ASA will hold its annual business meeting at Reno in November.

JO and College coaches should pay close attention to the deliberations of the Junior Olympic Committee chaired by Cindy Inman, who is considering a number of proposals which affect how JO tournaments are structured, how berths are awarded, and how the game is played.

After discussing issues with a number of JO and college coaches, SPY has formulated a series of proposals and submitted them to Cindy and other members of the Committee, as well as my local ASA Commissioner, Jack Mowatt (DCASA).

Subsequent to drafting these recommendations, SPY has focused on the issue of 18A winners advancing to Gold.  Prior to 2002, the Code provided that the top 3 finishers at 18A were given automatic berths in Gold the following year.  The 2001 amendments to the Code eliminated that provision, although the 2001 18A top finishers were allotted automatic berths at Broken Arrow on a one-time basis.  The problem is that the top 3 finishers cannot return to 18A; they must play Gold.  But, they no longer get an automatic berth -- unlike every other age division.  The argument has been that those 18A teams were not competitive.  Not true.  In 2002, those three teams finished 33rd or higher at Broken Arrow.  The automatic berth should be restored, even if it means increasing the number of Gold berths to 68.

Whether you agree with SPY, or have proposals of your own, you should make your views known to your ASA Commissioners and JO Commissioners and Player Representatives before they leave for Reno.

While you did not appoint them, or, even have a voice in their selection, these ASA officials are in every real sense YOUR delegates to that meeting, and, they should give weight and merit to your views.

RFH

ASA agreed at its 2001 meeting to separate the dates for JO Gold and JO 18-U, given the high degree of public and collegiate interest in attending both tournaments. However, while ASA changed the 2002 dates, a move much appreciated by all parties, it left the 2003 dates stand as bid. That is, Gold is scheduled for Salem, OR, July 28-August 3, while 18U is scheduled for Garland, TX, July 28-August 3. The same reasoning applies: the players in both age divisions deserve an equal opportunity to be at risk to being recruited. Cindy Inman implied in remarks to Gold coaches at Broken Arrow that the dates would be separated. Please ensure this is done.

The Junior Olympic program has been described as the flagship of ASA softball; certainly, it is the most publicly-identified fastpitch program. While the JO Committee did a great service in 2001 in adopting new legislation for awarding Gold berths, and in formulating procedures last February for implementing the sector program, and separating the Gold and 18U national tournaments, there are a great many issues challenging JO and Women’s fastpitch. While NFCA serves as one major medium through which college coaches communicate with NCAA, there is no comparable forum for coaches of girls and women’s fastpitch. Moreover, few of the members of the committee have backgrounds in girls and women’s fastpitch. There is an immediate need to expand the JO program, especially in the East, Midwest, and South. ASA should create a special committee, without voting powers, consisting of 8 ASA commissioners, and the coach of the reigning national champion in girls and women’s fastpitch, including 10U, 12U, 14U, 16U, 18U, Gold and Women’s Majors. They could meet annually to discuss proposals for enhancing ASA programs across the board.

Automatic berths to the ASA Gold National Tournament shall be awarded to the defending champion, and top three runner-ups, from the previous years tournament, providing they meet the provisions of Article 517,B,9 (…provided the team has five (5) players from the previous year’s roster and physically present at the tournament site prior to the start of the first game). Two berths will also be given to two host teams. Nationals would continue to be limited to 66 teams.

Strike the provision for awarding 15 regional berths. Three regions did not compete their berths; two teams competed for the berth in Region 2; three teams competed for two berths in Region 3. As many as 65 teams registered for the regional tournaments in Region 14. Sixty-four ASA regions/associations had no representation at nationals. One immediate benefit of eliminating the regional qualifying tournaments would be the free weekends, during which regional hosts could provide more exposure tournaments. This step would also resolve a problem for Gold teams which qualify early, and are forbidden by code from playing in other Gold qualifiers; this step would allow more competitive tournaments against other Gold and 18A teams.

Award the 58 at-large berths only through the 4 existing sectors. Sectors would continue to have two tournaments each. Berths would be allocated according to participation in the previous year’s Gold national tournament.

Because of the distortion created by allocating a minimum of one berth to each region:

Sector 1 in 2002 had a total of 16 regional and sector berths.

Sector 2 in 2002 had a total of 11 regional and sector berths.

Sector 3 in 2002 had a total of 14 regional and sector berths.

Sector 4 in 2002 had a total of 17 regional and sector berths.

Under the revised format proposed here, berths would be allocated as follows (the actual number could be set annually by ASA in procedures, thus avoiding the need to amend the code annually)

Sector 1 which sent 12 in sector teams to nationals in 2002 would get 11 berths in 2003.

Sector 2 which sent 12 in-sector teams to nationals in 2002 would get 11 berths in 2003

Sector 3 which sent 16 in-sector teams to nationals in 2002 would get 14 berths in 2003

Sector 4 which sent 24 in-sector teams to nationals in 2002 would get 22 berths in 2003.

ASA, as the governing body of softball, has a vested interest in ensuring that berths are competed. If regional Gold berths are retained, ASA should amend the code and Gold procedures.

Under the Gold procedures adopted in February by ASA, sectors which do not have 24 registered teams must open their sector tournaments to non-sector teams. The registration numbers do not match the numbers of teams actually playing those tournaments.

There is no uniform procedure for selecting All American teams. Amend Article 503 A6 to delete "Junior Olympic Gold 18-Under." The procedures which have been used in recent tournaments tend to rely heavily if not absolutely on statistics kept by scorekeepers whose reliability has not been certified, and, the outcomes tend to favor the teams who are in the final rounds.

Alternatively, amend A6 to provide for a system of balloting, one per coach.

Advance the date by one year, ie, to 1983. Thus, 19-year olds would continue to be eligible for JO competition, even if already enrolled in college. There is no clear-cut consensus on this issue among JO coaches. Moreover, the experience has been that the college players who return are not the dominant players on their teams, and few if any have had major impact on the national tournaments. The problem which many perceived in Marietta can be simply resolved by limiting any Gold or 18U team to no more than five college entrants, three of whom must have competed for that same team in the previous year’s national championship.

The 2000 and 2001 Girls 18Under national tournaments were a shambles in many respects, beginning with the fact that the Code allows local sponsors to field as many as 136 teams. Rockford actually had 128 teams. The Code allows for 61 berths to be awarded on the basis of previous year’s registrations. There is nothing in this article per se which commands that these 61 teams must have qualified by competing in an 18U tournament that same year, although competitive standings are thought to be implied in other articles. The only certainty at Rockford was that 72 teams had qualified as prescribed by the Code, with considerable doubt about the other 56 teams. In fact, the media guide and program only contained references to 72 teams.

ASA should amend Article 517L to eliminated the 61 berths based on registrations, and work with sponsors to create a field of 72 teams, qualified through authenticated competition.

There has been considerable discussion at the highest levels of ASA on how to improve tournament management, including penalties and sanctions against hosts who do not meet pre-award standards imposed by ASA. At Reno, considerable discussion and adoption of these standards, for both pre- and post-award/pre-tournament monitoring are essential.

End