chris_logan

I purchased some of the first '14 A3's from Wade and he had them shipped directly to me. They arrived 4 days after they had been made. At least for HO, I think they only manufacture sold orders.

@skibrain love the concepts. The only thought I had about it would be to use the colors of the course in the wording on the back. Not sure how yellow would work out in that combination, and since it's your design I'll leave all that up to you. Just my .02

So @Horton is doling out 115 baller coins to all ballers with a bracket that beat his? Can't make a wager and not hold up your end.

On exceptionally cold days, I have worn my longsleeve Camaro shorty under a thin sweatshirt in my hybrid dry suit. Stays toasty inside with water/air temps in the low 40's.

Great skiing, Matt! Do it again next week. Let's shoot for a jump PB, as well. I've got to give you props, though, on this being the most NASCAR-like, post-tournament, interview style post I have read in a while.

I did a quick search and found these. lightinthebox.com/Solar-Power-Water-Floating-LED-Light--1049-CIS-32007-_p157282.html?currency=USD&litb_from=paid_adwords_shopping They appear to be inflatable and are 11-20cm, which 8" is 20.32cm - so perfect size and colors. Durability might be an issue.

So... surely it doesn't have wooden stringers. At least I would hope not.

@LeonL I believe you meant .net ?

Just bought a Ram crew cab 1500 eco-diesel last Monday. Tons of cool gadgets, super quiet and comfortable ride, and miles of leg room in the back. Best part was we got out the door for $13k under sticker price. It was totally worth the 3 hour drive to get it, and pulled a 1700 lb trailer all 167 miles home with it and still got 26 mpg. It never even noticed the trailer.

@MrJones you know the saying, "Go big, or go home from the hospital." There's actually some truth in that...

@DefectiveDave you are not making me feel any better about having my reflex 500 set on 6 (one step closer to an OB4)... Sorry for your injury, and congrats on the practice pb!

Good point. I am probably at a pretty even split on how many tournaments I attend between NCWSA (as an official and skiing alumni) and AWSA. Who needs the attention more? I refer back to @Than_Bogan's quote "In the long term, we need them more than they need us..." @klindy could you elaborate on how listing a primary and secondary sport works with USAWS, especially if you keep AWSA as a secondary sport?

@E_T in regard to Matt's ^ comment, I no longer ski for a college team and haven't for 2 years now. I still have NCWSA as primary and AWSA as secondary. Hopefully that pushes a little funding their way. IMO more people should do that as well, if it helps.

@eleeski A delicate balance indeed. I carry a bit of a passion for this, and here's why: It was only until my final 2 years of my 6 year collegiate stint (mixed in a couple years of b-team to stretch it out) that I became a somewhat decent skier (could run my opener, get points tricking, and land jumps at fairly decent distances). If entry fees had been any more than they were, I likely wouldn't be in the sport today at all. Why would I have paid more than $25 to go suck at skiing in front of peers who don't suck at skiing?? The balance of entry fees, during that time, literally is what kept me going to tournaments until I was good enough (and addicted enough) to make it a priority in my budget. I would say over half of the skiers at the collegiate tournaments are new skiers, and thus, don't necessarily have skiing on their list of priorities. If you price those skiers out of tournaments, you won't actually be making more money at tournaments with higher entry fees if the volume of skiers goes down... and then you are back to shrinking the sport, and not growing it. I really think that, as far as tournament costs go, a collegiate tournament should not be so much of a profit center to the host team as much as it should just be guaranteed not to lose money. Making money is what club/team fundraisers are for - sell shirts, food at tournaments, cups to a keg party, etc. All of which are optional items during a tournament weekend. But don't make it a required cost. @BCM I can fully related to being given a $0 budget to work with from the school. At Auburn we tried to keep the up-front costs low, to encourage membership and keep money in the bank. We then spread out the costs of each tournament weekend to those who attended the tournament.

@oldjeep it depends on the level of support that the teams get from their school. Most collegiate skiers are responsible for ALL of their costs. The usual exceptions are the schools that give scholarships, "scholarships", and/or have skiing as a varsity sport and not a club sport.

@SDNAH2OSKIER not in the summer... more like just during the months of September and April. And the $900 is per scholastic year, so for over the course of two years it would be $1,800.

You mean like the gun sight on Centurions? Don't need it to be more complicated than that do we?

@webbdawg99 Understood. That's why I wish that spring tournaments carried more meaning so that attendance would be higher. Auburn lost money (as little as $50, high as $300) on every spring tournament they've held in the past 7 years. If the people don't show for the tournament, then what's the point? Why have spring tournaments if all they do is lose money? Maybe have a seasonal team fee that is held by the conference and used as necessary to make sure each tournament breaks even. At the end of the season, whatever is left can be redistributed back to the teams. Look at it as a tournament contingency fund.

I look at in terms of total cost for the weekend on each skier (big picture). Once I factor in (per person) $12 hotel, $40 food, $35 beverages/bar, $33 gas. This brings total cost per skier per tournament to $150/tournament. Multiply that by 3 tournaments per season, and you have a no-job college kid asking their parents for $900 (per year) across two seasons (fall/spring) to go to tournaments.

I thought I'd make this poll to gather more opinions on this, without going completely off-topic in a different thread. Try to use the logic of a college kid on a drinking team... I mean, ski team. What would be a fair cost for each skier entry to a regular season collegiate tournament (excluding regionals, nationals, and all-stars)? Consider that each team will likely carpool to the tournament and cram into as few hotel rooms as possible - dividing up the group costs at the end of the weekend. Please explain the logic of your answer.

@webbdawg99 @MattP the spring tournaments in the SAC have been money losing nightmares for years. The fall isn't usually a problem turning a profit, especially if the 2 FL teams show up. My point being: team attendance should be more of mandate in the spring (more weight for all-stars standings), which would likely solve the money issue. I don't necessarily see that raising entry fees will help because participation from the scrappy teams full of new-to-the-sport skiers will go down (I know there's no way I would have been able to afford $40 entry fees for every tournament and would have likely cut half of them out)... but I digress. @RazorRoss3 you need to find judges like the SAC judges (low cost alumni). I remember what its like trying not to lose money on collegiate tournaments. So when I work the tournaments now, the only thing I ask for is a ham & cheese sandwich on Saturday and maybe a couple bottles of water (if for some reason I can't get to my own). No hotel. No anything else. If I can get a ski ride in, cool - but not a requirement.

Seems if the sailing club controls the lake, then they'd want similar conditions to what you normally want with skiing... Not: 1)giant wakes from surfing and wakeboarding, and 2)random wallys pulling tubes with no regard for any other boat on the water. I assume that if the 20mph speed limit is remotely enforced, that probably keeps PWCs to a minimum. Also, thinking about that speed limit, it should be interesting to see how they handle it when the show ski team transitions into barefoot.

I think, all in, you can ship your ski safely for about $30 counting packaging. Take your bindings off and pack them in your bag with you on the plane. Much cheaper than checking it on the plane in a hard case. Just ship it, insured, with a guaranteed delivery of the day before you get there (to be safe).

@crashman I think a good starting point would be to approach the governing body that created the statute of "skiing is not allowed" and simply and respectfully just inquire as to why that rule is in place. That would allow you to formulate an intelligent presentation to them to change their thought process and prove why skiing should be allowed.

If you know you missed a gate or buoy - call it on yourself. If you truly don't know, then keep skiing. 98% of the time, you will know.