Gold Classification

[Sam]

This has never been about who is at Nationals. God knows that there are a lot more college scouts at 18 Gold Nationals than are at 18A Nationals.

I don't believe this is always a fact. Many of the true 18U Gold players, are already in the bag. Coaches are aware that not every area can support top 18U Gold programs and it is quite possible a school is more likely to find some diamonds in the rough at the 18U A.

I don't mean to be a pill....but I believe 18A Nationals are the same week as 16A Nationals and there are many more college coaches watching 16A Nationals than 18A Nationals....if there weren't, nobody would play 16A. 18 Gold Nationals takes place a week after all the other Nationals and has its very own stage....lots of Gold coaches. You might be wrong on this one.

[Whizzer86]

This has never been about who is at Nationals. God knows that there are a lot more college scouts at 18 Gold Nationals than are at 18A Nationals.

I don't believe this is always a fact. Many of the true 18U Gold players, are already in the bag. Coaches are aware that not every area can support top 18U Gold programs and it is quite possible a school is more likely to find some diamonds in the rough at the 18U A.

I don't mean to be a pill....but I believe 18A Nationals are the same week as 16A Nationals and there are many more college coaches watching 16A Nationals than 18A Nationals....if there weren't, nobody would play 16A. 18 Gold Nationals takes place a week after all the other Nationals and has its very own stage....lots of Gold coaches. You might be wrong on this one.

Then why did you say this in another post?
"Fifth: Anybody that knows Gold recruiting knows that a relative few 16U players get recruited..."

[Sam]

Region 14 runs the qualifier...they can let in who they want to. If you don't get in....you go elsewhere to try and qualify....Stockton....Seattle.

What criteria would they use to decide? How is that any different than using criteria to say who can play Gold in the first place?

First come, first served...its American. Teams would know if they are in or not by February...plenty of time to sign up for another qualifier. Simple.

Nearly half of the 96 teams at Lancaster last year were from NorCal. They could split the qualifier into two tournaments....with 2 berths for the Norcal version and 4 berths for the SoCal version.

Lots of ways to do it without shutting a lot of players out of recruiting opportunities.

[Sam]

Whiz,

I was referring to verbals. Very few 16U verbals.

[3Bsnag]

Regional Tournament...
9. Open to all So Cal ASA teams that registered in 2008 as 18 Gold, 18U, 16U.

Since they are trying to allow everyone an opportunity on this bullet point, will this one go away in 2010? I would assume the criteria list will be shortened for future years?

Sam,
I'd also ask about the advantages of college players. Since you're automatically Gold if you regionally qualified for Nats last year utilizing college freshman, the "other" teams will have to qualify with high school-ers only since colleges wouldn't let them compete in Jan/Feb. To me, that is an unfair advantage.

I think you are fighting a losing battle, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

[DD's Dad]

Just a few thoughts....

The ASA is 100% geared to increasing the number of JO girls playing softball. The regions and local associations are growing; the ASA/USA affiliation; the Bound for Bejing tour; everything is geared to increasing the interest in girls fastpitch here in the U.S. This flood of interest in the game has also spread to the college level where interest is high and still growing. Of course, more girls playing is going to increase the number of teams at all age levels and, eventually, these girls are ready, willing and able to play at the Gold level.

So, why are we limiting the number of Gold teams now?

As Sam has been asking over and over, "Who benefits?" I still think that the college coaches are looking to spend their limited recruiting time as fruitfully as possible and have perhaps hinted to ASA that 100+ teams at 10 different locations makes it difficult for them to see all the prospects. The ASA's future is tied to the success of the college programs because that is a prime motivator for many girls who are signing up to play. ASA could be willing to limit participation in an attempt to drive the real talent onto fewer teams making the college coach's job easier. The other benefit is the better talent is, perhaps, ready to play at the college level. Based on what I've seen at some Gold Tourneys, there are basic skills that certainly should already be mastered before a girl plays on a gold team that are not, and whole teams that many 16U teams could beat on a bad day. These girls may be playing on a Gold team, but they're not really playing at the Gold level. As Sam has said, however, that's their choice and not ASA's (at least by virtue of their current bylaws). The ASA should be discussing this entire issue openly and for a longer period of time than currently scheduled so the effect on the girls currently in the system are not penalized just when they're trying to get noticed. Making a decision that could have profound influence on the college aspirations of 100's of girls after a couple of meetings doesn't seem too smart.

[Whizzer86]

Just a few thoughts....

The ASA is 100% geared to increasing the number of JO girls playing softball. The regions and local associations are growing; the ASA/USA affiliation; the Bound for Bejing tour; everything is geared to increasing the interest in girls fastpitch here in the U.S. This flood of interest in the game has also spread to the college level where interest is high and still growing. Of course, more girls playing is going to increase the number of teams at all age levels and, eventually, these girls are ready, willing and able to play at the Gold level.

So, why are we limiting the number of Gold teams now?

As Sam has been asking over and over, "Who benefits?" I still think that the college coaches are looking to spend their limited recruiting time as fruitfully as possible and have perhaps hinted to ASA that 100+ teams at 10 different locations makes it difficult for them to see all the prospects. The ASA's future is tied to the success of the college programs because that is a prime motivator for many girls who are signing up to play. ASA could be willing to limit participation in an attempt to drive the real talent onto fewer teams making the college coach's job easier. The other benefit is the better talent is, perhaps, ready to play at the college level. Based on what I've seen at some Gold Tourneys, there are basic skills that certainly should already be mastered before a girl plays on a gold team that are not, and whole teams that many 16U teams could beat on a bad day. These girls may be playing on a Gold team, but they're not really playing at the Gold level. As Sam has said, however, that's their choice and not ASA's (at least by virtue of their current bylaws). The ASA should be discussing this entire issue openly and for a longer period of time than currently scheduled so the effect on the girls currently in the system are not penalized just when they're trying to get noticed. Making a decision that could have profound influence on the college aspirations of 100's of girls after a couple of meetings doesn't seem too smart.

Sounds like an ASA employee? Give me a break, it wasn't that long ago that coaches had to surf high scholl to high school or word of mouth to find talent (they still do in certain prominent sports). They should thank their lucky stars for any select organization (ASA or other) that brings a lot of talent to one facility in any given weekend.

[Sam]

Just a few thoughts....

The ASA is 100% geared to increasing the number of JO girls playing softball. The regions and local associations are growing; the ASA/USA affiliation; the Bound for Bejing tour; everything is geared to increasing the interest in girls fastpitch here in the U.S. This flood of interest in the game has also spread to the college level where interest is high and still growing. Of course, more girls playing is going to increase the number of teams at all age levels and, eventually, these girls are ready, willing and able to play at the Gold level.

So, why are we limiting the number of Gold teams now?

As Sam has been asking over and over, "Who benefits?" I still think that the college coaches are looking to spend their limited recruiting time as fruitfully as possible and have perhaps hinted to ASA that 100+ teams at 10 different locations makes it difficult for them to see all the prospects. The ASA's future is tied to the success of the college programs because that is a prime motivator for many girls who are signing up to play. ASA could be willing to limit participation in an attempt to drive the real talent onto fewer teams making the college coach's job easier. The other benefit is the better talent is, perhaps, ready to play at the college level. Based on what I've seen at some Gold Tourneys, there are basic skills that certainly should already be mastered before a girl plays on a gold team that are not, and whole teams that many 16U teams could beat on a bad day. These girls may be playing on a Gold team, but they're not really playing at the Gold level. As Sam has said, however, that's their choice and not ASA's (at least by virtue of their current bylaws). The ASA should be discussing this entire issue openly and for a longer period of time than currently scheduled so the effect on the girls currently in the system are not penalized just when they're trying to get noticed. Making a decision that could have profound influence on the college aspirations of 100's of girls after a couple of meetings doesn't seem too smart.

Sounds like an ASA employee? Give me a break, it wasn't that long ago that coaches had to surf high scholl to high school or word of mouth to find talent (they still do in certain prominent sports). They should thank their lucky stars for any select organization (ASA or other) that brings a lot of talent to one facility in any given weekend.

I can't wait until somebody posts something you can respond to that you actually know something about.....I keep waiting....patiently....

[DD's Dad]

Whizzer86,
Definitely not an ASA employee (in fact, just a first year Gold parent) - but I try to look at all the angles to figure out something that makes no sense. BTW, I don't disagree with you about ASA and the college coaches. The current popularity of girls fastpitch is not just a benefit to the girls.

Sam,
As Sgt. Schultz would say, "I know nothink!!!"

[Whizzer86]

Just a few thoughts....

The ASA is 100% geared to increasing the number of JO girls playing softball. The regions and local associations are growing; the ASA/USA affiliation; the Bound for Bejing tour; everything is geared to increasing the interest in girls fastpitch here in the U.S. This flood of interest in the game has also spread to the college level where interest is high and still growing. Of course, more girls playing is going to increase the number of teams at all age levels and, eventually, these girls are ready, willing and able to play at the Gold level.

So, why are we limiting the number of Gold teams now?

As Sam has been asking over and over, "Who benefits?" I still think that the college coaches are looking to spend their limited recruiting time as fruitfully as possible and have perhaps hinted to ASA that 100+ teams at 10 different locations makes it difficult for them to see all the prospects. The ASA's future is tied to the success of the college programs because that is a prime motivator for many girls who are signing up to play. ASA could be willing to limit participation in an attempt to drive the real talent onto fewer teams making the college coach's job easier. The other benefit is the better talent is, perhaps, ready to play at the college level. Based on what I've seen at some Gold Tourneys, there are basic skills that certainly should already be mastered before a girl plays on a gold team that are not, and whole teams that many 16U teams could beat on a bad day. These girls may be playing on a Gold team, but they're not really playing at the Gold level. As Sam has said, however, that's their choice and not ASA's (at least by virtue of their current bylaws). The ASA should be discussing this entire issue openly and for a longer period of time than currently scheduled so the effect on the girls currently in the system are not penalized just when they're trying to get noticed. Making a decision that could have profound influence on the college aspirations of 100's of girls after a couple of meetings doesn't seem too smart.

Sounds like an ASA employee? Give me a break, it wasn't that long ago that coaches had to surf high scholl to high school or word of mouth to find talent (they still do in certain prominent sports). They should thank their lucky stars for any select organization (ASA or other) that brings a lot of talent to one facility in any given weekend.

I can't wait until somebody posts something you can respond to that you actually know something about.....I keep waiting....patiently....

So do I. Until then I'll just keep responding to what ever you have to weigh in on.