Another sanctioning organization for 3 event waterskiing. Would you consider joining?

[Jody_Seal]

If another three event waterski sanctioning body came into fruition would you consider joining? This organization with less policy baggage, dedicated to economic competition and would subscribe to practical rules and policy's for the advancement of it's skiing membership within the sport.

Please be advised this question is not just for current members of USAWS but also of those site lurkers and skiers that currently are not members of AWSA/USAWS

[Taperflex]

The NBSWSA

The No BullS**t Water Ski Association

[ALPJr]

Only if USAWWS folded. Thought about signing up for INT back when they were in New England and the kids were young and just getting started, but always ended up asking myself... Why? The only reason I considered it was that they included wakeboarding which at the time meant that a couple of our kids could participate too. Just didn’t make sense to join both org’s as I was only doing a couple local tourneys a season and the kids had plenty of fun hanging out on our boat or at the ski club once or twice a week.

[Chef23]

It is hard to tell in a vacuum. I skied some INT events when I was just getting into tournaments and when my daughter was skiing some and couldn't run a full pass. The INT events were fun but expensive for the amount of passes you got. We migrated to USAWS events and I think the INT has kind of died in NE.

 

In general I don't have a big issue with current tournaments. In NE they are mostly Class C, the costs are pretty reasonable and you generally get 2-3 rounds per tournament.

[jcamp]

[BraceMaker]

The USAWS is what it is due to the members who have pushed it to be that way.

It would seem that if the same people start to get involved the same nonsense would come to pass just over more time.

 

I would like to see the individual states worry about what promotes skiing in their state and be a larger component of the day to day situation. IE. All states become affiliates that you deal through; not through USAWS as a whole.

[Than_Bogan]

VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

 

But seriously, probably not. Sports organizations have inherent problems, and USAWS doesn't seem worse (nor any better) than most.

[John Brooks]

Would I ski any better?

 

Second to @Than_Bogan comments about sports organizations.

 

Although I think any sports organization needs to be run (officers and board members) by those who participate as athletes.

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal will you be president?

[Horton]

I have some strong opinions about some of the things the organization has done over the years but splitting off is like voting for a 3rd party candidate. No one wins.

[ScottScott]

I would be more inclined to get involved in whats there, and try to (I won't say fix, but...) make improvements. Nothing is perfect, but hopefully there are well meaning people trying to do the best they can. I can only guess that this new organization would have similar issues a few years down the road.....then what.....start another?

[RichardDoane]

There is possibly a need for a one event organization (slalom) but not another three event. It would be a better idea to improve what exists than start from scratch.

[Jody_Seal]

@JeffSurdej you flatter or inflate yourself with that question . Why must another organization have a president?

 

I asked this question due to the continued rules, policy and mandates that keep coming down without membership knowledge or up front information. Transparency from the organizing body continues to be non existant and it seems mandates like the safe sport came down with out even any discussion with the sports leaders about how or if it fits or can better be implemented.

It seems our organization can send out electronically requests for renewing membership but struggles with bringing forth information of direction and policy for consideration to its general membership.

Like the question should usaws remain a partner with USOC? What benefit does this relationship bring to the awsa and what amount of financial support does this partnership provide. Most if any members know nothing about this partnership and what it entails or what kind of burden this may be.

 

 

Looks like so far the votes show yes many would move or consider another option.

I think that's says something for a small spot sampling.

[NikolG]

The grass is always greener on the other side, isn’t it? Good luck with a new organization, I prefer to water my own :)

[Golfguy]

I will help you organize it.

 

[ForrestGump]

Jody speaks what people outside of the Southeast region have been speaking about for years.

[Nando]

I did seven terms as pres of my state association (plus three as VP) and still hold a grudge that the INT screwed up what was our primary tournament site for us by disrespecting the few homeowners on it, the city officials who tried to help them out, and the county parks people who ran the park they used. It took ten years to get back there, so I'm skeptical that a new governing body would be better. I do think that by trying to be everything to everyone, USAWS is doing skiers a disservice.

[ski6jones]

Don't forget, that's USAWS&WS.

[lpskier]

I answered maybe, but I did not say anything about leaving USAWS. I looked at as belonging to two rather than one or the other.

[KRoundy]

I said yes before looking at the comments. I was assuming this would be in addition to USAWS&WS, and thought it could not hurt to have more people doing skiing stuff. After reading the comments and thinking some more I might have to say, "it depends". If the idea was to be "anti-USAWS&WS" I'd pass.

[Drago]

I say maybe, meaning maybe I would do both. (You realize only awsa members that provide their # can can comment on "politics" on BOS? )

[Jody_Seal]

A number of years ago in another sport that closely has some very similar attributes and policy's as our sport a large group splintered off and started a separate sanctioning organization.

The American power boat association was the overseeing sanctioning body.

This overseeing board had a one size fits all divisions set of policy's. The group of racers that splintered off was the small outboard racers. Their biggest reason was they were being charged the same insurance rates as the large inboard class on up to the unlimited where their speeds were nearly 200 mph. The fastest speed at the time for these small outboard classes was in the high 70s and was not seeing the catastrophic life ending accidents that the faster classes were seeing. Now this small outboard group made up membership wise nearly 40 percent of the organization. This was a true financial crisis for the apba as in one year they lost thousands in revenue that crippled the organizations working structure. Now eventually these racers came back to apba only because the organization buckled to the needs and policy's that these classes needed to compete.

 

Today Like the apba the awsa is a near shadow of its glory days yet our organization is being policed, ruled and insured in a one size fits all system by usaws. The awsa is structured and has been structured from the start of its exsistance to be self governing and supporting. The usaws experiment has really put a damper on this organization's ability to grow, renew and reinvent if needed. We are that 40 percent now that are being burdened with policy's and direction that continues add to the demise of our sport.

 

I voted maybe also in this poll that I started and as a officer in the largest sanctioning state of our organization I hear our membership loud and clear and also field questions of how and why many of these policy's get implemented without membership consideration or vote where applicable.

If that AWSA had the opportunity to splinter away from usaws most every one in this federation would welcome it.

If another organization came into being that was three event (slalom, trick and jump) oriented that had an all inclusive ideology it would probably gain momentum and grow quite rapidly and yes I would jump ship and support it.

 

Going back to the question mr Surdej asked would i be president of an organization? answer is no. I know the burden of leadership that he has and truly respect what he does for our sport. Yet he does this with in many instances with one hand tied behind his back sometimes both.

Thank you Jeff Surdej for your continued commitment and dedication to three event waterskiing.

Where can I get a pair of those red white and blue shorts ??

 

3 event Waterskiing will never be an Olympic sport! It is time to administer to a realistic direction.

[ALPJr]

I've been a supporter or active member since I found out about the AWSA in my high school library's card catalog back in 1975. I voted maybe only on the outside chance the org goes away someday. I've never had any problems. Only suggestion I've had for the past 20ish years is that we might see more family participation in tourneys if a wakeboard round was part of it.

[RichardDoane]

@ALPJr not to get off topic, but we should encourage kids to ride the right sized/shaped WB (30% rule) as a trick ski whenever possible

[Kelvin]

@RichardDoane it’s now 35%. Almost all wakeboards fit. The only issue now is the depth of the built in ridges.

[skiinxs]

As a few noted above my yes was in addition to, not instead of. I also don't believe AWSA derives any benefits from USAWS (and whatever), on the contrary I believe costs are significantly higher due to the increased risk.

[sunvalleylaw]

I checked maybe. It all depends if the new organization put on economical events near me. I am more about the grass roots, family events.

 

And also maybe because another organization in a sport with limited participation could dilute participation and resources further.

[motoskier]

They did this same type of thing with Indy car racing a few years ago

, (ruined the sport)

[Horton]

@motoskier if there was a "Cupcake & Water Ski League" would you join?

 

I just give myself an off topic

[sunvalleylaw]

deleted.

[aupatking]

I just think the actual sport needs to be focused on the actual sport. 3 point shooting contests are pseudo interesting to watch, but they are not basketball.

[Dirt]

I would join especially if it was AWSA separated from USAWSandWB like it used to be. It would be even better if Jeff still ran it without all the constraints and other disciplines. We need to leave the Olympic organization.

I support AWSA but not the rest of it. It is too splintered and. i suspect we are subsidizing the other disciplines.

[MattP]

@Dirt would you take NCWSA and Adaptive with you?

[Dirt]

@MattP. Good question. I hadn't thought of that. Yes, they are 3 event skiing.

[Horton]

IF the all of AWSA could split from USAWS&WS that would be great - I think. For the bulk of the sport our association with IWWF is not important. If you wanted a R or L event and scores to go to international then you would need to sanction it through USAWS&WS?

 

The story that I am not 100% sure is true but that I find VERY upsetting is the following….. AWSA is the biggest part of USAWS&WS. AWSA and Showski together are 80 or 90% +/- (If show ski wants to come alone with us I do not have an issue. We seem to co-exist fine). AWSA and Showski together are the biggest members of IWWF but IWWF sees cable wake board as the future.

 

So to restate… If I understand this correctly… AWSA (with or without Showski) are the biggest group in USAWS&WS and USAWS&WS is the biggest group in IWWF but IWWF is focused on and activity the we do not participate in. Personally I am as interested in Cable Wake Board as I am in Badminton. I am not against Badminton and Cable Wake Board but these are not my passion.

 

[gjohnson]

I would if @MarcusBrown was in charge and it was something completely different than what we have now. I don't see how a different organization would make competitive water skiing better or grow. People are reluctant to embrace new ideas/change, especially the age of the crowd you see running tournaments.

[JeffSurdej]

@Jody_Seal thanks for the comments, honestly, means a lot. Obviously, as president of AWSA I'm not in favor of starting an entire new organization, but all that aside it would be very hard for it to succeed. Some of the biggest reasons water skiing (AWSA) is not growing has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with cost, access, and a generation with more options to spend their time and money on. Factors we can not fix with any atmosphere. Now I'm not defending a lot of things we do and did and will do, and I'm not saying we haven't loss hundreds of members due to some policies but starting an entire new organization would be so hard to sustain with boats, sites, insurance, sponsors, etc. INT is all but over, it had a decent run but is pretty much over now.

 

BUT, why don't we (AWSA) start our own INT, recreational, whatever you want to call it, type league that is under or next to AWSA but has less rules, officials, cameras, no board, and all the other hoops to jump through. To me this would be the best answer as we unite together but we provide avenues for all types of skiers?

 

Actually AWSA Exec discussed this in length in December and its one of our ideas in the near future. Part of the reason this idea came about is that after 3 years I've come to realize that I'm not going to change the current membership and structure, I've tried a lot of things and we've had a lot of small wins, enough to at least stop the bleeding in membership loss but we still have not come up with "the next big thing" something to really move the needle, to get to $10k members.

 

Yes we have grassroots but I think trying to host these F events along side C is not growing or working. Now, there are a lot of sites starting or have been having a lot of success with these wednesday ski league and I think we can spin something off that.

 

Moral of my rant here, instead of starting a new organization, if there is a good idea out there for a new league lets start it under AWSA and do our best to avoid all the rules, politics, that comes with AWSA or maybe thats not not possible b/c we would still need awsa insurance which means safety, drivers etc? But it's worth a try first.

 

Lets here some ideas for a new ski league, what would it have and not have, how would it work, run, where, etc.

 

 

[sunperch]

@Jody_Seal Can I change my vote to definitely yes if AWSA changes to ABD? I'm getting tired of all of the changes that are being made in hopes of inticing membership to grow. As stated earlier in this thread, membership has not grown despite all of the changes that have already been implemented. LOCs can host a variety of different kind of tournaments (handicapped, head to head, GR, etc.)if they're wanting to spice things up. No need to change the core of our sport that works well for many of us.