Winning 'B' Nationals means you should have been playing in the 'A' Bracket

[daddiox2]

I think CoogansBluff has it exactly right here (I'd have quoted the whole thing but it takes too much space).

This is essentially an unsolvable problem, because even if you took the top "X" from B and moved them up, the next "X" would then become dominant. There's always going to be the "best" B team and if/when they move up, the old #2 becomes the #1. I think teams are actually pretty spread out along a spectrum from weak-strong in each division, and at the strong C/weak B and strong B/weak A there's going to some overlaps either because of sand-bagging or just because it's really hard to accurately judge where your team should go -- especially because you have to try to figure that out in comparison to a bunch of other teams trying to decide where they should go too. I don't know that having MORE divisions solves this and may well make it worse.

Based on what they did in VA/MD/DE, and 3bmama's comment, it sounds like USSSA nationally has decided to take a more active role in policing divisions to keep some divisional competitiveness, and I think that's a very healthy thing. DD's team definitely enjoyed playing B tournaments over C once they moved up -- and the teams left in C probably had a better experience too. (Though on a side note, I do wish USSSA had added a B division at the Ocean City World Series. While it was a great tournament and very well run, forcing a bunch of regional C teams to B six weeks before the event and then only having a C and an open tournament left a bunch of teams in a tournament where they had very little hope of going further than 2-3 games in double elimination.)

I agree. And, back to the original topic, in general, someone has to win a "B" Tournament. So to say that the team that won it should play "A", that is only true if they had no competition in the entire tournament. If all the top "B" teams were pulled to "A", then still someone would have won the "B" Tournament.

 

[daddiox2]

You know, this isn't even the problem I originally posted.

The type of 'A' teams I am talking about are the ones that are dominant in 'A' already going to a B nationals. The teams with girls from all over the state or at least multiple counties, huge hitters and dominant pitching. So I am not even talking about the 'borderline' teams - I am talking about the 'probably will win the A' division teams who turn up to B Nationals. Often with 'name' brand team names...

This problem IS solvable.

If they are playing Open or A tournaments in the regular season and dominating, then yes, they should not be allowed to play in B nationals. They should also not be allowed to play in A Nationals and B Nationals. However, there will always be issues if its done state by state, or region by region because you will have different people making the decisions and there will be inconsistent enforcement.

 

[RetiredCoach]

Let's face it. There's nothing that you can realistically do to solve this "issue". It is what it is!

 

[TMoney]

No way to stop unethical people from working around the rules, however it sounds like some of you are searching for a socialist softball society where every team is of equal talent. Youth athletics continues to expose people for who they truly are

 

[Rocketech1]

Going into Nationals good 'ol ASA allows teams to add 3 players from pretty much anywhere in Southern California. So you can basically load your team with 2 top line pitchers and another big bat that don't even play in your league.

My understanding is to be eligible for ASA rec all-stars, you need to have played in the spring rec league to be eligible for Districts, State, and Nationals. Two years ago, DD's 10U all-star team went to Western "B" Nationals (2nd place finish) but only added one player (a pinch runner) from the second 10U all-star team as a back-up in case someone was injured. She wasn't an impact player but it was a great experience for her to practice and compete with her peers. Our league didn't allow us to pick-up any players from other leagues and the best pitchers in our league were already on our team.

Pretty rare for a rec all-star team to magically add two ringer pitchers just for Nationals. If the pitchers were that good, their original team would have likely qualified for Nationals anyways.

 

[Jdaddy]

I am curious which sanction allowed a team to play in both their A&B Nationals.

 

[MNDad]

Let's face it. There's nothing that you can realistically do to solve this "issue". It is what it is!

You can get on an A team and not have to worry because your best is facing their best.

 

[CoogansBluff]

Let's face it. There's nothing that you can realistically do to solve this "issue". It is what it is!

I do think things can be done to improve it. But that said, you're essentially right that nothing can solve it where everybody is going to like it. There's something to be said for just saying, yeah, some teams sand-bag. If you really want to win it, you can do the same. I mean, what is a 'B' team any way? To most 'B' coaches, it's a team that you have a decent chance of beating. Well, if you've got a 60-team tournament, many of those 60 teams aren't going to have a decent chance of beating the #1 team in the tournament.

 

[Axe]

Doesn't someone have to win?

 

[Eric F]

I am curious which sanction allowed a team to play in both their A&B Nationals.

That was my thought, too. In So Cal, ASA has some pretty firm rules about separation of A (travel) and B (rec all-star) teams. As I understand it, one local team had their B-State title taken away because they were splashing around in the A puddle (travel friendlies) after the cutoff date.