post as me dropping a grenade on your statistical incorrectness.

 

My dad used to be a stock analyst for many military suppliers, and he had an awesome hat from a company that sadly I've forgotten the name of. It said in the background "Laser Guided Bombs." In the foreground it said "One Bomb. One Target." He especially enjoyed wearing this around our home town in NJ, where political correctness was getting an early start in the 80s. He also liked wearing it on Wallstreet to compliment his suit.

 

Good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

600 of the skiing population that like to talk about it on the internet.

There are good skiers who just ski, don't post out here, or talk much about what they do, train, setup, etc., and that is fine, but I believe that if all were like that, the sport would fade faster than what it is. Talking about stuff and exchanging ideas on the internet has to help the sport.

 

@OB is right though, there is some decent % of skiers that don't even know or care about web forums on skiing. I am not so sure that is a good thing. Sort of says I do what I do and I don't need anyone else. Sort of the elitist attitude that makes it hard for new skiers to break into.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold Member
@AB I don't think I'm following. Technically, Horton has banned a few folks, but this is pretty darned close to a completely public forum. If folks aren't interested, that's fine. But I can't see how it's elitist to have a completely public forum on the internet. Guessing I misunderstand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Yes the visitors to this site are a very small subset of global or US skiing public. To state the obvious, the survey is of the skiers to read this site. I intentionally did not advertise the “Enter to Win” with Facebook or in the Goode newsletter.

 

If there was a skew in the data it would be based on enthusiasm or desire for the free Goode. I am as confident in my raw traffic stats as any site owner can be* but I do question with the idea that 56% of the readers of the site belong to USAWS. The survey results are not empirical but I believe they are a reasonable representation of the readership.

 

*I cross check traffic data with 3 totally unrelated tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Horton you "question the idea that 56% of the readers belong to USAWS". Do you think that should be a higher or a lower number?

 

I would have guessed it would have been a higher number. Because you really polled those interested in winning the ski not necessarily the "readers of this forum". Althougth I suspect most who visit here are also likely to enter the contest. That said if you're getting 40k unique visitors, I would have thought more would want to win the ski and therefore enter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

@Than_Bogan, yes, what @OB said.

I ski with 4-5 guys, all but one ski in tournaments, 2 are regular P^2, (podium posers) at nationals, and none are Ballers. Maybe one thinks he is an elitist, the other guys just don't do internet, or whatever.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
@Waternut, I have a friend who makes a good living, repeat GOOD. One time after returning from a Big Dawg qualifier he commented, "man most of those guys make some big bucks". Basic observations of an intelligent guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Middle "Competitive Waterskiing" Class is significantly higher than Middle Class USA.

 

While the survey didn't calculate the median income since it didn't capture a list of actual values, one could make a rough assumption that it would have been around $100k.

 

Per the US Census, Median household income in the United States in 2012 was $51,017. (http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html)

More info if you are interested: http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr12-02.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
Well I guess it is fair to say that majority of people who are serious about any particular sport usually aren't scraping by either and most people are fairly serious about it are often on some kind of forum. Golf memberships at a nice course are comparable to some ski memberships. Even fisherman can figure out how to spend tens of thousands of dollars on the same thing that someone can with a bamboo cane, a hook, and worms they dug up can do. Not sure if that logic is sound but it helps me understand the difference anyway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
in California there is almost no club access and almost everybody I know owns their own boat. You would be lucky to get started today for under $250,000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller

Woah!! I worked at one of the nicer private golf club in Columbia, SC for about 2 years. The premium golf membership included 2 courses, clay tennis courts, 2 pools, and social events. I think that was around $350 a month plus cart fees and a $10k intro fee that could be spread out.

 

$35k a year sounds insane! Guess I'll never be part of that elite group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baller
As crazy as it sounds - and I don't mean to go all "hickville" on here - but tractor pullin' is crazy expensive too. Twin Allison Aircraft engines.......and triple Allison Aircraft engines, not to mention jet engines either. Some of the rigs they use to pull the tractors around have gotta be more than $1M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...