EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Dgroom, todd forsten; 14 anonymousDiscussion: Einstein; Qusetion on NAS\'s tourney last year.
| Posted | Discussion |
| June 23 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Joe, Do you remember many Major &\or M+ teams were in Modesto for this one? All I remember is that most divisions\brackets didn't have many teams. |
| June 23 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Old A's and Farm and Scrap Iron, I think. Can't remember what I was thinking of Might be spoiled from too much love. |
| June 23 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Joe, getting it , giving it or for the game... lol Thanks. I wanted to compare to a post by Nancy Allen. I knew there were not many teams to begin with, but that seems to be a consistent problem for the teams that actually end up PLAYING AGAINST each other. There may be 15 in a "55" bracket but when you break it down to rankings, you end up with less than half, AND\OR you may have to play out of your age\div as well. Perhaps the round table for the Plus can address this as well for all segments... I do not mind playing against anyone but prefer equal. Not many tournaments really are. Just close. |
| June 24 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Taits: If I understand your point correctly, you'd like the task force to consider whether major plus teams play other teams (I presume that you mean in the seeding rounds). This was not a focus of the survey, which was sent out last week to the major plus managers from the 50, 55, 60 and 65 divisions. Our job was to prepare the survey, provide it to SSUSA and they would then send it out to whomever they wanted. Here are the points that are in the survey: 1) format - how many seeding games, when DE begins and when the last game begins... 2) time limits - several choices... 3) runs per inning - 7 runs in every game, 7 runs in in seeding, unltd in DE, unltd in both. 4) HR rules - unlimited, max number + sinlges, max number plus an out. 5) batted ball striking the pitcher - DBO or not. 6) roster restrictions - states + bordering states w/ snowbirds and no exemption players, states + bordering states & no snowbirds & 1 exemption player (East/West), states + bordering states & no snowbirds & 2 exemption players (East/West). 7) softballs - tourney provides the balls, tourney provides teams with 2 dozen and teams buy more if they wish (and chase their HRs and foul balls). 8) roster publication - rosters kept private or not. 9) ball/strike count - keep current 4-3 count, go to 3-2 count (1-1). These are their choices... it is all multiple choice... again, if you feel extremely passionate about this, contact YOUR manager and express it. We (GSF) allowed our players to choose and then tallied up the results and submiitted them to the task force. Once the results (completed surveys) have been received, the task force will tally them and provide the results to SSUSA. It will then be their baby... Getting back to what I think your point was, Taits... this has been used in the past in various assns. If the crossover is only one level (major + plays major, major plays AAA, etc.) it might work ok in pre-season stuff. But no one seems to win when this is used in year end national events. This is just my opinion, it isn't based on anything more than history (as I viewed it) and it is not necessarily the opinion of the task force. As far as I know, this was not brought up. However, it has been made crystal clear to me that major plus teams would rather play only a limited amount of peers... as opposed to including major teams (limited amount = 5-7 other teams)... this message was driven home to me by other major plus managers... and they definitely do not want to play AAA or AA teams. I know that some non-major teams/players that have been viewing these threads feel that an awful lot of time, space, energy, etc. has been allotted to the plight of the major plus division. We merely want to play the game in the ways that initially attracted us to it. No less, no more. We would encourage you to make every effort to preserve the elements of your game (non-major plus divisions). By having a choice of the different types of play, we ALL win. BW |
| June 24 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | BW, The teams do compete against each other in seeding rounds, as do the others. But wonder why the 70's were excluded... There are 18 teams left out... Age discrimination or "you" would prefer to concentrate on those younger coming up, ie: 40's... et al. I like the 9 points listed...but there are others within some of those. Example, the last one, #9, is that 1-1 start with or w\o one to waste...I see it both ways all over. I accept what you are doing, believe me, it is just that within your processes, you can also benefit others as well...I feel...maybe not, "you" already left out part of your own segment, 70\75's. Playing peers, is this in both seeding or just when it counts? I feel seeding is great for teams that are true to the game to go and win... but there are those who sandbag. personaly I do not like it...Have played on teams that do, and those who do not...won both ways. Someimes with same team. IMO: Tournaments with fewer that 4 teams you'll play against when it counts, should not take place. 5-6 are best for everyone as we all know...but unfortunately the driving force here is $$'s. Majority of tournaments could be done it two days but the long term deals struck only make it beneficial for the cities and Assn. Not for the players that foot the bills... Not that there are not bills paid for by Assn's, because there are, and that also might be a big reason for the allowance of 2 team brackets. Too many teams to get them all in ikn two days, great for the Assn, but why not have the young guys play under the lights. If the lights are available use them...I can understand the older brackets like 70's up not being under them, but I'd bet many younger ones play leagues under the lights now.. We have many in their 75 plus playing at night here. I think that with the group appointed will have a positive outcome. It's the changes what teams may have to adjust to with moving up to Plus or back down to Major that could effect players. Those are who I worry about. If other Assn's have moved to agreements with the Plus div, I'm sure SSUSA will come around or risk the loss of dedicated teams that do show up. Bob, this was not directed at you personally. |
| June 24 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Believe me when I say that I do not take this personally. I am merely being a messenger here. The survey has already been sent out and when the results are known on the 9 points, someone will make them known to the 'lay public'. Your question about why it was only sent to 'x' amount of the major plus teams (50-65) is not a question for me, the task force or for this board to answer. I do not know why and it wasn't our decision... you're preaching to the choir, so to speak. Your point about seeding games against different levels was not (is not) a focal point. This subject was discussed, in good length, almost 2 years ago following the SSWS event in Palm Springs. As a result, SSWS decided that it was not in anyone's best interest to have 'cross seeding'. The fact that you disagree is duly noted. In addition, the task force felt that the length of the survey was important and 'too much' was just that. Therefore, we pared it to the points that seemed to be most germaine. As of this PM, we only have the completed surveys from the following major + teams: 50 - Mavericks, Hendricks, Ploog, Evolution 55 - Spicer, MTC 55, Mission, Travelodge 60 - Joseph Chevrolet, GSF, Old A's, MTC 60, Ruth Realty If your manager has not returned it you might ask him/her 'why not'? BW |
| June 25 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Given the number of teams this process you have in the works concerns, the query of questions returned, does not represent what could be considered a quorum to make and decision rational. I hope more are returned to strengthen one sides views or another, on each of the 9 points submitted. Returned to date; 13 of the total 126, (I counted, not including the other 18 left out.) Break down returned vs Plus teams 50: 4 of 42 55: 4 of 34 60: 5 of 30 65: 0 of 20 70: none sent of 12 75: none sent of 6 Providing I counted correctly :Q But what ever is done will be done...I just hope if works out...There is no reason the questionnaire should not have been returned if the teams did receive them. As for being the messenger, if sounds familiar. Keep up the good work. |
| June 25 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Taits; 1) the number of listed major plus teams (SSUSA ratings list) does not equate to the number of teams that actually participate... I'm guessing that there are only 20-25 teams that will take part in the survey. 2) It appears that only the 50-60 teams will be involved in this process. Again, I do not know why. If I were to speculate as to why this is I would offer that most of the negative feedback received by SSUA has come from the 50-60 teams... i.e. the ones that were most affected by the change in HR rules. But this is just a gut feeling. bottom line = we are closer to a quorum that it may appear to most. BW |
| June 25 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | I see\understand you point...Many teams listed overall no longer exist. I hope you the sake of the group as a whole all teams reply, If they do not, there is no room to complain, even though if will happen anyway. Hope it works out. |
