“Half-National Champions”? A Really Bad Idea
Not sure who cooked up this idea, but count me among those who think it’s half-baked.
This year’s 50-team tournament in Prescott had a large field of teams — one of the few divisions in Men’s Fastpitch that can still fill out of a full bracket of teams and make the champions feel like they’ve really won something.
Ask any player what is most important to them — what they play all year from — and more often than not, they will tell you “Nationals”. Their dream? To be a National champion. So now they’re going to split it in two? So the winners can tell people that they are “Half-National Champions”? A really, bad idea, in my humble opinion.
And holding the “West” region in Nebraska, with the “East” in nearby Illinois? Huh? What is the logic of that?
Of course there are more teams from states closer to the host city, but here is how the “West” and “East” stacked up for 2008
West – 43 Teams
California – 15
Arizona – 12
New Mexico – 7
Utah – 3
Colorado – 2
Idaho – 1
Nevada – 1
Oregon – 1
East – 7 teams
Pennsylvania – 4
Georgia – 1
Massachusetts – 1
South Carolina – 1
Kansas – 1*
Texas – 1 **
* Note: We put Kansas in the “East” — because it is west of the Rockies. However, under next year’s scenario, with the “West” region being hosted in Hastings, Nebraska — Kansas is actually much closer to Hastings, Nebraska, at the same longitude as Hastings. So do they play in the East or West? (They’re only a 4 hour drive south of Hastings, the host for the “Western” division. ) If the west, that would leave 6 teams in the “Eastern” region.
** For the same reason (longitude), for this example, we put Texas in the “east”, though many consider Texas to be part of the “west” (Southwest conference, for example).
Regardless, Kansas and Texas only change the numbers for 2008 by two teams. Start pulling other western region teams to the East, and you wind up with California and Arizona teams playing each other — something they already do more than they like. That’s why they go to a National – to face new teams.
So where does the ASA put the line of demarcation in separating teams? That information not yet available. A 2008 search of the “ASA Communications” center for Men’s fastpitch yields just two posts, one a story about a women’s bat that appears mis-indexed, and one about medical benefits of ASA membership. Nothing about the split-National, not to mention nothing about men’s fastpitch.
Want to build up the numbers in the other divisions of play? Fine. But don’t do it by devaluing the (former) ASA “C” National Championship.
Maybe instead of chopping up the “C” division, the ASA should be coming up with a central classification system that would make it a true “C” division — one without teams loaded with players from the USA National team, ISC, ISC II, ASA “A”, ASA “B”, NAFA AA Major, and NAFA AA divisions.
For 2008 ASA Nationals, there were (50) teams in the “C” division, with just (6) in the B” and (10) in the “A”. Wonder where all of the “B” and “A” teams were? Start by taking a look at the rosters at the “C” National in Prescott.
Anyone want to lay odds on how many of the 34 teams from California, Arizona and New Mexico “morph” into “B” teams and return to Prescott, Arizona in 2009? Some would say that “morphing” not necessary.