Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 3 members: Matty507, TABLE SETTER 11, dillydilly; 73 anonymousDetails for udaplaya
Real name:
Location:
,
Division:
Messages posted by udaplaya »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| July 14, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: spa draw Whoa, playing the whole tournament during the week would be a no-go for our guys. Thanks for the information and i am glad i asked. |
| July 14, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: spa draw Thanks to the above respondents for the good feedback. Knowing what the draws have been at the SSUSA Worlds the past few years, I was expecting something along those lines for SPA. If it makes it west of the Mississippi next year, then it is a maybe. For the 50's, is the Huntsman played on weekend? For the record, I agree that M+ and M should be combined. Thanks again. |
| July 13, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: spa draw My team is not going to the SPA nationals this year, but based on word of mouth on how this was "the event of the year", we were going to possibly add it to our schedule next year. Imagine my surprise when I saw the draw a few minutes ago - small and smaller. Any ideas on why - economy? location? losing ground to other organizations? We are a west coast based club, so other than SSUSA World events, what are other top caliber tournaments could consider as options to replace SPA next year? |
| June 2, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: outside the box... I know, I know, we can't even agree on the current rules, but what do you think of the following? 1. Extra run awarded if team score 5 runs without an out. 2. Extra run awarded if team, while still having hrs available, scores 5 runs without the benefit of a hr. #2 could lead to SSUSA removing the DBOs since the value of the extra run would induce teams to mange the hrs better themselves and thus help offset the proliferation of hrs that SSUSA is trying to control with the hr limits. So, what do you think? |
| May 22, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: RENO FORMAT Thanks for the feedback, Dave. My team is in a ten team bracket (I probably should have mentioned that fact), so the possible scenarios are somewhat more complicated than the six team bracket. Don't worry about trying to figure out all of the possibilities, as I have given my team instructions to play hard each game and not leave anything to chance. See you in Reno/Sparks. |
| May 22, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: RENO FORMAT Unlike the unilateral imposition of the HR out and the PP rules, which I feel are detrimental to the state of our senior game, I am keeping an open mind on the new format. It makes each game matter and the best performers are still rewarded by entry into a single elimination bracket. Let's not forget, back in the day we grew up on double elimination tourneys - lose two and you were gone. So, if one goes 3 - 2 in a road robin event, their expectation for advancement should be tempered. I have not done the math, but I would suspect that a 4 - 1 record would get one in - does anyone know if that is a guarantee? My teammates are looking forward to this big tourney, with our only trepidation being the HR out rule, as we have played all season long without it. Good luck to all. By the way, if two undefeated teams meet in the finals, does the "extra" game (from being a first loss) still apply? to both teams?? |
| April 17, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: New HR rule It's about time! I have made the same comments many times myself - why should one be penalized for doing his best? Not everyone can dunk a basketball, yet we don't limit how many there are in a game. We don't tell the fastest football player to slow down, nor do we tell the smooth fielding shortstop that he can not catch every ball. Yet, we are so determined to limit a team and/or individual from hitting hrs. Leave the hr rule wide open and move teams up, or down, based on their performance in tournaments, not on whether they hit more or less hrs. It may take a year to sort things out, but it would be better for the players/game in the long run. One final note, I also agree that the number of teams in each age category at most tournaments is far too small to warrant a separate bracket. We are already broken up into 5-year age bands, do we really need to then break that into an additional four sub groupings - keep it at two divisions per age group. Quite honestly, this is called competition, not everyone is supposed to win. Next thing you know we will be handing out participation trophies to everyone...joking, but only a little. |
| March 24, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Acai Berry - Placebo effect? Note article in CNN yesterday. Use as you see fit. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/23/acai.berries.scam/index.html |
| March 4, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: nsa senior that is an open date for us, so we would be interested. i was told to ask if senior bats are allowed, because they are the only type we have in our bat bags nowadays. |
| Jan. 23, 2009 udaplaya | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: have the team "bumps" been published yet? As part of developing a viable Major+ plus, i think i read that SSUSA was going to publish a list of teams that would be bumped up? This was targeted for sometime in January and with the month nearing the end, i wondered if anything has been published and/or provided to the team managers. Thanks in advance. |
| Dec. 16, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: RULE CHANGES...COMMENTS i participated in the 50 Major division in Phoenix and Vegas. The combination of 5 run limits and extra hrs being singles worked quite well. The scores were generally in the high teens to mid 20's, which is quite reasonable, and nearly all of the games made it to six innings, at a minimum. You know the old adage, if it ain't broke..... That being said, I think the Major+ would benefit from a 5 - 7 run limit and (thinking outside of the box) maybe two open innings. |
| Dec. 15, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Rules of the game Discussion: RULE CHANGES...COMMENTS I expect there to be a number of people with comments on the new rules, but at face value, I agree that the Major+ division had become farcical. Whether these new rules will help only time will tell. My two cents worth on one issue.... Even more that being allowed to use the Ultra, the most popular aspect of SSUSA for our players was the ability to swing freely again. That does not necessarily mean swinging for homeruns, but rather taking a good, hard cut each and every time up...just like when we all played back in our 20's and 30's. Many of us quit playing tournaments ball because of limitations and got tired of playing ASA senior ball becauise of these same limitations. We were oh so happy to see that an organiztion, SSUSA, separated itself from the pack by removing that limitation. Now, my fear is that you are becoming part of the norm again. If i understand it, next year the Major divsion will have 5 homeruns per game period, any after that will be outs, correct? |
| Dec. 11, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: 3GG - Vegas Worlds Dave, thanks for the clarification. I know that bracketing is never as easy as it looks and sometimes we overlook all of the little nuances that go into your work. Because of the general tone of this message board, i go out of my way not to bitch. We are new to Senior softball and use this forum to become educated of some of the uniqueness of playing senior ball. We wholeheartedly support SSUSA and I, for one, am glad they are here to help satiate my extended childhood. I know the complete 2009 tournament schedule is not out yet, but would it be possible to get the dates for the Palm Springs tourney? Thanks again. |
| Dec. 10, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: 3GG - Vegas Worlds In reviewing the 50+ Major bracket from the recently completed Winter Worlds in Vegas, i cam across an unusual application of the 3GG rule. Nothing against the Colorado Mudhens, but they seemed to benefit from an overly forgiving bracket. Game 1 Winners bracket: Lost to Mission softball, record 0 - 1, 1 game played Game 2 Losers bracket: Beat Doubleplay, record 1 - 1, 2 games played Game 3 Losers bracket: Lost to Marauders, record 1 - 2, 3 games played. At this point, i would have thought that they were now eliminated from the tournament, as their 3GG right was fulfilled and they lost the third game. Lo and behold, they advance to the next round, similarly as if they won the previous game! Now, i understand that if a team loses its first two games, they still play a third and can still come all the way back. I am not sure if there was an atypical bracket because of the numbers of teams, but this seeemed inconsistent with other SSUSA tournaments that we played this year. We playeded in Reno, lost our first game, won our second, lost our third and were eliminated. We sure would have liked to be afforded the same extra chance that the Mudhens (or whomever would have landed in that spot in the bracket) received. Not a big deal, just would like to know for future reference. Is the application of the rule consistent, arbitrary, at the whim of the director, or based on the number of teams? My thanks again to SSUSA for allwoing me to stil play softball with and against my peers. |
| Oct. 31, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: Winter Worlds...three day or two day? I recall that SSUSA was looking into possibly shortening the three day tourneys into two days for 2009. Will that start with the Winter Worlds in Vegas, or should we plan on playing early Friday again? For this conversation, i am asking as a 50 Major player. |
| Oct. 17, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: A few comments... I am really looking forward to my first SSUSA 50 Worlds next week. I think SSUSA does a great job and tries its best to be player friendly. I don't always agree on things with my family and best friends, so it would be silly to expect that softball players from all parts of the country will agree across the board on how things should be done. For my money, with all things considered, SSUSA is the way to go. That being said, i wanted to pass along a suggestion. Although I personally love the three day events, starting on Friday morning, I feel that such a format may need to be revisited next year in light of the worsening economy. I would recommend keeping it is place for the Worlds, but with tournaments like Palm Springs, Reno, etc. starting no earlier than 6 pm Friday night might be the way to go. I understand that this will mean less rest between games for our old bodies, but i think it may help keep the team participation high. Taking off Thursday and Friday versus Friday only or a half-day Friday may make the difference between some teams opting in or out from a given tournament. My final two cents. Given that a team was properly classified to begin with (which may very well be part of the problem), I feel that a team should be able to remain in the same division for the full year, unless they are absolutely dominating the competition. To win one or even two tournaments, no matter how big, should not be grounds for move-ups during the year, such moves should be effective for the following season. i understand that player and team ratings are a hornet's nest, but i feel that a team should not be punished for playing on all cylinders on a given weekend or two. i do not expect everyone to agree, but it amy generate a meaningful discussion. Good luck to everyone next week in Phoenix. |
| Oct. 2, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS - PARTICIPATING TEAMS LIST Humm.. 32 team bracket game 1 - down to 16 undefeated game 2 - 8 undefeated game 3 - 4 undefeated game 4 - 2 undefeated game 5 - 1 undefeated game 6 - win tourney against losers' bracket winner From a mathematical perspective: = 1 + 2X where X is the power of 2 4 team bracket, 2 squared = 4...so it is 1 + 2 = 3 games 8 team bracket, 2 cubed = 8, so it is 1 + 3 = 4 32 is 2 to the fifth power, so 1 + 5 = 6 games. So, do you notice i am bored today? |
| Oct. 2, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS - PARTICIPATING TEAMS LIST FYI....32 team brackets yields 6 games for an undefeated team. If team draws one of the first round byes, then only 5. I think combining Major/Major+ and AAA/AA would go a long way to bringing back the "big tourneys' of our younger days. |
| Oct. 2, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Bats Discussion: Wny "no-warranty"? Thanks for the feedback. To the first post...most (not all) consumer warranties are tied to a lenght of time, as for most items there is not easy way to measure "use". So yes, the warranty would cover all cases, except abuse,etc for a period of one year, for example. Although this may sounds ludicrous to Senior softball players, the fact that some legal bats are not warranted surprises many of my non-softball friends. To the second post...this sounds like a perfect opportunity for you and your company to step up and be market leaders. Then again, if the current state of affairs fits your business model, i am sure you find no need to change - the current price point of approximately $200 and no-warranty has been determined to be the best business decision from a profitability and risk management perspective..fair enough. i do find it interesting (If i read between the lines in your message), it seems that a high performance bat (like an Ultra II, Combat, Launch) and a warranty are mutually exclusive entities - i.e., you are admitting that your design,material, specs sacrifice durability for performance and that you have taken a "let the buyer beware" attitude. Once again, that is your prerogative and i am sure your bat's continued popularity supports the decision. By the way, the Chevy analogy is off point. Chevy would give DEII a warranty if he did not modify, alter, abuse the vehicle, so his decision to disregard its intended use voids the warranty. We, as softball players, use these bat exactly for what they were intended, and if they prove to not withstand the durability test, we bear the financial burden. Thanks for giving this some thought, not meant to put you on the defensive, as you and your company are great supporters of senior softball. By the way, i do own two gray Combats and hope to purchase on of the new gear bats before Phoenix. |
| Oct. 2, 2008 udaplaya | Topic: Bats Discussion: Wny "no-warranty"? Sometimes i look back on "accepted norms" and wonder how they ever came about. In this instance, I am wondering how Seniors, who are a pretty shrewd consumer group, have allowed bat manufacturers to successfully market "non-warranted" bats. Think about it, we purchase a bat, use it how it is intended to be used, and when it is either a) defective, b) was not designed properly, c) built with substandard materals, etc., we are the ones left holding the bag. Obviously, bats that have been modified, altered, abused would void the waaranty. Is our pursuit of the next hot bat so important that we overlook quality issues that we would not allow to exist in other consumer products - plasma TVS, cameras, tires, etc.? I have read all the hype about the new Senior Combat, but must ask, why do they not stand behind their product by offering at least a one year, and not just a one bat, warranty? Food for thought. |
