Guys, I don't have a "new" proposal for you. My suggestion was to do the event on Waves here in Ca on 20 boats. When it was decided that nobody but me wanted to go to the mat on the charter fees, I supported taking a year off to regroup - a provided boat event every two years would be better than a BYOB event. I also said that it would be far better to spend serious money on a last hurrah before an extended hiatus rather than force the event this year and risk poor turnout, making it harder yet to attract or keep sponsors. I got shuffled off to Buffalo early, and told point blank that the past events could NOT be considered successes because the funds had lost money in a down market and not been augmented by new sponsorship. We've had terrific ideas of sponsorship for individual boats, so there was scoring between the Subway boat and the Home Depot boat (for example) independent of the regular team scores. The idea of buying a fleet was proposed and we looked at making the event a perennial affair like the Congressional Cup, hosted at a single club each year - that one, in particular, works well. You've had my ideas, and you've had the ideas of others - don't say you haven't gotten ideas. You guys picked one and the continued insistence that BYOB is the only solution is the chorus. I disagree - what else do you want me to say?

The Alter Cup and the Stevens Trophy were unique - that was the hook. If the event is another BYOB event, then you'd better come to grips with the reality that yes, it is a business, and you've put yourself into a market with a lot of competition.

Mark, it ain't about a pat on the back for anyone. Certainly not for me, anyway - I was chair a long time ago. But you should ask yourself; how many past chairmen or committee members did you ask about your job? There have been 60 or 70 volunteers on the youth and adult committees just in the last 10 years. You kept a couple of them on until you got tired of hearing them say something other than "BYOB," which, by the way, isn't an idea that originated on the committee. I hear you guys say you don't want to look back, but I have to say (again) I think it's a huge mistake. Why were people like Art Stevens, Steve Leo, Jamie Diamond, Jake Kohl and Dave Ingram a little bitter in the end? Doesn't it seem remarkable to you that the position of chairman has universally resulted in burn out with the office? I guarantee that none of those guys had issues with the job during the week of the event - that's the only thing that made the bureaucracy worthwhile. But that is what convinced me the bureaucracy is what needed to be excised from the event, not vice versa.