buechsr

Badger, that might be great, but there's a difference between a wide ride ski, and a shape that is fractionally wider than a design intended to be used at 36. Jack's son at 135# on a 66 at 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 is a LOT different than you at 170 on a 67 going (and staying) at 28. Not to mention stark differences in forgiveness, sweet spot, and stiffness. I'm not necessarily advocating as wide as a butterknife/katana, but there's a plethora of videos of that ski being run shorter than 28. I'd at least try some moderately wider shapes like a Union.

Senate might be great, but I'd go even wider...union..katana...butterknife, etc.

Doesn't it look like Tgas and Calhoun are the qualifiers?

Have to take JT at his home site and boat...and from Rob's video looks like he's been living in the Travers bunk house.

Travers is probably only an hour from Brandon. You can join the club there and pay a reduced rate. Not sure of exact amount but I think in the 20-25 range/set.

@unksskis Nope. And I hear you. We just differ in our opinions. I don't share your skepticism that spouses would react that poorly to another $150 for a webcast in perpetuity to show said spouses win. After a $10,000 ski year, seems a particularly good value, frankly. I'm getting ready to send in $600 in entries for one tournament in a few weeks. Personally, I would gladly pay the same contribution for nationals if I had any national champions. Of course, you're picking one idea for funding out and not addressing the rest of my ideas, one of course was for every national qualified skier to, at regionals pay $20. I think that'd be tolerable for everyone, and I think there'd be plenty of people to pay $100. See my thought about each state raising $500? That solved it too. That would take 30 minutes of effort. You opposed to that too?

@ISP6ball You misread, it wouldn't be borne just by open/pro, although the winner would be asked for $150. (One) of my several funding ideas was that the national champion of each division/event contribute $150. I just don't share everyone else's skepticism that national champs wouldn't find value and/or sufficient egalitarian motivation to do so. That's the price of monthly boat insurance or a wetsuit. One of my first ideas was an entry fee offset by sponsorship secured for the webcast. Predictably, that was shot down too as too difficult. I asked what can be offered to sponsors. No response yet. So many in search of problems with every solution and so few in search of solutions to the problem.

@swbca You may want to re-read what lp has said about TWBC expenses. Length (days) of broadcast/recording isn't the issue. It's travel and set up which would have to be done regardless of the length of the tournament that is the apparent lion's share of expense. Furthermore, I disagree with your assessment as to what viewers want to watch. You may well be correct for yourself, but that's your paradigm. A finals with 10 mens 3 skiers all getting 5 @38 to 5@ 39 is no more compelling to a non-skier than a pro event, (which they don't/won't watch). You show the full field of womens 5, some who miss openers, some of whom ski great is far more interesting to the non-skiing viewer...and there's a lot more non-skier viewers than nationals-level competitors and their families.

Everyone can have and express their own opinion on the value of nationals being webcast and produced for perpetuity. In my personal opinion, the paradigms expressed in this thread, wherein there is a lot of the use of "I", "what I'd watch", "what I'd like", etc. is the fundamental difference of our perspectives. I view all divisions of nationals being produced as an essential part of exposure and growth for tournament interest, and therefore, membership. That's not because "I" want to watch 100 hours of coverage (condensed or otherwise), I want the coverage because it has had tangible effect on tournament interest in my own house and sphere of non-skiing friends. I recognize that my perspective is no more special than anyone else's, but 100,000 views of an amateur event speaks for itself. We can't keep catering to "ourselves" and then wonder why we have membership and industry issues. I'm not saying we sacrifice anything in exchange for that by the way, but recognizing that for USAWS to thrive, it needs more exposure for people who can find skiing engaging.

@swbca What does that solve? Solves little in terms of cost, and does nothing for the reasons so many people have watched nationals. There were about 100,000 views of last year's nationals. I cannot be convinced that each skier was responsible for 125 views by their friends and family as you suggest. The vast majority of that footage was, as you noted, NOT of people who had a realistic shot to win. There are repeated opinions expressed in this thread about catering to the upper echelon of contenders. That is not, in my view, the point of nationals being webcast/produced for perpetuity, in fact it misses the point. Compare, for example, worlds coverage compared to nationals. Ain't no non-skier watching that. IS the coverage excellent for people who care about the results, sure. Nationals got the views it did because non-skiers around the country have something to relate to. It's off the mark to cater the webcast ONLY to the highest echelon AT THAT TOURNAMENT because nationals has the very unique opportunity for exposure and outreach to non-skiers or those who view going to nationals as an attainable feather in their cap (which drives membership, supports local tournaments, drives more officials, etc.). In other words: USAWS's mission statement. Again, I dare anyone this afternoon to have a non-skiing friend over and watch last year's open slalom and see how quick they get put to sleep. Then put on mens/womens/boys/girls whatever, and I assure you they'll be way more engaged and more interested in going out on the boat with you. This is a GOLDEN opportunity for reaching people, driving interest, and membership. I surely hope its not squandered over an obtainable funding goal, or because of the belief that people are watching nationals in order to watch another pro slalom tournament...which they're not. We can all love watching TWBC coverage of every event. I know I do. But webcasting nationals is important for other reasons, outreach being the top of the list.

@UCFskier I'm not saying what they will or won't do, but Malibu has the ability to build more lxis, so long as their production does not impede production of other models until supply chain kinks are worked out entirely.

My advice: use a screwdriver to bridge the connections on the starter. If it cranks, its not the starter and move helm-ward. If not, change the starter.

@vonman pay USAWS a typical dinner tab in The Villages to rejoin and solve all our problems B)

@unksskis Seriously, you think someone who wins nationals would balk at contributing $150 to the webcast? This isn't a shuffleboard tournament. I'm not saying that's the best option, but I don't share your pessimism that that would have any effect on nationals' attendance. Many skiers have to budget 10 times that to even go. @lpskier and @Broussard Y'all realize that (it appears) @lpskier is saying LOC is responsible for webcast and @Broussard is saying AWSA is. @broussard said: "The fact is that AWSA does not actually own the event and receives a small portion of the entry fee from the event, but would like to webcast the event. If they choose to do so it is their responsibility to find a way to fund the webcast and no additional burden should be placed on the skiers or LOC. " With all due respect, both of y'all are in leadership roles, yet (it seems) to have differing perspectives as to who is responsible for what. Clearly I'm in favor of the webcast by whatever means necessary, and do not think it would be hard to raise $15,000, in numerous different ways. @lpskier it sounds like AWSA is kicking funding responsibility to each region? That's what, $3,000 a region? Does anyone actually think that $3,000 couldn't be raised at each regional tournament for nationals webcast? If each region qualifies 150 skiers for nationals, that's a $20 contribution per qualified skier (a nominal ask). There's plenty of additional people who would throw in $100 or more if needed. Just look at the go fund me from last year. Anonymous people, many (most?) of whom didn't even go to nationals, helped pay for the webcast. Break it down even further, if needed. Tell each State Federation President their state needs to come up with $500. Does anyone actually think that $500 couldn't get raised with 10 phone calls in each state, or merely at each State Championship? If that delegation of responsibility works for the Councils, great, Scot Ellis, PM me. I'll raise $500 for this and you don't have to lift a finger. Surely there's another 30 benevolent people around the country who could raise the same (30 x 500 = $15,000). However, given the trends in this thread, someone is going to say that it'd be impossible to find sufficient skiers in Alaska or North Dakota to do so. Whatever. Y'all get the point. It's really not difficult to find myriad solutions to this but its hard to solve problems if its not defined who's responsible for solving them, and within what parameters they have to do so. That's not directed at anyone, but I'm wondering why it is that as a FHOH I'm first hearing about this on BOS, and not by way of any other communication to source the funds or funding solution by the regions if that's to whom the funding responsibility is being delegated? LP, don't take that the wrong way. I'm glad you brought it up here. Myself and many other people would have no idea there was a funding problem. Likewise, I hope people in charge can see there's a lot of people who can help with their needs, they just require communication.

UCF, thats more true during Covid, but during normal times its the (un) availability of molds that allow space in the production line for less profitable models. For example, Malibu makes less on an Axis A20 than it does on a Malibu M240 or 25 LSV. However, they can only build so many 25s due to mold limitations, so there's space for other models to come down the line. Malibu has increased production at times by operating another shift. However, Covid changed things in that parts limitations did skew production of more profitable models to the detriment of others since they couldn't build all they wanted to.

lp, can you answer my question from earlier? thx: If you have a role in finding a solution or funding or sponsorships, are you at liberty to explain what TWBC can accommodate? ie, $500 gets someone what, exactly? What about $1,000 or $5,000? Are you involved on behalf of the Southern region (aren't you at LSP?) or AWSA as a whole?

@broussard The difference between you and I in this context, is that your posts suggest you're in search of problems with every idea, and I see opportunities for solutions, and by extension, optimism, until they've been fully explored. You may well be right about every single opportunity for a solution. But respectfully, just because it's never been done before, doesn't mean it won't today, because this funding issue for this purpose has only existed a handful of times, and each year was able to be solved (to my knowledge). Here's a few examples: Fee rebate: I freely acknowledged in my own post that it "could be complicated". But that doesn't mean it won't/can't work. It's math and time. Plenty of time to work it out in the fall so its not overwhelming in August, hence the distinction between a fee offset and a rebate. Fine, you're distinguishing between AWSA and USAWS, a fair distinction. Doesn't mean the framework isn't there to allow people to submit webcast sponsorship money with their entries and for AWSA to share that which its members secured for its benefit. Parking: I never said AWSA was responsible for parking. What I did offer was a parking premium could be used for webcast expense. If that means Mystic Lakes needs to charge more than what they were planning for premium parking to share with AWSA, so be it. Do you know if this has been broached with Mystic Lakes for this purpose, for which their site will get 100 hours of exposure in perpetuity? It's one thing to say that idea has been explored and can't work, but another to say it won't work because parking is the responsibility of the site. I don't know anyone at Mystic, but I'd hazard a guess that most involved there were really looking forward to their site's exposure through the webcast, if for nothing other than pride, and would be amenable to at least talking to AWSA. Perhaps you're right, sharing parking fees between the LOC and AWSA is not something previously explored, or even shot down at other sites in the past. But 2022 is a new year, with its own unique challenges. National winners paying: Not true. AWSA imposes barriers to nationals entry through costs, scores, and regional participation already. They have just as much right to advise skiers if they win their event they'll be asked for $150 as they do setting any other standard for entry. I get it, you think that idea is "ludicrous". I'd bet that even if it were voluntary there'd be 100% contribution rate. We differ. So be it. That's cool that when you were 12 you wanted to watch pros. I did too. Most people on here did and do. But that misses the point at bar. The exposure isn't for the 12 year olds who already ski and have the bug and access to the water, the exposure is for people (of all ages) who have HAD NO EXPOSURE. It's about relatability. A new era brings new challenges to expose people to skiing. There is not an easier way to do so in 2022 than a webcast of amateur skiers and I hope AWSA/USAWS understands its importance in today's day and age. Public lakes are not full of skiers like the 70s. Heck they're not even full of wakeboarders like the 2000s. Growth potential is directly related to exposure and desire. Catering solely to open divisions does not help that cause. Lastly, this not directed at you personally Andre, just your responses to the ideas. you have helped me out in the past and I know you're a respected contributor to the water-ski world. I think we both share the same interests.

@Broussard It's not a tax. Taxes are unavoidable. If you're a national competitor with a legit shot of winning, partaking in an event that takes hundreds of man hours and travel by countless people to run and make relevant, and you're opposed to contributing 150 bucks if you win, easy, don't go. If a grown adult cares so little about his/her dying sport's exposure that they're not willing to pay a decent greens fee or average daily lift ticket to support TWBC as national champion, that's ridiculous. Do you think that if every national champion last year were asked to either find a $150 sponsor or pay $150 that they'd scoff at that? Most people are paying more than that in baggage fees to get equipment there, and only a fraction will actually win. Sorry you find that so "ludicrous". I'm not saying it's preferable, but it's a solution. With all due respect for which you earned as a respected skier, industry professional, and AWSA board member (I think ?) what solutions can you offer other than supporting someone else offering to do the fundraising? So many threads on here with the same general "problem". Boat manufacturer 3 event interest, promo boat program problems, membership, fundraising, tournament expenses, etc. and now there's a hidden gem of exposure in the form of what have been 2 great years of nationals webcasting, and despite 100,000 views last year, only 2 people in this thread have offered a single idea to raise 15k to continue it. Keith offered 4, I offered 4. And rather than continued conversation on those, as is typical, ideas outside the box get told (as I have before in other threads) why it won't work, can't work, or in this case, is ludicrous. Ludicrous for someone who on average probably spends more a month on boat insurance to help support the webcast as national champion? I don't buy it. I just left my Rotary club meeting. 2 months ago a club with 30 members raised $45,000 at our annual event. I'm not saying it will happen without effort or potential shortcomings, but raising $15,000 for an event that draws, what, 900 skiers, and 100,000 views, most of which have significant disposable income, should not be that difficult. LP, can I make a suggestion that's hopefully not also "ludicrous"? If you have a role in finding a solution or funding or sponsorships, are you at liberty to explain what TWBC can accommodate? ie, $500 gets someone what, exactly? What about $1,000 or $5,000? Are you involved on behalf of the Southern region (aren't you at LSP?) or AWSA as a whole?

@Broussard I realize he's not saying anyone is "forced" to watch the entire event, but he did say "most of us interested are already there" and "every event, every division is boring". 100,000 views says otherwise, particularly the suggestion that "most of us interested are already there". In fact, it's demonstrably the exact opposite. That's not conjecture, the numbers don't lie. Virtually everyone physically at tournaments are competitors or parents, and we have evidence that nationals was watched by way, way, way more people than that. I'd respectfully submit that the people watching the events ET suggests take priority (open and pro) are the ones watched only by existing skiers. Nationals webcast "casts" to a much wider audience, and makes it a tremendously "worthwhile investment" . Read: "growing the sport". In my view, it's some of the best money spent to specifically advance USAWS's mission statement. I dare anyone to bring a non-skier friend over and watch an hour of pro slalom and gauge their interest after. They'll respect the show but get bored out of their minds in 10 minutes. Then put on Girls 5 slalom or mens 4 jump and they will be way more engaged and intrigued. That's just my personal experience but it holds true over and over. Do we collectively think a 12 year old who has never skied wants to learn to ski more as a result of the coverage last weekend (which was awesome by the way) or watching Boys 2? I couldn't peel my parents off of watching Mens 8. Pro slalom tourney? I can't even get them to turn the TV on. Does that mean it's not worthwhile or no one cares, of course not, but webcasting nationals is a beautifully unique way to outreach to non-skiers. And even if $15,000 proves hard to come by (which I find hard to fathom it is considering an average charity golf scramble can raise that with relative ease), I'm liking my idea of asking/making nationals champs sponsor their "event". I can't believe that skiers who win nationals, given what they've financially committed to get to that point, wouldn't gladly pay another $150 to support the webcast. Of course, I'm shocked at the number of grown adults who so vociferously bark about safesport, but that's another topic.

@VONMAN

ET, no offense, but no one is required to watch every event in every division. Personally, while I enjoy watching the upper echelon events you describe, there's what, 10ish open or pro events webcast each season? Nationals is the only tournament of the relative masses that is webcast. Scanning youtube a moment ago, it seems the average feed from last year was viewed 5-7,000 times, that's each lake, each day. That's more than 100,000 views, way more than any other event that gets broadcast by TWBC. True, its really 14 ski days, but the interest is there from my view. It's fine for the aspiration to be that the continually rising production quality helps interest of the top levels, but I think interest in the rest of the competition would be undervalued if it gave way to merely the open/pro divisions. I can say unequivocally, 2 of my kids skied their first nationals last year as a DIRECT result of watching the webcast (live and replay) from 2020. In my view, THAT drives more interest in the REST of the webcasted tournaments than just broadcasting open/pro. I like a lot of Keith's ideas, especially the givego component/potential. It would appear @horton 's math is flawed. Keith says $15,000 more needed. That's less than $20 a skier. To have nationals covered sun up to sunset for $20 seems well-worth it in the scheme of things. But even assuming that were too much on top of an already expensive ski-season for skiers, and while I know that MC, BU, and CC give a lot, is an additional $5,000 a piece that much to ask? I don't know what Doug Meeker ponied up last year but liquid edge seemed to get a lot of coverage. If 15 people got their dealer to sponsor for $1,000, that covers it. Keith, how about a rebate on entry fees if you secure sponsorship, even if its not dollar for dollar? ie, someone finds a $500 sponsor, they get $100 credit on entry. Could be complicated, but by using a rebate system, gives staff time to work through the numbers post-nationals when things calm down in the fall. EDIT: what about premium parking (cars and RVs)? Premium RV spot costs, say, $200, cars, $50. Thats 30 RVs and 180 cars = $15,000. Or mix that math up. Whatever. Hell, if there were salvation army trays last year I'd a thrown in. Wasn't there a go fund me set up for last year? Didn't that work out well? What about sponsors for each event? 90 events/15,000 = less than $200 an event. Seems more than doable. If sponsors flock to mens 3 slalom, throw the names from less popular events in a hat, and draw names for who has to pony up $200, or split it amongst them. Even if you got "unlucky", that's what, 10% of the likely budget to even go? Heck, tell the winners of each division they're responsible for it. Are there really that many national-winners that would not find $166 in value reminiscing of their title 6 months or 5 years later? We're talking about the price of a wetsuit.

#1 request from me would be a flow sensor so you'd know if flow became obstructed and/or vane-loss caused insufficient efficiency. Run-dry would be nice too. Not that impellers are hard to change on a direct drive, but an easier swappable design, particularly for Vdrives, would be nice.

@ScarletArrow I'm not saying it's not A problem, it's not THEIR problem. If grown adults can't read an email, for whatever reason, that was communicated on multiple occasions as both I recall and Broussard has specifically cited, you can't blame the sender. You just can't. It's not their job to send someone door to door. But, if you're saying something like the town hall should have happened earlier in the process, fair enough, but there were not even many people on the call that took place Monday. This is not unlike someone being upset at their local city council for a decision when they didn't show up to speak, and then blame the body for not communicating that a decision was going to be made in a communication that they prefer. Not their job, nor responsibility to change.

@Horton They might not (read every email), but that's not USAWS's problem. Just like when they sent emails soliciting survey responses on breaking up the junior divisions. Everyone had the opportunity to opine. Some did, some didn't. If people were opposed to breaking it up, and didn't provide a survey response or communicate with AWSA, that's on them, not the organization. It's not USAWS's job to go door to door to ask for permission to do something. Bottom line, this was not a surprise. Personally, I "seem" to recall more than just one email.

@ToddL and @Dirt The recording is on USAWS's home page. OK, so not everyone works 8-5 on the east (or west) coasts. Duly noted. Guess they should have had it from 1-3 am.