Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Golfman, TABLE SETTER 11; 134 anonymousDiscussion: California/Florida border rules
| Posted | Discussion |
| Sept. 21, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | California/Florida border rules To All California/Florida Teams/Players, When you get a chance to read the new rules and absorb them all, you will see that the Rules Committee can be compared to our current Congress, they do not think things all the way through and/or get EVERYTHING accomplished in a timely manner. While I agree with all of the changes, this "bordering rule" that was shelved for December, will ultimately put a bigger burden on California/Florida teams than anticipated. Think about it and think very clearly. With the new "Impact Player" rule, many teams all over the USA and other countries will see a real impact for their now current teams. If you have more than 3 of these players on your team for the 2012 season(2 for 2013 on), when you register for your next SSUSA tournament after the Phoenix Worlds, you will be asked to move up or eliminate some of those players from your team. Basically, you move up or eliminate players, not a debate. That is a good thing, especially for all of the lack of Major Plus teams. ALL OF YOU CALIFORNIA/FLORIDA TEAMS ARE SCREWED ROYALLY. How do you find replacement players for all of the players that you may be dropping, or those "Impact Players" choose to play on the level of their abilities and hook up with a real upper level team, and many of those available players you are looking for, are playing for a bordering state and/or being taken from your state for the same reasons????????? It makes it real difficult to form a new team or adjust a current team under these circumstances for California/Florida teams, with this last issue hanging over our heads. SSUSA, if you are going to open up the borders or not, let us know now. When you do something like this, YOU NEED TO DO IT RIGHT AND FINISH THE JOB. DO NOT PUT IT OFF FOR 3 MONTHS. SSUSA, you know I am right, so let's get these busy committee people back on the phone to finish the job, so California and Florida teams/players will know where they stand. Let's hear from you California and Florida teams. We need those borders open. AT WORST, THESE BORDERING STATES SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE PLAYERS FROM CALIFORNIA OR FLORIDA. If we have so many teams and players in California and Florida, then we are strong and have other options. You Major Plus teams, wake up. They are not going to have 3 divisions at this time, and never will have 2. You want some more teams and California and Florida has such an abundance of players, then you need to speak up here. When these "so-called Impact Players" start becoming available and they are trying to form teams using bordering states and they are closed, you will find yourselves in the same situation, no teams to play. This will trinkle down to the Majors, AAA, and AA teams as well for California and Florida. JMHO, Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Sept. 21, 2011 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | There's no need for hastily made decision. December is a more than enough time for teams to form for the next year. It's better to take your time and get it right than make a decision quickly under pressure and get it wrong. Who needs the borders open? The Fla/Ca teams or the teams looking for those players that reside there? |
| Sept. 21, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | For the other 48 States, you may want to jump in and add your 2 cents worth. If you really think this through, there could be a domino effect that will not be correctible, if they do not open the borders for California and Florida. We the senior softball players, could use everyone's input here. What I am eluding to here is with this new "Impact Player" rule, you will have so many of them dropping from teams, where they have been hiding. When they cannot find a team to play on, what do you think is going to happen? Come on, the reason for these bordering rules, is because there are so many more players to choose from in California and Florida, and those teams are very strong. If you do not open up the boarders and soon, then these Major Plus, Major and AAA players that cannot make new teams, will join existing teams of their ability/level. That will make these teams even stronger and more difficult to defeat. While I am not against stronger teams, it is not cost effective for SSUSA or your team. You want to play more teams, but not that many new one's will be formed in California and Florida. For SSUSA, that means unclaimed revenues $$$$. For your team, it will mean going to play some overly stacked teams in a small bracket. What a waste of time and money. I am trying to open your eyes, but I may be completely wrong here, so it would be great to hear what you have to say: Teams, Players, and SSUSA. There is nothing else that I can say on this subject, so I hope to read some responses from all of you, whether for or against. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Sept. 21, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Pricer, I lied everyone, I will say one more thing. I do not know how it is in your State, but I do know how it is in California. From about October 1 to the week before Christmas, it is like fantasy football/baseball here. Before Phoenix, there is a lot of maybe's or I will think about it. After Phoenix, the meat market is open season here. That is why December is too long to wait here. I said my piece, so good luck to you all. I trust something will be done soon or not. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
| Sept. 21, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Bad Rule...imo §8.4(6) – GAME WINNING HOME RUN [Added new language to end of Section] - A team may not win a game in the bottom of the last inning on a home run that would put them 1-up under the "1-Up-Progressive" Rule. Bring back the boarding states rule for all states. As far as lack of teams go, because there is one or more tournament every weekend. SSUSa had one on average somewhere every weekend with the main one every other weekend. Add the other assn's into the mix and it is no wonder brackets are lacking. Look ar the number of teams that showed up for some of these "bigger ones" 12, 24,27, 31, 41, 51 its a wonder they broke even if they did. Dump them and chance are those teams would go to another and fill the brackets. But then that is reason and out of the question, like moving the TOC date... lol. |
| Sept. 21, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Any so called Impact player list needs to be posted. Players need to know so they can make arrangements. I won't say I told you so on is everything sorted out... it wasn't and won't be for quite awhile. But then, something like this could not be easy. |
| Sept. 21, 2011 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Scott, I don't believe the rule means players that are on an impact list. Imo it means players that have played in a higher division in the past two years. So, if you want to play on a AAA team and you and three of your buddies played major last year then your team will have to play major. |
| Sept. 21, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | taits-you have that totally wrong. 8.4 (6) is ABSOLUTELY necessary to keep the home team from having the possibility of ALWAYS hitting one more HR than the visitor. It evens the rule. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | BruceinGa, I thought of that but as with some things as have been written over the years it is not clear. PPR as an example. Thanks. If they are going to use any form of player profiling which it is, they better get it right the first time around. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Webbie25, This is not the way the game was meant to be. To keep a person from coming up to bat and basically telling him I know your capable of hitting a HR but sorry you cannot do it now. I understand the ONE UP portion but so what, the visitors should have scored more when they were up the innings before, It seems as though all assn's keep changing rules for: 1. time constraints which saves money usually due to umpire complaints on game lengths for what they get, 2, where the run limits per inning also came into effect and mercy rules. 3. Flip flop rule to save time 4. time or days 'needed' to draw T's out at locations, which maximizes perk considerations for officials, 5. changes for "Safety" Are there tangible gains for the PLAYERS in any of this or something close other than a game to go to? Help me out here, as well as your self.....I know it is not the 70's or so but it is also not the game we used to play for those reasons which all come down to that one goal or word. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Scott-what would you suggest on 'player profiling'? Rate every player? Rate what YOU CALL 'impact' players? (There is no 'impact players list') Who decides who an impact player is? Is everybody who plays Major or Major Plus an 'impact' player? Is it just home run hitters? High Average hitters? Players who are 'leaders' of their teams? Could AAA players be deemed 'impact players' because of their performances in tournaments? Is this rule perfect?? No, there are always going to be people that have a different opinion. Your statement that 'they better get it right the first time around' is unnecessarily challenging and inflammatory. They (SSUSA) will always be watching and listening trying to put the best product on the field. But, there are a lot of people that put a lot of hard work into this-and it is obvious that they have listened to us, the players. The new homerun rule is an obvious change to mirror what I've personally heard repeatedly in the last year--home runs should not be outs-ever. Even with these bats-to be able to hit a ball 300 plus feet at our ages is special enough that it should not be an out. The issue of how many players of a certain level can be on teams is also well thought out, and a strong attempt to keep teams from sandbagging just to win tournaments. Duke, there is no easy answer to your dilemma either. There is no 'impact player list'. The roster composition rule is designed to keep teams from loading up, and make them play at the level they should compete at. $$$ talks and there are always going to be those teams that 'bend' the rules to put together the best team money can buy. This hasn't changed in 40 years. There is no easy answer. Duke-email Dave with your ideas and concerns. Personally, you have always been one poster I look forward to because your posts are well thought out. I know he welcomes intelligent dialog and they are always open to ideas. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | taits-would you go into a game with the rules saying your team gets 3 home runs and the other team, because they are the home team, gets 4 home runs? Of course you wouldn't-but that's what you are saying without this rule. I would consider that very unfair. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Webbie25, Actually there ARE list. I think 3 of them. Some better than others and also list on who was banned and for how long. some are viewable Personally I do not like players being labeled. Will go for TEAMS being labeled which comes from ratings... That can change with adds or drops in players by... YOU pick a number of guys. I am not the only one who says get it right the 1st go round, but it also means think about consequences or what if's as well. On that think about the last rule that was a disaster, the PPR rule. Look at it's history. I sure do not disagree on the work involved or that has been and will be fourth coming. The HR thing has been a subject for years. There will always be sandbaggers which is usually apparent when new faces appear in the game at same T. Not always, but it happens. I stated I understand the one up part, I have seen it used as a you can win with one in the bottom of the last inning and then to, no hr for a win, and back to you can win with a HR one up as it is now. I think a better reply or GAME would be unlimited HR's and\or runs with no mercy rule like it used to be. But the need or is it greed will nix that dream game from yonder years in the bud. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | That game-no hr rule, no mercy rule is gone as long as these bats rule. Scenario-major tournament-say Worlds. Phoenix has winds blowing about 30-35 mph. Can you even imagine the scores and lengths of games with the wind blowing straight out with these bats? Can you say 100 runs? Can you imagine the budget on balls? Can you imagine how far behind the schedule would get, and with 330 plus teams, it might end up being a 24 hour tournament. SSUSA has done a good job taking these factors into account. Greed will exist in the game, as it does in life. It is unfortunate that some have to win at all costs, and are willing to 'bend the rules' to do so. That is the hardest thing for the rules committee to deal with when looking for an equitable solution to the roster issues. PS-Dave assures me there is no list. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | We are ruling ourselves to death! Two divisions, 10 HRs for the upper & 5 for the lower. After the limits there outs or we can create a couple more divisions for all those in between players. A,A+,AA,AA+,AAA, AAA+,major, major+. When we run out of pluses, we can go with the - divisions. Stop the insanity already! |
| Sept. 22, 2011 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Scott, maybe this is the list you are refering: 50 Major-Plus Impact Players: ========================= CA Thunder: Doak Whitley, Steve Owens, Vern Fowler, Art Tressler, George Hall, Pine Knob: Jim DiNoto, Bobby Stewart, Gary Deaton, Grant Saint Armour. Ploog Construction: Garry Morris, Kurt Horness. Crush Softball: John McCarrick, Mike Jackson, Tarrell Strokes, Charles Wright, Robin Roberts, Pat McLellan, Ben Sheffield, Ed Rivera, Matt Digennaro. Las Vegas Stars: Mike Burbank, Joe Firova, Ted Porter, Rich Perez, Abe DeAnda, James Massey, David Winslow, Tom Crine. Miken/Old South: Charles McCraine, Russell T. McMahan, John W. Hayes, Brad Polk, Frank Gould Jr., Bruce Fairchild. Ploog: Thomas P. Kubalak, Carry Morris, Rick Anderson, Mike Korth. Seacrest Mavericks: Mike Lindberg, Michael Adair, Jon "Bull" Kramer. Randy Smith: Bud Weathers, Bill Blake, Tim Moran, Thomas Brown. ======================== 55 Major-Plus Impact Players: ========================: California Old A's: Jim Stapleton, Chip Morton, Bob Cummings, Ray Miranda, Ron Tatti New York States-man: John Da vide, Paul Brown, Frank Cosentino Grimes Trucking (AZ): Fred Purvis, Corky Northrup. Turn Two/RECKO: Carson Chavis, Bob Kuykendall, Dale Chenault, Lynwood Manning, Berry Roach, Butch Hays, Jay Smith, Tom Dommel, Don Chatterbough, Andy Zitney. GSF: Ron Hansen, Roland Bleitz, Conway Waddy, Don Crenshaw, Ed Marwede, Alvin Tate, Mack Lough. Old A's: Otis Menasco, Bob Rohatch, Pat McGuire, Lefty Chell, John Denham. Mission Softball: Robert Saewz, David (Howdy) Melton, Joe Flores. New York Statesmen: Patrick J. Ricci, John Davide, Frank Cosentino. ========================= 60 Major-Plus Impact Players: ========================= Old A's/ Mken: Mike Rivera, Tom Avery, Ron McElyea, Pat Tobin, Tony Miranda, Tom Best, Wayne Harper, Fred Santon, Ron Herrick, Gary M. Tryhorn.. Thomas Engineering: Ralph Godwin, Danny Ballard, Gene Wood, Jerry Conner, Harry Mills, Sam Pearson, Larry Whitley, Glen Bailey.Texas Ironmen: Randy Hendicks, Sain Lee, Terry Perryman, Ewald Schadt, Fred Simpson, Dennis Baker. Human Kinetics: Zeb Carter, Deny Dedmor, Rainer Martens, Bob Koss, Bob Conrad, Jim Causier. ========================= 65 Major-Plus Impact Players: ========================= Florida Legends/ Dan Sports: Micky Urmann, Bill Brotherton, Dave Decker, John Mello, Vinnie Ranson, Lou Giovanini, Doug Gunter, Terry Mack, Pat Bidelman, Billy Brotherton. Nor Cal Speed Limit: Bob Hannah, Matt Rocha, Bill Gallagher, Bill Enos. NorCal Blue Jays: Roger Berryman, Terry Nafziger, Dick Bryson, Larry Reeser, Bob Banchero, Mike Leitner, Lynn Anglin, Jim Donhue, Tom Palma, Arnold Bray, Al Meyers. Emerald City: Jack Scott, Mary Rueck, Bill Winter, Jake Loy, George Grant, Lynn Larson. Joe Corbi's: Maynard Wells, Ed Attberger, Clarence Lewis, Kellar Smith. Ed's Aluminum: Jake Wood, Jimmy Faulk, Dave Bush. SOURCE: Page 4 Senior Softball News: Spring 2006 Edition |
| Sept. 22, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | BruceinGA, May well be since it has bee years I last viewed it. ASA also had one I was privy to see when I was on the council. Thanks for sharing here. Down side is that it is old but in positive side it shown they are out there. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Bruce-nice find-I have emailed Dave to ask about it. It may be totally obsolete and one does not exist now. 5 years is a lot in Senior ball. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | Very entertaining! ... We have exactly one copy of that list here in the SSUSA office ...And it's in our old Senior Softball News publication archive file, right on page 4 where Bruce said! ... It's 6½ years old, and hasn't been consulted in well over 5 years ... The principal problem with that list was that it had to be re-issued after the first draft because (unbelievably, but true) a whole bunch of guys were ticked off and/or offended by their Manager NOT putting them on the list the first time around! ... It's full of talented players, for sure, along with an almost equal number of guys who match that first category in EGO ONLY ... Thanks for posting it Bruce, it's a nice trip down memory lane ... Sort of like seeing a still-working Radio Shack TRS-80 computer with a whopping 16Kb memory! ... Still out there, but with absolutely no functionality in the current world! |
| Sept. 22, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | That 'Impact Player' list is simply a list of the guys who were named All Tourney at the 2005 SPA National Tournament in Plano, TX (July - 2005). While some of the persons named were/are truly impact players, many others were/are nowhere near that status. Rather than try to properly determine who belongs on such a list, they merely used the SPA All Tourney List. Why an Impact Player List would be necessary is beyond me. Why not just use a list of players that been playing M+ and delete those who were role players (courtesy runners, defensive replacements, etc.). Of course, this presupposes that ALL of the best players are playing at the M+ level. We all know that this isn't the case. Can the IP list! Special consideration should be given to those that were consistent non-starters should they attempt to play down one division. Those of you that really feel that the associations would have the time, the inclination and the expertise to rate every player are not thinking clearly about this issue (IMO)... if it were YOUR job, how would YOU allocate the time to adequately complete this task? Remember, there are 30,000+ registered players. In truth, there are a myriad of teams that have made it their mission statement to fly just beneath the M+ radar. They compete very favorably with M+ teams but prefer to dominant at the M level. I would imagine that this is true in the AAA/AA levels as well. Andy, you sign your posts as a 60 M+ player but don't want to play at this level. Or am I misinterpretting your position? BW |
| Sept. 22, 2011 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Dave, I was going to post that I was sure you wouldn't intentionally mis-lead Webbie, just that it list is probably obslolete. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Bruce-I had it figured out, too. There is only offense taken here when it is meant and I know Dave better than that. I tend to believe the best in people until they prove me wrong. thewood-as usual, spot on. You say it much better than I do, and with more weight. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 softball4b Men's 70 1248 posts | Wow I made the big time, I am an impact player. I am going to print this and show it to my wife. Maybe she won't make me fold the clothes tonight. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 softball4b Men's 70 1248 posts | My wife added a comment, Honey check the date. Legend in your own mine. Okay gotta go, on my way to vegas. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 softball4b Men's 70 1248 posts | Mind not mine, she did not check the grammar before I posted. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Regarding choice of words: "Impact Player". I was wrong to use that phrase in that there is no 'rule' per se. I took it from the thread poster and used it wright or wrong. That said, the wording on the actual changes within the roster composition rule changes to be made could easily be inferred for that. §15.1(1) B. 3(and those that follow....team roster shall not have more than three (3) players with a team affiliation rating history during the previous two tournament seasons greater than Major for the 2012 tournament season, and not more than two (2) such players for the 2013 and subsequent tournament seasons. Many teams pick up players usually based upon ability and availability. Chances are good many teams will need to make changes in a negative manner for them as a team. This should prove interesting in the next year or so. I think many teams will be restructuring. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | the wood, You may interpret anything the way you would like. I have stated previously that my last year's team was simply a top of the line AAA team or bottom of the line Major team in the 60's. Double Edge had about 4 injured payers, 1-2 move up to 65's, and 2 move to a bordering state. Actually, one moved way East to a non-bordering state. What I have not said is, that I tried to find a 60 Major or 60 Major Plus team to play on for this season. After not being able to get on one, I chose to play on a 55 Major team for this season, while trying to get a 60 Major/Major plus team started for the new 2012 season. With the new rules in effect, I and 2 others are putting together a 60 Major Plus team for the new 2012 season. I will be playing 60 Major Plus and subbing for my current 55 Major team, when it does not conflict with the 60 schedule. We need to add about 5 more players, which is in the works as we speak. The lack of the repeal for the bordering rule, has set us back a bit, but it will happen eventually. Let's be real too Mr. Wood, there are simply not enough 60 Major plus teams in existence, to warrant traveling all over to play 1-2 other teams. Enough said about this. On to another subject. The definition of an "Impact Player" has been misinterpreted by most on this posting, within the context that SSUSA meant it to be. While most have interpreted the "Impact Players" as who are the top notch players in the country and/or known to be, or as SSUSA eluded to in addition, and the additional ego players that wish they were. LOL! I think everyone has gotten away from the real meaning as SSUSA has meant it to be. The only definition that is being assigned to the words "Impact Player", per SSUSA's definition, is a player that is on a team of a higher division. Those players are labeled with that rating because of association to that team, whether or not they are of that level of play or not. Nothing more and nothing less. Any other definition is not being applied within the SSUSA rules for application to their rules. If it is OK with you Mr. Wood, may I continue to sign 60 Major Plus? LOL! Just kidding!! Despite the fact that I am not worthy of such a label, it sounds good to me. Maybe it is the ego coming out. LOL! Maybe I will see you out there some time, and I would be happy to buy you a beer. Not sure what the name of my new 60 Major Plus team will be yet. Andy Smith, 60 Major Plus/55 Major |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Duke-what a great post. 'nuf said. |
| Sept. 22, 2011 Mario Men's 50 451 posts | Maybe they should have a "Major" player list like in young kids ball. You could call them Impact players if you want. In young kids ball if your on 1 of the 4 Major teams, then you are on that list. I can't speak for other teams, but on our Major+ team, i feel like all of our guys are some of the top guys in the nation. I know there are a bunch more of this caliber out there. I personally have no problem with them labelling players. They've done it for years, why not in senior ball as well. As far as the border rule, I have not been involved in senior ball enough to see what advantage California and Florida have on the rest of us. |
| Sept. 23, 2011 CRUSADERVB Men's 70 275 posts | ANDY, YOU MADE ONE BIG MISTAKE!! YOU OFFERED TO BUY WOODY A BEER, THIS WOULD DRAIN YOUR SAVINGS. HAVE YOU EVER DRANK WITH WOODY BEFORE? APPARENTLY NOT. MR. WOODROOF IS ON THE ''IMPACT PLAYER LIST'' FOR DRINKING BEER. GOOD LUCK, HE DRINKS MILLER LITE. |
| Sept. 23, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | mario something i suggested we use a while back.once a team gets to a div,they are all considered to be that div type player.just like the kids ,lower teams can have a couple of upper div type players,(called bumps in the kids world)i think we can do the same in senior ball.no need for an impact list,the last div the player played in would be considered his playing level. the advantage cali and flor have, is in the number of players in each state. |
| Sept. 23, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Crusader: You erred! First of all, I prefer Bud Lite over Miller Lite. How quickly you forget... Secondly, while my beer drinking was previously noted in magazines and a movie, it has since been reduced to 'an occasional social endeavor'. But that could be a side effect of not playing with GSF and its Phoenicians/Prescottians. Andy: You obviously can use whatever tag line you wish. It just seemed like a conflict to me. The 'bordering state' rule should be amended to coincide with the LVSSA rules otherwise the differences will cause problems with the merger. IMO, there never was solid evidence supporting such a change (closing CA/FL borders). Yes, there are a large number of teams from both states but, aside from the Mavericks, which ones have dominated the landscape? Because of the real estate value differentials (between CA, NV, AZ & UT) many of our long term friends/teammates have migrated east to AZ and/or NV to retire. Some of them can see CA from their homes (Lake Havasu, Bullhead City) but cannot play for a CA team. Therefore, our 2011 choice was to either delete those players or not play in SSUSA events. This was the only assn that conflicted with our roster other than ISA, which isn't a real player in this region. We chose to keep those guys and avoid playing where 'we were no longer welcome'. So, yeah, I feel your pain. Waiting until December to repeal the bordering state restriction does indeed hamper the recruiting process. Harkening back to our team... we could apply the 2 'out of area' guy rule. So which of 4 guys do we keep and which do we delete? Faced with this problem we'll take the same road again... our guys over an assn. It's too bad though because there are a lot of SSUSA events that we've enjoyed over the past 7-8 years. But I realize that we are but one team and SSUSA will draw 200+ into Phoenix next month. I also know that there are FL teams in the same boat as us. So we do not take the eligibility restrictions personally but we do feel that they were ill-considered, ill-applied. Coincidently, there are a couple of new, localized senior assns that do allow our rosters. So we do have a place to play in So CA and they do have access to very nice complexes. The downside is that we don't see as many of our regional competitors as we ordinarily have. BW |
| Sept. 23, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | BW, I agree 100% with you about keeping our players over any association. In the spirit of that, my team is still going to include those out of state players, and we are going to play our 12-14 tournaments elsewhere. Like you said, the other organizations do follow this, and there are so many other organizations competing for our business. There is actually 4 in Southern California, 2 of which are very well known. The other 2 are park and rec tournaments held by Anaheim and Huntington Beach or more commonly referred to as "Beach Ball Tournaments" per my good friend DD. LOL! There is one other organization in Southern California, but not really sure who they are. I have been receiving emails from them once in a while. Do not forget Morro Bay, Santa Maria, Paso Robles, and Central California tournaments. Going to Santa Maria, Morro Bay, and Paso Robles is so nice to play ball, and the wives/girlfriends love the tourist shops and wine tasting. This is not counting the organizations in the East, but travel costs there were be alot, so maybe once in a while. There is always the Huntsman tournament every year. Take care and look forward to meeting you at one of these tournaments. Crusader, I said that I would be happy to buy "a" beer. LOL! Andy Smith, 60 Major Plus/55 Major |
| Sept. 23, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | Mad Dog: You are correct in saying that there are more senior players in CA and FL than in other states. Unlike the 'Little Big Horn' and 'Alamo' events, senior softball tourneys have roster restrictions... i.e. number of players per team. In a tug-of-war CA and/or FL teams would have a distinct advantage. Theory aside, what teams have dominated from either Ca or FL? Again, the Mavericks were an all CA team (SSUSA roster) with one very notable exception. But he would have been grandfathered this season since he previously lived in So CA. So what other CA/FL teams have been running the table? Anyone: On the flip side, there is a positive to the number of players in both CA & FL. This means that are more teams from each place. If you go to AZ next month would you prefer that they reduce the number of teams? What I've been hearing is that most teams like to play in larger brackets. Larger populations = more teams... CA has had a larger population than every city in the US (except NY & Chi) for many years. How many of the best USSSA/ASA teams were from here? Can you name one? It was so tight with players/teams here in the late 70s that we had to go to the midwest or the south to find suitable competition. How about we put away theories and go with results? Which teams have dominated due to using bordering state players (CA & FL). Which other teams have dominated (teams not contiguous to either CA or FL)? This theory isn't up there with 'the earth is flat' but it's wrong nonetheless. BW |
| Sept. 23, 2011 CRUSADERVB Men's 70 275 posts | SORRY WOODY, YOU'RE RIGHT, BUD LITE. BUT I HAVE SEEN YOU DRINK MANY MANY MILLER LITES ALSO. MISS YOU BUDDY ON GSF!!! ANDY BRING YOUR WALLET, 60 MAJOR PLUS? HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET!! |
| Sept. 23, 2011 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | wood i would say there is no domination,was just trying to answer why it was done, to answer mario's question.like at TOC this year,it was 50-50 between northern and southern teams that won,and there is the big argument there, that the northern teams are at a big disadvantage b/c of when it is held(2-3 months after worlds),just saying..... you are right about the senior citizen's leaving cali upon retiring,its b/c of the cost of living,its the reason i moved to texas.cost of housing is 50% or more cheaper here for buying. |
| Sept. 23, 2011 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | I hear you, Bob. It's just that each time that it is mentioned the chances of people believing it are increased. Before moving to TX you should have just moved to a CA house half as big as the previous one. But, on the upside, you did raise the IQ of both states in the process. :-) |
| Sept. 23, 2011 JMJIT Men's 65 35 posts | Ok Guys there is no Bigger Beer Whore that BPP Aka (CRUSADERVB)P E R I O D ........ |
| Oct. 2, 2011 Duke Men's 65 908 posts | Just had another thought about this issue. I have already expressed that there should be no difference in the rules for any State, including California and Florida. If that was the case, then maybe put a limit on how many players you can have on your roster from a bordering State, 1, 2, 3, or whatever. That could resolve the problem, that apparently seems to be non-existent. Andy Smith, 55 Major/60 Major Plus |
