ASA/USA Bid question

[default]

A team finishes 2nd at the Northern nationals and is awarded a Bid to ASA/USA Nationals for the following year. That Fall, said team folds, and 4 of the players, and both coaches are now with another organization. Does the Bid follow them, or stay with the previous organization?

 

[default]

As long as 5 players from that team is together with the same Team, the bid will still be granted.

 

[default]

Here is the portion from the 2012 ASA Code. Article 516 sect H (4)

Berths[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]. The first and second place team in each National Tournament shall receive a berth to the Junior Olympic Girls’ ASA / USA National Championship Finals in the team’s current or succeeding year’s age classification provided the team has five ( 5 ) participating players from the previous year’s roster on the current year’s roster and physically present at the current championship tournament site prior to the start of their first game.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[default]

Thanks for the quick response!!

 

[default]

To me this , along with the fall qualifiers, really lessons the alure of the ASA Nationals. There are two example of each down here that causes people to question its significants. Playing with these loopholes is getting common.

 

[default]

ASA / USA?

Not sure I can agree. You have to meet certain parameters to get in. Granted there are loopholes but it is the only National WS that has real parameters....especially in ASA Gold.

Getting a bid to a Regional ASA is no big deal. But the ASA / USA bids are not just handed out. Granted may still be pretty achievable but not easy.

 

[default]

Two senerios -

Team is a second year 14u team playing in a 14u Regional ASA Nationals. Team takes there five best players and another teams five best with a stud pitcher. They go undefeated and win a berth - to the USA/ASA 16u Nationals!! They come back and play with their regular team and get hammered all season as a first year 16u team. They go to Nationals and go 3 and out - RR in two games. Fair?

Team from a very successful organization is playing in the winners bracket finals of a 16u fall qualifier. The team makes it to the finals of the winners bracket against a team they won't beat. In fact the 4 teams left would all beat them easily. The Organization had filled the roster with 8 regular team players and 10 players from their Gold and 18u A team that are 16u eligible. The coaches of the 16u team are now in the stands watching and the Gold coach is coaching the team for the rest of the qualifier. Not one of the regular team plays the rest of the qualifier. They win the winners bracket game 3-1 and beat the winner of the losers bracket again 2-1 to win the berth. The team that goes to Nationals only takes 5 players from the team that won the berth. Fair?

I understand that right now ASA/USA is the best qualification based National. Still has great competition. But unfortunately because of ASA's need to creat interest in the regional nationals and their fall events they are overlooking what made them so strong - strict qualification standards. Hopefully as they try to fight off the new kid on the block they don't waiver.

 

[default]

I ask, not to find a loop hole, but to be sure those girls won't have an issue playing in qualifiers next season.

 

[default]

I ask, not to find a loop hole, but to be sure those girls won't have an issue playing in qualifiers next season.

Understood longball00

 

[default]

Agreed both of those scenarios are less than logical or good for the sport

And I do see your point. I think they should consider eliminate Fall Qualifiers or at least say bthe all of the girls must be age eligible for the next year at the age group tney are competing at

 

[default]

Agreed both of those scenarios are less than logical or good for the sport

And I do see your point. I think they should consider eliminate Fall Qualifiers or at least say bthe all of the girls must be age eligible for the next year at the age group tney are competing at

For fall qualifiers the must be eligible to play at that age the following year.

 

[default]

WWolf - yep. Teams just need 5 players from the qualifying roster to keep the berth.

 

[default]

Let me be more clear.

Everyone on the roster must be age eligible the next year at that age group. And then of course 5 must be on the roster that accepts birth.

That should resolve your issue of the Team with rosters with extra girls that are moving up. But have 5 girls for next years teams sitting the bench.

 

[default]

As long as 5 players from that team is together with the same Team, the bid will still be granted.

They don't have to be with the same team. The best reference is the Defending Champion definition (Article 106 D 01) and it also applies to Returning Teams (e.g. 2nd place).

NOTE: The defending champion berth will be awarded to the team composed of five ( 5 ) or more participating players that won the championship of that particular age classification the preceding year.

c. Split / Separate Teams. If a team is eligible to return to a National Championship Final, and splits into two or more separate teams, with each meeting the above mentioned criteria, the team with the most players from the previous year?s team receives the berth. If multiple teams have the same number of returning players, the berth will be awarded based on the previous year?s registered manager. If the previous year?s manager does not return, the berth will be awarded based on a coin flip or draw at the ASA National Office.
​

 

[default]

Let me be more clear.

Everyone on the roster must be age eligible the next year at that age group. And then of course 5 must be on the roster that accepts birth.

That should resolve your issue of the Team with rosters with extra girls that are moving up. But have 5 girls for next years teams sitting the bench.

As WWolff posted, the age requirement is already in place. The players in the example were moving up voluntarily based on ability.

Local Associations may conduct JO qualifying tournaments for the following years championship play. Teams that participate in these tournaments must use age eligible players for the year the championship play will be played and must meet the returning team requirement to maintain their berth.

 

[default]

As WWolff posted, the age requirement is already in place. The players in the example were moving up voluntarily based on ability.

Local Associations may conduct JO qualifying tournaments for the following years championship play. Teams that participate in these tournaments must use age eligible players for the year the championship play will be played and must meet the returning team requirement to maintain their berth.

But doesn't it seem a bit odd that you win a regional nationals at say 14u as probably a second year 14u team and then are awarded a berth to the 16u USA/ASA Nationals the following year? To me that cheapens the filed of teams.

I don't know about other parts of the country but the Southern Nationals are weak. They are probably less impressive than the Pony, NSA, USSSA, ISA, FAST, etc tournaments. Heck the Gold team from Fla that won the Southern Gold Nationals never sniffed a berth iN the qualification season - and they went undefeated.

 

[default]

But doesn't it seem a bit odd that you win a regional nationals at say 14u as probably a second year 14u team and then are awarded a berth to the 16u USA/ASA Nationals the following year? To me that cheapens the filed of teams.

Being able to take a berth up to the next age group from a territorial nat is questionable. I don't get worked up about it though because there is such a wide disparity in the level of teams at ASA/USA Nats that they don't stick out from the crowd.

I don't know about other parts of the country but the Southern Nationals are weak. They are probably less impressive than the Pony, NSA, USSSA, ISA, FAST, etc tournaments. Heck the Gold team from Fla that won the Southern Gold Nationals never sniffed a berth iN the qualification season - and they went undefeated.

ASA Western Nats are much weaker than they were 3-4 years ago, although the economy has probably kept them from slipping as low as they would have if all the ASA/USA berths were being used out here. They are still stronger than most of the alternative sanctions (AFA, USSSA, USTSA). The Triple Crown (TCS) 14U WS was very strong last year because some PGF teams also participated in it due to its July dates and SoCal location, San Diego.

The Gold territorial nats are a totally different story. ASA started them in 2010 to provide a fallback option for Gold teams that failed to qualify for ASA/USA Nats. It was a good idea, but started too late as PGF also began that year. ASA added the ASA/USA berths the next year to create more interest due to low participation the first year, even though there weren't any defending champion berths from the ASA/USA Gold Nat at that time. The number of teams participating in each Gold territorial nat, 6-19 last year, didn't warrant awarding 2 berth from each one - especially when there are so few berths available from Gold qualifiers. ASA did take away 1 of the 2 berths from each territorial nats last year when they added the 8 returning berths from ASA/USA Gold Nat.

I expect ASA will continue awarding berths at all territorial nats to prop them up versus their competition from other sanctions.