Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 7 members: BillKent, Boom66, Boricanuy, Nicki, TABLE SETTER 11, birdie, just joe; 121 anonymousDiscussion: Explanation please
| Posted | Discussion |
| March 3, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | Explanation please Can someone please explain to me how 2 players that played 2 years ago in 50s Major+ (and haven't played since then)who are now 55 are still considered 50 Major+ and not 55 Major+? |
| March 3, 2021 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Please call the Sacramento Office at (916) 326.5303 during weekday mornings in the Pacific time zone and ask for an "Eligibility Specialist" ... Be prepared to talk about the specific players and teams involved ... We don't do individual eligibility publicly on the Message Board and we don't do "hypothetical what-if's" in the office ... Thanks and good luck ... |
| March 3, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | No one is dealing in hypotheticals or "what ifs" these are facts. Two 55 year old who haven't played for two years are being classified as 50 Major+. The reply was age does not matter because they haven't played 55 major+. That's because they haven't played competive ball in two years. With that logic a 70 year old who hasn't played in 20 years but, last played 50 major+ is still 50 major+ if they want to return to ball lol. |
| March 3, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just pointing out that it makes no sense. I would understand if they played 50+major at 55 but, they didn't even do that. They were in the 50s group when they played. |
| March 3, 2021 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | OK, since you aren't giving a lot of indication that you're going to call the office for reliable advice, here are a couple of random possibilities that may fit your guy(s) ... I'm betting on the first one, just because it's fun to speculate when the player declines to seek/take advantage of the advice opportunity offered ... • Sometimes a guy will stop playing for a couple of years because he is/was on a team that got moved, say for example, from 50-Major to 50-Major+ ... He knows that "plus tag" history experience stays with him for two years ... So he's going to get clever and "wait out" the two year "plus tag" and slide back into active status at Major ... NEWS FLASH: When a player stops playing, we stop the "statute of limitations" during that same time frame ... So "that guy" is usually very surprised to learn that even though he's now ready to resume his career, the two year wait starts/resumes, too ... The "two" refers to SEASONS, not calendar years ... • You have a complete logic failure with "..With that logic a 70 year old who hasn't played in 20 years but, last played 50 major+ is still 50 major+ if they want to return to ball.." ... If they want to return, they return at 70-Major+, WHEN THEY RESUME PLAYING... If they don't return, their last active history at 50-Major+ is in effect because it doesn't matter for an inactive former player... Our offer to help you out from the office still stands ... Give us a call ... Really, we can help ... |
| March 5, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | Well Dave since you didn't take the time to read my previous posts("the reply was" so I obviously contacted someone) and just wanted to interject your thoughts I did contact the office and I was correct the 70+ player is still considered 50 Major+. If he wanted to play 50s he is considered 50 Major+ even at 70 nice. Until he plays 70 Major+ So if he wanted to play 60s he is 60 Major+ so twenty years make no difference in the rating. Also your ratings don't take into account someone on a roster as a sponsor or coach. So someone who has never played a game at Major+ but, was on a roster(regardless of skill level)is still Major+ Maybe you need to look into individual ratings. You can deem someone an "impact player" so you must have some knowledge of players. |
| March 5, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | Like I said I don't want to be combative. Maybe my example will never happen but, the logic is 100 percent correct. If players are sitting out 2 years in their 50s or 60s to move down classes that's pathetic and their loss of good playing years. |
| March 5, 2021 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | So, let's get to the heart of the matter ... [1] You are incorrect on your Coach/Sponsor roster member analysis ... Our database has literally hundreds of players marked (COACH ONLY or SPONSOR), which exempts them from the player experience history issues ... [2] Your 10-year or 20-year analysis is purely hypothetical and completely irrelevant unless and until that player chooses to play again ... We have thousands of players who show long-ago experience at various levels of play ... That's what happens when they go "inactive", including retire ... Sound logic has nothing to do with a statistically insignificant chance of occurrence, the "20-years-later" guy resuming his career ... Thanks for responding to my (erroneous it seems) speculation that these guys may have been trying to wait out a two Season Major+ experience history timeline ... I totally agree with you that it's a waste of two Seasons, but it happens quite frequently ... In fact, it's hilarious when it dawns on them that the statute only runs when they do! ... Good luck! |
| March 5, 2021 BillMine Men's 50 14 posts | I apologize for being incorrect on the sponsor exemption. The 20 year thing may be way out there but, it still stands for 10 years(which is not "statistically out of the realm"). Whether you want to believe it or not their are alot less options for someone(who wants to) to move up classes. I just don't understand why people should be penalized and not able to play(because they have no other option. Cumulative R/I may be a better system. 50AAA are allowed 3 Major players at a 24 R/I so why not allow 24 or less R/I before a bump? |
| March 5, 2021 TimMcElroy 942 posts | Here's the thing that you may not understand. SSUSA tries to protect the teams at the next level down. Some of the system safeguards are in place to accomplish exactly that. Managers frequently (too frequently) work to find ways to get the best possible player on their lower level roster. As an office outsider, you have no idea just how frequently it happens. There are instances where it works against 1% of the players who are trying to play where they belong. In 99% of cases, it prevents a person who should be playing at a higher level from impacting the rest of the division. "We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two" Bum-pa-dum-pa-dum (Farmer's Insurance Commercial) |
| March 5, 2021 Fabe Men's 65 455 posts | Mahalo for all that SSUSA does! There is no perfect system, but they do allow us to participate in some fun tournaments! We still can choose to play elsewhere, but it’s good to know what you are getting into under the Authority of SSUSA! Aloha, Fabe |
| March 5, 2021 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Bill ... Nothing is "fool proof" because, well, fools are so damn ingenious! ... I sort of like the aggregate R/I conceptually, but it could be skewed with roster guys #15-20 being all "AA" guys, so the top end can load up ... We'd have to think about plugging loopholes ... Loophole Example: About 10± years ago, we had a Northeastern team allegedly from a "certain conveniently located" state in terms of "states and bordering states" criteria ... They had five guys from that certain state, and it allowed them to "reach over" one more state to get the guys they REALLY wanted and just HAD to have ... Well, someone whispered in our ear to take a look at the "convenient five" ... We learned that ALL of them had been on EVERY tournament roster for a couple of years, but had NEVER checked into a tournament for that team ... They were simply geography placeholders ... We removed them from the roster, and the other five "next state over" guys had to roster-eject, too ... |
| March 5, 2021 HSquared Men's 60 147 posts | Tim/Dave……Using the statement, “SSUSA tries to protect the teams at the next level down. Some of the system safeguards are in place to accomplish exactly that.” (I am sure SSUSA does). But, could you explain how a roster of twelve 50 Major guys are "safeguarded" from twelve 55Major+ guys? Obviously, I am still needing an education....TY BTW, thanks for the interesting narrative of closing loophole #1. |
| March 5, 2021 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | H˛ ... You're not in need of "too much edge-a-katin" on this ... The 50-Major vs. 55-Major+ match up, on its face, looks to be an even-up deal since both have a Rating Index R/I=8 ... Well, we learned the hard way a few years ago that's not always the case ... We routinely approved a 55-Major+ team to "play down/younger" in the 50-Major Division of our World Championships in Las Vegas and never thought a thing about it at the time! ... Of course, in a big surprise, they were overwhelmingly strong and finished second in what was probably a 50± team bracket ... And they could very well have won it had it not been for the Elimination Bracket "death march" on Sunday ... But we learned ... We no longer blindly allow an older Major+ team to play in the younger Major division UNLESS they play in a qualifier first so we can evaluate their relative strength vs. Majors competition... The alternative might be allowing them to play "younger", but not down a rating ... Live and learn ... |
