ToddL

Can someone with database modeling design all the ranking, etc. Pages? It sure would be nice if there was CSV export of results in a standard flat file table fomat.

So, is there any updates on this initiative?

@Horton I get that and mostly agree. Like I said above the whole "should we" argument has been beat down pretty sufficiently. I was just curious if it were to happen, how'd people react. It is still an interesting question even if doing so would stop the apples from getting delivered. @unksskis - interesting. So, if none of them support USAWS events, are the events they participate in part of any other organized body or is competition something done as only independently at local parks?

At one time, @jdarwin was supposed to be our new leader. I nominate @ForrestGump and @skidawg to co-chair the new ATWSCA. American Traditional Water Ski Competitors Association. Would you be a member of "atwhiska"?

The cows at Frameswitch Ski Lakes are all senior rated officials now.

@MattP - can't implies impossible. Yet, you just inferred the possibility by specifying some additional pieces necessary. Still, I thought I was pretty clear above about not beating the dead horse of "should we / could we". This poll is all about "what if it happened".

In another thread, additional requirements upon members sparked some discussion about governing body bureaucracy. I know AWSA splitting off has been discussed in the past. It typically fizzles out with some form of "we have become dependent upon their funding and it would be too hard to do it ourselves" conclusion. Rather than debate that statement, I have a different question in my head. It comes from the perspective of "how many skiers really need/want anything more than the original scope of 'independent' AWSA?" So, rather than debate personal preference in a flood of comments, let's get a poll pulse of the volume of skiers who fall into these categories below. Assumption: Pro, Elite, and Record tournaments can still conform to IWWF/World Ranking criteria, but would have to sanction them separately somehow with IWWF (not sure how this would work??) Poll Question: If AWSA actually did split away from IWWF/USAWS (some form of liability still provided by AWSA to only AWSA members), which best describes your participation in that scenario:

Regionals is a family reunion of skiers. You get to see those crazy cousins that live in the other state. Families always consider activities for all kids, teens, and adults. That's why it is fun. Sure, there is competition during the day, but there is social time in between and afterward. Nationals has typically been attended by these types of skiers: 1) First-time qualifiers who can afford to travel 2) Podium Potentials - majority of the Top 10% of the division by ranking (who can afford to travel) 3) Other qualified skiers who live within a reasonable distance (and thus can afford to travel) 4) Other qualified skiers who can afford/justify travel 5) People who plan their family trip in conjunction with nationals I don't see much deviation from the above. The members of each of those groups will change each year, but those groups seem to be well represented. So, if the Regionals participation requirement was dropped, who else would go? Would the number of members in the above groups change that much? Did I miss a group? Possibly fewer ranking-list-qualified skiers would attend regionals, creating room for lower ranked skiers to podium at regionals creating more first-time qualifiers, assuming they also meet #3, #4, or #5. Possibly a few more Top 10% skiers might go assuming they also meet #3, #4, or #5.

@AmandaLR - and I think your experience is wonderful! I sincerely hope that more teams also found the time away from competition as an opportunity to develop relationships, explore comradery on the water and grow as a team! Unfortunately, not every team had the means to even practice during this time. My son would have loved to have had your experience during this time.

I get what you are saying but this is an individual sport activity where individual scores are aggregated into the concept of a team score. I think this reality is lost on so many.

@MattP - My son did all of that and more. He met frequently with the club sports manager within their Rec Sports Department. He provided all of the USAWS protocols. He found a way to ensure that all skiers had personalized gear and that there would be zero sharing of team equipment (TXSU school proposed rule). He explained that they gather only outside, they have the means to keep 6 ft apart. They would limit boat occupancy to driver, observer with both masked. They use soap for goodness sake to put on bindings. You know the same soap that people are recommended to wash hands with. It goes on and on. Still, they would not budge on the one-size-fits-all sports policies. He is the team captain and has had discussion with NCWSA region board members and the other two Texas teams (who were never prevented from skiing, and who both are allowed to compete). He has always skied AWSA events during the summer. We know that is an option. But NCWSA events require team affiliation which goes back to my response above to @Broussard.

@Broussard - did you read the attachment? Big Al isn't skiing for any college. Big Al isn't contributing to any team score. Big Al is just a skier who happens to be in college. Let's look at this from a completely opposite angle. How can NCWSA welcome skiers who don't have a ski team, but are college students? This proposal addresses that question. If a school is banning team sports, then essentially there is no team at that school for that semester. It doesn't exist. That makes these college students who happen to like to ski around buoys simply that. The proposal treats any college student who's school doesn't have a valid team as a welcome participant at a competition. The difficulty that I tried to address in the proposal was how can these individuals participate without compromising the activity of those valid and active ski teams competing? How can the two situations coexist at the same event? Thus, all the focus on ensuring there would be NO grouping of the unaffiliated individuals' scores by educational institution was needed to ensure that true team competition continues without impact. Further, such a change would not open floodgates overwhelming LOCs, etc. Not every individual is ready to resume activity, either. Plus if if did result in a huge influx of unaffiliated skiers, isn't that exactly the most desired, #1 hope for our sport anyway? My comment about NCWSA support was not eluding to any expectation that they brow beat university leadership. I am sorry that I did not elaborate initially. My criticism is that they really resisted going outside the current model to address the desire of the individuals who want to ski and happen to be in college. The mandate of "team" affiliation is the actual barrier to current participation in our sport for collegiate skiers.

The TxSU Ski Team has had a very stressful and uphill battle to return to skiing. Both their host site leadership and the college rec sports overly cautious policies have put up barriers. Neighboring schools/ski teams have been skiing/practicing and some have had the approval to even travel for competitions. The TxSU team was/is at risk of dissolving. My son has even considered changing schools so as to restore and salvage his "collegiate" skiing experience. NCWSA has not been able to provide any support that I can see. I provided a very detailed proposal (attached) to allow for college skiers to at minimum ski and compete as individuals. It is a very radical idea, but something like that could have let those who were willing and able to ski to continue to do so. Each school comes at the question of sports from very different contexts & local regulations, and school policies may or may not consider each individual club/rec sport in terms of its actual risks/mitigations. Rather, many schools either fully ban all activities or only allow NCAA ($$) activities. Many collegiate teams who were practicing were likely doing so out of sight and without explicit permission of the schools. Yes, it is a huge risk to the sport. Yes, it does need a radical and out-side-of-the-box solutions and options.

Well, maybe some of that extra $55,000.00 of revenue from moving the website to the new host could pay for stickers and a card with a link to the site for all ski and inboard boat purchases... From JeffS on the website thread: "A decision was made about 3 years ago to go this route, we could either pay to rebuild a new site or take advantage of being part of the USOC and not only get a free website but get paid $55k a year for using their platform. " Heck $55k/yr pays for over 640 individual competitive memberships. Seems like it would cover a 1st year free program. I doubt we have gotten over 600 new members each year, possibly never.

You can lead a skier to a tournament, but you can't force them to fall in love with competition. - Me USAWS/AWSA Membership is about commitment to competition participation. Anytime anyone asks about membership, just replace that word with competition. So, the questions being asked is really: How do we attract skiers to fall in love with competition? How do we retain skiers who already compete? These questions have been asked repeatedly. The same barriers come up each time: 1) Access/ability to train for competition 2) Costs associated with #1 As noted above, it is a passion from within. Some have it. Some need it nurtured. Yet, some won't ever develop it. The former and latter will happen without any actions on our part. It is the middle population that matters. It is the skier who likes, follows competitive news/podcasts, etc. but hasn't yet competed. That's the skier who needs attention, assistance, and guidance which ignites the passion. All solutions should be vetted in terms of how well does it align to that audience.

typo above. NWSCA --> NCWSA

I think there are two real things at play. 1) Our bodies do change with age. Sucks, but it is a reality we all must face. Further, to keep what we have takes more effort the older we get. Core strength and balance are critical to maintain what we have. 2) Change is scary. It is scary to try something new. Kids just do it. Adults analyze the instruction, debate if they trust it, then go out and only kind of try it. Muscle memory and habit takes over. The longer we have skied wrong, the harder it is to overcome and force change. I just remind myself that progress can never happen without a change. Progress is simply changes in the desired direction.

I'd love to see an episode with a notable skier who doesn't surpass -32 off and a pro skier discuss the notion that short line skiing and longer line skiing are actually two different things where skills learned at long line don't translate to short line. Is there really some form of technique transition as some point up the line?

@Chris Rossi How about an episode discussing NWSCA difficulties with college administrations prohibiting club sports or team travel and the proposed "nationals" in the spring? Also discuss how all this impacts eligibility, etc. There are some really difficult times currently and ahead for our collegiate skiers.

@klindy - are you so sure? What I see is the same starting position, same landing position, same rotational direction and on the same wake. The only difference is how the maneuver crosses the wake. One is outside in, and the other is inside out. Totally bad a$$ skills, too.

Front row, right in front of Eddie. 1986 Shreveport. Opening night of 5150 tour. Amazing how he never seemed to put any effort in and never missed a note.

All of this is modeled on pure glass calm water, right? I've seen pictures of that stuff. LOL.

@tjs1295 ...on the the two most popular public lakes in ATX. Possibly others do it, too.

If not time slots, then whole weekends. In my area of TX, holiday weekends ban personal watercraft. It could be any type of craft. It could be wake sport boats for the 1st weekend of the month. The easier to remember when it is/isn't allowed, the easier it is to comply.