D2 was voted down to day

[Horton]

I guess it was very close but the 2015 nationals will not include D2.

 

Correction: I guess this his been said below but let me clarify. D2 did not pass in its present form but there is action going on over the next 30 days to find a version that is palatable to the board and themembership.

[ntx]

I hear that there is a group appointed to come up with another idea to submit.

[TonyaMaurer]

It isn't hung out to dry yet; there is a taskforce reviewing the situation and on point to come back with options in ~30 days.

[ToddL]

@TonyaMaurer‌ Who is on the task force?

[Jody_Seal]

Yea now I have to buy Jim Jaquess lunch! I knew the southern region would vote no as a block but we (southern region) tend to get out voted on many a issue. I bet him lunch the proposal would pass!

[klindy]

@ToddL‌ it's a small group which is still somewhat fluid. I expect the group to be defined in the next couple days. But it covers a wide geography and includes athletes.

[Ham_Wallace]

Jody, I'll contribute if I can go too. I want to know, who is on the task force.

[klindy]

@Ham_Wallace‌ as I said above that should be finalized in a couple days. Our time line is short so the group will be small.

[Horton]

please see the correction in my original post

[Wish]

@Horton... "..palatable to the board and membership." I believe membership just swallows what is palatable to the board. Or did I miss something?

[lpskier]

Well, this offers an opportunity to allow a "special interest group," us, to submit a proposal to the committee for consideration. We've been yapping about it for weeks; lets put up or shut up.

[ToddL]

@lpskier - For what it's worth, here's my recommendation for a new Nationals format.

 

Qualification: No regionals participation prerequisite. Top 20% of each division per ranking list plus regional 1st place (if not already qualified by national ranking.) No fewer than 5, and capped at 20 per division.

Any division which skis more than 16 skiers, gets a head-to-head final battle between first and second place.

Order of divisions: M/W6+ ski first day(s), followed by M/W1-2, then juniors, M/W5-3.

 

Head-to-head finals, MM, OW, OM, and exhibitions all on Sat with high publicity for local spectators. Some non-qual skiers may travel if they could attend a Sat line-up like that.

 

Try to get all skiing to fit between Wed-Sat. If capped at 20 is still too many, then try capping at 16. Just count the pulls and see which works best.

 

Why this schedule and format?

Limit to true top skiers of each division, more likely to have a shot at placement, more likely to attend.

Fewer days, less taxing event for hosting site.

Senior career and retired skiers ski on week days since they are most likely to be able to afford the time and travel costs of skiing mid week.

Top skiers ski on Saturday since the highest number of spectators can attend then.

Parental-aged skiers and families with juniors just have to take a slightly extended weekend trip to attend.

[klindy]

@ToddL‌ all good ideas. Recall one important aspect, AWSA funding is fulfilled by two primary sources - membership allocation from USAWS and income from the AWSA Nationals. So absent another arrangement for a revenue source, the membership dues would need to increase.

 

I don't believe you have participated at the Natiionals ins the past. So, as a member who would not be a participant, would you still be a member of your annual dues were higher? What if they doubled?

[MillerTime38]

How much time and resources could be saved by running nationals as a class C tourney? Considering that Officials are the biggest expense it seems like a logical place to start.

[ToddL]

@klindy I qualified for Nationals for the first time this year and I went. Why did I go?

1) I qualified for the first time

2) It was within 1 hour's drive time from my house

3) I could take off from work

 

I volunteered (dock started) at the event. I could not attend the Open divisions due to event schedule and work commitments. I attended the Big Dawg competition in the evening.

 

Had the nationals been in Fl, I would not have gone. Why?

1) Travel Cost / Time

2) Not a contender for podium

3) did I say Travel Cost / Time?

 

If my annual dues doubled, I'd probably stop competing. I'm sure I wouldn't be alone. No one thinks this is a good idea.

 

But I have a question... With nearly 3000 AWSA slalom skiers with ranking scores in the past 12 months, at $80 per skier... wait there are multi-year discounts, so let's use $75/skier, are you saying that Nationals raises over $200k for AWSA?

 

 

slightly off topic alert, but Keith brought up membership fees...

One other question... I wonder how many non-member skiers would join/return to competitive skiing and go to a tournament if the membership fees were under $50?

 

Maybe we need an incentive like this:

New/Returning Competitors (have not had an "Active" membership in the past 3 years) - $50

Includes GR members converting to "Active". New/Returning Competitors can lock in this reduced rate for 2 consecutive years, but still pay annually, or lock it in for 3 years if paid in full up front ($150). This would bring in more skiers and more membership revenue...

[ToddL]

So, the real "problem" with Nationals is: AWSA needs to net about $200K+ in revenue and that is at risk of no longer occurring. Why didn't we say that up front? I thought this was about making Nationals meaningful and valuable to participants and attendees.

 

Doesn't it cost about $200k to put on Nationals simply to raise $200k at nationals? So, net value is $0? Does AWSA keep an event-based balance sheet on each year's Nationals?

 

Sometimes, the best solution to raise money is to stop spending it on something that doesn't grow the organization.

 

I'm being a bit "absurd" here, but the point is this...

When an activity/division/product line is creating more costs than revenue with no quantifiable benefit to the organization's future growth and revenue, you cut it or re-scope it until such time that its value/benefit (no matter how small) exceeds the costs/efforts to continue it. Crown the winner via the ranking list and move on? Maybe...

 

Looking at the 2013 financials published on the web site, it seems that we should kill the magazine, too... In 2013, it cost over $340k and made only $144k. Stopping the magazine would equate to $196k in net revenue, right?

http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/TaxForms/2013AuditedFinancialStatements.pdf#page=6

[Chet]

ToddL

I think these are brilliant ideas. I hope the committee is listening.

 

[ToddL]

Here's another gem of experience from my corporate life experience about Change Management...

 

When a person is stubborn about change which others see as a benefit to the larger organization, you have to step back and understand how the change will impact that specific person's situation.

 

For example, sometimes making a brilliant change in a corporation will face an extremely uphill battle because some director perceives it as a risk to obtaining a bonus, etc. If you have sufficient executive sponsorship, you can meet with the director's superior and negotiate adjusted goals and targets for the bonus such that the change for the org does not put the director at an unfair disadvantage. Sometimes, the director is at fault and the risk of the impact is founded. Sometimes the "director" is the top superior in the corporation. Then, tabling the change until the director moves on is the typical outcome.

[klindy]

@Chet the committee is listening. I know because I'm on the committee.

 

@ToddL‌ I never said it needed to raise $200k those are your numbers.

 

Injecting the magazine info this discussion is mixing USAWS and AWSA. Using that logic we should also ax the sport divisions ($101k income and $193k expense).

[ToddL]

@klindy - fair comment, but AWSA and USAWS are already a little mixed together, no?

 

What you did clearly state is that AWSA depends upon revenue from Nationals. You clearly eluded that some of the proposals I've made are not viable because they may impact the revenue generated by Nationals. You further suggested that I have to choose between paying higher dues or not seeing any of my proposals considered.

 

Sorry, for my numbers, but I was very quickly and conveniently looking for some sort of facts. The 2015 budget has been approved but it not available on the web site. So, what are your numbers? How much does Nationals cost AWSA and how much does it raise in income? What is the net revenue to AWSA? Has it been declining? Did it get in the red last year?

 

Here's my point simply put. I'd rather spend $1 and earn $2, than spend $1M and lose $1M and 1 cent. If the current Nationals format is no longer profitable for AWSA and if AWSA is dependent upon it for revenue, then the new format has to cost less than it raises in income.

 

 

[Chet]

I am always in awe of all the brilliant and hardworking people that both surround this sport and make it happen at a competitive level.

Dialogue and change when change is needed make this websie valuable and rare.

I applauded you guys for your efforts and the rational thoughts that continue to push this sport onward and upward.

 

[Dusty]

Q. Is making a large 'corporation' more transparent, best achieved by making it smaller and more accountable? I applaud @ToddL for taking the time to comment and raise these issues. Maybe we are all still pretending the elephant in the corner isn't really there?

"Doing the same thing the same way... expecting different results is..."

[jdarwin]

@ToddL‌ - all the financial details regarding Nationals are contained within:

-

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzP0dYzQ9HLnRFE5T3JCYXVPbDNKV3NoVGgzaFprZmpwTVdB/view

 

[ToddL]

Thanks! @jdarwin‌

 

Nationals Budget is on Page 42

The event has been running at a loss of roughly $30k... dang.

 

Magazine Budget is on Page 39

The magazine has been losing $16-200k per year. Holy unprofitable item, Batman!

 

If AWSA just stopped publishing the magazine, it could afford to pay skiers to attend Nationals... (just kidding, but not far from true) Would I not renew my USAWS members if you stopped sending me a paper magazine, no. Would I not renew my membership if you had to raise membership fees further so that AWSA could keep Nationals the way it is and send me a magazine? Probably. This all just doesn't make any sense.

 

This brings me back to my comment: I would rather spend $1 and earn $2 vs. spending $1M and losing $1M and 1 cent.

 

If a much different event could be run for much less money, but turn a profit, then that should be pursued. If cutting the magazine puts $160k back into the budget, then do it!

 

 

Additional Excerpts:

 

Page 6:

(from AWSA BOD 2014 Summer Meeting Minutes)

12. Executive Committee Report Bob M - 2014 National Championships Report

Executive committee funding proposal done

2015 & Beyond

Nationals – at 650 entries, and budget was set at 700 by LOC. Will have to see how practice, etc. go to see if holding Nationals here next year will be financially feasible. Hotels are the biggest expense due to everything going on in San Marcos this weekend. May be able to get more hotels, cut officials needs, maybe move time frame up a week, may have to look at a new business plan for Nationals, how much does the Big Dawg bring in, economy of scale, bring numbers down, shorter event, making more elite could make a better nationals, major sponsor is adamant about having 1000 competitors, schedule change. Peter – typically don’t make as much money in the first year of holding an event like this. Keith – looking to adjust the qualifications. Bob A – only one bid, need to support and not complain. Barry – how many not coming to Nationals because they are going to Worlds. Bob M – need to look at the event from a business point of view. Darr - Schedule of events are only different one day, families are spread out too far so not everyone skis, have to have faith, have to have the guts to try something.

 

 

Page 82

F. Nationals:

1. We are going to WPB (SCPB) for 2015. There are no prospects for 2016 at this moment - any and ALL potential bids WELCOME!!.

2. The current census for the tournament tests the LOC to make a profit to offset the hours of effort and fixed overhead costs that go into this tournament. Either the business model needs to be tweaked and/or we need to get the census up over 700 skiers.

a. There was much discussion about a Division II group and/or just opening eligibility to a group of Level 7 skiers.

b. Jim Grew and Krista Rogers are composing their ideas (Division II) on this and will be sending an email to the EC shortly.

c. To get the idea into the bureaucracy, and therefore assignable to various committees for action, the following motion was made:

ACTION ITEM: With the objective of increasing the Nationals census (by not more than 50%) it was moved that a Division II (think about the collegiate model here) be developed starting with Level 7 skiers. Such a Division would be experimental for the 2015 National Tournament and, after review, possibly used in subsequent years. (Motion passed with one dissent)

d. There are many details to be discussed here but the collegiate skiers have made this concept work.

 

Page 84

Appendix to EC Minutes:

2015 AWSA Division II National Championships Proposal*

BACKGROUND: The goal is to attract more participants to the national tournament by offering medals, titles and opportunities in two divisions. More medals and more titles hopefully equal more skiers, more crowds and more interest in tournament.

 

Division I attendance may increase as well by encouraging more couples and families to attend if their husband, wife or kids qualify for Division II. This results in increased participation across the board: more families, more enthusiasm and more first-timers (which is great for our vendors and sponsors.), not to mention more income for all involved in hosting the tournament. This model has worked well in other disciplines (think collegiate).

 

A. ORDER OF CONTESTANTS: Division II skiers will be seeded and ski immediately before Division I skiers in each event.

B. DIVISION II ELIGIBILITY: Level 7 skiers only (Current estimates are that 250 additional individuals would actually attend out of a pool of 900).

1. One and two event skiers must hold Level 7 ranking scores in those events.

2. Overall:

a. Skiers must have a current overall ranking in Level 7.

b. All scores for Division II overall must come from Division II performances.

c. A Level 8 ranking score in an event may mean that the skier is a top seed in the Div II grouping going off the dock.

C. CUT-OFF DATES: No change; same as current Division I cut-off dates (Rule 4.02B).

D. REGIONALS: Division I nationals qualification through regional placement will not change; such placement applies only to Division I. There will be no Division II in the Regional Championships.

E. MEDALS" Division II will offer three places while Division I will offer five.

F. OFFICIALS NEEDED: There is no need for separate officials' panels or more officials.

3. OTHER NOTES:

1.Division I qualifications will NOT change.

2.Division II will be sanctioned as separate tournament.

*As modified from original J&K proposal.

 

Page 151

AWSA BOD RULES COMMITTEE REPORT 2015

Recommended Changes from Rules

Committee:

PROPOSAL 1:

1.01B ADD. Except as noted in Rule 1.06, no deviations are permitted from these rules for National Tournaments with the exception of a onetime experimental change in the protocol, approved by the AWSA Board of Directors, that would be announced at least three months prior to the tournament.

Rationale: The Executive Committee asked for the above amendment so that a variety of proposals could be trialed with minimum impact on the rules themselves, initially sparing the Rules Committee extra work for a one time program that, if successful, would need modification for eventual longer term implementation anyway. The intent is to find ways of increasing attendance at Nationals, thereby better promoting and growing the sport.

More attendance involves more members and their families, attracts more sponsors, pleasing the current ones, and provides more income for both the organizer and AWSA which AWSA can in turn reinvest in membership development and retention programs.

 

[klindy]

@ToddL Extracts are good but they aren't necessarily the entire story.

 

First, starting from the bottom, the "D2" proposal was defeated. So what you read on page 82, 84 and 151 is dead. Except that some of the concepts are under consideration by the special committee. Hence the requests here and other places asking for opinion and comments.

 

With regard to the Magazine and Nationals, the "total revenue" and "total expense" cells you subtracted also include an overhead and labor distribution from USAWS. Also, the budget/financials you're looking at are the USAWS financials and not AWSA's. A careful reader will find a "AWSA Admin" line item in 'expenses' which is what AWSA netted from the tournament last year.

 

Additionally, the "Nationals" category includes ALL the nationals from all 9 sport divisions. So, costs like "webcast" were for the NSSA Nationals and not the AWSA Nationals.

 

So it's not quite as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[LLUSA]

the committee is

Mayhew Chair

Keith Lindemulder

Chris Eller

Freddie Krueger

Julie Krueger

Jeff Surdej

Mark Crone

[ToddL]

@klindy - thanks for the clarification.

[klindy]

And the committee also incudes Tonya Maurer, Hutch Haines, Pat Byrne, Dave Clark as consultants.

[LLUSA]

Well, thank you for listing the consultants, never saw that email, I guess the southern region really has no input on this committee, but then again we all voted against this proposal, so the punishment is fitting

 

[JeffSurdej]

Great Stuff guys, A lot of post so not sure if this was answered but the revenue stream from nationals is $21 per skier, the goal is to get back 250 skiers to nationals to make up for lost revenue there. Now I believe we can easily fix that in other ways such as increasing entries $7 or cutting down on expenses. But the only problem is that does not solve the sponsors issues, they are wanted to pull out and not support nationals b/c it dropping in #'s so although I love your format idea Todd and in fact any ideas making nationals shorter and more elite we need to find away to still make the sponsors happy, the revenue we can solve without adding $250 skiers.

[JeffSurdej]

Lyman you keep saying the south has no representation, mark crone and freddy krueger are on this committee?

[ntx]

@waterskispreads‌ Eller is in the south also, correct???? Looks to me like the South has greater numbers than any other region.

[LLUSA]

Freddie may live in the South, and I respect that but he is Midwest, Mark Crone will always be Eastern Region, IMO, our rep is Chris Eller

[Horton]

@waterskispreads‌ @klindy‌

I think the hardest challenge for you guys is to think clean slate. Start over and re-imagine the event. The problems and constraints are easy to identify. The solutions are not.

 

1) The general format is no longer as compelling as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Krista and I have talked about how the culture of the country has simply changed and what was once the highlight of our year is now uninteresting.

 

2) One thing many skiers want is more ski rides. Unfortunately you can only pull so many rides per day per lake. A three round Nationals is totally impractical / impossible but I bet a lot of skiers like the idea.

 

3) Many skiers are uncomfortable with ability based divisions. I find it ironic that folks cling to Open and Masters divisions but think a Level 7 gold medal is absurd. Personally I do not like any ability based divisions but if that is the path then we all need to give it a try for a few years. We all need to step back from our preconceptions.

 

4) Culture is way harder to change than rules. I would propose that any idea put forward by the small group has to be put in place for a number of years before we can all it a success or failure. It could be that the best idea would result in a smaller 2015 event but would long term rebuild interest.

 

5) Looking at the sport as a whole in the US, it is the base that has eroded. The high end of the sport is much more stable than the skiers trying to get there. If a Level 5 skier does not aspire to ski at Nationals then we are truly lost. Maybe this is a totally different subject. Maybe not.

 

[Andre]

Call me stupid.

Read the entire thread.

Still don't know what D2 means...

Help!

[Horton]

@Andre‌ division 2 / Less elite

[ToddL]

A smaller event doesn't require as big of a sponsor. Instead of trying to appease a specific company's demands, maybe it is time to ask other companies what type of event they'd like to sponsor and at what level. You dont know who wants to be involved in a more elite event at a lower cost until you ask. That would be a clean slate approach.

[Horton]

@ToddL‌ the companies at the core of the sport need Nationals to stimulate sales of they are sponsors or not

[ToddL]

@Horton true. However, is pursuing 1000 competitors as dictated by a sponsor really in the best interest of the organization? If we don't discuss different approaches openly and sincerely, we will end up with a narrow focus that is only a short term attempt at solving potentially the wrong problem.

 

You said it above, culture is harder to change than rules. The current culture of the competitive skiers is to not attend the same Nationals to any greater degree than last year. I fear that the "1000 competitors" goal is the wrong metric with which to measure "success". To me, the best metric would be % of qualified skiers who attend. If 85+% of qualified skiers attend, then it is working well. Success in that metric suggests that the event is valued by the qualified competitors. When they see value in the event, so will spectators and sponsors.

[Tyler_R]

@ToddL‌ has the right point. When I launched my company last year I had a ton ideas that Needed large specific numbers of viewes to work. When I look at my books a year later i find that we did a whole lot more smaller high perticipation events than big ones and when I talk to companies about buying sponsorships they want to sponsor the high turn out low number events more than the big high market turnover events. If we change the format some types of sponsors may be more interested in the new program.

[The_MS]

Who is the title sponsor that is making the 1000 demand?

[Horton]

@ms my understanding is that it is not literally one sponsor. The sponsors want more skiers to market to.

[dchristman]

there is but one "title" sponsor... it is the:

 

70th GOODE Water Ski National Championships

[The_MS]

Most of them should be water-ski related sponsors, what are there ideas? In the end, we need a beer or Pepsi type of sponsor. How did @JD attract 5000 spectators to a pro event in Shreveport back in the day?

We have to quit relying on skiers wallets to fund this thing and open it up to the masses. Put in a location like the Malibu open in cheese land and get some spectators that are not competitors to show up. At the last stop in Minneapolis, we had Sarah McLaughlin and Dead Eye Dick at a band shell. Make it a show of top talent and combine it with a festival of some sorts. Get some advertising going well in advance and put on a show that people will come back to. Get it back on ABC Wide World of Sports. Get someone that thinks outside the box in charge and take some risks.

[thager]

@MS Would that be goode to know info?

[The_MS]

Sure would.

[LeonL]

What's with the "TV production costs" of 15K? What's on TV? Show skiing? We Ballers are concerned with AWSA. Of those "Nationals" expenses how are they spread. Who's the biggest loser among sports divisions?

[Dirt]

Maybe we need to cut the welfare system. If an individual discipline cannot financially support itself, the members of that discipline can pay higher dues, entries, etc. Just a thought.

[Wish]

@MS That would be Goode to know...

[ToddL]

@LeonL - I wonder the same thing. USAWS has to act like one organization, but this issue is about 1 specific division. If USAWS can't provide financials specific to this event, then how can we assess issues and recommend solutions?

 

My mind still keeps coming back to the "what ifs" of stopping the print magazine.

1) It is not a growth tool since it does not reach non-members

2) It is not valued by sponsors/advertisers since it can't sustain itself financially

3) what are the other ideas for supporting keeping it? Let's re-visit them to see if they are still valid.

 

$160k/yr in losses... That could hire a darn Nationals Events Director/Marketing Manager could it not? Heck it could fund 160 volunteers $1000 each to work National Events each year. Or many other ideas.