|
Post by wako on Oct 29, 2012 16:34:46 GMT 10
Just for amusement, I devised a regional division system. There's no North division because there aren't enough clubs in that region, but most clubs are not too far from one another. You could have a four team playoff with each winner and a wildcard, or an eight team playoff with each top two and two wildcards, There are 10 clubs in each division (I've assumed Ballarat will be in next year) so fixturing (for the 1sts at least) is pretty simple, but I think you'd agree there'd be some mismatches, clearance moratorium or no...
West Ballarat Geelong Werribee Sunshine Williamstown Newport Footscray Port Melbourne North West Essendon
East Melbourne Waverley Upwey FTG Blackburn Fitzroy Doncaster Preston Malvern St. Kilda Monash
South Cheltenham Sandringham Bonbeach Chelsea Carrum Downs Ormond Glenhuntly Springvale Berwick Moorabbin Mulgrave
|
|
|
Post by 4crownies on Oct 29, 2012 17:34:23 GMT 10
My understanding... there's already a competition that's split on regional localities, all that's missing is the playoff structure... it's called Winter Baseball. The summer competition is a STATE LEAGUE... the players I know play because they want the challenge of playing the best teams each week, not just those close to them. From the club with the greatest travel burden in the competition, we recruit more players on the context of playing good baseball than we lose on the disincentive of travel. Please don't diminish the STATE LEAGUE by creating a competition where you can only play the best competition in the playoffs. www.essendonbaseball.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/like.gif{/img]
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Oct 30, 2012 6:30:18 GMT 10
Wako, I like what you have done. Yes there would be some mismatches early, but it wouild enable all clubs to start on a equal footing and find out what is required to compete at an elite level. And it does certainly cut down on the travel.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf75 on Oct 30, 2012 8:08:09 GMT 10
If someone has the time. What is the combined strength of the divisions, if each team was ranked on their finishing position from last year.
Game wise what would we look a? say a 20 week season play against the other division teams on the weekend and then 18 midweek games home and away against your division.
|
|
|
Post by wako on Oct 30, 2012 9:13:34 GMT 10
Wako, I like what you have done. Yes there would be some mismatches early, but it wouild enable all clubs to start on a equal footing and find out what is required to compete at an elite level. And it does certainly cut down on the travel. Except that they wouldn't start on an equal footing, unless you're planning on having the league reassign players between clubs, which wouldn't happen. Removing promotion and relegation does avoid penalising unsuccessful clubs (or rewarding successful ones) in one way, but is an even more severe penalty in another way because even at their lowest ebb they're going to be thrashed by stronger clubs every other week. Most of the factors that lead to a club being successful or unsuccessful will still be in effect. Some clubs will still have better facilities than others, some will have fewer nearby rival clubs to compete for players, some will have a better demographic than others... Does the promotion/relegation system alone really have that strong an effect on a club's standing? What were the reasons for the league going to a tiered division system and were they valid? Are they still valid? Having said that, another consideration, which is probably not of immediate importance, is: if more regional clubs enter the Summer League, do regional divisions become more important? If, for example, Latrobe Valley formed a summer club, the travel time between them and other East clubs would be comparable to that of Geelong and other current clubs. Latrobe Valley to Geelong or Ballarat, or most West clubs, however, might be a bit of a stretch. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but I do think it's valid for the competition as a whole to consider how far clubs should be prepared to travel to play. Geelong to Upwey? Ballarat to Moe? Warrnambool to Wangaratta?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 30, 2012 9:52:17 GMT 10
With no disrespect intended to Wako for trying or any other club, but based on Wako's model, Monash, St. Kilda, and Fitzroy just got a promotion to Division One, while Geelong, Essendon, Sunshine, Cheltenham and Sandringham all got effective relegations to a 2nd Division.
I would imagine a number of players would quickly want to play in Wako's East Division to challenge themselves against the best, just as many now want to play in Division One... in essence, no change.
OMR's plan to restrict players from freedom of movement would stop this, but he also believes this restriction would mean clubs are acting like a$$holes and stopping the growth of the game.
I see zero merit in zoning divisions... anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Oct 30, 2012 10:16:31 GMT 10
eagle, I think you may have missed a point that has been suggested by wako and that may have been having three conferences may enable the smaller clubs a chance to play more baseball and help improve the baseball cause. In wako's model I didn't see a D1 or D2 but just clubs place into regional areas. I will ignore youe ignorant shot at freedom of movement as you have managed to take that out of context. I do believe with archaic neandathol thinking like yours and not allowing expressions or possible suggestions and/or freedom of thinking, it may just be people like you that maybe holding the game back, or maybe you are protecting the personal/club interests from where you come from. Basically I see zero merit in relic thinking. Open your mind and the world occaisionally looks brighter.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 30, 2012 10:35:39 GMT 10
eagle, I think you may have missed a point that has been suggested by wako and that may have been having three conferences may enable the smaller clubs a chance to play more baseball and help improve the baseball cause. In wako's model I didn't see a D1 or D2 but just clubs place into regional areas. I will ignore youe ignorant shot at freedom of movement as you have managed to take that out of context. I do believe with archaic neandathol thinking like yours and not allowing expressions or possible suggestions and/or freedom of thinking, it may just be people like you that maybe holding the game back, or maybe you are protecting the personal/club interests from where you come from. Basically I see zero merit in relic thinking. Open your mind and the world occaisionally looks brighter. OMR, how easy to not engage in debate by claiming I've taken you out of context by putting yourself above explaining how... the context is clear, when it suits you or your family, good, when it's for anyone else, bad. You now have the chance to correct the context, if you can. And how hypocritical to accuse me of not allowing debate because I disagree with your opinion, then abusing me for my opinion... Hypocrite. At no point did I say you, or anyone else, couldn't have ideas, only that those ideas had no merit. Rather than justify the merit, you attacked me. You call me names and you attempt to shut down my ideas through bullying... Bully. If you cannot see Division One in Wako's model, please try looking in the context of Wako's East Division having seven of the current 12 Division One teams... you can only be assuming that all teams either start from scratch in terms of player personnel, or you're prepared to completely discount the current strength/weaknesses of each club. While I commend you on you're ability to ignore reality, if you're trying to float an idea with any MERIT, it must have some grounding in the real world. Have as many pie-in-the-sky ideas as you like, but when someone challenges your ideas, rather than shutting down the challenge by being snide, try defending your ideas or realising they're no good.
|
|
|
Post by wako on Oct 30, 2012 10:51:45 GMT 10
I'm not actually advocating a zoning model. I merely formulated one to provide an example of what one might look like so that we know what we're talking about. I have pointed out in each of my posts on the matter specific reasons why it wouldn't be a good idea, ie: it wouldn't actually address the divide between have and have-not clubs because the have-not clubs will simply get belted every other week instead of being competitive against other clubs at their level, the league won't make players move clubs to address the imbalance, the factors that result in clubs being haves or have-nots will still exist, the motivations for players to move between clubs will still exist etc. etc.
The only reason I see, and that I articulated, for a zoning system, is for reducing travel, which is only really important if the currently purely hypothetical situation emerges where regionally-located clubs want to join, and that results in travel that the competition deems impractical, and that the best way - which, to be clear, is not the only way - to address it is to zone clubs. If the competition is open to entries from more regional clubs, then some notion of what the parameters for acceptable travel are must be considered.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 30, 2012 11:29:00 GMT 10
Wako, completely agree with all your points on the set up of regional divisions... my only difference would be on the entry of regional teams.
Geelong entered the Summer League in 1983 knowing there would be a travel burden on players, but fully accepting that burden as a part of playing in the highest club competition. They also accepted they would have to start in Division Two and fulfil the requirements in place to reach Division One (which they did in 1985 when they won the Division Two championship).
I would suggest the main reason other regional clubs have been reluctant to enter the Summer League is they also understand this is the requirement of clubs wanting to particiapte in the highest standard of club baseball in Victoria.
I'm unsure why this would need to be changed... if the regional clubs accept it, why the need for change, particularly if that change could diminish the standard of competition?
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Oct 30, 2012 11:30:37 GMT 10
eagle, Debate is healthy and without "pie in the sky" ideas over the last 2000 odd years we may still be walking around in bear skins and dragging the women by their hair. But, with ideas came inventions and with inventions came progress. As with all ideas, it becomes open for discussion and from a seed a tree or plant will grow and evolve. Getting back to the regional split up, yes the east section at present is strong, go back a few years and the demographics was a lot different and you may find that the south section may have been close to what the east is now. If you feel that I have bullied you I do apologise, that is never my intentions.
|
|
|
Post by larry42 on Oct 30, 2012 11:45:58 GMT 10
eagle, I think you may have missed a point that has been suggested by wako and that may have been having three conferences may enable the smaller clubs a chance to play more baseball and help improve the baseball cause. In wako's model I didn't see a D1 or D2 but just clubs place into regional areas. I will ignore youe ignorant shot at freedom of movement as you have managed to take that out of context. I do believe with archaic neandathol thinking like yours and not allowing expressions or possible suggestions and/or freedom of thinking, it may just be people like you that maybe holding the game back, or maybe you are protecting the personal/club interests from where you come from. Basically I see zero merit in relic thinking. Open your mind and the world occaisionally looks brighter. So we take baseball away from the current set up and move to regional zones to allow for the growth/improvement of smaller clubs and help improve baseball's cause? I'm with eagle on this that Div 1 should remain the highest level of baseball regardless of where the club is situated. Why should a Geel be re zoned in to a division where they no longer compete with Wav, Black, Melb and Uftg. Doesn't sit right other than the travel reduction which really is nominal. If you want to play that level then you will travel. There will always be weaker and smaller clubs, it doesn't change in any sport. But we cannot change the whole process just to help them out, at the risk of taking away from the higher level clubs and players. Some of the games could resemble our Junior Qualifying rounds which we are trying to avoid! I could only imagine a Geel v Port Melb round of baseball in its current format. And i say this as someone who has grown up in a small club which has struggled with playing ranks over the last 25 years and jujnior numbers since i can remember!
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 30, 2012 11:48:37 GMT 10
eagle, Debate is healthy and without "pie in the sky" ideas over the last 2000 odd years we may still be walking around in bear skins and dragging the women by their hair. But, with ideas came inventions and with inventions came progress. As with all ideas, it becomes open for discussion and from a seed a tree or plant will grow and evolve. Getting back to the regional split up, yes the east section at present is strong, go back a few years and the demographics was a lot different and you may find that the south section may have been close to what the east is now. If you feel that I have bullied you I do apologise, that is never my intentions. While I appreciate very much your apology, please don't stress... I'm tough and don't mind it being a little rough in trenches... while I call it like I see it, it takes a lot for me to take offense. To your points, I agree wholeheartedly that invention/creation/genius start from the seeds of dreaming. However, the best inventors welcome criticism, they welcome deniers, they encourage those who say, "It can't be done." These objections can help highlight the vulnerabilities of ideas, the weaknesses of dreams... they can provide the inventor with opportunities to see through their dreams to a point where it can become a reality. If I object, its through my experience that I see weaknesses that will prevent the dream being a reality... not to say it can't done ever, just not without finding solutions. As the coach of the Geelong Baseball Club for the past 10 years, I have seen on almost a daily basis the motivating effect of playing high quality baseball. My experience is that players will work harder and commit to more for the opportunity to challenge themselves against the best. For those that don't, there's the winter competitions. Yes, change is looking more of a necessity than even five years ago... the introduction of the ABL, changes in lifestyles and family dynamics, the increased focus on junior players become career ballplayers... these factors are pushing us to change, but my experience makes me believe the quickest possible way to destroy the sport is to diminish the quality of competition, which would be inevitable if you rezone clubs without consideration of their current abilities and standings.
|
|
|
Post by wako on Oct 30, 2012 11:55:00 GMT 10
aueagle30, it doesn't need to be changed, I don't think, at the moment. Guild and Diamond (before Geelong BC) applied to affiliate with the then-VBA and the affiliation was accepted, presumably at least in part because all parties concerned decided that all of the travel involved (which, it's worth noting, may have taken longer before the freeways built since the early 1980s existed) was acceptable. But what's the limit? You say that the Summer League should pit the best players in the state against one another, and I agree, but what if achieving such a competition requires the involvement of clubs beyond the reach of a practical round-trip+game timeframe?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 30, 2012 12:39:17 GMT 10
wako, I think the current constructs of the league create an organic solution to your question of limit. The greatest burden will always be on the regional-based team... it, like Geelong, will be required to travel for more than half its games... where the limit is reached for how much people with travel, it will be reached by the players in the regional areas, resulting in these regional areas not submitting teams (evidenced, I would suggest, by the lack of regional teams being submitted in the Summer League now).
Where Ballarat may enter a team (I hope it does), the greatest burden is on the Ballarat players, not the Melbourne-based players that may have to travel there once per year. If the Ballarat players accept it as part of their opportunity to play in the Summer League, why should anyone else have an issue?
What if Mildura were to enter a team? I would be forced to either stand by the ideals I've presented, or seek an alternative way (I'm not sure I could do either right now)... however, the travel burden placed on the players from Mildura makes it unlikely to occur.
As has happened in the past, individuals from regional areas, such as Mildura, wanting the challenge of the best competition, have travelled to play for metropolitan teams (or Geelong). For those in regional areas not wanting to suffer the burden, baseball has provided regional winter competitions to sate their baseball needs.
Before comment is made on the fairness of what I'm presenting or how mean-spirited BV are for not making a competition to better provide for the regional areas, two things... they do provide for regional areas, with the regional winter competitions... and, this is no different to any other sport, in Victoria or any other part of the world, where talented regional players are eventually forced to metropolitan areas to compete in higher levels of competition.
I see a competition structure that currently caters to metropolitan players, and those regional players prepared to submit to the burden of playing in the competition. It also provides high quality competition, and a system for clubs to elevate themselves to a higher level, if required.
I see where change is needed, but I don't think it centres on needs to include regional clubs, or on a need to reduce travel times for metropolitan players... I don't think reducing the freedoms of players to move between clubs will help clubs improve, only drive away players unhappy with their current situation.
I see a need to reduce the time we're committed to baseball... for most, 11 months of the year... I see a need to create time where we can become the spectators needed by the ABL, rather than the participants needed by our clubs... I see a need where junior players can be provided a structure that suits their abilities, not just their ages... I see a need for change, but to direction of the ship, not the deckchairs on it.
|
|
|
Post by gj on Oct 30, 2012 17:42:31 GMT 10
Remember Bendigo sending a team down to an early summer league comp mid seventies. All games in Melbourne but boys didn't mind as they were playing a much higher standard than home. Unfortunately they didn't keep going with it. Also remember a young Shane Howard making some appearances with that team.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Oct 31, 2012 7:31:09 GMT 10
I do remember Latrobe Valley having a team in 4th Div many years ago and playing out of Morwells ground. I think they lasted a couple of seasons. Many of their players finished up playing for the metro sides.
|
|