What Is a Reasonable Entry Fee For a NCWSA Tournament?

[chris_logan]

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]

Maybe $35, but I'll error on the high side. Simple logic. Either EVERYONE pays a bit more, or the few that put on the tournaments pay a LOT more. Last Spring, KSU LOST over $200 that was divided among 3 club members. The entry fees are not sufficient to cover the costs associated with hosting a tournament. Period.

[chris_logan]

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.

[E_T]

It should be

Total cost / # of skiers = entry fee

 

Or clubs who host aka Whitestone can be nice to the college kids and cut them a break on pricing and just charge for fuel used.

[chris_logan]

@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.

[webbdawg99]

Those same clubs you're referring to @E_T also provided and or housed ALL the officials for the tournament. Do you know what the hotel cost was in the Spring? Zero. Trust me, I'd like to see the policy change....and I'm working on it.....but you can't ignore other facts as well.

[webbdawg99]

@chris_logan I agree that an attendance and/or financial commitment from each time is a good idea.

[E_T]

@webbdawg99‌ ya that's is a good point about the officals

[RazorRoss3]

We charge $35/skier and a $10 camping fee/camper. That is the same across the Midwest in my experience.

[RazorRoss3]

We have discontinued the spring tournament because the math doesn't work.

 

Most teams cover either transportation or entry fee, most Midwest skiers camp.

[BraceMaker]

I'd like to see low entry fee, with available pay to play events and entertainment/food to round out the event.

 

I know that's unrealistic.

[webbdawg99]

@RazorRoss3‌ I'm a bit confused. You voted $35 and then go on to say you've canceled tournaments bc the math doesn't work. So you'd rather keep entry fees low even if it means no tournaments?

[BCM]

I voted $30, it was $25 back in 2005. It should increase as costs increase. But not at the rate of tuition... I don't remember paying for judge hotels, though we only had one tournament per weekend per region and they were generally in areas with lots of judges (they could stay at their own house, trailer, etc.). Lots of the details of that era of my life are fuzzy...

[SDNAH2OSKIER]

Wait a minute, I can get rid of my kid for 3 separate long weekends over the summer, TWO years in a row for $900???? Where do I send the check?

[chris_logan]

@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.

[Rpc29]

I think raising the entry fee for NCWSA $5 wouldn't impact the skiers much ($20 a semester if you assume 4 tournaments) but could really help the host teams cover expenses and maybe pay for an extra couple of judges hotel rooms at a hotel where all of the late night shenanigans are not happening. Not that I would know anything about such late night shenanigans!

 

 

 

 

[RichardDoane]

we charge kids and college skiers 1/2 the entry fee for our tournaments, so if the regular entry is $60, then $30 seems right

[Ilivetoski]

You hit the nail on the head with "drinking team"... A lot of people would not pay the normal something like $75 for the first pull and then $25 for each additional pull. Our dues at UC are $250 for the fall semester and that covers all of our tournament entry fees.

[oldjeep]

You have to pay your own fees when you are on a college team?

[RazorRoss3]

@webbdawg99‌ I voted what we have historically charged, in the spring the Midwest has too many teams trying to host so when you raise entry above the other tournament you don't get anyone. We have a $10 camping fee we charge both skiers and spectators in an attemp to balance out the costs. Can't charge beyond what people will pay

[Ilivetoski]

@oldjeep typically dues cover the entry fee.

[webbdawg99]

@RazorRoss3‌ The entry fee should be the same for all tournaments in your conference to avoid situations like that. I know in the SAC, the entry fee is standardized

[chris_logan]

@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.

[BCM]

@chris_logan the team I skied on received approximately $0 from the school. We paid about $300 per semester and did lots of fundraisers. The team covered entry, gas, etc. IF we stayed in a hotel, we paid hotel costs, but with 16 skiers in a 4 skier room... We generally camped unless the host site said no camping (which I didn't understand then, but I do now).

 

I worked part time (for the school, landscaping, ranching, etc.) during school and full time in the summer, not hard to pay for the team, ski a lot and get good enough grades.

[eleeski]

What a difficult question. Tournaments serve many purposes. Competition, fund raising, team building, leadership experiences and PARTY. The worst pricing would be so high as to significantly discourage participation. The next worse pricing would be so low that the team loses money and disbands. A delicate balance.

Eric

[chris_logan]

@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.

[IheartJump]

Cardinal rule: The site shouldn't lose money and the host team shouldn't lose money.

 

Use young judges willing to camp, or let judges ski in the Class C for AWSA scoring and give them free entry fees.

 

This assumes 1 round 2.5 events (1 trick pass). $35 is a good deal if you're skiing all 3 events!

I'm not intimate with the amount of added work, so what's the different in effort (cost) between 1 skier sking all 3 events and 3 people each skiing a respective event?

 

you could have 1 team of 10 skiers skiing all 3 and get 10*$35= 350 for that team ($11.66 per pull)

 

OR, you have 1 team of 30 specialized skiiers each skiing 1 event and get 30*$35 = $1,050 for that team ($35/pull)

 

I always skiied all 3 events so it was a great deal for me, but not for some other people on my team.

 

what if tournaments just charge per event round (per pull?) i would think you'd get increased participation!

[MattP]

@IheartJump‌ There are not many full teams in our region so usually everyone is skiing all "2.5" rounds. You really make your money on the single eveners. There are some who just take 1 trick pass. Paying per pull would not increase participation in my mind at all and would lead just to less money coming in for the host team.

[eleeski]

UCLA has both made and lost money on tournaments. Actually, the success of the party has been the difference (optional cost to the skier). They get a huge amount of support from the skiing community but it can still get expensive to put on a tournament. Kirk worked very hard to keep the costs down and to encourage participation. Hopefully the team will be able to keep this balance into the future.

 

I'll do my best to support Collegiate skiing - the best source of new blood for our sport.

 

Eric

[MattP]

I will add camping does not usually happen in our region due to site owners not allowing it. The MW is unique.

[IheartJump]

when i skied collegiately i had many people show up just to support the team and party, but the USA waterski dues + high entry fees were often too expensive to convince a new skier to ski. it was absolutely a barrier to the sport. but there were plenty of people that would have gladly skied 1 event for $20. (wakeboarders tricking, or people who wanted to try to land a jump). convincing beginners to pay for slalom was never easy

[RichardDoane]

college tournies should have a "mulligan" for the slalom event, that way if you blow your opener you get a drop and a second chance, but blow your second attempt and you're done, that would make a lot of skiers be a little more interested as beginners

[eleeski]

@richarddoane‌ While a mulligan might help a few college skiers, many struggle to get 1 buoy. Perhaps the mini course would be a better option (and a way to differentiate the zero scores).

 

@IheartJump‌ Adding the AWSA membership might be the tipping point in cost for some undecided kids. How does that factor in the poll numbers.

 

@MattP‌ It might be safer to lock the kids on site for the party. It does make sense to keep the kids from returning from the party to the site (or driving anywhere).

 

College skiing does have unique issues. Money is just one consideration. But what an experience for the kids!

 

Eric

[MattP]

@eleeski‌ agreed. It is out of out control unless we look for alternative sites to host that allow camping.

[Than_Bogan]

I haven't read this entire thread, so I apologize if already discussed, but I'd feel comfortable to subsidize collegiate tournaments. Add a little bit of membership fee or tournament entry "tax" or something and use the money to give official collegiate skiers a discount.

 

In the long term, we need them more than they need us...

[webbdawg99]

I personally dont care what entry fees are. It doesnt impact me at all. You have 2 different sides of the argument though. You have the kids hosting the events upset that they are losing money, making them less likely to hold more events. Then you have the kids complaining that entry fees are too high. So if the choice is raise entry fees or stop having tournaments.....which would you choose? Cause I gotta tell you, its heading that way in the SAC. Something's gotta give

[JWebSki]

I don't think the pay per pull is a good option. This discourages kids from competing in all three events. The only reason I started skiing all three events was because most tournaments around here don't charge extra for all events and they do it is very little extra.

[BCM]

@Than_Bogan - "In the long term, we need them more than they need us..." That must be one of the wisest things I have ever read on the internet.

[Than_Bogan]

@BCM That's a low bar, but thanks!

[RazorRoss3]

What is needed is entry fee standardization, and then some form of standardized compensation to sites and visiting officials the price point of those combined should be a 60 skier college tournament making the host team $500+ Any less than $500 is such a small amount that the work put in to run a tournament is hardly worth it. I don't know what these numbers should be but you can't standardize revenues if costs are allowed to run wild.

[E_T]

No one should be making any money. It should be worked out to break even. If lakes are trying to make money off college kids they can just shove it where the sun don't shine in there elitest attitude..... . Do it for the love if the sport. AWSA should step in and have a fund to support 1-3 tourneys per regin to grow the sport. Like they do for jr development. I am a college kid but I don't compete for a number of reasons. I would gladly sponsor a tournament myself if it ment if more kids got to enjoy the sport.

[MattP]

@E_T‌ NCWSA....

[chris_logan]

@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.

[Than_Bogan]

Fwiw, I am shocked to discover that @E_T is a college kid. Seemed like a full-fledged curmugeon like the majority of us!

 

But I do love the idea of pumping some funds into college skiing. I see that as a very good investment for the organization.

[MattP]

@Than_Bogan‌ select NCWSA when you pay your USAWS dues as your secondary sports division to AWSA. That would be a start!

[Than_Bogan]

Great idea!!

[footloose42]

I'd be interested in seeing a second pole that asks what costs your college covered for you (either currently or back when you were in college). I'd like to think that colleges are helping out their sports club teams at least a little bit, but its also true that waterskiing is probably a lot more expensive than most club sports to fund...

[klindy]

With regard to selecting the sport division remember it's not just finding but also the vote/delegate distribution for various USAWS issues. May never be an issue but moving AWSA members to ncwsa would raise the percentage of show skiers compared to AWSA.

 

Besides that the goal is to have an accurate representation of the distribution of the membership. While making NCWSA your primary is a noble idea, I think there are better ways to help fund NCWSA rather than deliberately skewing the membership numbers.

[eleeski]

But if I work and ski alumni at a lot of college tournaments, maybe that is not a misrepresentation. Despite my age, college skiing is important to me.

 

@Edbrazil‌ Western intercollegiate waterski conference - remember that? Was something starting back east about then?

 

Eric

[RichardDoane]

I'd link the Jr. Development funds available with College tournament support, both are areas of need IMO, I know that WA State has $$$ available for Jr. Dev. programs, why not use those to support the Western Region College events where the new skiers are found/created