Can somebody explain to me why the undefeated team in the Championship game is the home team. I cannot figure out why this should be. The team that comes thru the loser bracket has a difficult enough time to beat the undefeated team twice. The teams reward for being in the king seat is to wait for teams to wear each other out. I do not like this rule one bit. Thanks #20 NVFORCE 75s

I understand giving the undefeated home field for game one, however the loser bracket winner should be home team once they reach the "if" game.

The primary reason is it’s a reward for the undefeated team.
The origin of the rule was adopted approximately 10-15 years ago by usssa. (to my knowledge)
Back then Resmondo was dominating the men’s major so the intent of putting in the rule was by being designated home team for the championship game they wouldn’t get the chance to score 25 runs before the other team gets to bat —putting them in such a hole they couldn’t catch up. The task of being down and knowing you have to beat them twice was a bit daunting. We called it “the Resmondo rule”
Not sure about other associations but today in one nation and usssa it’s the rule for all levels-as in certain senior ball associations.
And bnelson is correct, if it goes to the “if game”, coin toss.

stick8 ... Thanks for the trip down memory lane on Resmondo! ... Damn, they were dominant ... When the senior organizations put in run limits per inning, that 25-in-the-top-of-the-1st rationale became somewhat moot ... That, and to a lesser degree, when we spread equalizer runs across innings #2 thru #6 instead of having them dumped into the 1st inning ... That eliminated a team getting the equalizer and scoring their 5, putting the other team in a 0-10 hole before they've sent a guy to the plate ...

I still believe it's an unfair competitive detriment to the elimination bracket survivor, but as a Tournament Director, it has an upside for us ... We don't have to work as long on Championship Day because the deck is stacked against "If" games! ... Here in Reno for session #2 ended yesterday, I think we only had three "If" games out of 14 opportunities, in 65-M+, 65-M and 85-M ... It's certainly "Director friendly", but I'm personally opposed because of the adverse impact on fair competition ...

Hey Dave, I'm always seeing discussions and in those discussions (from time to time) there is a refernece to voting. Why is that number so low, why aren't the managers (or even players) asked for their opinion, and maybe they are. Anyone that pays dues should be considered a "member" of USSSA and have a vote. Just my .02

DJ12 ... The number I was referring to is what it takes to get an item passed at the SSUSA National Rules Committee ... The NRC has 13 voting members, so being able to "count to seven" matters ... Twelve members may vote on all items, and the Chair votes only when required to break a 6-6 tie ...

We have, on occasion, put items to the entire membership in a non-binding preference survey context ... The membership polling on their preference for 4-game-guarantee vs. 5-game-guarantee tournament format recently, and adopting the "1-1 count" a few years ago are two examples ... Getting the sense of the membership is important to us, but it's not going to result in a change in governance theory to open-voting ... Thanks!