ASA THIRD TAKE
Conceptualize this scenario for 2006 Gold at the ASA Hall of Fame in Oklahoma City.
48 teams, each having qualified at an ASA qualifying tournament (no returning berths). Three game elimination; no pool play. All seeding by draw. No college players. No pickup players, except to replace injured players.
There is no single resolution which would have this package effect.
There are, however, a number of proposals which, if taken together, could have this combined effect. SPY has been discussing with ASA officials various changes which some in ASA are advocating the Council consider.
ASA Executive Director Ron Radigonda, and a number of Gold coaches, have long professed a belief that there are no more than 48 teams qualified to play at the level conceptualized for Gold. Opponents fear a smaller tournament would spell the end of Gold competition in some parts of the country. Still others want to deny uncompleted Gold berths to certain regions. But, there are Gold coaches and some Commissioners who believe that downsizing would result in virtually an all-California ntorunament – which was one reason for abandoning the old points system. SPY has not heard of any scheme which allocates just 48 berths.
Various ASA officials are outspoken in their desire to make Gold a true best-of-the-best tournament. Exposure to college coaches is not high on their agenda; they believe there are ample exposure tournaments for Gold teams.
Pool games not only helped ASA compete with other leagues, but ensured more teams would stay longer at the tournament, a financial consideration for hosts. The initial idea was that the pool games also added to exposure, because coaches would allow some of their marginal players opportunities. But, when pool games became the linch-pin for seeding, fewer coaches seemed willing to play those marginal players. That view is shared inside and outside ASA.
Thus, if pool play remains, there will be an effort to detach results from seeding.
There seems to be broad agreement on a simultaneous draw. No early drawing by teams as they finish their pool games (assuming pool games continue).
But, there is considerable opposition among ASA officials and some commissioners to returning berths for the top four teams – if that practice continues, the top four would not have to compete for a berth, but, if these revisionists have their way, these four teams would not get preferential seeding. Advocates of the status quo say the guaranteed berths are an important incentive.
Why the opposition? Because ASA is hearing complaints that the teams which hold these warrants use them to recruit – not just players rising from the 16U and 18A ranks – but to take established players away from other Gold teams, who are thus at a disadvantage. ASA keeps reiterating: it wants a truly level playing field.
Whether nationals continues with 64 teams, or downsizes to 48, Radigonda and others are advocating, in lieu of pool play, a three-game guarantee ie, triple elimination.
Make no mistake: top ASA officials are determined not to have a repeat of the pickup player problem at the next Gold nationals. The Ethics Committee could remove some commissioners. There is a good deal of sentiment, not just at the top of ASA, that the pickup player rule has also been misused as a tool for recruiting for the following year – abuses in their opinion which outweigh its benefit of giving additional exposure. To the contrary, the rule is used to strengthen teams, to the disadvantage of players who competed all season for their roles.
In that regard, there will be consideration given to some formula which bans college players.
Not least, consideration will be given to a more workable format for 18A and 16U – tournaments which have simply gotten too large.
Naturally, Gold coaches want input. ASA believes they get input each year from the evaluation sheets coaches submit at nationals. I know for a fact that these sheets are tabulated and the vote totals analyzed. ASA is not likely to even consider SPY’s proposal for a JO council. Right or wrong, some officials came away from the previous Marietta tournament, where Gold coaches did meet en masse, believing such meetings do not generate consensus. I disagree, but I’m skating uphill on this one – in rebuttal, I hear chapter and verse about the self-interest espousals of various Gold coaches.
How much nof any of this will get enacted next month is problematic. But, two things are certain. One, ASA does not believe Gold is the quality level tournament it could and should be. Two, there is too much distrust and disdain on all sides.
If I were a Gold coach, I would talk to my Commissioner before they go to Mobile.
end