2017 Nationals - WBP's Discussion with AWSA

KelvinKelvin Posts: 944 Crazy Baller
Here is an excerpt from the Summer AWSA Board Meeting Minutes. If your feelings are different from the BOD, I suggest you contact your BOD representatives and let your views be known to those decision makers.

West Palm Beach – we are discussing the 2017 Nationals with this group. At this point, it is not a formal bid, but a proposal. Want to get the board’s opinion on the following ideas:

SCPB is trying to bring more skiers back to the sport and increase involvement. This would be accomplished by having more activities at Nationals including:

1. Increase vendor involvement with the skier by providing an area where short clinics can be put on by manufacturers, skiers, nutritionists, coaches etc...

2. Providing a lake for boat and ski manufacturers to demo and educate for the skier

3. Have additional events on during the week

1-3 - Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only): Board does not feel this is a change in direction; no objections noted.

The areas of change necessary for the 2017 Nationals to be considered by SCPB in 2017 are as follows;

How to qualify for Nationals
o
4. Fifty Four weeks prior to Nationals the qualification score would be declared for each division and each event, allowing all skiers to have a fixed value for them to obtain to qualify skiing in Nationals, similar to the old EP meaning that skiers know what they have to have for a performance to qualify. A goal to be obtained is better than a moving calculation.

For example using M7 the qualification would be calculated by taking the total number of skiers in Level 8 & 9 (45 skiers total), plus 10% (rounded up), the calculation would be 45 + 5 =50, the 50th place score is 78.33 buoys in Slalom, this would then be set as the qualification score to ski Nationals. This qualification calculation is an example from an actual division as of Saturday July 23rd.

This same calculation would be used in the Trick and Jump events

To use this qualification score, the skier must score this twice at a C tournament or 1 time at an R.

Board input: this could be a 2017 exception to rules, could go back to the 54 weeks, we have that data. The cutoff day could be determined now, qualifying would be similar to the EP system for the weeks between cutoff and Nationals.

5. Level 8 or 9 skiers would not be required attend or ski Regional's however they would be required to pay the entry fee to qualify for Nationals.

By doing this the LOC for Regional's would have several areas of improvement

No loss in revenue

Reduced time to run the event

Allows all skiers the ability to attend Nationals due to reduced vacation and expense required

Will increase potential number of skiers for Nationals due to top 5 placement at Regional's because level 8 & 9 skiers will likely not attend as they are pre-qualified

Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only)
Strongly opposed ‐ 10
Yes ‐ 4
Undecided ‐ 3

6. Need the ability to host additional tournaments throughout Nationals. These events would be sanctioned as the following ski year only if that event was complete at Nationals.

Straw pole (non‐binding; for informational use only)
Strongly opposed ‐ 0
Yes ‐ 17
Undecided ‐ 0

7. The SCPB selects the Chief Officials in conjunction with the President of AWSA from a list created by both parties.

Non‐binding straw pole: YES – 17

8. The final decision and selection of officials ultimately belongs to SCPB.

Non‐binding straw pole:
YES – 2
NO – 14
UD ‐ 1

9. The SCPB selects the Officials from lists provided by each region
Non‐binding straw pole:
YES – 10
NO – 6
UD ‐ 1

The list should be based on skills and abilities including a list of conflicts (spouse skiing, children skiing, etc...)

Representation will be equal across all regions providing submission is within the timeline agreed upon
Kelvin Kelm, Lakes of Katy, Katy Texas
«13456

Comments

  • EdbrazilEdbrazil Posts: 1,287 Historical Baller
    Got to watch those straw poles. They are very flimsy. Should be wood or metal.
    Than_BoganjayskiOne_Skichris_logan
  • KelvinKelvin Posts: 944 Crazy Baller
    That was just a cut and paste directly from the BOD minutes on the USAWaterski website. But at least you are reading the details.
    Kelvin Kelm, Lakes of Katy, Katy Texas
  • DavidPDavidP Posts: 137 Baller
    Kelvin, thanks for posting. I guess they did not do a straw pole for #4 - How to qualify for nationals?
    David Panneton - LakePort Water Ski Club, formerly known as Muddy Waters
  • Chef23Chef23 Posts: 4,838 Mega Baller
    I think 5 is a great idea. It would give skiers a good idea well in advance if they are qualified and it would preserve the revenue for regionals. If numbers at regionals drop it might hurt revenue for practice rides but profitability should be maintained if they have people paying but not showing.

    Hosting additional tournaments during Nationals would be awesome. Particularly for folks that bring kids that might not be qualified and to potentially get a second score while you are down there.
    Mark Shaffer
  • KelvinKelvin Posts: 944 Crazy Baller
    @davidp, This was at the end of the #4 discussion - "Board input: this could be a 2017 exception to rules, could go back to the 54 weeks, we have that data. The cutoff day could be determined now, qualifying would be similar to the EP system for the weeks between cutoff and Nationals."
    Kelvin Kelm, Lakes of Katy, Katy Texas
  • BoozeBooze Posts: 273 Baller
    Thumbs up for the first three items.
  • BRYBRY Posts: 534 Crazy Baller
    edited September 2016
    I like most of it.
    Would be interesting to know the rationale for 54 weeks, two weeks before the previous Nats, to set the level. Last chance tourny's and Nat's excluded for that year's levels. I would think 51 weeks would be better. Get all the skiers changing divisions moved and include last chance's and Nat's. Seems that would be a better basis as it allows scores from the full previous year and includes only current skiers in each division for the current year.

    Would be interesting to hear the rationale both ways on the "LOC control of officials." SCPB wants it and AWSA clearly (2 yes, 14 no) want it. My guess is SCPB wants to have the "best" officials available used and AWSA wants the political method (my bias showing, could be wrong). Plenty of politics to go around either way. Clear arguments for/against from each proponent would be great. BTW I am not an SCPB member.
  • Than_BoganThan_Bogan Posts: 5,620 Mega Baller
    edited September 2016
    Minor: If we have the qualification level announced way in advance, then I hope we'll still do the thing that I suggested like 20 years ago (and was implemented!) which is to have all qualifying standards either be on a half ball or a full pass, so that there is limited incentive to stop skiing.

    For most of my time at 36, I chased a qualifying mark of 3 @ -35, which was right at the edge of my capability. So anytime I got there, I felt I "had" to stop and take the full 3 rather than risk 2.5. After the EP got changed to 2.5, I managed to get to 4 and 5 a few times (ok maybe once each...).

    Fwiw, I prefer full passes even more, because then there is truly zero reason to back off to try to hit the qualifying mark. I understand that may be impractical at times, but if it turns out that the level 8 computation yields say 1.16 @ -38, I think I'd rather just call that a full pass at -35.
    Nathaniel Bogan -- GUT Padawan
    jedgellMillerTime389400chris_logan
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 344 Baller
    USA Waterski still has not figured out what to do with MM and now MW. if they want the skier pool to grow they have to take a stand on masters men and masters women to stay in their respective division. Not too many skiers are going to fly to Florida and ski when they don't have a shot in hell because a masters men or women dropped down to men 3 4 or 5 just to place when majority of not all scores are in MM or MW divisions or big dawg events.
    Don't have an answer for the regionals. But being forced to pay full entry and not going by skier choice is no right. How about putting the a level 8 or 9 skier in the same category as open skiers? They don't have to attend regionals to attend nationals. As mentioned earlier this may bring more skiers to regional tournaments.
    Dave Macchi / Nautique promo team member
    DaveLemonsGloersenjdarwin
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    @BRY not being critical of them, but if SCPB had ultimate decision power for selecting officials, they just might select mostly local officials and avoid the cost of lodging. Also your comment about 51 weeks is much more logical. Skiers changing divisions would be taken care of.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • BRYBRY Posts: 534 Crazy Baller
    @Wolfeie You indicated "the cost makes it not worth hosting the event". Did you lose money on the event or just not make enough? How much do you feel your site would need to make for it to be worthwhile for you and your site? Is money the only issue? It's a huge load of work to pull off. My understanding (based on posts here and elsewhere by people who seem to be SMRR people) is SMRR made about $20K-$25K, around $33+ per skier in their pocket all said and done.
    Not meaning to be aggressive or call you out with this but truly, what would it take for a Bako lake, or set of lakes, to be interested? If there needs to be change the what is the target for the change to hit?
    Props out to Broadside for putting on the show this year.
    Props to West Palm for putting in a serious bid for next year. Anyone else at all? Anyone?
    @Wolfeie You all could always put in a bid, with your "officials per diem" as a hard stipulation. Who knows, you might win!
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 344 Baller
    edited October 2016
    To have officially from only one region would not be a wise idea. To have slalom only drivers involved may add to the work load to the 3 event drivers it may not depending on the structure and the slalom only drivers may get priority most of the premier slalom events depending on how they draw.
    I have been to Arvin a number of times or nationals and other regionals and Arvin has a great set up for the nationals. The weather is good 99% of the time. Bakersfield is not exactly a great place for night life and has very little to offer outside of skiing.
    I have not been to Idaho but tournament wise they knock it out of the park is what many people have said.
    West palm offers something for everybody if you are there for the week. Other then the events being spread out everywhere and the weather west palm is a hard place to beat
    Dave Macchi / Nautique promo team member
  • BRYBRY Posts: 534 Crazy Baller
    @dave2ball Nobody has promoted "officialls from only one region". The proposal, from above:
    -The final decision and selection of officials ultimately belongs to SCPB
    -The SCPB selects the Officials from lists provided by each region

    I don't see how adding "slalom only" drivers can add to the workload of 3 event drivers. It can only reduce the 3 event driver workload. Every pull a slalom only driver pulls is one less pull 3 event drivers pull, i.e. less workload.

    "and the slalom only drivers may get priority on the premier slalom events." COOL! AWESOME! Get the premier drivers pulling the premier events! 3-event or Slalom only, put the best driver in the seat! Some of the best slalom drivers are 3-event too! But only 3-event is a small pool and leaves some premier drivers out.

    Arvin (Bakersfield) would be great for a Nats... but... but... some club there has to put in a bid. Some club there needs to want to. There are lots of places that would be great for a Nats, but some club there needs to step up and do it. Crazy big commitment. I have immense respect for any club that puts forth a bid. I have no disrespect or ill will for any club that feels it is not for them. SCBP steps up time and time again with serious bids, bailed the whole thing out once (or no Nats), so Kudo's and respect to them.
  • wski1831wski1831 Posts: 88 Baller
    @dave2ball I like your idea about level 8 or 9 being treated as open. Don't have to ski regionals, but would have to ski MM or MW at nationals.
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 344 Baller
    Sorry about the typo it would cut the work
    Load back on the 3 event drivers.
    As far s the officials being picked by the nationals host this could be very political and the best may not get the chance to go. I believe that USA Water Ski has a rotation of drivers. Not sure about judges.
    Dave Macchi / Nautique promo team member
    Drago
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    Some of the best slalom drivers, I said "some" are not 3 event and they'll never get to drive Nationals under the current rules. (Read Becky Lathrop and others) I didn't say there was a problem with SCPB using mostly local judges. Save money...good thing. The per diem is an excellent idea, or no lodging at all. Who said that appointed officials have to have lodging provided? It's in the bid process I'm sure. Select officials from those planning to attend anyway and planning to pay their own way. If you don't want to pay you own way, don't submit your name. Never did see an answer to "how much do you want to make" posed by @BRY.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    @Mark_Matis you make a good point. Slalom, not so much, but the testing for Senior trick judges does not take you to the level of points being put up by high level trickers.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    Naw, probably not. Just saying that just because you can pass the practical for senior doesn't mean you can call a 10K trick run.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
  • unksskisunksskis Posts: 263 Baller
    While I understand the logic in Level 8-9 paying their way out of Regionals is helping the host site not take a hit, that is terrible customer service representation of a product. The fact Level 8-9 are not at Regionals, and publicizing this, should attract more Level 5-7 to attempt to qualify by placing at Regionals, more than making up for the lost revenue from Level 8-9 skiers. Level 9 skiers should be skiing Open anyway, and don't have to attend. Otherwise, you're just squeezing more money from the same rock, and the rock's are drying out. The event idea's are outstanding, but changing up the way the AWSA run's qualifications seems a bit out much. If someone wants to judge, let them. Nationals could be a judge development opportunity if utilized.
  • WolfeieWolfeie Posts: 152 Baller
    P.S. Arvin does not have "ski clubs" which may be problem in putting together a bid. In our area off Millux Road we have 10 lakes owned by 6 different home owner associations.
    You may only have a couple of owners at each association that actually compete. Makes
    it much more difficult compared to West Palm.
    Brad Wolfe - Ski West Village, Arvin, Ca; Radar Pro Build, SN 200, I can see Ball of Spray headquarters from my lake house.
  • dave2balldave2ball Posts: 344 Baller
    With skiers attendance down ski sites are not willing to bid for what was a prestigious tournament. USA Waterski takes too much of the pie for many clubs/ lake HOA's to make it worth there while.
    By lowering the national qualification USA Waterski has turned what was a privledge tournament into just another record tournament just to make a buck.
    Dave Macchi / Nautique promo team member
    Than_BogandislandMS
  • jcampjcamp Posts: 608 Crazy Baller
    @dave2ball can you tell us how much "of the pie" USA Water Ski takes? Would be interesting to know.
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @jcamp - according to 2015 USAWS financial statements, the take from National tournaments was around $137,000. The LOC's received $70k and USAWS took $61k for "overhead and labor allocation" and "administration fees". The question answers itself.....
    Joe Darwin
    bigtex2011skidawgjcamp
  • LeonLLeonL Posts: 1,900 Crazy Baller
    @jdarwin National tournamentS? With an "S". Does that mean all disciplines? I've always wondered why you send entries/$$ to the event organizers for Regionals, but to USAWS for Nationals. Does USAWS provide anything of value to the LOC under "overhead and labor allocation" and "administration fees"? Labor allocation? Aren't the staff getting the same $$ whether at the Nationals as when in the office? I'm sure the LOC could handle administrative responsibilities.
    Leon Leonard Stillwater Lake KY - SR Driver SR Judge
    livierodb
  • jdarwinjdarwin Posts: 1,373 ★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★
    @LeonL - I've asked this and numerous other questions about "fuzzy math" used in our financials. Either I get no response or a "glare" that seems I'm playing in their sandbox and should just leave. Please don't ask about the $202,000 loss from printing a magazine......
    Joe Darwin
    gjohnsonMattPHorton
«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.

Not sure how to deal with a long link?