Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 82 anonymousDiscussion: Team Ratings - A Restart?
| Posted | Discussion |
| March 6, 2008 Sisavic 190 posts | Team Ratings - A Restart? Ratings - Restart There have been some excellent suggestions in the Ratings string. But, I believe we need some data to make our suggestions fit reality a bit better. I may be wrong, but I believe our suggestions will have little impact on SS USA, unless they apply across all ages and all skill levels. Here is a summary worth considering. There are 1919 teams rated by SS USA (yes, there are some duplicates and some teams no longer exist, but this is a good starting point). The teams are distributed as follows: 50s 29% 553 teams 55s 20% 388 teams 60s 23% 439 teams 65s 16% 308 teams 70s 10% 201 teams 75s 2% 30 teams The team ratings are distributed approximately as follows: AA 35% of all teams 133 teams per age group AAA 41% of all teams 156 teams per age group Major 16% of all teams 61 teams per age group Major+ 8% of all teams 28 teams per age group (There is very little deviation among the different age group) It seems like our comments are mostly on the M/M+ skill levels, while most of the teams are rated AA/AAA. I believe only about 10% of the teams in each skill division have a good shot at the SS USA National Championships. This leaves about 90% of the teams unhappy about their ratings. This is a tough problem and, frankly, I don’t have any good overall suggestions. Maybe some of you have some ideas. What do you think? Mike Sisavic fsisavic@hotmail.com |
| March 6, 2008 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | To start with I believe all listed teams older that 3 years should be removed from the Team Ratings. If there is an active team over 3 years old then the manager should call the responsible person who will leave it there. I think this will remove 90% of the invalid teams. Once that is complete, move to the team names over 2 years old. I like your idea of definite percentages in each division. |
| March 6, 2008 turn2 489 posts | Bruce, You are right. There are a lot of teams that don't exist anymore and are listed several times. I know in the past couple of years there has been only about 8-10 teams that compete at the majere plus level in the different age divisions and 10 maybe too high of a number. Later, Donnie Turn Two 60 Major Plus Division |
| March 6, 2008 JackieD 2 posts | To all, first time on message board. Question? Why are there still teams listed on the ratings from 4 yrs ago? Don't you think that after a couple of years if there is no movement by the teams they sould be removed? This way everyone has a better idea of how many teams are really on the ratings list. |
| March 6, 2008 Cooperstown 1 posts | As a former manage/player I have tried to have my teams removed from the ratings list sheet. However, it NEVER gets done. It would be interesting to know just how many active teams there actually are with a SSWC rating. |
| March 6, 2008 2awesom Men's 50 308 posts | In the 50 Division I counted 204 AAA Teams and 144 Major or Major + Teams. I did'nt bother with the AA Teams but if I added right that would leave about 205 AA Teams. Just thought I'd mention it. Thanks. |
| March 6, 2008 rabbit Men's 70 319 posts | 2awesom- Yes you are right- 204 AAA teams, and yet, SPA in the 2007 Nationals, only had 13 teams in AAA, in the NSA Worlds they had only 8 teams,6 of them also played in the SPA Nationals, LVSSA- in Sept had about 12 teams if i remember right,at least five of those 12 , also played in the SPA. and in Phoenix, they had about 26 or 27 teams, I think about 4 of those teams played in SPA,maybe more, i did not attend this one. so what I am saying their probably are not any more then 40 teams across the USA that even play in all of the Nationals , and I did not list ASA, or ISSA, so that might bring it up to 50 teams or so, I believe if you do not play in a National, you do not need to be on the rating board and after you fail to play in a national the next season, you should be dropped, this would keep the board clean of dupilcates and folded teams, be cause there sure are not many teams playing in the qualifiers, The Majors it is even less then those numbers attending Nationals. I have a question, don't you think there are way too many tourneys these days that do not mount to anything?, I think a lot of the tourneys posted are not even held?? you never see any results, for the most part on them or they are not well attended, that is across all age groups too.??? and at $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon this summer, you will see less, is my guess. and yet, they keep raising the entry fees, go figure. RW |
| March 7, 2008 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Don't leave out the 40 & 45 players they include as "Seniors" Lets keep it damn simple and under stated for the most part. There are 75 teams in a tournament, 12 on a team no one else coming (family, visitors, another player) to keep it simple. 500 fee to enter, 37500 in fees income, not knowing the out lay, I'll just use a flat 30K leaving a profit of 7500. No doubt low. Player cost, low also? I figure 175 for the 3 day hotel bill, if split with another guy, and then some need anothr day in reality 75 for meals. 25 misc...doesn't even include transportation cost, airfare etc. 275 out lay total, and using the old cash multiplier as buck turns over (7) equals about 1925 each player brings into a city fior that tournament. 900 players equals 1,732,500 from that tournament to the city. Then you add the family and all you have a gold mine in reality. Higher prices on Fri & Sat, we pay even more while those putting it on probably get free rooms and more. Ok, I'm a skeptic. |
| March 7, 2008 TotallyRec Men's 50 33 posts | I have a simple question. If each team is required to register and/or re-register every year, than why not wipe the slate clean and only list the teams when they register? I agree that listing teams from four or even three years back gives us an inflated and unrealistic number of teams in each division. Teams obviously should not be allowed to participate in tournaments if they have not registered. By eliminating old teams, this would give us a realistic number of teams that are eligible to play. |
| March 7, 2008 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | TR, It might be because they recruit, stack and rename. Look over the divisions, You'll see a few tho have multiple names and some names weren't even listed. Comes down to politics, cash in, and working the system. Some are just very good at it. |
