ASA Nationals Qualified 18G

[Demonboy]

Well Demonboy we will have to agree to disagree because I do not believe that getting blown out in and of itself means you are not competitive. Does it mean you where not competitive in that game sure, but what about the other 3 or 4 games that these clubs won agaisnt solid competition?

And where college players the reason they where blown out, or where they just out played for that hour and half time period by a club who is just as talented as they are, maybe even more so obviously.

My point is, it happens, does not necessarily mean you are not competitive overall, just means you where not competitive agiasnt that particular club at the particular time.

I'll go along with that. But when you give 5 teams as a shining example of competitiveness and they were ALL blown out the previous weekend in a Gold qualifier, it DOES mean your example sucks out loud.

Which was the only point I was trying to make.

[Sam]

Its the same principle ASA uses that seperates players by ages and prohibits travel players from competing in rec all-star competition. The college scholarship players aren't just better, they are better because it is their job to play softball in college.

Response: So do you extend this to include all players that have singed scholarships to play in college in the fall as well? What about those that have verballed? I mean most of these kids are future college kids right? The ones who have actually signed will be actual college players in just about 5 weeks so what is the difference in the skill level between the two outfielders for the Firecrackers who are going to CAL and just great players, and a kid who has come back from Fullerton to play outfield for the Jets? What is the difference in talent levels? My argument is not much, if any at all, and quite frankly, you have some seniors that are flat out stronger players than allot of the college talent I seen out there this weekend.

Dumb. My argument has been consistent. Its never been about better players...its about professional softball players competing with amateurs. You can burn your straw man now.

[DHBHitting]

I believe every one of the clubs I named had more wins than losses during last weekends qualifier which in and of itself makes them competitive in my book.

So am I hearing you right, are you saying that those wins that they got last weekend over the clubs that they got them over count for nothing?

Only the losses count towards their competitiveness?

So your point is, if you where ever blown out at the GOLD level in a game that meant something you are not a competitive GOLD program?

Even if you qualify, that doesn’t matter you are forever defined by that one game in which you where as you say blown out?

Come on dude, I'm not saying those clubs are powerhouses, or are perennial champions, but they compete, they can play, and they hold their own most times against the top clubs. Now if you are going to define their competitiveness against how they did against the Batbusters, or the Firecrackers on one particular occasion then I would dare to say that 95% of all GOLD teams are not competitive under that definition.

[DHBHitting]

Dumb. My argument has been consistent. Its never been about better players...its about professional softball players competing with amateurs. You can burn your straw man now.

Response: HUH? Look, my point is this, if you dont want to play or compete agaisnt college players then take your game somewhere else where you dont have too, period.

GOLD ball is for the better players, it is for those that want to compete at the highest level and those that do compete except the possibility that you may be competiting agaisnt college girls because most that do play are future college players in their own right.

[NuggDawg]

Thanks for disregarding what I wrote and posting that nonsense. . .

they are better because it is their job to play softball in college.

In general, scholarship players play because they love to play. . .

It's their love of the game that makes them better; it wasn't the scholarship funds.

Disregarding?!?!? My reply was aimed directly at the just because they get a scholarship, their job is playing ball, which makes them professional, misnomer.

Sam: "they are better because it is their job to play softball in college"
Nugg: They're not better because of a scholarship

With all due respect, the scholarship=professional argument just doesn't hold water. Scholarship funds don't make a player better.

Some college players, scholarship or not, have the opportunity to play in tougher competition than many of their HS counterparts. That may make the pool of college players better than the pool of non-college players.
_____________

The thing that seperates the college scholarship players is that they have a year in as a pseudo professional softball player.

Consistent?!? You can't be both professional and "pseudo professional".

Sam, your argument is based on theory. The realities of college players playing another season of Gold ball has nothing to do with their scholarship status; with the exception that they may want to boost their game in order to maintain or obtain a scholarship. But that motivation is identical to that of the majority of all Gold players.

[Sam]

Nuggdawg,

Please let me know when you are going to stop making stuff up...nobody said the SCHOLARSHIP made the player better....its the fact that the scholarship player is a defacto professional player...it is her job to play softball....if she doesn't show up to morning lifting, she has to answer to the coach....if she doesn't go to practice, she has to call in. She has done this all year and now competes at the Gold level against players who haven't done anything close to that.

A scholarship DOES make them a professional, in my opinion.....but I would not consider NBA players as amateurs either....but I digress.

[NuggDawg]

She has done this all year and now competes at the Gold level against players who haven't done anything close to that.

Why haven't they? Too busy going to prom? . . . "enjoying their senior year"?

No one was stopping them from working out. Many of the best HS players do.

[Sam]

She has done this all year and now competes at the Gold level against players who haven't done anything close to that.

Why haven't they? Too busy going to prom? . . . "enjoying their senior year"?

No one was stopping them from working out. Many of the best HS players do.

Do they have to call in if they don't show up for voluntary workouts???? It's not about anybody stopping them from doing it...its about being required to do it in order to continue getting paid.

[Demonboy]

I believe every one of the clubs I named had more wins than losses during last weekends qualifier which in and of itself makes them competitive in my book.

So am I hearing you right, are you saying that those wins that they got last weekend over the clubs that they got them over count for nothing?

Only the losses count towards their competitiveness?

So your point is, if you where ever blown out at the GOLD level in a game that meant something you are not a competitive GOLD program?

Even if you qualify, that doesn’t matter you are forever defined by that one game in which you where as you say blown out?

Come on dude, I'm not saying those clubs are powerhouses, or are perennial champions, but they compete, they can play, and they hold their own most times against the top clubs. Now if you are going to define their competitiveness against how they did against the Batbusters, or the Firecrackers on one particular occasion then I would dare to say that 95% of all GOLD teams are not competitive under that definition.

[DHBHitting]

I hear ya, quit beating a dead horse, well you quit crying.