jcamp

@dave2ball The fact is that nobody is asking for this, not even USA Water Ski. Their insurance company is demanding this or we all face higher insurance costs (i.e. increased dues). I'm suggesting competitors kick in a little bit so all of the financial burden isn't shouldered by volunteer drivers. Only seems fair to me since without drivers we can't have tournaments.

They should assess a $1-2 surcharge for each nationals and regionals registration and use that to partially fund the background checks. It wouldn't completely cover the costs but it'd be close enough so that funds from other budget line items could be moved over to cover the rest. Without drivers there wouldn't be tournaments to ski in, so competitors should help pay instead of putting it all on volunteer drivers.

Besides endangering the environment, sending the oil overseas, possibly increasing the cost of gas while prolonging our addiction to fossil fuels, I don't know why anybody would be against it either.

It was just a joke but I'm sure you knew that :-)

BallofSpray - the thinking man's SkiFly.com.

From an administrative point of view, show me a boat handling test that can be conducted for $15 and I'm pretty sure the insurance companies pushing this thing would get off our backs. Not may jury members would know what is or isn't a good ski tournament driver. Most would know that a guy with three DUIs is a danger. Not AWSA's fault that that's the world we live in.

Or maybe it's better to put it this way ... Let's think about the unimaginable and say for argument's sake that your kid is skiing in a tournament and gets badly hurt because of something stupid the driver does. After the fact you find out that the guy has been arrested three times for reckless driving and spent six months in county jail for a DUI. How pissed are you at AWSA then? And how hard would it be to find a lawyer to make a pretty compelling case that AWSA was negligent?

I for one didn't find the new proposals all that onerous and will gladly pay an increased membership fee (if Global marine doesn't cover it as the comments suggest they might) to cover the drivers' record checks. I actually am surprised to learn that up until now, someone COULD have had multiple DUIs or suspended licenses (hell, vehicular manslaughter even) and still be able to pull tournaments because there was no checking at all. Would any of you let your kids be pulled by someone like that?

Economies of scale and institutional history, i.e. most of the things required to run the sport (probably 99 percent which are non-controversial) have been figured out and put in place long ago.

It would be good to know what is driving the increase in tournament regulations. Is it insurance company driven as these possible driver background checks seem to be? Or is it the desire to make sure that nobody cheats the system, that scores are relative across sites, regions, etc., etc? I don't see how much can be done if it is the former, but something could be done about the latter if members as a group say they don't care about that a whole lot.

Horton, you should have a red phone that goes directly to a regional director for this kind of stuff.

I'm with jipster43. The first few generations of these boats are probably not going to be very useful or popular. But I'm glad someone is trying.

There are probably lots of things that would bring in better ROI (I like your idea a lot) than international teams, but to me they are a justifiable expense ... an affordable one at that at only 2-3 percent of the USAWS budget. ROI is a tricky thing to measure but I enjoyed reading about Sammy, Carl, Deena and company winning world titles when I was growing up and I'm sure there are kids these days that feel the same way about Freddy, Regina, etc.

Thanks @jdarwin for posting the board packet. I couldn’t find it. It looks like team expenses in 2012 will be 69 percent of AWSA’s annual budget of $49,260. So up there but not quite 90 percent. AWSA’s budget covers a very narrow set of expenses, like international teams, the juniors pizza party at nationals and maintaining the rankings list. The money used to market the sport, i.e., publications, media relations, HQ staff salaries, websites, etc., comes from the USAWS budget. Calling on AWSA to spend more on marketing is sorta like saying my home state should spend more on the U.S. military. I don’t have a need or desire to defend USAWS/AWSA, I just wanted to make sure that someone reading your first post didn't come away with the perception that 90 percent of their dues was used to fund international teams.

Horton makes a good point. Anybody have a hotline to the USAWS/AWSA leadership so we can get some answers?

@klindy Are you sure that AWSA has a separate budget? Maybe that is why it isn't available online?. Does anybody on here know the answer to this? It looks like the AWSA budget may be included in this USAWS budget as a Sport Discipline Expense line item. But even if all $164,511 of it was AWSA (which it isn't because other disciplines have expenses too) the $37,207 (which includes non- 3-event teams too so this isn't even apples to apples) for international teams would still only be 22% of the AWSA budget. It is likely to be much less. @richarddoane No, I don't think international team members should have to pay their own way. I think it is worth 2.5% of the USAWS budget to send a small number of our best skiers to compete on behalf of the U.S. If water skiers made millions then maybe, but we all know that isn't the case. Even then, I doubt Bode Miller pays his own way to the Olympics or World Championships. Plus, many teams like 35+ already pay their own way.

@JDarwin Your 90% stat seemed really high ... so I checked. You can find USA Water Ski's 2010 financial statements here: http://www.usawaterski.org/graphics/downloads/TaxForms/2010AuditedFinancialStatements.pdf I'm not a CPA, but from the expenses reported on this form it looks like USAWS spent $37,207 on "National Teams" in 2010. In 2009 it was $49,875. For some perspective, $37,207 is 2.5% of USAWS's expenses of $1,454,003 (on $1,750,285 in revenue). Even if some of the international team costs were included (or hidden) in other line items such as sport disciplines or sport development, the top two expenses, Membership (salaries, benefits, etc.) and Publications (The Water Skiers, regional guides and I'm assuming the website) are a combined are 60.6% of their expenses. So, there is no way international team expenses could be anywhere near 90%.

@travnews ballofspary is a good place to start, especially for some of the insider news about tournaments and skiers. The twitter feed on the home page of the site is probably the best way to catch live updates. Another good resource is usawaterski.org, especially if you are interested in following U.S. athletes. And each of the major ski companies provide regular updates on their sponsored athletes. The only "airtime" are the live webcasts from a few of the tournaments. Stay tuned to this site for details leading up to each tournament.

Norwich, Vermont

A GOODE Nano and a new lower back.

A GOODE Nano and a new lower back.

Thanks everyone. I think I learned two things: it might not be that hard to make the switch so it's worth giving it a shot; and if I can't make it work, there have been plenty of skiers way better than me that used the goofy grip so it might not be that big of a deal. Can't wait for the spring.

I ski right-foot forward but use the grip of a left-foot forward skier ... basically what a right-handed batter would use. I just aged into Mens III and am upgrading my gear and time on the water, so I'm hoping to get into some pretty deep shortline but am afraid that my grip will hold me back. Does anybody else use a "goofy grip" and/or have advice on how to minimize this flaw in my technique? I've been using it for 30 years and only get limited time on the water, so switching probably isn't an option.