Getting back to this. A couple ideas for consideration:
Age Divisions Current: 18/33/45/55 Proposed for 2016: 18/30/40/50/56(going to 60) The only new piece I am suggesting is that the League consider raising the current 55 Division by one year each year until it reaches 60 in 2020. That way, current teams can remain intact without the need to grandfather any...grandfathers.
Waivers: Current league rules (if the website version is up-to-date) do not allow waivers for underage players, except as vested in the discretion of commissioners (see Rules 3.2 and 4.2) and the League President (see Article 14). This seems reasonable to me, but I gather many think the discretion is being used too broadly, at least in the 33 and 55 divisions. Here is a possible alternative: "An underage player may not occupy a roster spot on any team. If a team has fewer than nine roster players for a game, an underage player may be used as a substitute/assigned/borrowed player, but only with the opposing manager's approval before the game and subject to all borrowed player rules, except that the player is not required to play the entire game (e.g. if a ninth roster player arrives)."
I realize that the current 55 division players that were waivered in to fill out rosters would lose eligibility under these rules, and so not all current 55 teams would remain entirely intact. But I think that's a necessary outcome with these changes, and I would not grandfather in those players.
I think it would be ideal if all this led to four divisions (30/40/50/56) of eight teams each (we had 33 teams this year in 33/45/55). I have no idea if that's how it would play out.
I guess the only problem I really have with a complete removal of all waivers is that they are built into the rules for a reason. I think any time you make an absolute regarding anything matters get complicated. I think waivers can be useful and can be used from time-to-time, but as Mark Marshall points out what we really have, in essence, is a 30+ league when teams are allowed 5 waivers below the age of 33.
Where I think your alternative could run into problems, Curt, is that it may seem too easy for a team to claim not to have enough players to field a team and use a younger player as a "ringer" of sorts in an effort to gain a significant advantage in any given game. I realize that your rule covers itself by giving the ultimate decision to the opposing manager, but what manager is really going to accept a forfeit over playing baseball?
It sounds like the real topics up for heavy discussion center around the 45+ Division. That would be the division ultimately affected the most by the switch. On top of the ages and waivers there are so many things to figure out. I know there are some players that prefer the 45+ to the 33+ for other reasons as well...
- All weekend games
- Split Divisions (A & B)
- First round, double elimination playoffs
- Exclusive use of N.S. and V.S. fields make for a lack of field conflicts
One thing I think we really need to bear in mind is that there are going to be a lot of teams affected by any switch so waiting until December meetings to make a decision would really put a lot managers behind the 8-ball. Perhaps a meeting sooner rather than later would be in the best interest of the league and it would be good to get input from GM's and players.
So which way do the 33,45 and 55 teams go up or down and what is the effect on each team for players that may not be old enough and/or aging(large age gap] out of current players? If a 45 team goes 40 then will it be unbalanced by age to a new formed team with younger players and so on.................... and on and on...........? By moving the 55 division up one year each year you will keep new players unavailable to age into it for 4 or 5 years while they lose players.
-- Edited by DP on Wednesday 16th of September 2015 12:10:09 PM
Why don't we just keep it where it is? 18, 35, 45, 55 add a 60 group if you want to( All MSBL National tournaments are set up this way). Have 1 waiver player per team and that is limited to ony 1 year difference not 5 years.
Why does everything about this league have to be so difficult?
Our tournament is not set up that way. This Labor Day tournament is the only one that is 30+ & 40+( if they can find teams for the 40+)! www.msblnational.com under tournaments. Please find me another one that has 40+. There are 2 others that happen to have 30+
You're focusing on the actual number and not the age differential. Leagues and tournaments are 35+ and 45+ because there is also a 25+; which we don't have. The point is that under the traditional setup, there is now a 17 year gap between the younger division and the next step up with then 10-year increments. If we change to 30+ (and let's face it, with 5 waivers apiece, we kind of already have) then we go 15 years between the next jump in age bracket.
On top of that, we have a 45 division where teams are forfeiting playoff games and/or playing with only eight players in playoff games.
What's wrong with taking a look at the ages of our player pool and seeing if there's a way to make the league better as a whole and not completely re-invent the wheel?
I don't see how inserting a 25+ division is going to help with the disparity of the 45+ division....
And again, we already pretty much operate a 30+ Division with each team getting 5 waivers for players under 33 - so essentially, there really isn't a need for a 25+. And the reason the 25+ division folded in the first place was that there was little interest since the 18+ was already offered and the 35 went to 33's with waivers and there simply weren't a lot of guys left out between the ages of 26 and 30.
And what's so difficult/disrupting? If your team is a 45+ team already, every player qualifies for the 40+ format. If your team is a 55+ team already, your team qualifies for the 50+ format (and, by the way, there are multiple waivers for that division too).
All that is being suggested here is that with over 600 players of varying degrees of talent/experience we at least try to make age brackets that make sense to keep things as competitive as possible. The 18 is well established, the 35's are now a 30+ (even though the division's official title may not say so) and it seems like the 55's are well established - or are at the very least worried that they're being "aged out" which is simply not the case. The 45's have 14 teams and some of those teams failed to field a full team FOR THE PLAYOFFS.
So the age bracketing is not the difficult/disruptive part of the argument. If the age brackets change, there is no need to break up teams.
Curt & Rob - you guys are forgetting one of the problems that was created by lowering the age limits in the 35 division. That is that guys in their young 40s found it more difficult to compete against players who were 10+ years younger. By lowering the age limits in the 45 and 55 divisions, you would be creating the same problem for guys in their young 50s and 60s. The teams could stay intact but the "older" teams and the "older" guys would have a tough time keeping up with their younger competitors.
Some of the younger proponents for change are arguing that the older guys in the league should just accept that change is necessary even if it means that we might get pushed out of the league. My response is that this debate was started because the younger guys screwed up their division by lowering the age and granting too many waivers. Don't try to punish us for your short-sighted mistakes.
Curt, try this on for size. This format is suggested to address; 1. Players that want to play together 2. Parity 3. Older guys that cant find a team to play on 4. Waivers 5. The animosity on the board 6. Attracting better players to the 40 division (yes I said 40)
We make the league an over 40 league. Teams that want to stay together can and that creates one division. Recruiting rules in that division stay the same. Anyone with a team that wants to join that division may. Then we create 2 divisions, say A & B, with the rest of the teams. You can either add a draft or not. Each team has the same number of players, say 13. By limiting the number to 13, weaker players will end up getting more playing time.
In the first year teams in A & B are assigned by a committee selected by the board. Come playoff time the winner of the B division plays the last place finisher in the A division in a best of 3 elimination round. If the B beats the A, the B joins the A division for the playoffs. Furthermore, if they choose, bump the A team to B and become an A if they choose to for the following year.
The board members who seem to have a problem with older guys mucking up the league can oversee the first division and the older board members can run the A & B. The 55 division continues unabated.
New players in the league would have to go through a tryout. (Rules on new players picked to be determined).
I think this solves a few of our problems; 1. Guys can still play together as a team without interference 2. Parity should be much better 3. Older guys dont get squeezed out 4. Waivers are forever a thing of the past 5. The board functions better without so much divide 6. The league attracts and keeps better players in the younger division
Curt & Rob - you guys are forgetting one of the problems that was created by lowering the age limits in the 35 division. That is that guys in their young 40s found it more difficult to compete against players who were 10+ years younger. By lowering the age limits in the 45 and 55 divisions, you would be creating the same problem for guys in their young 50s and 60s. The teams could stay intact but the "older" teams and the "older" guys would have a tough time keeping up with their younger competitors.
Some of the younger proponents for change are arguing that the older guys in the league should just accept that change is necessary even if it means that we might get pushed out of the league. My response is that this debate was started because the younger guys screwed up their division by lowering the age and granting too many waivers. Don't try to punish us for your short-sighted mistakes.
That's actually EXACTLY the reason we should switch.
It was tough for guys in their mid-30's to compete with the 18's and once the 25's dissolved it made sense to do what was done to the 35's - even though some thought it was manipulation by the commissioner in order to pull ringers. So now, we've created a huge gap between the younger 30's crowd and guys in their mid-40's. If we went to 30-40-50 it would help "normalize" those drastic age gaps. The people we are really putting behind the 8-ball are those between 40-44 who now are being asked to compete against 30 year olds - and I don't have actual numbers in front of me, but I think that we have more players who fall in that age bracket than those who fall in the 26-30 age bracket.
It's already a drastic age gap in the younger divisions and the remedy was waivers and people are complaining about the amount of waivers and for the age drop of those waivers.
And Curt's idea of incremental changes over the course of five years helps with the drastic changes to the older divisions.
Curt, try this on for size. This format is suggested to address; 1. Players that want to play together 2. Parity 3. Older guys that cant find a team to play on 4. Waivers 5. The animosity on the board 6. Attracting better players to the 40 division (yes I said 40)
We make the league an over 40 league. Teams that want to stay together can and that creates one division. Recruiting rules in that division stay the same. Anyone with a team that wants to join that division may. Then we create 2 divisions, say A & B, with the rest of the teams. You can either add a draft or not. Each team has the same number of players, say 13. By limiting the number to 13, weaker players will end up getting more playing time.
In the first year teams in A & B are assigned by a committee selected by the board. Come playoff time the winner of the B division plays the last place finisher in the A division in a best of 3 elimination round. If the B beats the A, the B joins the A division for the playoffs. Furthermore, if they choose, bump the A team to B and become an A if they choose to for the following year.
The board members who seem to have a problem with older guys mucking up the league can oversee the first division and the older board members can run the A & B. The 55 division continues unabated.
New players in the league would have to go through a tryout. (Rules on new players picked to be determined).
I think this solves a few of our problems; 1. Guys can still play together as a team without interference 2. Parity should be much better 3. Older guys dont get squeezed out 4. Waivers are forever a thing of the past 5. The board functions better without so much divide 6. The league attracts and keeps better players in the younger division
Just a thought.
I love all of this except capping off the roster at 13. We have a few teams already forfeiting playoff games due to a lack of available players.
Other than that, I'd vote for every last one of Wayne's propositions.
I will admit that it's a series of really drastic changes that is not likely to be approved . . .
