 |
Author |
TOPIC: Crosby (Masters) Division |
|
| Web USPL
August 22, 2008
3:41:49 PM
Entry #: 2879522
| Please go to the tab "CROSBY (MASTERS) DIVISION" for more details on the new Crosby (Masters) Division which will be starting in 2009 USPL Season.
Please review and discuss with your teammates and have the players (40 and over) that are interested fill out the form and delivery it to Doug, Kirk, Peter Miasek,Chris Gonsalves or in the blue box at Crosby.
We would like to have entry applications submitted to the Crosby Committee by September 3, 2008.
If you have any questions please contact one of the members of the Crosby Division Committee composed of Kirk, Peter Miasek, Chris Gonsalves and Doug McIntyre.
|
|
| Dad
August 25, 2008
12:19:13 PM
Entry #: 2881726
| I applaud the committee for bringing forth once again the reality that none of us is getting any younger. I have enjoyed playing in the USPL for 28 seasons. I would welcome an aged-group based format as we have in the Markham Men's Recreational Hockey League. The major item I am against in the proposed format is the reduced schedule. I enjoy getting out to 25 games per season. I would sign up for the Crosby Division if it were structured as the other divisions are, playing 25 games, more or less, at all of the parks used by the league with games mixed into the schedule of the "younger" divisions. There already exists a one night per week league in town. Moreover, I don't think it's fair to "hog" two games per week at Crosby, effectively reducing the games there for the existing teams by a third. Instead of 10 games there per season each team would be reduced to 6-7 games at Crosby.
|
|
| houghts
August 25, 2008
2:33:57 PM
Entry #: 2881971
| I think this is a great idea and a long time coming for our league !! I agree with Dad's post that maybe there should be more games, but you have to start somewhere. How about we schedule a couple games for another diamond to bring the total games played closer to 20? Regarding the use of Crosby, as much as I dislike the field at Ashton I feel it is a better sized diamond for our league. Crosby is just too small.
my 2 cents
Dave
|
|
| Blue 4
August 25, 2008
2:58:43 PM
Entry #: 2882015
| How about changing the age requirement to 38!
|
|
| Jamie B
August 27, 2008
11:09:19 AM
Entry #: 2884906
| Is it not possible to "re-number" the teams to accommodate for the Crosby division? Since the teams in the league will be reduced by the numbers moving to the Crosby division, we could essentially assign, say 4 teams, the spots currently held in our division. That way they get the same number of games as would any team in our league. No need to rework the schedule.
|
|
| Wils
August 27, 2008
12:45:41 PM
Entry #: 2885068
| In my view this division should not be introduced until a formal resolution has been approved by the required majority at the AGM (however please correct if I am wrong and this has in fact occurred as I was admittedly not at the last AGM). While I commend our executive for the time commitment and energy they put in year after year to ensure the league is one of the best around, our constitution does not confer on them the authority to create a new division simply because they feel it is in the “league’s best interest”. I do not see how this division can be created without an amendment to the constitution which: (a) requires a majority vote at the AGM, and (b) must be in the form of a resolution that has been forwarded to all members of the USPL prior to the AGM.
In addition, while I am not against the new division in principle, I agree with “Dad” that if and when the division is introduced, they should not reserve the 6:30 and 8:00 game times at Crosby and should, in the interest of fairness to all USPL members both young and old(er), have their game times and locations determined within the existing scheduling framework (with games being played both at Crosby and Ashton and across all game times). I don’t see how one can justify reserving the 6:30 and 8:00 game times at the diamond where many of us prefer to play (especially those with young families) notwithstanding the fact that someone decided to call it the “Crosby Division”.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 27, 2008
2:00:10 PM
Entry #: 2885176
| I agree 100% with Wils. The last I heard of the Crosby Division was when the membership voted it down, the USPL has a constitution in place so that the wants of a minority faction don't outweigh the interests of the majority. I am not up to speed on our constitution but I would be very surprised even if 50 of our members wanted to play in this new division if this would ever pass.
I have no issue with people trying to find out how much interest there would be in this seperate division and then using the forum to try to convince the membership of the rationale just as long as the membership has the opportunity to vote on it under the laws of our constitution.
It appears to me that the Crosby division has already been approved and the executive is now looking for numbers of players, please advise me if I am incorrect with my assumption.
I am also very thankful of the work the executive does and for the most part agree with most of their decisions, I just don't know how the executive has made this decision without discussing with the membership, especially when the membership voted against it not too long ago.
PS. If this does pass I would also be opposed to giving this division preferential treatment at Crosby, the majority of us still like to play there.
|
|
| Gimme
August 27, 2008
2:51:06 PM
Entry #: 2885260
| I agree with others that the League Executive may be overstepping their bounds by making this change without a consensus from the membership.
Rather than make this drastic division in the league, have we explored realigning the divisions to an “A” Pool and a “B” Pool. The top 8/10/12 teams would play in the “A” pool during the year, only occasionally playing the “B” pool teams (4-6 games). The bottom 10/8/6 teams would then primarily play amongst themselves. At the end of the year, through some sort of predetermined method, a couple teams would be relegated to from the “A” pool to the “B” pool, and a couple of “B” pool teams would move up (like what is done in soccer leagues in Europe).
By doing this, we would have better, more competitive games for all teams, and it would provide incentive to try and move up or from being relegated.
Why not try this before trying such a far-reaching change that is currently proposed.
|
|
| widds
August 27, 2008
3:34:56 PM
Entry #: 2885362
| Gentlemen,
Your thoughts and perspectives are duly noted and respected. Please keep in mind that yes, we as an executive, do look out for the best interests of all who currently play in the league, and those who have played in the league. On that note, it is evident that there is an age disparity that is growing larger every year. To this, we need to address the point that many of these individuals are long term members who have paved the way for most of us to enjoy the league as it is today.
This "division" addresses the fact that there are at least 45 to 60 individuals who would enjoy playing in their community with members of the same age, and likely,ability.
Before we get into the dynamics and logistics of how this can work, please take a minute to reflect on how we can create a recreational atmosphere for those members who are 40 and over. That is the primary goal of the executive, and has been for years. I assure you that no one has overstepped any processes and or boundries.
From my recollection, each team plays 8 or 9 games at Crosby at present and even after creating a 22 team schedule, all teams would still be playing 8 or 9 games a year at Crosby.
There are other issues at hand that the executive are dealing with at present and your support is requested at this time.
Thanks
Widds
|
|
| waterboy
August 27, 2008
5:43:37 PM
Entry #: 2885587
| The current setup has a competitive feel to it. There have been many rivalries established over the years and that is what makes it fun and a reason to come out and try our best regardless of our age. A new division of over 40's will probably not have the same competitive feel and would end up like the current Wed. night league which is one that I have always said I would never play in. I will stay in the current system and walk out graciously or be carried out when hit by the line drive I was not quick enough to catch or get out of the way of.
|
|
| houghts
August 27, 2008
7:09:57 PM
Entry #: 2885692
| That is exactly why the new division was proposed. It is to provide a division of ball for our USPL members who are at the age and/or skill level where they cannot keep up with the 25 yr olds.
|
|
| Cashman
August 27, 2008
7:12:57 PM
Entry #: 2885699
| so, the whole remax team is moving over?
|
|
| houghts
August 27, 2008
8:14:17 PM
Entry #: 2885763
| pretty much, we only have 2 guys under 40.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
8:35:16 AM
Entry #: 2886170
| Widds, I appreciate the work the executive is doing here but it is still up to the members to decide if we would like to "create a recreational atmosphere for those members who are 40 and over." The primary goal of the executive is to listen to the membership and if you as our appointed leaders believe the league is heading in the wrong direction then lobby the membership to correct it - not to implement something prior to us knowing about it (especially when we just voted it down!). You present a lot of good points as to why we should be thinking about our ageing demographic, I would like to see them presented so that everyone can can make a more informed decision.
This decision came out of left field and at a very bad time. We now have rumours floating around as to what happens to teams with a lot of guys moving over, most notably Kelseys which in turn has sparked race for last place to get Gayman. As much as we don't like to admit it this stuff actually exists and is only going to lead to more politics. This decision to create this new division has several consequences attached to it that everyone should be aware of so I think it is best that we use the forum and the next few months to talk it over with our colleagues and vote on it again at our AGM - what is the rush!!
If the executive wishes to create a "real" list of players that are considering moving over to the new division and then present this to the membership no one will have a problem with that.
I do not mean any disrespect to the executive committee I am only trying to create an open dialogue to an issue that will eventually define our league for this and many years to come.
|
|
| Gimme
August 28, 2008
8:56:51 AM
Entry #: 2886194
| jimmy's going to be a free agent?
|
|
| DaPrez
August 28, 2008
9:54:13 AM
Entry #: 2886287
| Yogi, while my moniker is DaPRez, I no longer hold that title, but I am still the past prez.
While your emthusiasm for opposing this issue is what we like to see in the executive,(perhaps you should volunteer),your facts are completely wrong. Your main point seems to be the executive "springing" this on people as if it is a new idea. I would suggest that you attend an AGM or 2. For over 5 years this has been discussed. All of the membership have been consulted by public vote at the AGM. The exec has sent paper requests to each member, (I delivered them myself) and the concept has been approved no less than 3 times at the AGM, going all the way back to Tom Fug's presentation 4 years ago. A commitee on how to progress was appointed at the AGM 3 years ago, 2 commitee's on how to do this with the least effect on the remaining teams have spent countless hours over the last 2 years. Perhaps you and other members were not aware of all of this, but if you attend the AGM's and vote each other onto the exec, instead of using the forum to advance your opinions, you may be more informed.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
10:07:32 AM
Entry #: 2886321
| DaPrez, I have attended the AGM's but I do not remember ever a vote in favour of this. I could be wrong but I thought the membership voted to consider the idea, form a subcommittee and bring a recommendation back to the membership. I hate to sound all business-like but do you post the minutes on the website or is there any place where we can see what was voted by the membership in past AGM's?
I will have no further comments if the members voted in favour of creating this new division, I just don't ever recall this (I guess I'm just part of the ageing demographic with memory loss!)
|
|
| DaPrez
August 28, 2008
10:20:39 AM
Entry #: 2886350
| Yogi you are correct in the membership appointing a sub commitee, as I said in my post, and then the work began, which is why I get my back up when posts are made inferring that this is a new idea being presented. There is not currently a place for the minutes of the exec meetings or the AGM on our page (think of the public access issue) but the excellent job Pete has done of keeping the minutes over the years is certainly public record for those in the league who would wish to review them.
|
|
| Wils
August 28, 2008
10:28:27 AM
Entry #: 2886365
| Da Prez,
If someone on the executive could please post the minutes of the meeting where the Crosby Division was approved in accordance with our constitution (in the form as described on the website) that would go along way to quell any concerns that league members may have. I don't see any issue with public access. I also don't think Yogi was indicating that the "idea" of the Crosby Division was sprung on the membership only that the formal implementation was. There is a difference in discussing "concepts" numerous times and receiving formal approval from league members.
The league operates within the confines of a constitution and it should be followed.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
11:29:33 AM
Entry #: 2886454
| DaPrez, I concur with Wils, what has startled me/others is the inference from the following statement "for more details on the new Crosby (Masters) Division which will be starting in 2009 USPL Season." that this is a done deal. Please correct me but the membership has only voted to look into the possibility of this new division but not to go ahead with it.
I am not trying to quash all the work that has been done by the subcommittee but I believe it was their job to bring a recomendation forward to the members.
Can anyone remember if the membership voted in favour of implementing this new division?
|
|
| MJ
August 28, 2008
12:51:12 PM
Entry #: 2886560
| I agree with what Widds said but also agree with parts of Wils post. The new division should have an integrated schedule same as any other team. Don't know why all the carfuffle about the new division. The calibre of the league will be great. Looking forward to it. Also recall giving the executive approval to move forward with the new division at one of the AGM's.
|
|
| widds
August 28, 2008
12:53:06 PM
Entry #: 2886566
| Guys,
Perhaps I can clear this up! The proposed new division will be part of the USPL league, but will operate seperately from the current league. It will be governed by it`s own representative but will work with the present league.
In essence, the "new" league will only prove to be beneficial for all involved. It will provide a large pool of spares for the present league, an opportunity for eligible players to continue playing under the USPL banner and afford the present "18" team league an opportunity to draft younger players, hence improving the quality of play.
The "goal" is to expand the opportunity for "our" community residents to play baseball and stay active.
PLease trust me when I tell you that this is truly a "win win" situation.
AS I said earlier, the league has another issue which is making it`s way around town that is a high priority. Please reflect on what we are doing as a positive.
Cheers
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
1:07:18 PM
Entry #: 2886589
| I'm not suggesting that this "idea" will not be beneficial for all members and a win-win situation is viable. It still appears to me that in our constitution the members must vote to accept this new Division. What was presented is a good talking point and I'm sure you will get more feedback over the coming weeks, let's use it as such and properly vote on the revised (if any) proposal at our AGM - there is no rush unless there is something I am unaware of.
Widds, you speak of this other issue that is taking up all of the Executive's time, I trust the membership will be informed in due course, will it effect this new Division?
|
|
| widds
August 28, 2008
1:17:08 PM
Entry #: 2886602
| It affects the entire league and community, and yes, in due course, we will inform everyone.
I`m sure you`ll get wind of it sooner than later.
Yogi, I respect your opinion and appreciate your concerns.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
1:22:18 PM
Entry #: 2886612
| Thank you Widds for your time.
I hope this has nothing to do with the redevelopment of the curling club, arena and Crosby to make room for more retail shops on Main Street.
|
| widds
August 28, 2008
1:24:08 PM
Entry #: 2886617
| No
|
|
| Gimme
August 28, 2008
1:32:09 PM
Entry #: 2886633
| If the Town has its way, the league will be contracting teams rather than expanding to more teams.
|
|
| The Whale
August 28, 2008
1:45:13 PM
Entry #: 2886654
| Here are my 2 cents. The only reason I am against this new division is that it will take games away from Crosby yet again. I love playing at Crosby!!
I'm going to sound like an ass here but if this goes through I feel like branching off an under 40 league and take Monday's at Crosby. Personally I think that league would have more people sign up then the over 40.
I'm in favour of this other league for many of the other reason's I've heard above but I strongly agree that the entire league needs to vote on the issue or we are going to set a precedent for the executive to split us up even further in the future.
Mike W.
|
|
| widds
August 28, 2008
2:30:25 PM
Entry #: 2886713
| Guys,
Please read all the info before responding. IT has been stated that you will still play at Crosby the same amount of times....which is 8 or 9 for the year!
|
|
| Yogi Berra
August 28, 2008
4:44:21 PM
Entry #: 2886911
| Widds, I think what The Whale is suggesting is that people would like to play at Crosby more and one possible way (although said just to make a point) is that we could come up with a list of greater than 50 people who would sign on to a under 40 league which plays all of their games at Crosby. I wouldn't take this seriously although I still don't believe that this Crosby division will ever receive the amount of votes needed under our constitution to be implemented. I would still appreciate publishing the minutes where the membership voted on accepting the new Division.
|
|
| Wils
August 28, 2008
5:48:53 PM
Entry #: 2887014
| Widds,
I appreciate you stepping up and posting on the forum as a member of the executive addressing some of the concerns identified here. However, no one has yet to address the primary issue which is the following:
How and why was it determined that all members of the league should not be entitled to a formal vote on the implementation of the new division?
If the reason is because in fact a formal resolution has already been passed creating the division (and not concepts or the establishment of sub-committees), then, as Yogi and I have suggested, simply post the minutes of that meeting and this discussion ends. If not, then the only way to ensure that no one questions its legitimacy is to have a formal vote at the upcoming AGM in accordance with the constitution. If the support is in fact there I do not see why anyone should have a problem with this approach.
Also, after a quick review of the schedule the breakdown of the number of games teams played at Crosby this season is as follows:
7 games – 1 team
8 games – 0 teams
9 games – 3 teams
10 games – 8 teams
11 games – 4 teams
12 games – 2 teams
As you can see 78% (14 of 18) of teams have played (or will play) 10 or more games at Crosby this year.
|
|
| jimmy
August 28, 2008
7:04:00 PM
Entry #: 2887092
| kelseys is not losing more than 10 players maybe 4. we need to stick together for at least 2 more years to pay off hatzs' bar tab. there are many rumours and questions about the proposed new league. some of these questions may determine who goes to the new league or not. can players that were formorly in the league join the new one as well as active players.
the masters division is a great idea as soon we will all have changing needs, age, too many games, injuries etc, what an awesome pro active idea. if there are any questions or different proposals for the league should they be brought up at the next AGM or schedule another meeting just for such concerns? if so, lets put this to rest and enjoy the rest of the season.
|
| fossil
September 1, 2008
12:47:08 PM
Entry #: 2890050
| I guess we will all know whether or not there will be an over 40 league this week as the numbers are supposed to be in by wednesday???
Are there really that many people interested that cant get in wednesday nite league??
|
|
| jimmy
September 1, 2008
8:11:57 PM
Entry #: 2890506
| There are many players who have lived and played in Unionville for years (some since the beginning) and get turned down. It is more of a gentlemans club, it is a who you know type of deal, there are even reservations. I got that right form the horses mouth. Our division will be more community oriented it sounds like.
|
|
| molina
September 2, 2008
11:49:06 PM
Entry #: 2892273
| i am so glad to see jimmy back on the forum. he speaks the truth and i always knew he was a "horse whisperer". with the amount of iced tea he drinks, i knew he had something in common with horses. his love of animals is only bested by his love of baseball. jimmy's back!
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
8:31:55 AM
Entry #: 2895476
| I take the lack of response as evidence that the league has never voted in favour of this new division and as such I recommend that the executive publically state that the new division will not proceed before a vote has taken place.
I also think that before the membership votes we should all be aware of the "other issue" that is affecting our league and our community as this might have an effect on how people vote on this new Division.
When are the results to be posted on how many individuals have signed up for the Crosby Division?
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
9:01:01 AM
Entry #: 2895508
| I say the Executive publically states that we don't listen to a word Yogi Berra has to say. I'd be willing to even put that to a vote.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
9:09:23 AM
Entry #: 2895514
| Burton, why do you think the members don't deserve a vote? You didn't grow up in the Soviet Union or Cuba so I can't explain why you are in favour of a socialistic dictatorship regime!!
|
|
| Bojack
September 5, 2008
9:34:51 AM
Entry #: 2895543
| I don’t understand why people are resisting this new league? It is up to each individual to sign up for the league? Nobody is forcing this new league down someone’s throat.
If you don’t want to go…don’t sign up..plain and simple.
It will make both divisions more competitive!
What are the arguments against this new league, besides we may lose games at Crosby? (Crosby should be used for this new league and the girls league on Thursday).
We need to find another diamond similar to Ashton for the other 14 teams.
If you don't know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else – Yogi Berra
Change is good…If your not changing, your standing still!
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
9:45:03 AM
Entry #: 2895549
| Bojack, this Division might be the right thing for the USPL to do but all I am saying (as well as others) is that the membership votes. The last vote to accept or decline the Division I recall was voted down hence there are members that don't like the idea and why a subcommittee was formed to revamp the concept. I believe the proposal that was brought forth addressed some of the original concerns but obviously Crosby is still an issue. You are on the executive, why are you opposed to having the members vote, that is all Wils and I have been suggesting?
|
|
| houghts
September 5, 2008
9:48:21 AM
Entry #: 2895551
| I think the Crosby(New) division is a great idea.
It gives people who want to play with their peers(40 +) a place to play. It also gives people who have kids and are busy with their activities an option to play 1 time per week and on the same day every week. I have seriously condsidered joining the wed league(if they would have me) for just that reason. One last thing - Yogi Berra - why don't you post your name so I/We know who we are talking to?
Dave
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:01:22 AM
Entry #: 2895570
| I actually believe that if someone posting stays anonymous than you might listen to what he is saying without putting a biased slant to it. For example, I think you would view the posts differently if I was Nick, Adrenaline, Houghts or Widds. Hence why the message is more important than the sender in certain circumstances.
|
|
| houghts
September 5, 2008
10:05:29 AM
Entry #: 2895579
| I agree to a point. The one message that you posted yesterday made reference to Re/Max shooting the box. This is the first time i have heard this. Why did you make that post? I have played slo pitch for 20 years and I know for a fact that no one on our team deliberately shoots the box. Whenever someone comes close to the pitcher a comment is made to let them know it was accidental.
Dave
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
10:08:16 AM
Entry #: 2895581
| Bojack for Pres! You've hit all the main points for why this new division is a positive thing. Both divisions, by nature of their membership, would become more competitive. The only thing that seems to be an issue here is monopolizing Crosby - which Bojack is right in saying we should be finding somewhere else anyways probably. Yogi is flat out wrong in saying it was voted down. As far as I remember we voted at the last AGM to go ahead with a committee to work out the plan. They've done a great job of it - minus some issues that need working on like locations - and you have guys still complaining.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:11:23 AM
Entry #: 2895586
| Houghts, I'm not suggesting that Remax attempts to injure pitchers all I said is I think the only way to beat you guys is by playing great defensive up the middle and try to force you guys to pull the ball or go to the opposite field.
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
10:13:02 AM
Entry #: 2895588
| Yogi, your anonymity comment is ridiculous. If you know who's saying something it changes the message? Give me a break. If someone has something intelligent to say and raises a good point it doesn't matter who it is. Stand by your comments, and name yourself.
|
|
| Bojack
September 5, 2008
10:15:59 AM
Entry #: 2895596
| I’m not opposed to a vote. That’s what makes this league great. The players decide how the league should be run.
If I remember correctly, a few years ago this was brought up at the AGM and it was voted on, in favour of the new league, with the caveat that there needs to be more work done to figure out how many teams there will be, how many players on each team, what happens to a team if they lose half their players etc.
This is what the new Crosby committee team have been working towards. I think we all agree it’s a good idea, we just need more information.
A vote will not determine how this league should be run. It will determine if the league should be formed or not
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:18:54 AM
Entry #: 2895602
| Burton, to the best of my knowledge the only time we voted on the issue was 3 or 4 years ago when it was voted down and then the members voted in favour of forming a committee. I voted in favour of a committee and so did 90% of the people that voted it down originally. I think (but obviously you don't) that voting to form a committee and voting in favour of the Crosby Division are 2 seperate votes. If you read back to all of my posts all I am looking for is a discussion on the topic so that the members are more informed to properly vote, you guys have been doing that and your lobbying efforts might work. Why does everyone insist on going around our constitution especially when you think that everyone is in favour of it?
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:21:42 AM
Entry #: 2895608
| Bojack, if the members did vote in favour than I retract all of my statements and we can move on. All Wils and I have been looking for is proof as we recall things differently.
|
|
| Bojack
September 5, 2008
10:31:42 AM
Entry #: 2895628
| The executive are meeting this weekend..This topic will be on the agenda,so hopefully we can
put some of these issues to bed....
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:37:06 AM
Entry #: 2895638
| Thanks Bojack, I actually do appreciate all the work you and the executive are doing to try and make this the best league possible. I'm not sure if you coaught my other comment regarding tiebreaker rules but it should probably be discussed prior to the playoffs.
Thanks
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
10:41:07 AM
Entry #: 2895641
| Yogi, I agree with you when you say there is a difference between voting for the new division and voting to establish a committee to investigate - which you are right I think is what we did. However my issue is that the committee has proposed something - which is quite well put together - and there continues to be resistence. That's fine, but why can't we just agree to put it in to action and let the membership of the new division work out the fine details along with the Exec. from our league. Putting up such a fuss with all of this suggests you don't trust the Exec to have our best interests in mind. All that they are trying to do is create 2 divisions that meet the needs and interests of both.
|
|
| Yogi Berra
September 5, 2008
10:56:32 AM
Entry #: 2895664
| Burton, I like what the committee has proposed but I think the Crosby issue could be a stumbling block for a lot of members, hence I don't think the proposal would receive the amount of votes needed. Let's continue to use the forum to discuss alternatives and allow other members to post why they do or don't like the proposal and hopefully by October we have something we are confident that the membership will vote in favour of.
If Wils math is correct it looks like the average team will play 2-3 less games at Crosby even though it was stated that we would play an equal amount of games, I would like to find a way that we play more games at Crosby.
I also think that this Division, although having only 4 teams to start, will probably grow to 6+ teams in a few years hence requiring more Crosby times to be taken away from the rest of the league and eventually growing to completely eliminate Crosby for the original league.
Just another suggestion, which will probably start more discussion, since there will be a lot of shakeups with the teams should we potentially discuss the issue of creating new teams every year or two (similar to hockey) as this will create less politics in the draft and create an opportunity to know more people. I know historically people have turned this idea down but this might be the year it should be discussed again - just a suggestion.
|
|
| Wils
September 5, 2008
12:30:26 PM
Entry #: 2895800
| I have actually since been informed that the math used in an earlier post was actually based on the revised schedule incorporating rainouts taken from the website and in fact 16 of 18 teams were originally scheduled to play 10 games at Crosby per year so I apologize for perhaps misrepresenting those numbers.
I am glad to hear that the executive will be meeting and discussing this issue over the weekend. Apart from the issue of voting on the division and ensuring our constitution is complied with, a few things for members to consider:
First, Bojack I completely agree with you that a 14 team league would end up with a more competitive league for all. However, that is not what is currently proposed. According to the description on the website the plan is for none of the 18 teams to be dissolved unless the team loses 10 or more players. Based on a 4 team Masters division of 10-12 players each this would mean that the rest of the 18 teams would need to fill over 40 spots. I have been to the try-outs over the last few years and I don’t think there will be even enough players to fill the empty spots let alone enough quality ball players that would result in a level of play that would be greater than what we have currently. If the possible solution is to reduce the rosters to 12 what do you do to those teams where none or very few have elected to go into the Masters division and still have 14 or 15 guys? Do you force them to drop 3 players or do you have teams of 10 playing against teams of 15?
Second, I have heard from many that the reason that the Wednesday night league is not a viable option for those 40+ players in our league is that they can’t get in. The question is why. While I am sure the reasons mentioned by others are indeed correct, I would argue that the structure of the league is as much to blame as anything else, a structure we are basically looking to replicate. That is, having only a 4 team division results in a “closed” system whereby there will not be enough attrition year after year to allow those that are currently in their late thirties to join the league down the road if they so desire. I predict that what will happen if this gets approved as structured is that in 4 or 5 years the same issues that plague the Wednesday night league will be seen in the Masters division unless there is a plan to avoid this potential problem. The then 40 year old guys won’t be able to get into the division and will thus either leave the league or stay which will after a few years have the cumulative effect of negating any sort of increased competitiveness that may have been attained upon implementation and we are back to where we started. How will the division fill empty spots if there are more people interested than are available? Will there be a try-out? Wouldn’t that go against the philosophy upon which the new division is purportedly based?
Kev Wilson
p.s. Burton where do you find the time to post on the forum so many times on a Friday? Shouldn’t you be imparting your infinite wisdom on our youth or did your principal catch you rockin the Mohawk over the summer?
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
12:57:59 PM
Entry #: 2895826
| Wils, never mind how I have time (recess, lunch, prep), it must have taken you an hour for that last one - factoring in your secretaries time to spell check it and proof read for grammar! You raise some good points but most I think can be explained, at least in theory. Shortening of rosters is an issue but could potentially be solved by dissolving the lowest seeded teams if necessary. Not having spots eventually in the new division is also unlikely since the number entering the over 40 could match those leaving it. Remember, some guys electing to go to that league are not just turning 40, but are in fact in their 50's and 60's.
|
|
| Duke
September 5, 2008
1:10:22 PM
Entry #: 2895849
| Wils,
Just an fyi....the Wednesday night league has 8 teams, not 4. The league is run very well and has some great, some good & some weak ball players (just like this one). Every year, there is a complete draft, similar to the hockey league where players are ranked each year. It is a great way to meet alot of people & balance the league yearly.
Entrance rule is to be over 40 and give Bob Griffen a call. If your an asshole (and known for it in town) you won't get in. If your a good guy that wants to play ball once per week, win/lose graciously, you'll be let in.
|
| Hicksy
September 5, 2008
1:17:49 PM
Entry #: 2895863
| I've enjoyed reading this string and I agree with those comments around the constitution and need to vote on such changes. I was out last night with a few guys from the league and someone made a great point about the Father-Son aspect of this league. This seems to be a big part of the league as many teams have or have had Father-Son combos. As a Father of 2 boys I too look forward to playing ball with my sons (should they take it up) and I fear this new division may get in the way of that.
|
|
| Jamie B
September 5, 2008
1:42:16 PM
Entry #: 2895904
| Maybe it's just me, but I think some guys have COMPLETELY lost site of this whole thing. Nowhere does it say that once you turn 40 you will be forceably removed from playing, watching, or saying the word baseball. This division is an OPTION for those over 40. In other words Hicksy, if you are blessed enough to be in as good of shape as Neb when you're his age you can still play with your sons. I'm done with this and hope that it gets worked out. Good luck Exec.
|
|
| Wils
September 5, 2008
2:46:02 PM
Entry #: 2896013
| Duke,
Thanks for the info on the Wed. night league. My intent was not to disparage the league in any way only to address the point that it seems like one of the reasons the division is being considered is due to the fact that many who would otherwise like to play are unable to get into the Wed. night league for one reason or another. I would think that creating a four team league/division could have the potential to create even more future barriers to entry than an eight team league. This could down the road result in the exact problem the creation of the new division was meant to address.
I could be completely wrong but just thought it is something that should at least be considered before moving forward.
I have contributed more than my 2 cents will now follow Burton’s lead…
|
|
| fossil
September 5, 2008
8:05:48 PM
Entry #: 2896393
| Duke you hit the nail on the head "unless you are an asshole",as a person who is 40 years old and supposedly play in a recreational beer league where we have a pinch runner rule and hr rule and every other rule that they have modified the last 15 years points to half the people who are in desperate need to start this new division .Ibet at least half play in the mens hockey league/or golf league who i guess are "assholes"and cant get in.
In reality how many people are we really talking about?i think that this idea is being rammed down the members throats as well as taking nites from crosby away.This is starting to sound like a bunch of old women, and i am taking my ball and going to the weds nite league. Hopefully i am not an "asshole"and get in the league.
|
