Rumor Control: ASA Backdoor Tactics

[default]

I think ASA should have given everyone a years notice on all of this, just like they did with the individual insurance. These last minute tactics are for the birds.

 

[default]

There's not much to the Level 1, just go to the ASA website and you can watch the video and take the test there, takes about 20 minutes if I remember right. And of course plunk down $25, which they can take right there on the website!

 

[default]

I talked to Warren today. If I understood correctly (which I may not have), to play in a National qualifier, a coach must have gone thru ACE.

 

[default]

And so ASA has just raised the sanction fee from $25 (or whatever it is now) to $50, thereby doubling the amount of income it takes from each team? I have no idea what ACE contains, but if ASA is merely interested in raising the bar for coaches, then surely proof of having attended any coaches' clinic during the past year would more than suffice? Or is there material in the 20-minute video that is groundbreaking and not another softball game should be played until the video turns everyone into Mike Candrea and John Wooden rolled into one?

 

[default]

I smell a revolt brewing.

With the economy the way it is, Millions of jobs lost, Companies going out of business. and Travel organizations doing the best they can with the money have. Why would A$A

put more stress on amateur teams with these new fees. are they trying to become an eleitist organization.

 

[default]

JoeA1010
Great post makes you wonder about these big organizations. I don't really think they are in it for the kids. After all the it's the American way. The rich get richer at all costs. So was NSA any different then ASA??? I don't think so!!

 

[default]

How can they think that the future teams or anything down the road will be as balanced or have the quality it should when it becomes all money? As a non organizational team how can I make it worth my teams time/money.... We try and with great effort to keep the girls playing and in fastpitch. We have no 4 or 5 teams producing players for us, we are what you see a team building and trying and promising to play with the big dogs to say. This is making and is slowly putting nails on the road for teams like us to step on. What is really gained by adding higher cost and more regulations? How can I join in and have any quality for the money? I totally see that everyone is hit and did not see this coming with any notice. How many teams just took a step back? Is there a ISA yet? How much is the cost to proccess paper work did oil effect this as well? Do I need to get a Mid-East Sponsor to keep up with the big teams? Next the teams will pay for a official ASA/NSA sticker on helmets so more money can be put out.

 

[default]

It's not just about sexual predators for which there are existing database. Our schools require a background check to volunteer and our park requires one of every coach and assistant. Having over 90 teams in our park it's quite an endeavor but "ding" items include drug offenses, domestic violence etc. which do not show up on a national database.

 

[default]

And who bashed me when I said it was about money ?... Seems that other's agree with my thought. IFA sanctioning is $10.00 dollars just in case you just want to play in one of our events.. so then you aren't out of a lot of money. I persoanlly paid the sanctioning fees of every team I sanctioned NAFA last Fall... to give them an IFA sanction card. It was just the right thing to do in my mind.

I don't see ASA's Northern comment as being the lowest sanctioning fee to be holding water about now.

I love ASA persoanlly. I knew Mr. Honaker for years. Great man in my opinion. He dealt with a situation in a Men's "D" State Tournament where a "C" team slid into the tournament by qualifying in April as a "D" team when they were really a "C" team. Funny thing is.. the team won the "C" State the weekend before the "D" State weekend. He kicked them out when he found out. He loved the sport.. from men's to women to girls. I just think he is rolling over in his grave to know what it has come to here in Ohio. He would have never allowed a travel team into a "B" Regional Nationals. He was about the rec girls getting a chance to play the game he loved so much. Now, it is about money and who's paying the favor back, etc...

 

[default]

This is what happens when an organization of any type gets large and control becomes more removed from the people it governs. More bureaucracy, more emphasis on generating revenue for the bureaucracy, more rules, more potential for kickbacks and corruption, less emphasis on providing value.

With ASA, they won't hurt themselves with the teams that want to go to ASA Nationals. A team that regularly shoots for ASA A Nationals will unfortunately put up with about any nonsense ASA decides to put out. But, even in states like California and Texas, those teams are in the minority. In Ohio, those teams are maybe 5% of all teams. ASA cannot afford to drive away all of the non-Nationals type of teams.

 

[default]

In 2008, in Oklahoma there was no 14u State Tournament. The revolt began down that way last year.

This ASA "B" event in Dayton is for all-star rec and rec girls who play in the same league.

Go to : http:downloads.asasoftball.com/about/pdf/asa_code.pdf and check out Pages 57 through 59. But, it is all about the money and doing someone a favor.

Look at the amount of events that came out when the 14u "B" was announce for "B" tournaments in Ohio. A "B" tournament is for the rec girls and has been issued to attact some USSSA "A" and "B" teams to stay at home and play in the 14u. And by golly, ASA will let them do it.. for the money and favor.

Where's Howard Honaker when you need him most? I'm telling you, he's rolling over in his grave. Nicest, fairest man I have ever met in my lifetime when it comes to sports. He loved the game with all of his heart.

This new breed is about money and this is why I went with an organization where it isn't about money and it's about doing the best we can for the girls. This is why 4 VP's left NAFA and began this association, IFA... and I am glad to be with them in the beginning for a change to come in the future.

 

[default]

It is disheartening to see ASA turning out these, Obvious money maker rules. Joe A, you are absolutey correct( if I read your sarcasim correctly) that there can be nothing so great in This program that everyone just has to have comepleted it.

I am disgrutled by the fact that they belive we are that stupid and cannot decide for ourselves how to advance our coaching. I would rather them just tell me.. Hey, we are raising sanctioning fees this year by $25. Thanks for playing.. and by the way we are offerring a New on line program called ACE. It is an informative coaching course and upon completion you will receive a certification from ASA....And the cost of the course is covered in your sanctioning fee..

would that not have made a better sell then all this??? Bad tactics ASA.. Bad....

 

[default]

What other private sports. Not saying I disagree just wondering

Little League baseball has required background checks for at least 3 years now.

 

[default]

All right, I want to paddle in a different direction for a bit.

I don't think anyone is "against" protecting the youth playing on our teams from people who could (or have) acted inappropriately against them. Background checks are one way to do that. If ASA had required teams to "certify" that they had performed background checks on adults who were going to have contact with minors, without collecting money for it, would we be up in arms?

I am FOR protecting my daughter and her teammates from sexual predators and people who have convictions for violent crimes. They may be "reformed" and want to give back by working with America's youth, but frankly that is not my problem. Get lost.

I am dissatisfied with the ASA position on three fronts. First, they believe that the only satisfactory background check is one that they administer (and that they are probably going to profit from, even if it is only a dollar or two). Most school coaches have to pass a background check - that is good enough for me. My daughter is playing school ball - enough said.

Second, they are only requiring ONE coach from each team to have this check. The argument that they are protecting my daughter is not BS. If the head coach is the freak, he or she will certainly direct one of the assistant coaches to take the test. Requiring only one coach - without requiring ALL coaches, ALL umpires, and ALL tournament directors - and ALL ASA paid staff members - to submit to the same background check is bogus. It is a classic case of smoke and mirrors. (Supposedly California does this. I am not saying it is a good idea - but I do think that if you are going to do it, that is a better application of the policy.)

My third beef is that there are no written standards for what would result in the ASA rejecting a coach. (And frankly, I don't know what legal ground they have to do it.)

In terms of the certification - I am not so much against having standards that coaches need to meet, and I don't think the price is out of bounds. I haven't seen the materials so I don't know if it is worth it, but generally speaking, I am not against setting and measuring to standards.

So in a sense, I agree with JoeA in that this is a case of a regulatory body over-regulating. I don't think they start out with that goal, but each part of the body adds a regulation, and there is nobody at the top saying "This is stupid when you add this all up."

 

[default]

I believe that any coach/assistant/scorekeeper, etc that wants to be in the dugout is required to have a background check. I'm not positive though - would have to double check on the ASA website.

 

[default]

Hey Quakerman, don't bury Howard Honaker yet, he is still alive and well.
By the way, I did read in the NFCA news letter that the ASA Board of Directors did pass the ACE certification requirement... Hopefully I will have a chance to look at it tomorrow.

 

[default]

I believe that any coach/assistant/scorekeeper, etc that wants to be in the dugout is required to have a background check. I'm not positive though - would have to double check on the ASA website.

Unless you're in CA, no. Just need to have one, and it doesn't even have to be the head coach. My beef with this policy (in no particular order) is:

• No warning or announcement until we go to sanction the team
• No clarity on what constitutes a disqualifying event
• No guarantees as to the security of the information provided, or plan for compensation or response should a security breach occur - if the IRS can get hacked I'm pretty sure a private company can be
• A requirement that we use their company to do the background check
• No allowance made for coaches whose work requires higher level of background checks as part of their employment
• No policy on who receives notice that a coach is disqualified

I'm sure there are a few others that I'm forgetting, but you get the idea.

 

[default]

There has been lots of speculation & until we get more clarification I'll throw in what I've heard regarding the background checks & ACE certification. When we questioned what would happen if coaches refused, we were told that only 1 coach on the official roster needed the background check & ACE. It does bring up yet another question...if only 1 coach jumps through the hoops so that the team can participate in Nationals & that 1 coach becomes unable to participate (we've all seen coaches injured on the field)...what penalty will be placed upon the team that is now without a 'certified' coach?

Supposedly this has all come about because USSSA & NSA are tangled up in some type of lawsuits due to some sex offender's inappropriate behavior & ASA is trying to protect themselves legally. ALLEGEDLY, the team that was victimized participated in USSSA & NSA events & those organizations have been caught up in it all while someone is trying to figure out who is culpable (I guess it isn't sufficient to hold the offender accountable). I do not know if that is true or not. I'm sure cgs can shed some light on the legality of it all.

What will be next?? This all makes me grateful for the group we have...

 

[default]

One would think that businesses would know that they can be sued at any time, no matter what. No policy is going to keep anyone from getting sued. Why not wait until the result of the lawsuit is known before implementing this type of change? If NSA and USSSA are not found liable, which is likely if they let the lawsuit play out, then that takes away the concern about a successful lawsuit. If a court finds NSA or USSSA liable, then ASA and the others wouldn't have much choice.

I would find it hard to believe that any sane court would hold a sanctioning body responsible for the behavior of a coach. It completely changes the nature of the purpose of the sanctioning body, which no court should be messing with.

 

[default]

I would be extremely surprised to discover a sanctioning body held liable for the acts of an individual coach. Unless the sanctioning body has reason to believe that something inappropriate is happening, and does nothing to prevent it, then what liability could they have? Now, with ASA requiring background checks, they may place themselves in the position of being "big brother". It would be more likely that they are actually creating liability for themselves where none existed. Not to mention the liability created by creating a paper trail of SS#, DOB's and whatever else. They are setting themselves up for a bigger lawsuit than ever existed before. Maybe by parents of a player that has been harmed, a coach that still wants to coach after a 30 year old conviction pops up, or a coach whose identity is stolen. Why create liability where none exists?? By the way, I am also an attorney. It must run in the Buckeye Heat bloodlines. For you non-attorneys, maybe all the wolves gather in packs??