Radar BallOfSpray Cash Prize at San Marcos - CANCELED

[skidawg]

Big money as title sponsor? Describe big money, prolly not what u think, it would be awesome if there was Goode nats, Obrien big dawg, radar BOS cash prize & Connelly US Open all in the same venue during the same week-it would only attract more participation. One on the pitfalls of our sport is private venues with smaller participation. All the ski companies are set up to sell at nationals every year, having an accompanying event by another sponsor will only bring more participation to the table. One of the big reasons I have skied nationals in the past is because the Obrien big dawg was run in conjunction.

[Bruce_Butterfield]

@BRY all valid points. Let me add some others:

 

1. A title sponsor getting mad and demanding something change is the tail wagging the dog. Sure the sponsors should be accommodated and appreciated within reason, but if they want/demand change that is not in the best interest of the organization, then the organization needs to determine what is in its best interest and if it doesn't work for the sponsor, they should part ways. In this case, it appears the organization sacrificed what was arguably a very good new idea only to appease a sponsor. That is plain wrong IMO.

 

2. Many sporting events have a "Title Sponsor" and numerous lesser tier sponsors. How is this different? Did USAWS agree to an exclusive sponsorship with the title sponsor? I don't know, but if they did, that is very shortsighted. If there was no exclusive agreement, USAWS simply caved.

 

3. If the BOS tournament had been run with no sponsor, and only supported by the entry fees, would it have gone on as planned with no issues? What if it was a boat company sponsoring it - would that be ok?

 

4. Do our sponsors pay for an organization to be short sighted at the expense of its long term viability?

 

Disappointing all around for sure.

[BRY]

@wish yes, we have a participation problem. But I am not so sure at Nat's. Kinda stable at a bit over 600 for a while. I don't want to bag on the BOS Cash thing, I don't, but with an objective look a BOS Cash Tourney is essentially insignificant as far as bringing in new participants to Nats. As a series of events it is a great series, for those that can afford the entry fee, travel expense, days off, 50 and maxed at 50 skiers at a time. I applaud Horton for doing something, I really do. I can't say I am doing the same. But how many new Nat's skiers does it really draw? I have said before and say again, anything done to or around Nat's is just stirring the same pot, mucking with the same pool, making some of the pool happy, some upset and most are indifferent.

 

Love or hate Goode, $h!+ing on a company stepping up and doing what is asked to be the title sponsor of a big event is dangerous. Why do the work and be the title sponsor when you can slide in later, essentially on the cheap. What kind of precedent does that set for other companies thinking of sponsoring skiing. Perhaps BMX (or zip line basket weaving, or downhill unicycle slalom) will treat them better and away the $ go... Only so many companies interested in niche sports. Crapping on companies in the sport is death.

 

I don't know Dave, don't ski on his skis but he and that company have been a consistent supporter of tournament skiing. $h!+ on him and he will probably still stick around, he's a skier and has an irrational passion for it. Like a lot of us, we can feel we are wronged (justly or unjustly) and still ski because we are skiers. It's what we are. The dilettantes (commitment level not skill level) come and go. If we want to grow participation numbers we need to get the 28mph to -22 skier, I believe exponentially more numbers of those out there than ski Nat's. And some of those will be skiers, addicts to Red Ball Fever, hooked for life. That is where growth is and saving the sport. How to find and hook them, don't know, but lets not kill off our few, very few, industry companies in the process.

[BRY]

@skidawg Big money? No, I don't have any idea of the actual investment (money, non-monetary support) to be title sponsor. In fact, I would bet you probably have a better idea than I (if you don't actually know the investment). But a rational analysis would indicate, relative to Nat's budget, it is significant. Straw arguments are useful here:

-If it is $50 then SMRR/AWSA could tell Goode to pound sand and go with Radar. How pissed could Goode be, only out $50.

-If it is $50,000 then Goode kinda some punch, by far the biggest income line item. And they should be pissed after spending (donating in this case) $50K. SMRR/AWSA not necessarily kiss their ass but give them anything reasonable they ask. $50K sponsor money plus entry fee's, that could buy a bitchn' Nat's or line SMRR's pockets.

 

The reality is likely somewhere in between. Goode put in enough that SMRR/AWSA (and probably has some contract, stupid if they don't) so can't blow them off, yet not enough to just blow Radar off (@surdej said couple weeks negotiating?). But Goode apparently put in enough or had a contract (if contractually then SMRR/AWSA agreed so must have been the best deal for SMRR/AWSA at the time) that gave them the punch to kill the Radar thing.

 

I agree with you "it would be awesome if there was Goode nats, Obrien big dawg, radar BOS cash prize & Connelly US Open all in the same venue during the same week". That would be a killer event to go to. Some issues:

-Where you going to hold it? Need lots O'Lakes

-How long? All the BOS Cash lovers seem to be the same people wanting a weekend Nationals. Nat's, BD, BOS, USO all in one weekend or even 4 days? To do so leave lots of people on shore (more likely at home) that otherwise ski. Uh, that's less participation.

 

I further disagree it would increase participation. It would just be all the same people skiing. Big Dawg (what, 40 elites?), BOS Cash (50 max, anybody), US Open (only the uber elites [very cool by the way]) and Nat's at 600+. Men 4 and Men 5 alone at Nat's is more numbers than the other three combined. It just does not move the needle.

 

My mantra: Fixing participation is not done at the top, it's done at the bottom.

In reality any guy into -32 and any gal into -22 is at the top end. Of all the people riding skis out there, how many can run -22/-32? Not many, the perspective of AWSA private lake skiers gets a bit skewed on this I think.

 

You say "All the ski companies are set up to sell at nationals every year, having an accompanying event by another sponsor will only bring more participation to the table." I don't believe it would bring any significant increase in participation. But I could be wrong. So hey, let's give it a try. But to try it, do not sell title rights to one company without telling them there will be an accompanying event at the time. Be up front and that is all part of the negotiation. To slide it in later is deceptive and total BS business practice.

[BRY]

@Bruce_Butterfield

In reply but won't re-post yours for brevity:

 

1. A title sponsor didn't demand change. It is SMRR/AWSA unilaterally made the change. It is not what Goode signed up and paid for. You are correct, if not in the best interest of the organization they should part ways. Apparently not kicking Goode to the curb and honoring (note, word honor there) the intent (perhaps letter) of the agreement previously consummated was deemed in the best interest as that was what was done.

Arguably a good deal, please elaborate, how?. 20 hrs (5hrs a day) lake time allocated to maximum 50 skiers during Nationals for BOS with 20 hrs lake time (5hrs a day) allocated to all skiers 600+ for practice/site familiarization. How is that good for numbers? Way more skiers get water time opening up that BOS resource for practice.

Respect you but I really think you missed the call on this one.

 

2. "Many sporting events have a "Title Sponsor" and numerous lesser tier sponsors." Sure, but how many direct competitors? Why be a title sponsor if your direct competitors get the same access to the event population for less? It is common marketing and promotion 101 in all markets to pay for exclusivity as it is beneficial to both event holder and sponsor short and long term.

 

3. If the BOS tourny had been run with no sponsor or a new sponsor that does not confilct with an existing, contracted, with terms previously agreed to for consideration sponsor then I believe it would be fine. Just my WAG though.

BTW, seems Horton indicated the BOS Cash format is not viable without a sponsor?

 

4. What? Grow the sport, long term viability? What does that mean, please explain. Most of the posters on this thread (a pile on thread it seems) appear to me to just type terms like that jingoistically but don't think a couple steps further to execution or ramification. You typically go further. Please do because I don't see how this Radar BOS 50 max skier deal living or dying affects long term viability of AWSA skiing at all. The concept of tournament(s) parallel to Nat's is another issue, not at the fore as not addressed at all by Goode or AWSA/SMRR. Just a Radar BOS 50 max skier added ex post facto to Goode's deal.

[BRY]

I received this as a PM regarding this thread:

 

"Couldn't agree with you more. We always hear about how ballers are business owners, top execs, etc. Not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM would accept this if it was their business that had secured the rights to an event only to be undercut by a competitor that was contributing zero $$ to the event. Somehow I doubt Monster Energy would be happy if Red Bull ran a concurrent event, at the same site on the same dates, as a Monster NASCAR event. Or that the NASCAR organization would be short-sighted enough to let Red Bull do that. But then again, as the ballers' thinking goes, I guess business principles are suspended in the magical world of the water ski industry."

 

Apparently the sender did not feel comfortable posting a dissenting opinion on this thread, and I understand why. But to the sender, thank you. I appreciate your message and it was compelling enough I felt it should be posted and you should be heard.

Thanks.

[Wish]

@Bry I'm a business owner and have sponsored events (not skiing) along side a title sponsor. If I come up with a more creative and interesting way of getting my name out there to the public at the event, is it ok for the title sponsor to complain to the event organizer or owner of the entity hosting the event in such a way that I have to alter my creative means and dumb down my presence? That just looks petty. Yes, only 50 skiers..that's still an increase and I'll take any increase any day of the week looking at my business services...business 101. Petty is bad optics. Seems to me that's business 101 as well. I believe the title sponsor, to use your words "$hit" on themselves by looking petty. All that was accomplished was having Radar forcibly take down their "bigger, more creative sign" but they are still at the event. Bad optics. Would be diff if Radar had to leave all together or wasn't already there in the first place.

[ALPJr]

@Horton and @"Mateo Vargas" Bring back Uncle Al's Novice Nationals to Berkeley. Same weekend as the Nat's. Get a bunch of sponsors and some side events (wake), tell local TV and draw in crowds from the millions of people in area.

[LeonL]

Will this lead to banning display and sales booths for competing ski brands at Nationals? Again what of the past O'Brien Big Dawg alongside Goode Nationals?

[Wish]

@LeonL good question. And I'll add will this be a slippery slope to title sponsors negotiating contracts filled with even more restriction for second tier sponsors to follow only to lesson their ROI? Potential long term pit falls regardless of the 50 skiers.

[disland]

I have said this before, USAWS needs to re-do their budget so they are no so reliant on money from nationals. This way they dont need a title sponsor. There is no prize money. Some how you should be able to run a tournament with 600 skiers all paying entry fees to make money without a sponsor.

[Razorskier1]

I want to know what the cash prize is for the OB1 tournament this year!

[MattP]

@OB1 $8,200

[MattP]

@disland they need a title sponsor currently... Nationals looses 30k/year...

Someone please explain to me the TV Production cost? 8k!?

Officials Shirts 4k?

 

[disland]

@mattp haha

 

I can read a balance sheet, this has a lot of smoke and mirrors

 

Someone explain what overhead allocation and labor allocation are. LOL

[RazorRoss3]

That document certainly has some line items that raise some eyebrows and some figures for understandable line items that raise some eyebrows but it is only 1 piece of the larger puzzle and I'm not going to start making too many assumptions or conclusions based on that alone. "Labor Allocation" is certainly a line item I would like some clarity on since it single handedly takes you from break even to $30K in the whole and VIP reception expense of $15K seems a little odd as well. Without those the event would net $15K on it's own although I'd imagine you'd still want a title sponsor since that seems like a rather small payoff for the work that goes in and it's operating under the assumption that "labor allocation" and "VIP reception expense" could both be entirely eliminated.

[Kelvin]

I suspect these figures are for all national tournaments because AWSA Nationals has never had TV or Webcast.

[LeonL]

There truly are some hazy items. As for labor, don't USAWS staff get paid whether they're at Nats or not? Or do they get bonuses, or overtime for Nats? Anybody can do math, at $10 a shirt that's 400 shirts. What the.... Or $40 shirts for 100, that kinda pricey.

[Ralph Lee]

I'm not sure why the BOS tournament is cancelled, is it all about losing your AWSA rankings? Or is it now illegal for money to be exchanged?

[Horton]

@Ralph Lee

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

 

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

 

 

http://media.tumblr.com/fe497dd337d9af8479bb6398b9565d16/tumblr_inline_mg6n5ltl6X1rxe4lt.gif

[Ralph Lee]

@Horton Lol!! Winner of 3 whatcha talkin about Willis and countless pandas. I wish you'd shuffle a couple things around and still do it.

 

And yes I still owe you a bottle if scotch...

[thager]

AQP! A quad Panda!

[disland]

@Ralph Lee the quad nice!

[Texas6]

I've never seen a quad. This is a big deal

[Ralph Lee]

@disland I have one goal in life... Put @Horton out at one of his own tournaments. It's possible too, I think he peaked out last fall

[RazorRoss3]

The Quadruple Panda.... I feel a disturbance in the force

[gt2003]

Holy Crap! The QUADRUPLE PANDA! Never seen this before! @Ralph Lee you should be proud!

 

[Ralph Lee]

@Horton believes in public shaming and so do I. I will accept being a scapegoat for his current frustration. The more skiers in one place, the better, PERIOD!! Besides me "Ballers are intelligent people and this shut down is an insult on all skiers intelligence

[Jody_Seal]

This is just another scenario for the sports ultimate detriment. As a skier, official and member it is clear to me that the biggest buzzard has claimed what's left of the sports scraps.

My hat goes out to the people like John and others that continue to promote the sport in directions that are up to date and put the athletes and enthusiast first and encourage participation in the sport.

Thanks to Radar for getting behind this effort to make the nationals a better event.

Sad as other national sites have had extra events : Bakersfield skifly and the ironwood jump event. WPB big dawg and the swami. The big dawg night event at SMRR.

As a AWSA/USAWS (sic) member I find it hard to believe that our own leadership has not gone to bat and made this extra event happen at the nationals.. It's no wonder 75% of the qualified national skiers do not participate at the National event.

I think more and more skiers are going to go down the path that Mr. Darwin and now more skier's are considering and that is the path without the current sanctioning body.

Thanks again Horton for your continued effort.

Viva la Revolution!

[RazorRoss3]

Im not sure there are a lot of boycotters so much as people who were not going before the BOS event, the BOS event made it worth it, and without the BOS event they aren't going again.

[gregy]

I'm in the Austin area, don't qualify for nationals. I was planning on taking the week of Nationals off just because of the BOS tournament. Think I'll save my vacation and just head out on my days off now.

 

Assuming Goode is the reason for this, they have done a lot for this sport, so I do not want to judge on a single event. However, if this is the case in my opinion its a poor decision for the sport as a whole.

 

It's in the best interest of all companies in the industry to assure that the water skiing is as healthy of a industry as possible. If a single company does something that is detrimental to the industry then I could argue that in the long run they are also hurting themselves and their own interest. Just selling skis can't be the final goal, that's a very short sided argument. There is a much bigger picture here. Its something we've been talking about here on BOS. I'm glad Horton and others stuck their neck out and tried something new, but here we are, back to the status quo.

[klindy]

Labor and Allocation expense is the divided cost of running USAWS. It's pure overhead. Loosing $30k is real in terms of running the organization but not indicative of the cash flow from the tournament itself.

 

The TV production costs are from Show Nationals - @kelvin is right that that section of the USAWS books are all Nationals. Incidentally that cost is cover by the same income from the USOC specifically earmarked for TV production.

[RAWSki]

Being in the marketing and TV industry I totally understand the sponsor's conflict issue as well as the disappointment of those who planned to attend one or both events. Seems this might have been avoided if everyone would have sat down or had a conference call in advance of announcement. Perhaps another sponsor would have been acceptable? Hey the costs for TV production and Shirts actually seem very low to me. Why not cover clothing costs with a second sponsor? I am sure a title sponsor might be OK if AWSA found a non-ski maker to provide crew shirts as long as they carried both the event logo and the sponsors.

 

Everyone needs to keep trying and working together to grow the sport and think outside the box like @Horton and many others on this site.

 

 

[LoopSki]

Why do you think lowes is always across the street from Home Depot

[Wish]

@LoopSki and look at the number of people that show up on that street vs just having one or the other...hmmmm

[Mrs_MS]

I would have encouraged my husband to go this year....smh

[RAWSki]

Not really the same thing. Home Depot doesn't pay a town-organization a fee for exclusive rights to sell-promote home improvement supplies in that area. Competition is good for the consumer. Sponsorships are different animal and can be arranged and negotiated in many different ways with exclusivity and rights of refusal.

[gmut]

Just remember @Horton no good deed ever goes unpunished!!

[Drago]

@RAWSki But there is no TV production.

Where is "Title Sponsor" in Income?

[Stevie Boy]

I am an outsider, regards this event, but have read all the various comments, more controversy in the sport, we just do not need the negatives that are coming out of this, it,s the same old story, people with good intentions, steam rollered by the machine.

Please lets hope, sponsors wil still come forward in the future, there are positives for them and positives for skiers, communication is King, let,s communicate.

[Razorskier1]

Sounds like the Radar folks are still planning to have fun on the lake. I suggest that those of you going to nationals stop over and pay them a visit.

[dtm]

Let's remember that these "alternative" tournaments were introduced as the "antidote for tournaments that SUCK". Maybe Goode has partnered with the wrong side.....maybe not. For a title sponsor and/or governing body not react to this conflict, would have been negligent. Blaming them for this situation is unreasonable.

[CptOriginal]

Any word on what Radar will do with the time allotted on Lake 4 during nationals?

[gregy]

@CptOriginal Ski demos for sure. @brooks ?

[skidawg]

Total Radar Awesomeness is gonna happen

[ToddL]

We should do a huge Radar Nation: Team Picture at Lake 4 with as many Radar skis and skiers as possible. @brooks

[brooks]

Working on finalizing a schedule but we will be running practice for the first half of everyday still behind a ProStar and we will be offering ski demos and having fun contests in the afternoons for Radar Swag!

[APB]

The dude from Goode is a kook. If you go to nationals... go to lake 4 and support what radar is doing. Regardless of what they have happening. Radar will continue to influence a new generation of skiers and be one of the brands making skiing fun while organically growing the sport for a long time.

 

I'd go guerilla with my marketing budget and not only slay it on lake 4 but all days at Nats. Money cant buy authentic and heritage. Goode is neither.

 

i don't see an issue with hosting another event on another lake during nats. It's not nats! Although small it may bring new skiers and families to an already stale competitive environment.

 

Only thing radar needs to do differently is kill the damn neon. Please. No seriously. Please.

 

 

[randy meny]

Goode did not complain when the Big Dog sponsored by correct craft was at nationals, I forgot Dave Goode skied the event. USA Water ski needs grow some balls and let the event happen.

[randy meny]

mark matis, Nautique is correct craft. you missed the point.