FRIENDLIES: Nor Cal/So Cal Philosophy

[Old Darter]

Are you sure these kids "have never stepped foot on a GOLD field"? Or have never played at 43 feet? Give the college coaches, whose JOB depends on them being better at judging talent than you suggest, a little bit more credit. You make it sound as if 1) the D1 coaches are recruiting from a rec league and 2) there are just tons of quality players available at Gold nationals to recruit, when in fact the blue chippers are already sucked up. We all know, (because I have spent some time ; \ at Gold) that with the exception of maybe the top 4 teams, not every player on every gold team is blue chip. There are a lot of filler players at that level as well.

Oh, and with the exception of the pitching distance, the field is the same dimension at both levels. A third baseman still has to make the same catch and throw, as does a shortstop. An outfielders throw to home is the same distance. A catchers pop time to second? The same. A runners 1st to 3rd speed? Same distance. Maybe if you had been to 16's lately, you would see the differences aren't as great as you portend.

So in the end, does a coach go to 16's and find those unrecruited blue chips to-be, or go to Gold and watch all the already committed blue chips? There may be girls getting offers at Gold's, but the cream of the crop is gone by then. I'm not advocating early commits, but that's the reality. In two years, there will be even fewer blue chippers, if any, available at Gold Nats. So while the competition may still be intense and top notch, the college coaches will still be recruiting at 16's. If my DD were an age eligible 16, that's where she's going to get the most attention.

[peon]

fpf: you need to be specific when you say "D1". I've seen D1 catchers who can't make a throw to second. pop to pop? not even applicable. and pitchers who can't hit the strikezone without getting hit.

so say top 20, or top mid majors at least.

standout players are standout players. If they've sprinted out from the pack at 16s they ain't a go'in back. it's there to be seen. this ain't football or men's sports with men's later maturation coming into play. Female athletes are pretty close to their physical potential at 16s.

gold is the top level? see my comment about "D1" being the top level. Many D1 players are not very good. (not talking top 20, top mids, but total D1) If you're playing the few great gold teams that could be true. But many/most gold teams suck. what's better for players, playing a bunch of rummies at exposure tournaments or playing competitively against top 16s at a national tournament, against teams who've managed to keep great players who could easily been at gold

[FPF1234]

It is not the same game, period. You will make allot more errors in judgement trying to project how good a player will be when she finally does compete agaisnt the top pitching at GOLD vs actually seeing for yourself when she actually hits at that level. Success at one does not equate to success at the other, so awarding a kid a scholarship based upon how well she did at 16's is not the most effective way to get the best player available in my opinion. And contrary to this line you keep spilling, there are a ton of available athletes at GOLD ball even at Nationals. And how in the world can you possibly tell if she is a blue chipper based upon her performance at 16's? I think you can put a kid on your hot list from a performance at 16's but I would reserve judgement until I seen the kid hit agaisnt the highest level of pitching before I gave her a scholarship to come play in my program. Because being able to swing it at 16's is a far cry from hitting at D1, however if I see this kid swing it well agaisnt a solid pitcher at the GOLD level when they are down to the best of the best, then I got a pretty good idea if she may be able to help me at the next level or not.

[FPF1234]

fpf: you need to be specific when you say "D1". I've seen D1 catchers who can't make a throw to second. pop to pop? not even applicable. and pitchers who can't hit the strikezone without getting hit

.

Good Lord, what programs are these? We are down here in SEC land, and pretty much every program can flat play, furthermore I have never seen any player perform at that level in any conference that I have watched play. So lets say this, if you are going to play in one of the power conferences for softball PAC 10, SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Big West, WAC, ACC, and even the Big East you will have to be able to play, and I would assume that the catcher at San Diego State can reach second, or the pitcher at UC Santa Barbra can throw, like wise for Ole Miss, Penn State or Texas Tech. I mention those teams because none of them are top 25 programs per say but they can still play, and all have very good players that can do a great deal more than what you stated up above. So I have no idea what college ball you have been watching, but I have been at Palm Springs the last two years and all of those teams where not top 25 and still did not see anything like that, not even close.

so say top 20, or top mid majors at least.

I would say any program that plays in one of the major conferences, and I would not slip on the top ones from the mid major conferences, I dont think there is a club in the nation that wants to go down to Lafayette and play the Ragin Cajuns. So to say that only the top 25 plays at a high level is just not accurate. Ohio State, LMU, Georgia Tech, South Carolina are all good teams, may not be top 25 but I guarantee you that their catchers can reach second base, and their pitchers are capable of hitting their spots

standout players are standout players. If they've sprinted out from the pack at 16s they ain't a go'in back. it's there to be seen. this ain't football or men's sports with men's later maturation coming into play. Female athletes are pretty close to their physical potential at 16s.

Again I have to disagree, I have seen it, now I will not call out any players by name, but there are a boat load, and I mean allot of players that sprinted out at 16's verballed early, and are not panning out right now at D1.

gold is the top level? see my comment about "D1" being the top level. Many D1 players are not very good. (not talking top 20, top mids, but total D1) If you're playing the few great gold teams that could be true. But many/most gold teams suck.

What the? Are you kidding me Peon? Look I seen some teams that where not as strong as others, but by the time you get to either the last day of a qualifier, or to the Nationals I would be very hard pressed to say that any team sucks at that point. Are there GOLD teams that are not very good, sure, absolutely, but again they are not around on the last day of a qualifier or by the time you show up to play in Oklahoma, there is no sucking at that point. Again, maybe not as strong, but they are competitive and I would not say that they suck. But if you are talking about at some back yard exposure deal being played on any run of the mill weekend, sure you will have the sisters of the our lady of the cant plays in there.

what's better for players, playing a bunch of rummies at exposure tournaments or playing competitively against top 16s at a national tournament, against teams who've managed to keep great players who could easily been at gold

What’s better is playing at the highest level possibly and competing and showing that you truly belong at the D1 level, that’s what’s better. And give me a break, I have seen some 16's tournaments, not going there with you, but please! Look if you play for one of the top GOLD programs, and are playing a top GOLD schedule you will not be playing these horrible teams for the most part. You will be playing at the highest level possible, showing your worth against the best possible, and to me that is the best way to see if a kid is going to be able to hit/pitch in the ACC, or the Big 10.

[Old Darter]

"if you play for one of the top GOLD programs"

1. So, you agree that Gold could be a waste of time if you're not on one of the top ten Gold teams because you will be playing terrible teams. Further, it sounds as if you are saying the only way to get recruited is to be on one of these "top GOLD programs".

2. It seems you do understand how Gold ball is played, and how if you're not in the good 'ol boy network, you don't get any respect and end up on a field 20 miles away from the main field. I know of several very competitive Gold teams who consistently get put out in the boonies, even after several years at the same showcase.

3. Let's face facts. Gold is not about competition except for one week a year. The rest of the time it's about showing off players with NO regard to being competitive. As a result, how do these girls learn how to play under pressure? I think all D1 conferences track wins and losses, right? So wins mean something right? Are there any college teams who play a season of showcases? Don't think so. They are all pressure packed games, particularly conference games. I don't think GOLD offers the same experience (except one week a year).

4. If you really want GOLD to mean something, remove the college players who have already signed or played a year.

[FPF1234]

"if you play for one of the top GOLD programs"

1. So, you agree that Gold could be a waste of time if you're not on one of the top ten Gold teams because you will be playing terrible teams. Further, it sounds as if you are saying the only way to get recruited is to be on one of these "top GOLD programs".

Well no argument there, it is very difficult to be recruited to one of the major conferences or one of the top 50 programs if you are not playing a top notch schedule and that is usually reserved for the top GOLD programs. Now I would not say it is the only way to be recruited but it is tough any other way

2. It seems you do understand how Gold ball is played, and how if you're not in the good 'ol boy network, you don't get any respect and end up on a field 20 miles away from the main field. I know of several very competitive Gold teams who consistently get put out in the boonies, even after several years at the same showcase.

Now this is true, and I will say, I'm with you I don’t like this format or this part of the process but it is a fact. I would like to see the last day of showcases be re-pooled to have the teams that played well on Saturday placed on the best fields on Sunday, that way you are playing for something. But agreed, if you are not on one of the traditionally powerful programs you can end up playing on some patch of dirt across the creek somewhere, that’s true.

3. Let's face facts. Gold is not about competition except for one week a year. The rest of the time it's about showing off players with NO regard to being competitive. As a result, how do these girls learn how to play under pressure? I think all D1 conferences track wins and losses, right? So wins mean something right? Are there any college teams who play a season of showcases? Don't think so. They are all pressure packed games, particularly conference games. I don't think GOLD offers the same experience (except one week a year).

Now I will disagree with that statement, summer GOLD ball is competitive, and is played at a high level, the qualifiers, the champion’s cup, Boulder, and Nationals are all played for real for the most part. GOLD offers the pressure of playing against top notch competition and there is no substitute for that. The only way to learn how to compete at the highest level is to play at the highest level possibly in order to get used to the speed, power, and skill level. Again, in the summer, I would say GOLD ball is very intense, and is full of everything you named above in your post, fall is a different animal, but summer we get after it, big time.

4. If you really want GOLD to mean something, remove the college players who have already signed or played a year.

Naw, get rid of em for what? This is the level you claim you want to play at right? If a kid is league age legal then I say have at it. It is what makes summer GOLD ball what it is, some of the best softball played period. This is reserved for the best of the best, like you say, the ones that suck are usually weeded out by this point, so if you are going to play GOLD ball then you better bring it because if you happen to bump into any one of them top clubs you better be ready to play or you better be able to play shall we say or you are gonna get embarrassed, just the way it ought to be. And if they have a gang of college kids, then so be it, that don’t guarantee nothing, so just bring it, if you have a good team then it will show and they will be able to get it done. If you have a player that truly is a D1 player, then she will have no problem fitting right in with these girls because that is where she will be playing at shortly any how.

[Gone in 2.6]

Wow. It sounds almost scary by your description.

I didn't find Gold to be more difficult/challenging than any of the other age groups relative to the age of the players. There wasn't this massively difficult step up from 16's that I had heard so much about. Sure it was a step up because the players are older but it was no different than any other "age up".
The biggest adjustment was trying to keep up the intensity playing such an exposure heavy schedule that features so many games that are meaningless from a competition standpoint. Snooze city.

[Blind Squirrel]

"Well no argument there, it is very difficult to be recruited to one of the major conferences or one of the top 50 programs if you are not playing a top notch schedule and that is usually reserved for the top GOLD programs. Now I would not say it is the only way to be recruited but it is tough any other way."

Actually this is a complete falacy. My kid played on a very average 18G team that wasn't close to being good enough to qualify. At showcases, they usually played at some remote field. The kid got seen by most of the PAC10, BIG-10 and other big time programs. College coaches aren't idiots. They know an average team, Hell even a crappy team, might have a player they would want. They aren't recruiting entire teams. Just one or two kids at a time. All of the top players don't go to Nationals every year, much less play on a top 10 or 20 finisher. Send them emails expressing interest and they will find you and take a look if you appear to be a possibility.

So, the notion that a kid is better off going to 16U Nationals than playing 18G isn't necessarily true. I suspect that playing at multiple big 18G Exposure Tournaments every year provides far greater exposure. It provides many more opportunities to be seen. The coaches at 16 Nationals are the same exact ones at the big 18G Exposure Tournaments. Coaches want to see what a kid can do at 43 feet and against the best pitching possible. I have been told just that by a PAC-10 coach and a BIG-10 coach. 16U has neither.

John

[DHBHitting]

Actually this is a complete falacy. My kid played on a very average 18G team that wasn't close to being good enough to qualify. At showcases, they usually played at some remote field. The kid got seen by most of the PAC10, BIG-10 and other big time programs. College coaches aren't idiots. They know an average team, Hell even a crappy team, might have a player they would want. They aren't recruiting entire teams. Just one or two kids at a time. All of the top players don't go to Nationals every year, much less play on a top 10 or 20 finisher. Send them emails expressing interest and they will find you and take a look if you appear to be a possibility.

Response: Complete falacy, thats a little harsh. I would say that each and every individual case is taken at it's own merit. I mean I know of plenty of players that where wasting away on average teams and did not get recruited until they got on a top program and vice versa. I think the point was it was easier if you play for one of the more traditionally strong clubs and that statement I would have to agree with.

So, the notion that a kid is better off going to 16U Nationals than playing 18G isn't necessarily true. I suspect that playing at multiple big 18G Exposure Tournaments every year provides far greater exposure. It provides many more opportunities to be seen. The coaches at 16 Nationals are the same exact ones at the big 18G Exposure Tournaments. Coaches want to see what a kid can do at 43 feet and against the best pitching possible. I have been told just that by a PAC-10 coach and a BIG-10 coach. 16U has neither.

Response: Agreed, I have been following this discussion quite closely and it is a good one, I tend to fall in with the line of thinking that states you just dont know until you see a kid play gold and play it well. If you take a kid before that you are just guessing, especially a pitcher, I have seen high school legends, and 40ft wonders get completely blown up in gold. That 3 more feet seperates the women from the girls.

[FPF1234]

Wow. It sounds almost scary by your description.

Naw, it is where you want to be if you are a player, nothing scary about playing at the highest level you can.

I didn't find Gold to be more difficult/challenging than any of the other age groups relative to the age of the players. There wasn't this massively difficult step up from 16's that I had heard so much about. Sure it was a step up because the players are older but it was no different than any other "age up".
The biggest adjustment was trying to keep up the intensity playing such an exposure heavy schedule that features so many games that are meaningless from a competition standpoint. Snooze city.

Hmmm, again, dont know what your experience has been, sounds like you actually play, and I can not deny your personal experience. However in the summer I have not found that to be the case with my girls, there are less meaningless games in the summer and the intensity is high.