Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 89 anonymousDiscussion: So the question was....how to get more teams to play Major Plus
| Posted | Discussion |
| Feb. 19, 2015 Tim Millette 615 posts | So the question was....how to get more teams to play Major Plus In a thread below I gave an idea that "might" make Plus a little more enticing for bumped Major teams. Voicing that concept has brought five emails to me from different plus players; and numerous other posts on that thread saying how wrong minded my idea was. So, with that said.. How about some of you brainstorming with ideas to answer that original question. If SSUSA wanted to get more teams into the Plus division how should they do it? |
| Feb. 19, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Instead of looking at number of tournament wins for a year, make it number of top 2 finishes. When evaluating the Worlds, automatically bump top 15% finishers. I have always thought 3 divisions were plenty. |
| Feb. 19, 2015 Grimmie 17 posts | I'm with cal50 we only need 3 divisions. Dalton GA is the only Tourney around KY,to have more than 5 Major plus teams in it. There were only 2 M+ teams in Naples this year,1 team the year before they didn't even win the tourney I know it was with AMR out of Ohio. |
| Feb. 19, 2015 OZ40 549 posts | When it comes to Major+ I think the 800 pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge is many lower level pitchers simply don't want anything to do with the mound at that level, so maybe a screen option? |
| Feb. 20, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Cal 50, SSUSA has to make money, giving teams the potential to win a world championship in lower divisions make it more enticing for teams to participate, hence SSUSA makes more $$$$... I for one, play 50+ ball and would not want to see a water down division... I think what SSusa did last year was the correct way...instead of bumping one or two teams they bumped a bunch. which increase 50+ division to where we had a nice turnout in Vegas. I believe this is truly the right direction to go and I know for a fact there are many major teams that have no business playing against + ball caliber teams! IMO |
| Feb. 20, 2015 Nancy Allen Men's 55 1438 posts | Cal50, it does not happen every year, but in the past we have had 5 or more Major+ teams at the Brickyard in Indy. For many years we often had more Major and Major+ teams (50, 55) than some of the bigger tournaments. We have only consistently had one Kentucky team because it falls on the same weekend as the Derby. Let me know if you would like any more information, and it is only a couple of months away. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 hombre Men's 60 240 posts | Tim, I have no original thoughts, however, I do have some opinions on thoughts expressed by others. 1. I would support the idea of combining major and major+. There is already a mechanism in place to allow those teams that are not competitive to drop down to AAA. This might cause some weak AAA teams to drop to AA. This would be a good move in our region in that there are very few AA teams. Every division has teams that are dominant and those that will only win a few games each season. The difference in the M+ divisions is that they are at the top and there is no place to move them. 2. I am strongly opposed to forcing any team to break up. I know players who have played together for 40 years. Team camaraderie is the determining factor in playing softball. 3. After the home run limit has been reached, then play one up. This would eliminate the big home run advantage held by some teams. 4. The pitching screen might be a good move, especially in the upper age groups. The cream will always rise to the top. The most important factor is getting the different organizations to develop a system that will objectively evaluate the teams and place them in the appropriate division. Just my opinion. Thanks |
| Feb. 20, 2015 Mulewhipper Men's 55 128 posts | I believe the HR rule (outs) last year helped to bring the rest of the pack into the mix. Keeping this rule intact is a good start. Good Major teams were able to compete with the Major+, given the HR Rules. Another idea is to limit the Courtesy runners to one per inning. These two ideas alone can help more teams compete with Athleticism and balanced rosters. Of course the rich well sponsored teams will always be elite, it's that money that hurts the rest of the teams. Had a guy that was going to come play with us last season, good player, good guy, then he got approached by a sponsored team who promised him they would pay for everything...how can you compete with that? These same teams are constantly approaching and actively recruiting other players, even during games. It makes it hard when your team is mostly self sponsored. But to answer your question: 1. Keep the HR outs rule the same 2. 1 courtesy runner per inning only. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Hi Nancy, we play in the brickyard every year. Last year we had 3 teams in it. Always a good well run tournament. We are trying to coordinate for a couple of other major plus teams to come play in it this year. Hopefully we will have some success. Look forward to seeing you there. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Swing, I think we are agreeing with each other on moving more teams up. On the other, if it went to 3 divisions instead of 4, I would suggest reclassifying all, not just the major and major plus together. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | I hear you Cal50.. I'm not sure about only three divisions.. I don't really know anything about the AAA and AA divisions. I do know that there are all kinds of different talent levels and there is a purpose for those divisions... I think you have to have at least 20 to 30 m+ teams in the 50s to make it attractive to playin in... when I came to the fiftys 3 years ago, I believe there were only 12 teams in the entire country! They listed more, but there were teams that weren't even teams anymore AKA Five Spot. last year, I looked around and found 20 plus teams in 50s+.. That is a huge difference then playing the same 5 to 6 teams that was happening 3 years ago at the worlds.. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | SSUSA is doing a good job with divisions as is. I think Tim is almost by himself thinking that teams should be broken up. But SSUSA always interested in feedback, just giving my 2 cents worth with my post. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 Mario Men's 50 451 posts | I believe the only way to grow the division is to get more sponsorship. Right now there are not enough players that truly want to play in the plus division. I'm ok with that. I understand the problem but i'm a realist and know that some of the Major teams that got bumped to plus have and will struggle. If sponsorship was more available then it would help these teams to be able to pick up players out of region if they wanted to. Here again some of these teams have been together forever and do not want any other players. Out of region players cost a team anywhere from 2-6000 dollars a year. Last year we had 15 teams in the 50 Major plus world at Vegas. I know for a fact that 4 of those teams would not have been there if they were not bumped up. I say let them go back to Major division. The way it is right now is not perfect and will never be, but it is getting better. I would rather go to Vegas and have 6-8 teams that wanted to be there rather than the way it is. I guess you could say that what we have is what we will have. SSUSA has done a good job in trying to grow the division. Its just hard to do since most Major teams do not want to play Major plus. You know the old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Just my humble opionion. |
| Feb. 20, 2015 Tim Millette 615 posts | Cal 50, actually my main thing is not forcing many just above average Major teams into Plus ball. As far as breaking up Plus champions goes...if I was in charge Plus champions could stay together BUT..when they go to Worlds they qualify for the next lowest age groups Major program...that way they still can play with all their friends and don't have to disband. |
| Feb. 21, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Tim, I disagree with you on playing the lower division. Let teams work throughout the year to win back to back. |
| Feb. 21, 2015 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | Several years back, I am playing on a AAA team that is a better than average AAA. We are in a tournament and because there are so few Major and Major+ teams, we are playing a Major+ team in the seeding rounds. What a team! Best one I have ever seen in my age group. I'm playing catcher that game and the hitters are pounding the ball. The bats whistle when they come around. They score 5 in the first inning. No one makes an out. In the second inning, the barrage continues. I wonder if they have ANYONE on the team who can't hit the long ball. The last man in the order is up, a skinny left-hander. On the first pitch, he fouls the ball weakly down the third base side. "Finally", I think, "a guy that we can make an out on." The next pitch he powers to right field. Into a 15mph wind. Over a 310 foot fence! We are crushed in the game. Combine Major and Major+? Not a popular idea with teams like us, legitimate good AAA teams playing over our heads now and then and at risk of being moved up to Major. We would have NO chance against the elite Major+! We had one player who would hit the ball over the fence about once every two tournaments and another player who did it twice in the year. That's why we wouldn't be able to hang with most Major teams. Combine the two levels and teams like ours will do everything they can to avoid paying high fees to get beat up by the super teams. Needless to say, we were self-sponsored and I've aged out of the AAA team, but I don't think we are alone in realizing that we would have little chance of winning a tourney against legit major teams, and no chance winning a tournament against Major+ teams. We continue to be unwilling to break up a long-term group of guys. If Major and Major+ were combined, and we were moved up to Major, we would probably stop going to SSUSA tournaments. We would still get in 16-20 tournaments a year playing in NCSSA. |
| Feb. 21, 2015 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | I used to think that combining Major and Major+ was the way to go. I no longer think this and the biggest reason is when they opened up the bordering states a couple of years ago to allow 2 players from outside them, they made it even more difficult for the Major teams to compete. We still see Major teams play Major+ teams from time to time in local tournaments, but how are they expected to compete against them when they have different roster rules? Now I guess you can say to just open up the roster rules to the Major teams also, but that costs money that most Major teams don't have. Major+ is the best of the best and as the case was years ago in our youth, they didn't have very many teams either but they did have the money! Let the Major+ teams play unlimited everything and have it voluntary as to whether a team wants to play that kind of softball, some will. If they want to move down to Major, they can but they would have to play Major playing and roster rules, maybe even a bit more restrictive to try to keep Major+ teams from wanting to move down. This may not be exactly what Tim's question originally was but I think this is the way to go rather than forcing teams to play where they don't really want to. |
| Feb. 22, 2015 Tim Millette 615 posts | Dave, I think allowing three upper ranked players is fine.... How about the teams that choose to have upper level players have to spot other teams two runs for every upper level player? As examples.... team A has 3 higher ranked rosters players, team B has 1 higher ranked rostered player... Team B gets 4 runs. Team A has 3 higher ranked rosteredplayers, team B has zero higher ranked rostered players....team B gets six runs. That way..a team has to register how many higher ranked rostered players they will be able to have for that season. Then all SSUSA has to do is add the teams roster limits total to their roster so everyone knows how many higher ranked players they have decided to be able to carry and what their run spotting number if. |
| Feb. 22, 2015 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | I rarely comment publicly on issue-oriented threads ... This is an exception ... These are solely my own thoughts as an SSUSA member and do not (except maybe by unknown coincidence) represent the thinking of anyone else at SSUSA or on their National Rules Committee ... _____ I favor, and have supported internally for several years, a previously mentioned suggestion above (by Cal50) that more than just the Champion from the World Masters Championships be moved up a rating level, especially in the larger brackets of, say, anything over 15 teams ... The process, the percentages for consideration and those type of decisions should be fairly easy to develop ... The real issue, however, is NOT how to get more teams in Major+, but rather how does SSUSA address and cure the circumstance that too many teams in Major, AAA and AA devote substantial creative energy to "playing down" to avoid competing at the next higher level of play where, in almost all cases, they would/could/should be competitive at the higher level ... This is most commonly debated here in the Major/Major+ matriculation path, but also present for teams in the AAA/Major and AA/AAA analysis ... I am opposed to allowing "out of rating" players on rosters ... In about 2008, SSUSA made an administrative policy change allowing teams to add those players while still retaining their current rating classification ... The allowance was initially five players ... Almost immediately, a Major team having five players with Major+ history was no longer a Major team ... They were a "Major-and-a-half" team ... The same was true for a AAA team having five Major history guys (AAA-½) and a AA having five AAA history guys (AA-½) ... The long-standing and clear interpretation of what constituted a Major+, Major, AAA or AA team was quickly redefined in a manner that restricted the normal upward progression by better teams ... SSUSA inadvertently created an environment that allowed teams to stockpile higher rated talent without requiring them to step up and play to that talent ... Historical Note: As late as 2007, the rule was "teams play at the rating level of their single highest rated experience player, period!" and it was a GOOD rule ... The Rules Committee in 2010 (?), reconsidered this and structured a "phase out" period for these "out of rating" exemptions, calling for a reduced limit to three, then two, then none over the ensuing three year period ... But at the next Rules Committee meetings, the phase out period was rescinded, leaving it at the current three "out of rating" players for divisions below Major+ ... It is a fair estimate that as many as 70% of ALL manager phone calls SSUSA gets regarding roster composition have one substantially identical question in common: "Where are we in our three-count?" ... This is the single most significant inhibiting factor for assigning teams to their "proper" rating level ... Equally important is to have a "rules package" that allows the teams that should be moved up, principally in the Major/Major+ group, and also relevant at AAA/Major and AA/AAA, to effectively compete ... SSUSA has that in place now, with maybe only minor tweaking ... I believe: • Reasonable HR limits and excess HR's being DBO's are important for competitive balance and should remain in place ... We can debate extensively whether or not the Major+ nine HR limit is enough (it is), but if SSUSA allows power laden teams to just bang ball after ball into the parking lots all day for walks or singles, the gap between the "heavily/fully sponsored teams" (be honest, nobody "buys" talent for base running or base coaching ability, or because he can dink a single to drive in a run!) and the "solid, primarily self-sponsored Major+ ball club" becomes too broad ... I would support a "one-up" HR system for evenly matched power teams, but only if excess HR's under that system remain DBO's ... • The often cited argument that DBO's for excess HR's are a safety risk is false ... My extensive experience as a field and tournament director is that the incidence rate of pitchers being hit by batted balls is more prevalent at the AA and AAA levels, and a more rare occurrence at Major and Major+ ... Generally, and non-judgmentally, "bat control" for the average AA player is many times anything that ends up in fair territory, and for the average AAA guy can be anything not hit in the air directly at an outfielder ... The Major and Major+ hitters are more skilled at ball placement and avoiding the pitcher ... • The Major+ roster composition rules should remain in place ... Prohibiting Major+ "Snowbirds" is a great rule, since all prior player suspensions for geographic residency violations occurred at the Major+ level ... I would support going step further by limiting the East/West out of region exception to only one player, not two ... This would accommodate the random individual player from a part of the country that has no Major+ teams, but not for the competitive advantage of any particular team choosing to recruit (and pay?) him ... There's my personal thinking on this issue ... |
| Feb. 22, 2015 cal50 Men's 50 328 posts | Dave, the 1 up rule would be a welcome change. Was it seriously considered? |
| Feb. 22, 2015 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | There was the annual discussion of HR Rules in general at the Rules Committee sessions again this year. Some pre-meeting public input correspondence advocated eliminating DBO's for excess HR's at the Major+ level, and the one-up system was one of the options mentioned, along with "walks" or "singles." There was not enough support among the Committee membership (no formal motion made, accompanied by a second) to secure a change and, accordingly, the item did not make the formal meeting Agenda. All items on the Exhibit "A" to the Official Minutes (except #17 a. i.) were "seriously considered", and this one was item #4 on that chronological list. |
| Feb. 22, 2015 DCPete 409 posts | When and why was the 1-Up rule eliminated? The 1-Up rule used to be in effect for all divisions and in addition to being the most fair rule for both teams, it often added a lot of strategy to the game. What possible downside was ever discussed for getting rid of it? |
| Feb. 23, 2015 Young48 Men's 50 14 posts | I agree with DCPete. The 1-up rule should be in every division. Why is softball the only sport I can think of that you get penalized for doing something that is supposed to be good. If not a 1-up rule I've always liked the old HR Hitters rule. Maybe that deserves some consideration. |
| Feb. 23, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | I agree! And it's such a simple solution. What would be the negatives? |
| Feb. 24, 2015 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | My question was legitimate. Please post opinions on any negative points the one up rule might bring with it. |
| Feb. 24, 2015 Robo2 238 posts | I have stated many times: allow unlimited HRs at all levels. 1. It would quicken the pace of games by getting to 5 run per inning quicker 2. It would allow for quicker separation of the better teams 3. It would let better teams reach finals After one year, with raising 1st and 2nd place teams from Spring Nationals, Winter Nationals, World Champs, and TOC to move up immediately. |
| Feb. 24, 2015 Tim Millette 615 posts | Last years dbo rule change was a great addition to senior ball. The dbo rule adds strategy both on offense and defense and brings more a more competitive balance into the game. You cannot just get ten meats and pound ball after ball over the tense. |
| Feb. 24, 2015 joel 1975 131 posts | just play where they tell you the last two of the major 55 champions (Motown) (Omega) played one year in major plus 55 the next yr back down to 55 major my bad omega played two yr's in major plus 55 |
| Feb. 25, 2015 BiggDan Men's 50 14 posts | PEOPLE SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER THAT OUT IN VEGAS THE AIR IS VERY THIN. I SAW MANY AAA AND AA TEAMS HIT HR'S. SOME OF THESE PLAYERS WERE 125 TO 150 IN SIZE AND HIT IT 400 FT. SHOULD THEY MOVE THAT PLAYER TO MAJOR PLUS. ? NO , DIFFERENT TEAMS HAVE BETTER PLAYERS. YOU HAVE GUYS THAT TURN 50 THEIR FIRST YEAR IN SENIOR SOFTBALL. SHOULD THERE BE A ROOKIE 50 LEAGUE FOR THEM. NO THERE ARE DIFFERENT CALABURE PLAYERS THAT ARE ON MAJOR AND MAJOR PLUS TEAMS THAT COULD PLAY AAA. BUT THEY CHOOSE TO PLAY WITH THEIR FRIENDS. YOU MUST REMEMBER, WE ALL AT ONE TIME IN OUR LIFE PLAYED TOGETHER. WE CAN'T IN OUR OLDER DAYS IN LIFE STILL GET TO PLAY WITH AND AGAINST OUR FRIENDS. THIS IS A SPORT IT IS NOT A JOB. SHOW SOME SMARTS IN OUR OLD AGE. SOME PLAYERS HAVE WHAT THEY CALL EGO'S. OTHER'S HAVE STILL GOT HEARTS. LET'S HAVE FUN. |
| Feb. 25, 2015 crump22 Men's 50 60 posts | joel 1975,MOTOWN Staff didn,t have a problem playing Major Plus, but when your 3 power hitter quit in June,then 3 more player quit before Vegas,how are a TEAM SUPPOSE to compete? Motown went to Vegas and finish the year with a combination of 55,60 and 65 age player.2015 ,Motown will only have a 60 major team,when we win , going to Plus wont be a problem.It is only slow pitch softball!! |
| Feb. 26, 2015 joel 1975 131 posts | nobody said you did anything wrong I was just telling the guy,s on this thread that I belive the ssusa try,s to put team,s where they belong & get it right most of the time. |
