You want change? Let's hear it!

[JeffSurdej]

OK, I'm sure this thread has been done to death, but its a new year, the board just had their winter meetings so it's time to start working on agenda items for the next meeting. SO, if you want change, let hear it. But you are only allowed to post if you have the exact idea, I don't want to hear what's wrong, I want the solution, I want the answer, we all know all that's wrong, but what's the fix, or fixes??????????? And make them realistic ideas, for example, of course we want to be on ESPN, but lets face it, we have 15,000 total USAWS members, most sponsor won't take your call unless you have 50,000 members. And boat companies are selling 10% 3 event boats so getting on TV is not going to happen right now, we need to build the membership up, sell more product, and then sponsors will come. I challenge you BOS! Good luck.

[Horton]

Off topic posts in this thread will be deleted.

[Horton]

Things I would like to see changed or tasks considered Post # 1

• Rankings lists updated within 24 hrs of any event

• Stop discouraging the use of boats older than 3 years old in tournaments

• Define the purpose of Nationals. Is it a festival or is it a event to crown champions?

• Bring the US Open back to Nationals

• Do a cost analysis on the print publications and consider closing them down

• Change the focus of Jr Dev to bringing new kids into the sport - no longer free coaching clinic for kids already in the sport

• Stop spending any time on the current Grass Roots program

 

More to come

[jedgell]

The whole requirements for hosting class C tournaments needs reworking. There's no reason why a class C tournament can't be run with driver, and boat judge. No need for 3 judges per round. Chief judge, driver and scorer, really? Everyone's busy, how many have the time to go through all the steps to bexome a "chief"? 95% of tournament skiers can easily handle the duties. You'll see more tournaments and probably more members.

[Horton]

Post # 2

Eliminate requirement for boat to call in times. ZO is never wrong. (Class C)

[skier2788]

1. Remove regional requirement for level 8 and above.

2. Easier more clear ways of becoming an official and upgrading your rating. I have searched a fair amount on the website and still have no idea what I need to do to become a regular judge. Like wise we need to allow a regional director the power to grant ratings to individuals they deem competent without going through the requirements of the rating. I.E. a cardiologist should be allowed to be safety without needing all requirements.

3. Ability based grouping for people under level 7. I hear people say they would ski a tournament but they aren't good enough. Have two groups one is those that have never run a pass and the other those that have never run Max age division speed.

 

Just my 2 cents thanks for reading.

Travis Torley awsa#100153156

[aupatking]

1. Tournaments must be public events. Not all, I know, but this must be a huge focus, visibility

2. Can AWSA help with permits for slalom courses on public water?

3. Maybe some tournaments do need to be festivals. (Though I agree, not Nats)

4. Help new clubs start, hold new skier events, and hold first tournaments. Actively help!

[lpskier]

It will be helpful periodically to refresh this discussion to the top of the list so we don't forget about it as the season progresses, or so that new members can can get in on the discussion.

 

It might be a good idea to identify a particular problem or issue, here or in a separate discussion per issue, propose a possible solution and then brainstorm it to come up with the best proposals. Keep each discussion open for a specific period of time so we focus on it, come to a concensis and then move on to the next issue. Address one issue at a time.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@ Horton, re "Eliminate requirement for boat to call in times. ZO is never wrong. (Class C)", I agree ZO isn't wrong, but drivers make mistakes. I have seen numerous times where the driver forgot or brain farted the speed and pulled the skier at the wrong speed. Without calling in the times, most of these would not have been caught.

[LeonL]

@skier2788 regarding advancement to regular judge...go to USAWS website, click on officials resources, click on renewal and advancement. It's pretty clearly defined. @jedgell if you have time to go to tournaments that is the time required to become a judge or advance to a higher level. Meeting the quantative requirements is done at tournaments. You only need to be a regular judge to chief a "C". Once you have the requirements you only need to contact USAWS and request a test. Do the written open book and then sit with a test administrator for a practical. Time expended is minimal. Not an excuse. @Bruce_Butterfield is right, it catches errors. We know ZO is never wrong, human errors continue.

[MrJones]

Performance based grouping instead of age based. (Exception for very young or very old if they chose it)

 

 

[lpskier]

How old is "very old," asks the M6 skier.

[skier2788]

@LeonL thanks I was clicking on 3 event and then going to officials resources and it is not an option there. It's still a little confusing to me. Why is it a chart from who knows when that the numbers are crossed out and a new number set beside it and it says at the top changes from 2014?

[Horton]

I'm pretty sure simply confirming the boat speed would be sufficient as opposed to always calling you in the time. It's a dumb little thing but it's just more one thing that we do because we've always done it and is no longer necessary.

[jedgell]

@LeonL I have had my assistant judge rating, then I had kids that I've had at all tournaments for the past couple years. Usually by myself, so I don't get a chance to judge to maintain the rating. Since I don't work a couple tournaments I forget how to count to six?? everyone's situation is different, that's the reason I haven't been able to maintain my rating, you can call it an excuse doesn't matter to me. Keep justifying the rules and regulations in place, it's obviously working so well...

[disland]

1. Create a class D tournament level. Boat judge only, anyone can be a judge or drive. Class D counts to ranking list. No Safety so no insurance, don't care.

2. Eliminate the need for Class L scores wherever possible.

3. Play hard ball with IWWF to unify the rules and eliminate as much of the tech (cameras, recording devices etc) as possible. If they cant adapt then AWSA should break away.

[AdamCord]

As someone who manufactures and sells skis, I'd be willing to work something out where you get a discount on a new ski if you have an AWSA membership, or if you don't then the membership is included with your ski purchase. It's in my interest to get more Denalis to tournaments for the exposure, and I think it would get more members. We're a pretty small company at this point though, so to really get this to work you'd need to get HO, Radar, Obrien, Connelly, etc. on board.

[John Brooks]

Make it required that all officers, directors, committee chairs, committee members, state, regional or national, all in any type of leadership roll are competitors.

[jcamp]

@johnBrooks So someone has an injury and can't ski, but still wants to contribute to the sport, and they can't?

[Dirt]

Bring back the trial membership or whatever it was called. $10 or $20 for the ability to enter one or two tournaments. An $80 membership plus $60 for two rounds is going to stop most people from trying a tournament, especially if they are on the fence about whether they will like it.

 

Make it a lot easier to be an assistant judge. There should be an online course and a senior judge should give a short practical test and certify the applicant for a time period.

 

Officiating in general. Break it up into ratings and currency. If you get out of currency you cannot judge until you complete some tasks or reviews. We have to stop taking away ratings.

[Dirt]

The bureaucracy of the organization makes change difficult. I proposed the officiating idea to some AWSA leadership people and they liked some of it. The problem is they need someone to take the idea and write it into an actual functioning rule to be proposed at a meeting.

 

Writing it into a functioning rule proposal requires extensive knowledge of current rules and ratings tables to know what to change and how to write the new rule. It gets complicated with judges, drivers, scorers and safety because you have to know each one in order to change it.

 

If you in fact come up with a rule proposal it takes a long time to implement. I think it can only be voted on twice a year.

 

Summary: Cut some of the red tape

 

 

 

[ToddL]

Growth above all else. That should be the only change needed.

 

Which boats to allow at events? What option promotes growth? Boom.

Got a hard decision to make about rules? What option promotes growth? Boom.

Tournament requirements decision... What option promotes growth? Boom.

Setting the budget for next year? What option promotes growth? Boom.

Setting membership rates? What option promotes growth? Boom.

Marketing and Advertising dollars? What option promotes growth? Boom.

 

Drug dealers know how to grow their market share by offering some amount of free samples, just enough to get the person addicted.

 

Make getting hooked on competition affordable, attractive, and visibly marketed.

 

[Wish]

+ @Dirt ..Yep, I think my daughter would still be skiing if I had a trail membership option or the like. As she aged she seemed less interested. Nothing to compete for other then a name on a list and a boring looking list at that. She is very competitive but if it's gonna just be on a list, a revamp of how that list looks and feels matters at those ages. A realtime virtual competition between sites across the country for age devision (maybe on an app running scores next to a pic of skier) would have spiced thing up for her a great deal. But, as she lost interest (not totally) I was not interested in membership fees for her knowing she would only, maybe, do 1 or 2 tournaments. Have something like this where it is a payed level that restricts skier to 1 or 2 tournaments a season but costs less. Folks with family would appreciate it. And have an incentive for tournament organizers to where they actually get a break in fees based on a percentage of youth skiers. Then in turn, organizers could use these funds for medals/trophy/plaques for the youth. Heck, have the AWSA standardize them and have them available for purchase ..or organizers can get their own. But thinking less hassle to track down their own would probably lead to purchasing them from the AWSA. And would allow AWSA to buy awards in bulk (bigger better awards)

[ToddL]

Membership Fee Ideas:

Allow 1-Day Memberships for Class C Slalom and Trick

NCWSA - first year after graduation 75% off!

First year as Active Membership - if you ski in 5 or more sanctions, you get 50% refund on membership fee.

Member non-renews? Invite them back with a 1-time 25% off invitation to return membership rate.

 

In all cases above getting someone involved and having them pay something (even if a lot less) is always better than those people not participating at all.

 

[Texas6]

@Wish - I'm a huge proponent of the virtual tournament idea, as indicated in my other posts. But I like where you are going with it. Skier profiles, tell you more about who's skiing that day and what you're up against. And it isn't technically complicated. This is the easiest way to bring more competition to your tournament weekend and the kids will eat it up. You could even do virtual competitions of this ski club vs that one, or Lakes of Katy Versus Lakes of Whoever, or everyone competing from this region or that region on a given weekend is virtually competing; options are endless this way.

[Wish]

And with Live Stream via Facebook or similar service, kids (adults) could literally stream a person(s) pass if it can be integrated in with such a skier score app...I think. It does at least open up possibilities to a more direct competitive nature and heck, I'd love to see @OB1 crash at ball 3@38 knowing he watched me (or knew through a real time app score) that I skied around 4 ball a bit earlier that day.. ;) Guess I'm a kid at heart. App would have to be very user friendly. Voice driven if possible.

 

As to real time. Hard to believe in this day and age that we need a laptop hooked to wifi to enter scores. Thinkn boat judge, smart phone and a well designed and integrated app. Speak skiers name..skier pops up with pic. Enter #of buoys or whatever is needed and hit send.

[ToddL]

What if membership rates were based upon levels? Level "x" and below are discounted as intermediate levels, while above that are "advanced" and pay full rate? Intermediate membership can still ski in any event (full insurance). Not watered down.

[LeonL]

@disland I just can't get behind allowing anyone to judge or drive and then having the scores go on the ranking list.

[ToddL]

Maybe we should have weighted averages in the ranking calculation.

Average all Class L/R scores together

Average all Class C/E scores together

Average all Class F scores together

 

Skier with scores at all three levels, Total Average score is based upon the following weighting:

L/R weighted .50 or more up to 1

C/E weighted .30 (if present)

F weighted .20 (if present)

 

Skier with no L/R scores:

C/E weighted .30 or more up to 1

F weighted .20 (if present)

But limited to max level - see below

 

Skier with no C/E or L/R scores:

F weighted 100%

But limited to max level - see below

 

Skiers with no Class C/E/L/R are limited to a certain level at best (Level 4 max?), but their Total average is equal to 100% of their total F average.

Skiers with no Class L/R are either limited to certain level (Level 7 max?) or have their average penalized and allowed into upper levels if penalized score get's them above Level 7.

 

Thus, all scores go into the formula. Skiers with skills and who want to have a high average would be encouraged by the above math to seek E+ tournaments and kill it there. Skiers who are up and coming will still get on the rankings list appropriately without any E scores. Class C rules can be softened a little. Class E could equate to current Class C.

[eleeski]

@Dirt Here is an example of the official form and a needed change:

 

AWSA Rules Amendment Request Form

In order to request that the rules be amended you must be a U.S. Citizen and a current member of USA Water Ski with AWSA listed as

your primary sports division. This form must be submitted in electronic format to the Chairman of the Rules Committee by August 31st

to be considered for the upcoming year.

Member Name: _Eric Lee_____________________________________

USAWS Member Number______________________________

Age Division_M6_______(ex. B1)

U.S. Citizen?_Y___ yes _____ no

AWSA primary sports division? _Y___yes ____no

Rule number to change?____11.12 _____ (ex. 1.08)

Suggested wording:

11.12 B) 1) A clearly recognizable trick shall be credited. Deductions for obvious form breaks shall be limited to 10% per each form break.

11.12 E) replace “zero” with “a deduction”

11.12 H) “zero” with “a deduction”

11.12 I) replace “no credit” with “a deduction”

 

 

 

Reason: Regular trick judges are taught to recognize tricks. Regular judges make up the bulk of the judging at most tournaments so most scores are based on the recognition of tricks – not close scrutiny of credit/no credit. Thus it is reasonable to give a score based on identification of the trick. A 10% cut for a form break is quite reasonable and will improve consistency of scores. Some tricks may have more than one form break ( example: tip drag and short landing) so multiple 10% deductions may be appropriate.

 

 

Background: Trick judging is quite subjective. Unfortunately the subjectivity manifests in an all or nothing score. No other performance based sport gives all or nothing based on subjective assessment of form breaks. A deduction system is reasonable, workable and will enhance the consistency of judging and scoring. A sloppy SLO has much more spectator appeal than a perfectly executed surface O. Let’s remove the random inconsistency for the skiers, make the scoring match what the spectators see, encourage fun exciting tricks and make the skier’s display the focus of tricks – not the judge’s philosophy. Partial credit for tricks will solve the trick judging problem and encourage more skiers to try fun exciting tricks.

 

The bold items are the official form. If you submit an official form, at least they have to look at the idea and think about it. Even if they dismiss the idea, it might fly in a couple years if you resubmit. Along with this excellent proposal, I resubmitted proposals to deal with ZBS and MM last year. Things changed.

 

Eric

[Than_Bogan]

"Things changed." That's the sentence to pay attention to (and the primary reason I hit the Like button).

[bbirlew]

First off, I'm Canadian, so I don't really get a vote here! However, I wonder if @ToddL's idea of a weighted ranking list might have some merit.

However, I'd also be temped to place an additional weight on scores from regionals and nats. That might drive some more of the qualified people to attend.

Then at the end of the year (after Nats? Maybe at the closing banquet?) do something to recognise the top finishers on the rankings list for that season too.

 

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Lots of interesting ideas have been brought up with many pros and cons, but I am I the only one who sees the elephant in the room? Across these multiple threads, there have been ideas that most of us would call “no-brainers”. To start:

 

1. Allow MD, EMT, RN, etc to be safety directors without any other administrative BS

2. Freeze the ranking list cutoff point for Nationals qualification at whatever score is required immediately after nationals for the next ski year. This eliminates the floating requirement for those on the edge that may get bumped out at the last minute.

3. Kill the magazine and Regional guides and make them all on line. No one reads them.

 

Seriously, what I mean by the elephant in the room comment is that if our organization is incapable of immediately implementing such obvious changes, how can anyone realistically expect ANY meaningful change for items that are not as clear cut?

 

@JeffSurdej, if you’re serious about change, there is your easy start. If the board hems and haws, and comes up with lame excuses why the above can’t be done, I think we can all safely conclude our organization is broken beyond the membership’s ability to repair it.

 

I have lots of other ideas, but really don’t want to waste my time when common sense is in such short supply. So surprise me :)

 

[Horton]

Post # 3 LOCK THE RULE BOOK FOR 5 YEARS

 

Every time we get a new rule someone is happy and someone is unhappy. I believe if you just stop changing the rules, the overal membership will be happier.