http://seniorsoftball.com/?page=12

 
SIGN IN:   Password     »Sign up

Message board   »Message Board home    »Sign-in or register to get started

Online now: 0 members ; 21 anonymous
Change topic:

Discussion: Age Brackets & Divisions

Posted Discussion
Sept. 1, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
Age Brackets & Divisions
If we continue to have limits as they are now, we'll see sandbagging in all divisions. We already IMHO have to many divisions now. It is tourney ball and we all have ben playing for a few years. We really already know there are only one winner each weekend. So going 0-4 is not new to anyone out there. What's wrong with two divisions in each age bracket? It would allow for more teams in each tourney. It might be a little tough at the beginning, but like water, everyone or team would find their own level. I beleive we rule & regulate ourselves to death as it is. Someone please explain why we have so many divisions in each age bracket. I'm sorry as well.
Sept. 1, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Pricer, what many will tell you is wrong (or maybe they won't be willing to tell you) is that the fewer divisions the fewer "winners" and the fewer old guys who can go home and tell the grandkids "Pappy won the tournament this weekend".

(Of course he leaves out that he only had to beat 4 teams for the big "win")
Sept. 1, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
All joking aside Gary, I can't be the only person that feels we've more divisions than we need. Like Mike Ditka says, "if they didn't want a winner they would not keep score". We're close to giving out participation awards with so few teams. JMO
Sept. 1, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Pricer-I've suggested to SSUSA before that M+ might go to 50-57, 58-65 to eliminate one age level. That may work for lower levels, too. But a lot of these guys have never won anything big-our team was one of those-and to watch them celebrate is a good thing, too.
Gary, I remember the days of the 48 team tournament with no divisions-if you wanted to play, you played the big boys somewhere. We had a 4th of July in Albuquerque that attracted Leather Enterprises (AZ), Capitol Insulation (CA), American Realty (Ca), Las Vegas Rebels, and many other nationally ranked teams. They played fun league teams early, but nobody complained. That's how it was. It's a much different mindset out there now.
Sept. 1, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Jeff, for what it is worth (and many on here will tell you not much [LOL]), I completely agree with you. Four divisions, resulting in very often very tiny brackets, is absurd.

But again, to use my analogy 12th graders would rather play Freshmen ball and win then work to at least play JV if not Varsity.
Sept. 1, 2011
Duke
Men's 60
701 posts
Webbie25,

Your suggestion is a good one and has been made before. There could be some possible flaws with it. I think 50-57 would not be a problem. 58-65 could be a problem. When I started playing 60's, I noticed a huge drop in player skills with players that I play with and against. About 50% of the players were not as good as when they were playing 50's or 55's. A team with mostly 58 and 59 players could be too much for a team with mostly 63 to 65 players. This would be the case at the beginning. I guess we will not know, if we do not try it.

Pricer,

I like your idea better, because it may be an easier transition to improve the number of teams in each division. I would probably go for 3 divisions at first and see how that works. It might go for an easier break in period for teams.

In addition, I would go with 2 up on home runs, then an out. Otherwise, you will lose teams on this move.

JMHO

Andy Smith,
55 Major/60 Major Plus
Sept. 1, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Duke, how about 50-56, 57-63, 64-70?
Sept. 1, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I would think you would do two divisions first.It's easier to add one later then it is to subtract one. Upper & lower in each age group. For homeruns, make it simple. 10 for upper & 5 for lower. JMO
Sept. 1, 2011
GSWP001
Men's 60
73 posts
I agree with Duke. As soon I reached 60 the play changed and now that I'm 65 it has really changed. 57 to 63 might work but the 64 to 70 is a big differential. Not sure what the answer is though. Maybe an in team review of talent with a waiver to go up in age bracket. I relize that it would pretty much be on the honor system, but as adults I think it could happen. It does seem like with the bracketing we have now alot of teams are locked in to high because of past performance and the review does not happen soon enough. Tends to make for some long hard seasons.
Sept. 1, 2011
Duke
Men's 60
701 posts
Webbie25,

That might work better. Still teams with more players in the 57-60 range could run over some teams that had players in the 61-63 range. Most teams are not going to dump their friends to make a better team. Therefore, this would be a longer transition period for teams to add the younger players, and we might lose some teams. Honestly, I played 60's for the first time last year, and this season playing 55's. I am the old man on this team. Love the competition though. Next season, I will be playing 60's again, and subbing for the 55 team. There is a huge difference between these 2 teams. There is good talent on both, but the age makes the difference. I have always heard from many players to play within your age bracket. I did not see why in the 50's or 55's. but I do see it clearly in the 60's and higher. Take some time and go watch those games. When you get to 60's, you will understand. I am amazed and thankful, that I can even play at this age. I was ready to give it up at 45. Now I plan on playing on an 80 team, God willing. In no rush either. LOL!

It is not that a team cannot step it up and do the unbelievable. I will give you a good example from personal experience. My 60 Major team last year was composed of about 5-6 Major players, 5-6 better than average AAA players, and 2-3 average AAA players. We won the Phoenix Worlds. Usually the team that would win a tournament like that would be composed of at minimum all Major type players and most with 5 Major Plus type players, or more commonly know in all divisions as the "5 impact players" playing down one level. This is an undisputable fact, that SSUSA already knows. The actual fact is that about 78% of the teams that win a big tournament or get to Sunday, will be the team that has 5 impact players. 4 of our so-called Major type players were injured but playing. 2 of those 4 players are still not 100% today. We won bacause those so-called Major players did the best that they could, but more importantly, all of the so-called AAA players played like Major players. I will not bore you with the rest of what was posted previously.

We need to try and work with SSUSA, and come up with something that will work and soon. I know of several teams that just do not play any longer, mostly because of the lack of teams. They may go to local tournaments once in a while to save on the costs of travel to a more expensive tournament to play 2-3 other teams.

Sorry if I got a bit off track here.

JMHO

Andy Smith,
55 Major/60 Major Plus
Sept. 1, 2011
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
i'm with andy on this,once i hit 60 i could really see the difference,mostly in the legs.i still play with the kids and they are amazed a 60 yr old still plays with them,if they only knew what i go thru to still be able to play with them...... i could see a 50-58 div but once you get older we need to have the age divs closer together.also think we need at least 3 divs for play or we will lose teams .hell the kids have e,d,c,b,a, and a super div.

by going to only 2 divs you'll lose the player who is out to have fun and play with his buddies type teams.they'll maybe go play in a big tourney every now and again,but not a whole lot else.they'll go to tourneys like huntsman games that will offer 4-6 divs depending on how many teams there are for an age group.
Sept. 1, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
I don't know. I realize a LOT has changed since then, but I keep thinking back that softball participation and popularity was probably at its peak nationally in the 60s and 70s when there was primarily ASA offering only Open, and evenually just Open and A.

I am sure there were many teams then that took their lumps, but also many who knew that if you won a tourney you really achieved something. Not like it is now, for the most part, in Senior ball.

The issues with expanding the size of the age groups I understand. But the need for four divisions and usually very small brackets in each I don't think I ever will.
Sept. 1, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Duke-our Desperado team shows it can be done. As of November we have 12 guys eligible for 60's and we have been winning in 55AAA. When we took 3rd in 50AAA in Phoenix in 2009, we only had 4 guys less than 55 and one power hitter. I'm 59 and although I feel some drop off, it's not enough to think I can't compete here yet. I know what you are saying, though. I'm just throwing out ideas to think about.
Sept. 1, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
I think if we kept the age groups as they are right now, and just went to 2 divisions that you would have a more consistant turn out at tournaments. You could have an upper level, lower level and a rec division. Upper would be 7 HR's and 1 up and singles, lower would be 3 HR's and 1 up and a out. Rec would be no HR's.
Sept. 1, 2011
coop3636
57 posts
I will put in my 2 cents wortth.
I think that you should have just an upper and lower in each age group.
Make the lower 2 hrs and an out
Make the upper 4 hrs and 1-up

IMO, it make it closer to equal than what we have now.

Let the teams classify themselves.
See how it goes, and then move teams if it is too unbalanced or teams are just too good to play down. (after the first half of the year so teams can prove themselves one way or another)

Anything that happens will not make everyone happy, but most people are calling for some kind of change
Sept. 1, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I'll stick to my guns here, 2 divisions per age bracket. Upper & lower with 10 dingers in upper & 5 in lower. Simple to police and should increase numbers in all tourneys. I don't like the homers being the reason for indicating upper or lower. Just adding plus 1 is just putting a band-aid on an amputated leg. Not the answer. Coop, I'm not sure the word equal is the word you were trying to use. The only thing equal here besides upper and lower should be both teams play by the same rules. Equal sounds like, if someone has less ability we should some how take away from another to make things fair. JMO
Sept. 1, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
Pricer I like your idea the best. But for some reason, people want to make us hit fewer and fewer HR's.
Coop, I'm sorry but 4 HR's is not enough.
I believe most AAA teams can hit 4 HR's a game. There has to be a division for the guys who want to hit more HR's.
Sept. 1, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
I also think there should be a place for the teams that don't want to, or can't hit HR's. That would be the rec division that I laid out in my previous post.
Sept. 1, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Mario, why do you think just because a team doesn't or can't hit homers they are a rec team? So you think home runs are the only part of the game that matters?

Sept. 1, 2011
coop3636
57 posts
Hey Mario
If a team is not made up of homerun hitters, it doesn't make them a rec team.
We probably averaged 2 hrs a game (if that) last year and had a very good year.
If you have a one up rule, and both teams want to hit hrs, they can hit all they want.
If you make it 4 and one up or 10 and one up, if both teams are BIG hr hitters, it shouldn't matter. Hit all you want.
It only keeps it fair for a team that has good base hitters and good defense to play in the upper division.
Like I said, just my 2 cents worth
and by the way, I am a base hitter, so I might think different than a HR hitter.
Sept. 1, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I copied this from another thread: Please understand I'm not much for following the leader. Our society has become one in where everyone should have the same opportunity regardless of the cost to the people. Softball has mirrored this. Everyone has to have the same opportunity to hit homeruns, so we introduce the super bats. Then when it seems because we're getting old and our bodies start to change, we now have to introduce the double secret probationary super bats. That way now people who did not hit homeruns in their youth, can now do as a senior player. So now we have homerun rules to determine 4 plus divisions per age group. I know the bats are here for long term, but let's not make this out to be brain surgery. We don't need more than 2 divisions in each age group. Anyone who thinks otherwise should really think about it before you post, because logic tells us we don't. This to me is so simple. It's tournament ball fellas. Let's get over the equal participation & limit the real good teams so the weaker can hang tough until the open inning. No mercy after 4 or 5 innings when some teams are up 20 or 25 runs, that's a whole another thread. Simple logic folks. It's softball and we've been playing it for the better part of our lives. We know what the answers are already. Let's not rule ourselves to the point as softball players that none of us want to play any longer. Sorry for the rant, but this is my opinion.
Sept. 2, 2011
tg69
307 posts
Consider this.Have two divisions plus have a SUPER DUPER HOMERUN division that if you dont hit the ball out of the park,its an out.That way there is no need for defense and everyone that can do nothing but hit can play.Just sit in the dugout by the beverage cooler and wait your turn to longball.One catch though,you have to chase your own balls.Also,you can use altered bats because there is no one on the field of play to get hit except the pitcher but who cares about him,right.Just fuel for thought.HOLLA
Sept. 2, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
TG, I love the sarcasim.
Sept. 2, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
tg, sounds like a division einstein might like. :)
Sept. 2, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
I have not found a team in senior ball that wants to play against teams that have more power than they do. Most teams that don't have power want to play against teams like themselves, thats all I was saying. Hr's are just part of the game, but you would think that its all that matters when you discuss "divisions."
Pricer , again I must agree with you on having 2 divisions.
Coop, I would agree with the 1 up rule, but 4 HR's for the top division is not enough, just my opinion.
Sept. 2, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
Spa Major+ rules are 7 and 1 up and it works just fine. In Dalton this year we averaged 10-12 HR's a game. That worked out just fine for everyone involved.
Sept. 2, 2011
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
we need 3 divs,to get all to play i think.with only 2 divs,your gonna loose the fringe players,teams won't pick them up and they most likely won't start their own team.

for the lower divs now,i think the hr limits are good,the uppers might be tinkered with tho.also feel the top div should be unlimited or at least a hi numbered allowed(10-15 allowed).
Sept. 2, 2011
coop3636
57 posts
Mario
On an average, how many teams do you have in the Major + division in the tournaments that you go to?
Sept. 2, 2011
Mario
Men's 50
372 posts
We've played in 3 tourneys so far this year. The 1st one there was 8, then second one there was 2, and the 3rd one there was 6. So thats an average of just a little over 5.
Sept. 2, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
MD, we need only 2 divisions in my opinion. These players are tourney players and understand what they getting themselves into before the season starts. We need to quit creating divisions to accomedate every last player looking to play and start promoting & marketing the game for what it is. Softball at the tourney level. Maybe some folks who stopped might return to the game.
Sept. 2, 2011
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
pricer the way i see it is,say like you have 40 teams over the 4 divs avg of 12 players per team,that'll be 480 players.if you make only 2 divs you'll prolly only get 30 teams max with a total of 360 players as teams will combine to make stronger teams,that is shutting out 120 players and 10 teams.like i said the fringe players will get left out.........by making 2 divs i do not think that will bring out any more players,but we will loose some.i say no less than 3 divs.i think the 2 upper divs need to combine.
Sept. 2, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I don't think so at all MD.The numbers can even go the other way as well and increase. Players that are playing are not looking for an excuse to quit playing. This would be just righting the ship, for it has been tilted. JMO
Sept. 2, 2011
garyheifner
352 posts
I really believe 2 divisions would be bad. A lot of AA teams would vanish. Teams would load up and a lot of guys would be out of senior softball. If you ever do go to 2 divisions, they better reduce the surrounding states rules. Maybe players from your state and only one other state. There are many managers who have no problem with drawing the best from 3 or 4 touching states.

The real problem as I see it are you Major+ players/teams and some of the major players/teams. You have loaded up so much you got nobody to play. How about a AA and AAA level with HR limits and a 3rd OPEN division. Make your games 1 @ 1/2 hour time limits, unlimited Hrs and each team must have/supply 1 ball shagger beyond the fence @ all times to hustle the3 balls back in. You can pound away and most of the top Hr type guys will quickly come your way and you might find plenty of competition.

Remember this senior softball tour is not just for the elite. It is supposed to be for any senior who would like to play in a fair and equal level of competition.
Sept. 3, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I will disagree here as well Gary. I think we are selling the players short here. If they were looking for a reason not to play, that might be the case. But I think players are looking for reason to play. It seems like everyone is afraid to hurt someone feelings. It's tourney ball fellas. The players will come out more to larger tourneys than smaller ones. If you continue to create divisions to accommodate everyone, in a few more years we'll have age split by every 5 years and 4 divisions in each. We think tourneys are small now? JMO
Sept. 3, 2011
mad dog
Men's 60
3929 posts
mmm pricer i think that is what we have now,4 divs in 5 year age brackets........like i said in my other post we will loose players if teams are required to play in only 2 divs.teams will combine to get stronger and players will be dropped and you will lose players to a system like that.who is can form a team from these left over players to go and get bashed by the ,for lack of a better word,super teams.just saying,thats all.....
Sept. 3, 2011
titanhd
Men's 50
324 posts
I agree with Pricer. The current state of small divison tourneys is a direct result of too many divisions.In reality we've loss player participation already because of it. Mario stated that he's only played 3 tourney's this season and it's not because his team doesn't WANT to play-it's because they have no one TO play.Pricer stated it correctly in that teams are not finding or trying to find reasons NOT to play.Why even put together a team -a great team to be only able to play 3 tournamnets.Eliminate one division (Major+)and we're all set.
Sept. 3, 2011
southpaw
Men's 60
733 posts
There will never be as many Major+ teams as in the other divisions for a number of reasons: caliber of athletic ability seen at this level is not experienced by majority of players. This is a result of many factors, such as genetics, bad habits (smoking, drinking, fried foods, etc).

There are issues of health, injuries, time avaialble, finances, etc.

The only real solution is to combine major and major+ and combine AA and AAA. However, I wonder if there could not also be a rec division in order to entice the many league participants who do not want to commit 3-4 day tourneys, but would come for scaled back tourneys on weekends. Scaled back as in entry fees and number of games. That would accomodate the fringe players and give a reasonable separation for the tourney-ready players.
Sept. 4, 2011
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
There needs to be a AA division, or whatever you want to call it ... 1 or 2 HR's and then outs (no progressive). I think there are quite a few players and teams to warrant this. There are a lot of players coming to the game that really didn't play back in the day and a lot of players that are dealing with injuries that now prevent them from playing at a high level and some who just want to play this level. Keeping excess HR's as outs would prevent players from dropping down into this division, I would hope.

After this, there only needs to be two divisions, an upper and lower (Major and AAA) with some kind of PROGRESSIVE HR rule. Drop an age group between ages 50 and mid-60's somewhere (from 3 to 2 divisions) and we are set. It looks like most are on board with this.

Gary, you seem to think that the Major-plus game is a HR derby all the time, it is not. Obviously, I don't know where you play but 10 HR's is not reached that easily. We average a little over five and are Major-plus. Again, I do agree with your assesment that the AA level should remain.
Sept. 5, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
Jawood, I'd be ok with an AA division with no homeruns. If you have what you wood call a rec division (AA), there should be absolutely no homeruns. This would be the equivalent to the E division in softball. But you can't have a rec division with homeruns. JMO
Sept. 5, 2011
DCPete
234 posts
Combining the 50's & 55's like they do in Florida 1/2 Century should create bigger brackets especially for Major+ where a lot of the problems exist.
Not sure why this isn't given more consideration but I haven't heard of any big complaints with this system in Florida where they've been using it for years.
Sept. 5, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Pete, I think it does not get a lot of consideration because most of the guys want a lot of tiny brackets to increase their chances of being able to win something.
Sept. 5, 2011
17Black
Men's 50
219 posts
Since this is "Senior Softball" I do understand why there are "age" divisions.

BUT-------if divisions are based on homeruns for the most part---------why not just have AA, AAA, major and major plus tournaments ONCE in a while where age is no factor and keep the world or national tournaments grouped by age?

I know there are guys, especially pitchers, some of whom may be above 60 or even 65 that don't want 50 year olds hitting up the middle with 1.21 bats.

BUT there are 50AAA teams like mine where the pitcher is 67 and doesn't care that much who he's pitching too. The balls and the bats are the same.

I guess my point there are guys of all ages playing in younger divions by choice, and probably others who would rather stick to their age brackets---------BUT>>>

When we played division tournaments when we were younger we didn't care what age the other players were, we just played Major, A, B,C, D, whatever and went out and played.

50's and 55's or older wind up playing each other at some tournaments anyway-----in SOME CASES, and some tournaments MAYBE get rid of the age classification and just go play ball if we are going to base most stuff on the homers???

NOW on another factor-----bigger brackets mean MORE games if you play in losers brackets and there can be a lot of tired "older fella's" if you had to play more than three or four games in a day to fight your way out of a bracket-------which is a GOOD CASE for having all the divisions too, less games in one day at a tournament unless you keep winning :)

I remember once when I was around 30 playing about 6 games all day long on a sunday in the losers bracket of a tourney, and beat the winners bracket champ the first game, only to lose the 2nd-----and that was even WAY too much ball back then for a day, but thats what can happen when brackets are bigger.
Sept. 5, 2011
taits
Men's 65
4337 posts
If you mean a tournament specifically for AA & I doubt they would get as many teams there even though some are only a dozen as it is.
Would be nice to have something 'different' for a change. RE; All teams are playing at level.
I see the biggest problem is as it has been, basically forced to play younger and or better teams because there aren't enough to fill the slots.
Teams have needed to play 6 in a day or more to win coming back from the losers bracket even now.
Most are paired pretty good though.
Good food for thought.
Sept. 7, 2011
LP
279 posts
I'm just thankful none of you are in charge, just my opinion. because with everyones input, this great game we all play now, would surely be in a big mess.
Sept. 7, 2011
Jawood
Men's 50
791 posts
And it's not now?
Sept. 7, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
I don't know about anyone else that's been involved in this thread, but I take what LP post as an insult! I'm not sure I ever caught one of his post before, so he chimes in without his own opinion and just says we're all just stupid and can't even make a good sandwich. LP, why not inlighten us on what you feel would be the best path to take?
Sept. 7, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Pricer, good point! I am pretty sure the best path would not include tiny brackets with a bunch of silly, contrived rules.
Sept. 7, 2011
LP
279 posts
Pricer i didnt mean it to seem like and insult. i think the way SSUSA puts tournaments like rocking reno and phoenix together its well done. now if your taking on a local level the tounament divisions wont be as large. here in texas we have three SSUSA qualifiers and it usually is 4 to 7 teams in our division. the way i see you all talking you seem to not want to play unless there are 10 plus teams in a division, we all just want to play what ever the size of the divisions.
Sept. 8, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
The way SSUSA structures these tournaments, we get plenty of games. We played 5 on Saturday in Denver-that is enough for me when playing outfield and hitting well so I have to run the bases a lot. Of course, we like to play different teams, but the sad truth is, there are not many AAA teams within 500 miles of Albuquerque, and only a handful of major teams, so we are happy to be able to play.
In the last year and a half we have traveled to Reno, El Paso (280 miles), Phoenix (450 miles) (3 times), Tucson (450 miles), Las Vegas (600 miles), Denver (450 miles), Kansas City (900 miles), Orlando (2000 miles), Pinetop (225 miles) (2), Prescott (400 miles) (2), and Silver City, NM (200 miles)to play.We have no tournaments here in Albuquerque, although I am working on that. That is a lot of traveling when you are 'self-sponsored'. But, I don't see how SSUSA could make it better. Fewer divisions won't change a thing for us. We are just happy with the chance to play.
Sept. 8, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Webbie, have you ever calculated the average amount of money you personally spend per roughly 75-minute game when you factor in travel and lodging?

Not just for one particularly meaningful tournament, but overall.
Sept. 8, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Absolutely afraid to, Gary, but my wife and I agree that the alternative, which is growing sedate and giving up the game I love, is not an option.
Sept. 8, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
There are other ways to stay active.

You don't have any local leagues by you?
Sept. 8, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
Gary-I ride my bicycle from 50-200 miles a week to stay in shape, but softball is what I love. I'm not giving it up.
Sept. 8, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
I understand that.

So no local leagues by you where you could get a LOT more bang for you bucks?
Sept. 8, 2011
Pricer
Men's 50
621 posts
Webbie, move back to Michigan, plenty of leagues to play in!!
Sept. 8, 2011
Gary19
Men's 50
2615 posts
Same here. There are four within 50 minutes of me.
Sept. 8, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
I play Tues and thurs morning all summer, and one evening league with the Desperados against the kids. Probably have 100 plus games this year.
Pricer, I moved away in 1970 and do NOT miss the SNOW and COLD temps. 330 plus days of sunshine here on average-winter is 45 and 25 average at the coldest and usually just a few inches of snow a year. My best friends live in Pinckney, and they are coming to visit for the Balloon Fiesta in October.
Sept. 8, 2011
Al33
Men's 55
183 posts
Webbie25
Albuquerque has metropolitan area population of around a million people. Hard to believe you can't get more participation. Especially with your climate.
Good luck in your quest for more tournaments in your area.
Sept. 8, 2011
Webbie25
Men's 60
1964 posts
A133- it's around 700,000. We have no fields suitable for tournaments-no 4 field complexes with 300 foot fences. However, we have a new mayor and I have talked to him and he and Parks and Rec are including me in a loop about plans for a new 6 field complex. Hold that thought, but if we get it built, I have already told Dave I'd like to get a Senior tournament in here. It really is a shame we haven't done better.
Sign-in to reply or add to a discussion or post your own message and start a new discussion. If you don't have a message board account, please register for a free nickname. It will only take a moment.
Senior Softball-USA
Phone: (916) 326-5303
Fax: (916) 326-5304
2701 K Street, Suite 101A
Sacramento, CA 95816
Send us e-mail
Senior Softball-USA is dedicated to informing and uniting the Senior Softball Players of America and the World. Senior Softball-USA sanctions tournaments and championships, registers players, writes the rulebook, publishes Senior Softball-USA News, hosts International Softball Tours and promotes Senior Softball throughout the world. More than 1.5 million men and women over 40 play Senior Softball in the United States today. »SSUSA History  »Privacy policy

Follow us on Facebook

Partners