Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you are?

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

While I believe that some sort of system that would help teams find competitive tournaments would be a benefit to some teams, there is a flip side. Restricting who can play in a given tournament is being tried by those tournaments that are invitational. Every year you see complaints on this and other boards about not getting into Compuware, Stingrays etc. With multiple sanctioning bodies there would be many more complaints if every tournament was restricted. Other sports are able to overcome this problem, and I am sure there is a solution, but I am not smart enough to figure it out. There is one other thought that comes to my mind. Anytime someone starts a post like this that is trying to figure out a pecking order of who is the best, or at least what groups of teams are the best, I always see teams/organizations that established their reputation by playing and finishing highly at B Nationals of one association or another. With a rating system, it becomes much more difficult to climb into the arena and join those "elite" organizations.

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

I don't think the original post suggested that a classification be used to prevent a team from entering a higher class tournament.

I can see benefits to limiting A teams from playing in lower class tournament - or even limiting B teams from playing in tournaments designed for C or D class teams.

Because of all the different sanctioning bodies, I find it hard to envision these rankings ever having much value beyond marketing a tourney. Even most the so-called invitationals don't really fill their tournaments with the "best teams. The first clue is that all of their teams qualify. Often other arbitrary criteria, such as only allowing one team per organization per age group (except host teams) also prevents better teams from getting a slot.

I would be more interested in seeing a weekly or monthly poll that would be based on tournament placement and strength of competition played.

We could call it the:
Bracket-Ranked
Computerized
Softball Index.

(BCS for short.)

Then no one in Ohio could ever argue about who the top teams were...

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

BCS, I like that. Only we would do a better job than the real BCS.

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

Scott, I am not sure that we would do a better job then BCS. Any time that the human element is involved it there will always be some disagreement. We are not perfect and seldom is a consense reached.

Regarding the ranking system it would be great if there could be something established and I have seen a number of interesting ideas floated. Its just that when reality kicks in I am not sure it would work consistantly.

I feel that most teams need to classify themselves just like they do now. It is not what others think about your team, it is what you and your players think about your team. If you strive to be an "A" team then you had better do the things necassary to compete at that level. If you plan on being a "B" team then the same thing applies. there is nothing wrong with challenging yourself and playing up every now and then in order to determine where you stack up. Here in Ohio that would include playing in tournaments like Stingrays, GAPSS, Best of the Best, and many others including some of the state tournaments. being able to compete in these is mandatory if you expect to consider yourself one of the better teams in the state. This is just my opinion and how I try to break it sdown to our parents.

Hopefully some kind of system can be developed, and if it is we would participate.

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

bb6608, ?If you would rate a team that is all pretty much local a "C" team, Then how would you rate The Ohio Wave14u team? They are all pretty much local. I would give them a High "B" rating and possibly an "A" rating with their fifth place finish in the USSSA World Series last year at Disney. I don't think that will work in all cases.

?I like the system that Fiestymom posted. The one from Illinois I believe. It would be so easy to adopt a system that has already been implemented. I'm sure that criteria has not been copyrighted.

?I don't know if I agree that the Sanctioning bodies being put in order. For example ASA, NSA, USSSA, PONY, USFA
This can really get crazy if you think about it.

?You can take the Stingrays or the Compuware tournaments. They are ASA I think. How do they compare to several of your local ASA tournaments. I'm sure you could do that for each sanctioning body. The bottom line, you could find a ASA tournment where the competition would not be as tough as those tournament. You could do that for each association.

?I don't doubt that when it comes to your national and world Series tournments that ASA comes out on top.

Tournament rating system

? What it comes down to is we have to come up with rating formula for these tournaments. For example, how would the Stingrays tournament rate against one of your local ASA tournaments? I'm trying not to name other smaller tournaments because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. But I think you know what I mean.

?

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

I have read all of the posts and there are many good points.

When it comes to "rating" teams it boils down to the competition faced. Last seasons better teams in 12U will face tougher competition in 14U as a 13u team, etc. Anyone that says different is not facing reality.

There will be no good way to rate a team unless they face their peers. 12u vs 12u, 13u vs 13U, 14u vs 14U etc. I cannot see any other way to rate teams. And there are too many teams that have a "mixed" aged teams that would make ratings impossible. Some teams can state that age doesn't make a difference..but any coach worth their salt isn't going to buy that arguement.

Any ratings will have to be done on a true...12U and no one older, 13U and no one older... so on an so forth. Some teams will complain... I only have one or two 14u on a mostly 13u team.... I am sorry, but my opinion is - you will have to be compared with the 14u, not the 13U. Some lines have to be drawn... and any reasonable coach would probably agree. JMHO

 

[default]

Re: Class A,B,C.D What are you? And who says you a

johnnies I am one of those who do not see a big disticntion between mixed aged teams and teams that have all the same age players. Lets take for example the 14U age group. I do not see age as a big factor because there are countless cases where 13 year olds are much better then the 14 year olds on thier team. This is just not a universal situation. One one extreme you have the Slammers who as 12 year olds defeated all but one 14U team last year. then there are plenty of 13 year olds who dominated in that age group as well and I am sure that people sitting on the sidelines could not tell weather that player was 13 or 14. I have also seen a team of 14 year olds win a 16U world series against a very talented 16U team. In these cases it is not the age of the player but rather the skill and ability level. I actually think that age means very little after 13 years old. Now that will not apply equally to each and every kid. It just does not work that way. But in the same respect I do not see how anyone can make a blanket statement that teams with mixed age players should not be equaly compared to those who have only the older age players for that age group.

The way I see it the age group is referred to as 14 and under. If a coach is lucky enough to have a team full of very taleted and motivated 14 year olds then they will probably be good. I think tat the very same can be said about a group of 13 year olds and or a group that has a mix of the two age groups. Talent has no age limit. If they are good they are good. If age was such a big factor why do so many freshman beat out upper classman who are two years older then them? Its because the same thing applies.

I do agree that teams should be rated based on the competition that they play.

Finally consider this: if the system must be so rigid as to only rate teams based on players that are the same age, then what of the team that is a true 14U team yet all of their players have a Jan 2nd birthdate. In fact they are 15 years old for thier entire season. How would they be rated against another team of 14 years old who all shared a Dec 31st birthdate and they played the entire year as a 14 year old? Is the team that shares a Jan 1st birthdate not a full year older then the same 14U team that shares the Dec 31st birth date. based on that I would take the first team because they are older. The point is a true comparision will never be able to be made with such a rigid criteria. 14U is 14 years old and under, and it has always been that way, and always will be. Talent will always be the measuring stick.

just my two cents worth