Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Jtut2424, TABLE SETTER 11; 83 anonymousDiscussion: State touching rule
| Posted | Discussion |
| Aug. 16, 2006 Fourfour Men's 50 9 posts | State touching rule I posted this once but couldn't find it. I must have done something wrong. I'm mostly responding to Mike Kelly, In several ways, I have to agree with you. But I don't think there is a real answer. I've been a USSSA guy almost as long as it has existed. I've had these same discussions with Don D for years. He's always willing to listen to any suggestions, and I believe that U-trip is the closest to getting it right. The problem as I see it is the dwindling of sponsorship money. If the restrictions are lifted, then the few remaining sponsors will get all of the players. When all of the other players realize that it is futile to go to a tournament, they are forced out, or must move down. Which no one wants them to do. This is what destroyed the Masters programs(35-45). One team was always far superior than the rest. As that team gained recognition, everyone wanted to be on it. So subsequent teams were assembled from the players that didn't make the teams higher up on the food chain. That caused everyone to play down, where they had a chance, but they were much better than the teams that belong at the lower level, causing those teams to move lower, or quit because they feel cheated. I think the state touching rule was originally designed the let the smaller states, with smaller programs compete with California, Florida and Texas. You have to admit that as people get older they move to warmer climates, giving those states an advantage. But I do agree that it is discrimination against those states. I don't have the solution. If I did, I'd probably be in charge of the summit. I also have a comment on people playing on different teams. If you restrict that, you may be eliminating teams. As stated earlier, sponsorship money is limited. It is unlikely than there are many teams than can go to every World Tournament for each association. However, I know there are plenty of players, like myself, that would go to every one, if possible. So, thanks to 2 good teams from Michigan, I have been able to play in more tournaments than if I was limited to only one team. And since both teams don't go to the same tournament, those tournaments benefit from having a team there that might not normally be there. I think, and hope, that the spirit of the Summit is to help the game grow. Instead of each association. We need to realize that the competion is not each other. It's other choices besides softball. If we want the program to grow, we'd better start offering a better product, so people will leave a tournament site with a disire to come back, instead being one of the many complaints on this board. Thanks for listening (or reading). Jim Hanna44 Pine Knob Softball/Motown Stars |
| Aug. 16, 2006 BruceinGa Men's 70 3233 posts | Very well put, Jim. I agree with what you are saying. The only thing that I can add is maybe we need a "sponsored" division, no geographic restrictions. That would move 6 or 7 50 Major Plus teams into it and them maybe just have AA, AAA and Major. |
| Aug. 16, 2006 surf88 Men's 65 1000 posts | I very much appreciated how you described the problem and would agree that it needs a great deal of attention in hopes that a fair and reasonable solution might be achieved in the future. Thanks, Ed Andrews Utah Vets Formerly Scrap Iron |
| Aug. 16, 2006 the wood Men's 65 1123 posts | When you step back and look at today's landscape v. pre -2000, you'll see that there are 8-10 major + teams in the 50s & 55s. At any given time we will see as many as 5-6 of them in the same event. In my view, this is better than the late 90s... when there were only three 50 major + teams in addition to the Mavericks, who played them tough at times. If teams wish to recruit from all over the country (as opposed to adjoining states) they should concentrate on USSSA and NSA. In doing so, they could play all of the other teams that feel the same and do so without impacting the teams that do not. From what I'm seeing and hearing, the openly recruited teams would re-create the late 90s conditions for themselves. But if this what they prefer, so be it... so long as it doesn't negatively effect the rest of the pack. Obviously, this could reduce the current ranks of major + teams a bit. But the very real possibility exists whereby a 'high major' team might be motivated to move up, which would swell the ranks a bit. I am a strong proponent of 'it aint broke'. Bob Woodroof GSF - 55 |
