What does it say that the two texas sites who held Nationals and SCR Regionals chose not to in 2015?

[ForrestGump]

Title says it all. We all knew San Marcos River Ranch didn't want Nationals back. Now it's official that SCR Regionals will not go back to Cypress, even though they were given first chance at it. At what point does AWSA get it? That either the format, or the requirements have to change to entice sites to participate. I heard one site's home owner say.... "Why would we want that headache and amount of work? We can impose a $500 special assessment to each of our 23 owners and in 5 minutes make the same amount for our HOA that we did holding Regionals."

[The_MS]

In the midwest, we pay 75.00 sanction fee to host a C event at our site. Does any of that money get forwarded to the site that hosts Regionals?

[lpskier]

Having hosted a Regionals, I have two comments. First, you don't hold the event to make money. You hold it to have fun, and if it is no fun, why do it again? Regionals and Nationals have become almost hyper technical and a lot of man hours and expense is involved in set up and operation. If the site is privately owned, the set up side of the equation should be more or less limited to the site amenities rather than the "field of play." Our Regionals was on a public lake with zero skiing infrastructure. I have learned that it is not feasible to hold a Regionals (or Nationals) at new site and forget public water. For that matter, if local government is involved, forget it again, times two. I was exhausted at the end of the event and it took a toll on me physically, but it was a blast and I'm glad we did it, even though we operated well into the red.

 

Second, the finances don't work. The single largest non-capital expense is typically officials' hospitality and housing. That is a big number that could easily be erased by asking officials to pay their own way. It is true that a lot of retired skiers stay in the sport to officiate, drive and score and/or to be a TC or safety coordinator. If asked to pay their own way, some may drop out and that would be a loss, but in my opinion not an insurmountable loss. I (and many others) have advocated for more younger and active skiers to become involved in tournament "operations," and this might be seen as a door opener for them.

 

Perhaps we should also evaluate what a fair entry fee is. I charged the same as the prior year's site, about $125 for one event, half that for juniors. If I had charged another $50 per skier and not had officials overhead, I would have come close to breaking even (lets say that doing so would have reduced my loss by about 3/5ths. A big non-reoccuring expense I had was buying and rehabing a jump, which pretty much represents the balance of my "loss" and therefore should probably better be carried as an asset on the balance sheet and not as an operating loss). If I had charged another $50 per skier, though, would I have had the same number of skiers? I don't know, but I do know that I would have had a lot of grumbling. On the other hand, the "going rate" for a southern three round record slalom (we were a Class C slalom - too many logistics) is about $165, and these tournaments sell out.

[liquid d]

It says that somebody messed with Texas.

[skidawg]

To much work, zero fun!!!!

[Ilivetoski]

My only question would be why is WPB always so willing to host?

[lpskier]

With one full time practice lake, and practice offered on all tournament lakes after each day's events are concluded, SCOTPB has the ability to make a lot on money on a Nationals. They have no HOA upon which they can impose a "special assessment, and Charlotte has the event's operation down pat. It is a lot of work for the members, but I think that it is a viable economic model for them, primarily due to practice. When Charlotte steps aside, however, the question will be who will fill her (metaphorically) large shoes, and the club may no longer be so willing to step up when asked. This is my theory; actual motivations may differ.

[ToddL]

There are two types of tournaments in our area: 1) site hosted events - where the group who owns the site is the host, and 2) site rented events - where an outside group simply rents the facility and that group runs the tournament themselves.

 

It seems to me that for Nationals, USAWS needs to be that "outside" group who simply rents the lakes from a site for a fee that is agreeable to both parties. USAWS would then need to develop a tournament director job position who's primary responsibility is to run the Nationals tournament. Fees, officials, boats, travel comps, social events, etc. would all be that person's and USAWS' responsibility. The site would be responsible for the functionality of the facility (surveys, site video tech, parking plan, etc.). I bet a small focus group of past Nationals TD's and Site Reps could work out the numbers to see what it would take to adopt such a model. It may change the entry fees to make it work, but ultimately, the plan needs to be drafted out. I feel it is probably an inevitable necessity in our near future.

[skiray]

If the incentive isn't there so that premier waterski communities are willing to host these tournaments, then our sport is closer to dying than I thought.

[Kelvin]

To set the record straight, Cypress is stepping up to the plate again in 2015 as host to Collegiate Nationals. One big tournament a year is more than enough for any ski community to handle.

[disland]

@toddL I agree 100%. I have been advocating your model for several years.

@lpskier Again I agree 100%. The concept of paying for judge hotel fee's is outdated and needs to be eliminated. If you cant get enough officials from the skiers then downgrade to class C.

[MattP]

@Kelvin that tells me that Cypress is looking out for the future of the sport and that they like a good party.

[lpskier]

My wife and I went to Collegiate Nationals this year at Bennett's (Daughter won the D2 jump and was third overall) and I thought it was one of the most fun water ski events I have ever attended. Too bad so many skiers drop out of the sport after college.

 

@ToddL I like your thinking, but that doesn't address the problem on the Regional level, and I don't know that your model would work there. Maybe two separate models are needed.

 

Maybe USAWS is working on this problem, and maybe not. If they aren't and want to, I would volunteer to be on a committee. Maybe @klindy can give us some insight.

[Wolfeie]

The cost to house officials has been a sore point for most of the sites holding nationals. We also had to provide a certain number of golf carts for officials, many which sat iddle most of the day. Its time to offer officials a per diem amount. If they

choose a economy hotel fine, if they want nicer digs then they make up the difference. One complaint we got was there was no bar in the hotel for them to get together and socialize afterwards. It has always been a social event for officials which draws more than needed. Cut down on the hotel allowance and the probl;em will go away.

[Jody_Seal]

I would like to thank SMRR for putting on the 2014 National championships. One of the best ones I have been to in a long time! I had fun! I had plenty to eat and got to work with some of the best people in the sport!

 

It is a daunting undertaking and SMRR pulled it off with Class and professionalism! Well Done SMRR! Hope It goes back there some time soon !

[gregy]

I could see parking being an issue. If smrr had been fully built up not sure where parking would have been. The grass in the parking area at smrr was pretty much destroyed by the end of the week. It just seemed like to me another reason not to host nationals. I'm sure it caused some dust issues for some time afterwards.

 

I enjoyed it and would really like to thank all involved and especially the owners.