2017 Nationals - WBP's Discussion with AWSA

[Kelvin]

Here is an excerpt from the Summer AWSA Board Meeting Minutes. If your feelings are different from the BOD, I suggest you contact your BOD representatives and let your views be known to those decision makers.

 

West Palm Beach – we are discussing the 2017 Nationals with this group. At this point, it is not a formal bid, but a proposal. Want to get the board’s opinion on the following ideas:

 

SCPB is trying to bring more skiers back to the sport and increase involvement. This would be accomplished by having more activities at Nationals including:

 

1. Increase vendor involvement with the skier by providing an area where short clinics can be put on by manufacturers, skiers, nutritionists, coaches etc...

 

2. Providing a lake for boat and ski manufacturers to demo and educate for the skier

 

3. Have additional events on during the week

 

1-3 - Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only): Board does not feel this is a change in direction; no objections noted.

 

The areas of change necessary for the 2017 Nationals to be considered by SCPB in 2017 are as follows;

 

How to qualify for Nationals

o

4. Fifty Four weeks prior to Nationals the qualification score would be declared for each division and each event, allowing all skiers to have a fixed value for them to obtain to qualify skiing in Nationals, similar to the old EP meaning that skiers know what they have to have for a performance to qualify. A goal to be obtained is better than a moving calculation.

 

For example using M7 the qualification would be calculated by taking the total number of skiers in Level 8 & 9 (45 skiers total), plus 10% (rounded up), the calculation would be 45 + 5 =50, the 50th place score is 78.33 buoys in Slalom, this would then be set as the qualification score to ski Nationals. This qualification calculation is an example from an actual division as of Saturday July 23rd.

 

This same calculation would be used in the Trick and Jump events

 

To use this qualification score, the skier must score this twice at a C tournament or 1 time at an R.

 

Board input: this could be a 2017 exception to rules, could go back to the 54 weeks, we have that data. The cutoff day could be determined now, qualifying would be similar to the EP system for the weeks between cutoff and Nationals.

 

5. Level 8 or 9 skiers would not be required attend or ski Regional's however they would be required to pay the entry fee to qualify for Nationals.

 

By doing this the LOC for Regional's would have several areas of improvement

 

No loss in revenue

 

Reduced time to run the event

 

Allows all skiers the ability to attend Nationals due to reduced vacation and expense required

 

Will increase potential number of skiers for Nationals due to top 5 placement at Regional's because level 8 & 9 skiers will likely not attend as they are pre-qualified

 

Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only)

Strongly opposed ‐ 10

Yes ‐ 4

Undecided ‐ 3

 

6. Need the ability to host additional tournaments throughout Nationals. These events would be sanctioned as the following ski year only if that event was complete at Nationals.

 

Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only)

Strongly opposed ‐ 0

Yes ‐ 17

Undecided ‐ 0

 

7. The SCPB selects the Chief Officials in conjunction with the President of AWSA from a list created by both parties.

 

Non‐binding straw pole: YES – 17

 

8. The final decision and selection of officials ultimately belongs to SCPB.

 

Non‐binding straw pole:

YES – 2

NO – 14

UD ‐ 1

 

9. The SCPB selects the Officials from lists provided by each region

Non‐binding straw pole:

YES – 10

NO – 6

UD ‐ 1

 

The list should be based on skills and abilities including a list of conflicts (spouse skiing, children skiing, etc...)

 

Representation will be equal across all regions providing submission is within the timeline agreed upon

 

[Edbrazil]

Got to watch those straw poles. They are very flimsy. Should be wood or metal.

[Kelvin]

That was just a cut and paste directly from the BOD minutes on the USAWaterski website. But at least you are reading the details.

[DavidP]

Kelvin, thanks for posting. I guess they did not do a straw pole for #4 - How to qualify for nationals?

[Chef23]

I think 5 is a great idea. It would give skiers a good idea well in advance if they are qualified and it would preserve the revenue for regionals. If numbers at regionals drop it might hurt revenue for practice rides but profitability should be maintained if they have people paying but not showing.

 

Hosting additional tournaments during Nationals would be awesome. Particularly for folks that bring kids that might not be qualified and to potentially get a second score while you are down there.

[Kelvin]

@davidp, This was at the end of the #4 discussion - "Board input: this could be a 2017 exception to rules, could go back to the 54 weeks, we have that data. The cutoff day could be determined now, qualifying would be similar to the EP system for the weeks between cutoff and Nationals."

 

[Booze]

Thumbs up for the first three items.

[BRY]

I like most of it.

Would be interesting to know the rationale for 54 weeks, two weeks before the previous Nats, to set the level. Last chance tourny's and Nat's excluded for that year's levels. I would think 51 weeks would be better. Get all the skiers changing divisions moved and include last chance's and Nat's. Seems that would be a better basis as it allows scores from the full previous year and includes only current skiers in each division for the current year.

 

Would be interesting to hear the rationale both ways on the "LOC control of officials." SCPB wants it and AWSA clearly (2 yes, 14 no) want it. My guess is SCPB wants to have the "best" officials available used and AWSA wants the political method (my bias showing, could be wrong). Plenty of politics to go around either way. Clear arguments for/against from each proponent would be great. BTW I am not an SCPB member.

[Than_Bogan]

Minor: If we have the qualification level announced way in advance, then I hope we'll still do the thing that I suggested like 20 years ago (and was implemented!) which is to have all qualifying standards either be on a half ball or a full pass, so that there is limited incentive to stop skiing.

 

For most of my time at 36, I chased a qualifying mark of 3 @ -35, which was right at the edge of my capability. So anytime I got there, I felt I "had" to stop and take the full 3 rather than risk 2.5. After the EP got changed to 2.5, I managed to get to 4 and 5 a few times (ok maybe once each...).

 

Fwiw, I prefer full passes even more, because then there is truly zero reason to back off to try to hit the qualifying mark. I understand that may be impractical at times, but if it turns out that the level 8 computation yields say 1.16 @ -38, I think I'd rather just call that a full pass at -35.

[dave2ball]

USA Waterski still has not figured out what to do with MM and now MW. if they want the skier pool to grow they have to take a stand on masters men and masters women to stay in their respective division. Not too many skiers are going to fly to Florida and ski when they don't have a shot in hell because a masters men or women dropped down to men 3 4 or 5 just to place when majority of not all scores are in MM or MW divisions or big dawg events.

Don't have an answer for the regionals. But being forced to pay full entry and not going by skier choice is no right. How about putting the a level 8 or 9 skier in the same category as open skiers? They don't have to attend regionals to attend nationals. As mentioned earlier this may bring more skiers to regional tournaments.

[LeonL]

@BRY not being critical of them, but if SCPB had ultimate decision power for selecting officials, they just might select mostly local officials and avoid the cost of lodging. Also your comment about 51 weeks is much more logical. Skiers changing divisions would be taken care of.

[MrJones]

Is there really a problem with using local officials to save on costs?

[disland]

Nobody should be paying for anyones hotel room. Tournament officials should be taken from volunteers who are already going to be there. The concept of "better' officials is a legacy concept that has to go away. Nationals is not the Masters

[skidawg]

Single event slalom drivers should also be able to drive events if they wish if they are gonna be there skiing also

[Wolfeie]

The cost of housing the officials is probably the biggest reason why the Nationals will not return to the Arvin / Bakersfield area. It is the single biggest expense and the cost makes it not worth hosting the event. The last time we hosted Nationals there were many more officials then you actually needed, its like a social gathering the host pays for. The better

solution would be to offer a fixed per diem, and let the officials determine do they stay at a budget hotel, or a nicer hotel and kick in. With reduced official cost you could reduce

entry fees.

 

As far as water and weather conditions in August you cannot beat our location. I can't

tell you how many times we are skiing in perfect conditions while West Palm is blown out

or waiting for conditions to improve. How many times has west Palm just missed a major storm during Nationals.

[BRY]

@Wolfeie You indicated "the cost makes it not worth hosting the event". Did you lose money on the event or just not make enough? How much do you feel your site would need to make for it to be worthwhile for you and your site? Is money the only issue? It's a huge load of work to pull off. My understanding (based on posts here and elsewhere by people who seem to be SMRR people) is SMRR made about $20K-$25K, around $33+ per skier in their pocket all said and done.

Not meaning to be aggressive or call you out with this but truly, what would it take for a Bako lake, or set of lakes, to be interested? If there needs to be change the what is the target for the change to hit?

Props out to Broadside for putting on the show this year.

Props to West Palm for putting in a serious bid for next year. Anyone else at all? Anyone?

@Wolfeie You all could always put in a bid, with your "officials per diem" as a hard stipulation. Who knows, you might win!

[dave2ball]

To have officially from only one region would not be a wise idea. To have slalom only drivers involved may add to the work load to the 3 event drivers it may not depending on the structure and the slalom only drivers may get priority most of the premier slalom events depending on how they draw.

I have been to Arvin a number of times or nationals and other regionals and Arvin has a great set up for the nationals. The weather is good 99% of the time. Bakersfield is not exactly a great place for night life and has very little to offer outside of skiing.

I have not been to Idaho but tournament wise they knock it out of the park is what many people have said.

West palm offers something for everybody if you are there for the week. Other then the events being spread out everywhere and the weather west palm is a hard place to beat

 

[BRY]

@dave2ball Nobody has promoted "officialls from only one region". The proposal, from above:

-The final decision and selection of officials ultimately belongs to SCPB

-The SCPB selects the Officials from lists provided by each region

 

I don't see how adding "slalom only" drivers can add to the workload of 3 event drivers. It can only reduce the 3 event driver workload. Every pull a slalom only driver pulls is one less pull 3 event drivers pull, i.e. less workload.

 

"and the slalom only drivers may get priority on the premier slalom events." COOL! AWESOME! Get the premier drivers pulling the premier events! 3-event or Slalom only, put the best driver in the seat! Some of the best slalom drivers are 3-event too! But only 3-event is a small pool and leaves some premier drivers out.

 

Arvin (Bakersfield) would be great for a Nats... but... but... some club there has to put in a bid. Some club there needs to want to. There are lots of places that would be great for a Nats, but some club there needs to step up and do it. Crazy big commitment. I have immense respect for any club that puts forth a bid. I have no disrespect or ill will for any club that feels it is not for them. SCBP steps up time and time again with serious bids, bailed the whole thing out once (or no Nats), so Kudo's and respect to them.

[wski1831]

@dave2ball I like your idea about level 8 or 9 being treated as open. Don't have to ski regionals, but would have to ski MM or MW at nationals.

[dave2ball]

Sorry about the typo it would cut the work

Load back on the 3 event drivers.

As far s the officials being picked by the nationals host this could be very political and the best may not get the chance to go. I believe that USA Water Ski has a rotation of drivers. Not sure about judges.

 

[LeonL]

Some of the best slalom drivers, I said "some" are not 3 event and they'll never get to drive Nationals under the current rules. (Read Becky Lathrop and others) I didn't say there was a problem with SCPB using mostly local judges. Save money...good thing. The per diem is an excellent idea, or no lodging at all. Who said that appointed officials have to have lodging provided? It's in the bid process I'm sure. Select officials from those planning to attend anyway and planning to pay their own way. If you don't want to pay you own way, don't submit your name. Never did see an answer to "how much do you want to make" posed by @BRY.

[LeonL]

@Mark_Matis you make a good point. Slalom, not so much, but the testing for Senior trick judges does not take you to the level of points being put up by high level trickers.

[LeonL]

Naw, probably not. Just saying that just because you can pass the practical for senior doesn't mean you can call a 10K trick run.

[unksskis]

While I understand the logic in Level 8-9 paying their way out of Regionals is helping the host site not take a hit, that is terrible customer service representation of a product. The fact Level 8-9 are not at Regionals, and publicizing this, should attract more Level 5-7 to attempt to qualify by placing at Regionals, more than making up for the lost revenue from Level 8-9 skiers. Level 9 skiers should be skiing Open anyway, and don't have to attend. Otherwise, you're just squeezing more money from the same rock, and the rock's are drying out. The event idea's are outstanding, but changing up the way the AWSA run's qualifications seems a bit out much. If someone wants to judge, let them. Nationals could be a judge development opportunity if utilized.

[Wolfeie]

@BRY Much of the profit is based on practice rides, and running concessions. You barely

break even on the entry fee's after all of your expenses, especially with skier numbers down. Ski west had additional expenses since we had to build a new jump which drastically reduced profits. But take $20,000 for example, with 37 owners (at Ski West)

that nets out to about $550 a owner. Now add over 1000 man/women hours to prep site,

run registration, provide water to judges, run shuttles etc...and give up your lakes in the

middle of summer for two weekends....is that greed?....probably common sense.

 

It's the 1000 hours of volunteers which is the killer for many sites. I am sure if we were

offered a flat fee for our lakes and USA Waterski took over management it would be a

no brainer for many sites including Ski west.

[Wolfeie]

P.S. Arvin does not have "ski clubs" which may be problem in putting together a bid. In our area off Millux Road we have 10 lakes owned by 6 different home owner associations.

You may only have a couple of owners at each association that actually compete. Makes

it much more difficult compared to West Palm.

[dave2ball]

With skiers attendance down ski sites are not willing to bid for what was a prestigious tournament. USA Waterski takes too much of the pie for many clubs/ lake HOA's to make it worth there while.

By lowering the national qualification USA Waterski has turned what was a privledge tournament into just another record tournament just to make a buck.

 

[jcamp]

@dave2ball can you tell us how much "of the pie" USA Water Ski takes? Would be interesting to know.

[jdarwin]

@jcamp - according to 2015 USAWS financial statements, the take from National tournaments was around $137,000. The LOC's received $70k and USAWS took $61k for "overhead and labor allocation" and "administration fees". The question answers itself.....

[LeonL]

@jdarwin National tournamentS? With an "S". Does that mean all disciplines? I've always wondered why you send entries/$$ to the event organizers for Regionals, but to USAWS for Nationals. Does USAWS provide anything of value to the LOC under "overhead and labor allocation" and "administration fees"? Labor allocation? Aren't the staff getting the same $$ whether at the Nationals as when in the office? I'm sure the LOC could handle administrative responsibilities.

[jdarwin]

@LeonL - I've asked this and numerous other questions about "fuzzy math" used in our financials. Either I get no response or a "glare" that seems I'm playing in their sandbox and should just leave. Please don't ask about the $202,000 loss from printing a magazine......

[bigtex2011]

"you dont even know what a write off is" enjoy...

[MattP]

@jdarwin thank you for continuing to ask these questions! Too many people are stuck in their old ways. Without change on the governing body's side we can't change the sports direction.

 

 

[bigtex2011]

:)

[eleeski]

Best wishes to WPB riding out the hurricane. Be safe.

 

Eric

[Jdubs]

Well I guess there had to be a reason that the lake sites are not doing 2 years in a row like they used to.

[Wolfeie]

jdarwin listed that in 2015 the "LOC" received $70K. Out of the $70K the LOC is responsible for hotel rooms for officials, gas for the entire event, usually tent and

golf carts rentals, junior banquet?, sound system rentals, paying to get courses surveyed etc....not much of the pie left for LOC.

[lpskier]

Is another Idaho nationals off the table?

[DavidP]

If WPB and other potential host sites need additional revenue, I would pay $50 for four passes under the lights. I'm guessing other would too.

[LeonL]

Revenue was mentioned earlier on this thread. No one really put forth how much profit makes it worthwhile. I would say money isn't the issue. It's the overwhelming amount of work. Now don't get me wrong, if the money is enough people will do the work. Once the LOC gets enough (again what is enough) it again falls back to "we don't need the money" and we don't want to do all the work

[Horton]

Until we know the goal of Nationals I don't know why we're even talking about the financials and locations. Is a festival, is it an event to crown national champions, is it a fundraising event for our national organization, or is it something else? I really don't know how we do this year after year without a concise frame.

[dave2ball]

the last thing drivers are want to do is come back after the tournament and pull more practice after 8 pm. West palm may need a special permission to have under the light events. Not sure.

What seems to be the biggest issue is USA taking too much of the tournament revenue and giving the bulk of the costs to the host club or clubs.

[lpskier]

@dave2ball Nationals are full of regular and senior drivers not driving the event. You'd have drivers fighting over the opportunity to drive the E/W lake under the lights, and I'd be one of them.

[ALPJr]

Northeast Nat's would be a nice change

[bishop8950]

Nationals destination is all about the host/LOC that wants to host. The sites are few. I don't think you can target a geographic region but it is cool if it moves around. If Pangea wanted to Host that would be sweet and a nice change. What are other good northeast sites? Twin Lakes?

[Edbrazil]

@ALPJr Hey, if you want Northeast, could always go back to Laconia, NH (1954 and 1959)

Or, maybe Webster, Mass. (1964). Or, way back to Lake Placid (1951).

[Edbrazil]

Actually, Webster, MA is a decent site, for a 1-lake site. Here it is on the last day

of the Nationals:

 

 

 

 

[dave2ball]

@lpskier when I say rated drivers and so forth I should of stated the drivers who were or are asked to drive practice.

I been ithe national many of years. I know the drill.

[lpskier]

@ALPJr Good luck with a NE nationals. We have a hard time finding a Regionals site. As far as I know we have no firm location for 2017 regionals, although it is looking like Twin Lakes, a good two lake site just outside of NYC.

[ALPJr]

Dual sites - Twin Lakes and Johns Pond.