BV Competition Review (Discussion Paper)

[Baseballfan]

Baseball Victoria Competition Structure Review

Apparently BV will be presenting a discussion paper at tonights P & S meeting.

The discussion paper is attached and it was only received by the clubs this afternoon, just hours before the meeting.

Attachments:

[pirates]

how can something simple get to be so complicated, not what the clubs discussed last time. give it the KISS treatment!!!!!! keep it simple stupid is the only rule to follow.

[Goblin]

Wow, that will certainly get the bats out of the belfry and garner a lot discussion.

On initial glance it is a bit overwhelming. Will take a while to dissect it and get my head around what they have put forward.

Should be an interesting P & S Meeting tonight.

[Chilli Wil]

Good read and I'm sure I'll read it again. Some good ideas in there but I have two concerns:

1. Lack of suitable venues for midweek games. There is no way that all of those games can be fit into a schedule. Unless There are more lit venues that I know about (Geelong, Preston, Altona, Doncaster?) there aren't enough grounds to achieve this.

2. In their example I don't like that a PL player can play in games down to AA. AA I assume lies somewhere between Div 1 2nds and 3rds in our current competition.

I also think it is very tough on Geelong. How are their 3rds and 4ths going to be getting anywhere near the game time of their city counterparts? Are midweek games happening at club grounds with people traveling midweek to Geelong? I'm sure a lot of this will be answered tonight (potentially as I'm typing this) but I think there are some serious holes in this proposal that need to be filled in.

[stockley]

Wow, what a read... and how long did BV give the clubs prior to the meeting to digest this?

I think this is one of the first signs in a long time that BV have been actively looking into ways to develop the sport, and setting plans into action. I applaud their efforts here.

CW, in relation to your questions - what changes from now for point 1 - more games at club grounds. The issues that aren't addressed are junior level training. If you're hosting games every night at club grounds - except Thursday night for club training, what happens to the Junior development? You can't train juniors while games are being played.

CW point 2 I think is a very fair point. There probably needs to be a statute of limitations on the level a player can play at. A PL player should be only eligible for playing at AAA level.

If I read this proposal right, I would think that the aim is to have a regional centre around Geelong - like the Geelong league now, where the lower teams can play in local areas, and then play against outside teams less often. That would be the aim I would think anyway, over time.

Its a steep target to reach 10,000 (effectively double the competitions participation) in 2 years. But goals like this need to be set, or else we can expect to stay at the lower rates we currently sit!

[pirates]

Judging by the response from the clubs this is not going anywhere in this format. To many gaps and based on the points system detailed in the report only a few clubs actually would be eligible to play in the premier league. Not Essendon not Blackburn not preston not Melbourne not 95% of the clubs. And has the winter league been asked for imput as this will also impact on it, well no !
A lot of work still needed on this structure and not enough time given to review, this wont work out.

[wyatt33]

This was a very interesting meeting. Needless to say not a lot of what is being proposed was particularly popular. However some of the ideas were reasonable. I actually think the idea that players can represent two clubs on the same weekend is fascinating. Be interesting to see how some clubs approach it. And the idea that maybe clubs can combine sides to represent in the premier league, yet remain independent in AAA was interesting. I also liked on of the junior proposals. But that hardly got a mention. But ideas like corporate leagues has some real promise. Be interesting to see other clubs responses.
Do I think the recommendations will be voted for? Not really, especially if they're only giving the clubs 2 weeks time to respond. With a little prodding, it's been decided clubs recommendations need to be forwarded to the league by the 29th of April, with the p&s meeting a week later to vote. But one thing I see the league pushing ahead with is to try and change some of the long held philosophy's in local baseball, and expanding the game in the future. It's going to be an interesting couple weeks!

[wyatt33]

One other really interesting thing was the 100 points merit system. We were informed that if it was to stay as is printed, two of the current div one finalists would qualify with their current points score. And essendon was one of them. Although the league did say that was just a proposal, and not set in concrete......like the whole proposal.

[mc15]

Just from a brief first look through the document put on line here, the title says it all... "SLC Review of Scompetition Structure Progress Report..."

The key wording is the progress report. I would interperate that as a tabling of ideas and thought processes for the clubs to take back for discussion internally and provide feedback. Not as an action plan going forward.

If it was a final report or recommendations, it would cause some heartache... Personally, I wouldn't sweat on what is in here. I'd just go through each concept with an open mind

[wako]

The general guiding principles, I think, are good - more people playing more often, play as often as you like. As for regional competition, I personally have no problem with weekend travel cross-town as it is and enjoy many of my trips to eastern clubs, but if it will encourage greater participation, then go for it.

As has been said, there are some pretty big implementation issues to be worked out, and the need for elite-level criteria to be met for PL licenses will have to be balanced against the need to actually be able to fill the PL. The midweek competition for lower grades is something I'd be interested in, but even with regional competition this would be difficult given the potential distances to cover even within regions in order to get to unlit club grounds by 6:00 PM - bearing in mind that the AAA Wednesday night games would probably get priority at lit grounds. Maybe such games could be fixtured at lit grounds around the AAA games, which would probably mean Geelong would play a lot of AA West Wednesday (assuming we had a team) games at Altona.

Fees would be an interesting matter - while it's fine, in principle, to say that players will pay more to play more, I know I wouldn't be prepared to pay full fees at the current cost for each league I played in, and assuming this is the case for most people, including the hypothetical (and very busy) Babe Ruth from the example in the paper, would team affiliation fees be adjusted to suit?

Playing for different clubs in different leagues could create some tricky situations. If Babe Ruth doesn't pitch on Saturday the 1st or Tuesday the 4th for the PL Yankees (presumably freeing him from any pitch count restrictions), would the AAA Red Sox coach be tempted to burn him with a 130 pitch outing on Wednesday the 5th so that he couldn't come up for a start on Saturday the 8th for the PL Yankees against the PL Red Sox? Would the PL Yankees coach be tempted to use him on Tuesday the 4th to prevent the AAA Red Sox doing this? I'm sure this could be dealt with somehow, but how?

The ability to play in different clubs in different leagues could present opportunities for lower grade clubs, too, to be able to hang on to players who want to stay loyal to their junior clubs but also be able to play PL. When the possibility of Ballarat playing in summer was discussed, the dilemma of Ballarat-resident players currently at Melbourne-based summer clubs was mentioned as an issue. Under a scheme like that mentioned in the paper, such a player could play for Ballarat in AAA West and say, Essendon in PL. Or, Carrum Downs in AA East and Cheltenham in PL.

It might be difficult to agree on the right implementations without some more detailed and concrete examples of how leagues might actually work, ie: who would play where. I'm not sure that this would be do-able on the time frame specified, but here's hoping

The issue of women being "left behind" as they are essentially not addressed in this restructure other than as part of the weekly scenario is an important one, too. Maybe the greater variety of grades and flexibility in playing for different clubs in different "men's" leagues on different days might offer more suitable options for women to play more baseball. I'd be interested to hear some opinions from women's players on this.

Oh, and I also think that tournaments for clubs that don't make/are eliminated early from playoffs is a great idea.

[fuzzy]

My concern is for the overworked club volunteer and our competition umpires, I only quickly scanned the document and I didn't find any reference to these people. A structural change may increase the participation rate with more games on more days but the challenge of finding more canteen volunteers, groundcrew and umpires may be more difficult than attracting players.

[perfeckt]

The points raised by everyone that precede my post are well and good. Is this the culmination of Brett Hidsons tenure ? Is there a structure or someone that is well versed with these proposed changes that is ready to take "the helm"? The relative time restriction for a new CEO of BV would suggest that there is. Club baseball still have the right to challenge the timing of the deadline as well as obviously having the right to respond to the changes that BV are proposing. Are these changes being driven by the interests of Oz baseball or the interests of an international governing orginization, and are they one and the same? Interested to see anyones response.

[wako]

Mar 27, 2013 11:07:15 GMT 10 fuzzy said:

My concern is for the overworked club volunteer and our competition umpires, I only quickly scanned the document and I didn't find any reference to these people. A structural change may increase the participation rate with more games on more days but the challenge of finding more canteen volunteers, groundcrew and umpires may be more difficult than attracting players.

I also noticed this on first reading - my guess is that clubs will have to consider their capacity to host games when entering teams in leagues. Some clubs may have to ask/require more of their players. This should become easier in the longer term, since more players == more parents/friends/partners/players who also volunteer/etc.

Regarding umpiring, if the leagues really are separate, there should theoretically be no barrier to a PL player umpiring AAA games or vice versa, for example.

[oldmanriver]

Just read the Review and it seems that a lot of the paper can be harkened back to a similar forum discussion prior to Christmas. What does worry me is the possible cost to get all this happening. What is the "liscence" I noticed that Masters didn't really rate a mention when playing times was being bandied around, neither was the Women playing times mentioned.
I do believe that the current playing format does need a shake up. Maybe I could be looking through a half full glass of beer, it does seem that this new playing format could create feeder Clubs being aligned with Larger Clubs with players being optioned in and out of several Clubs.
With the proposed new gradings, what will happen to all the 2nds, 3rds,4ths etc? Do they then become part of the lower divisions, ie: AA and A. It was interesting reading and would certainly shake up the competition as is.

[pirates]

This will never get off the ground as the whole concept is flawed. not enough grounds is one and the most important fact is there are not enough players and the most most important fact is there are not enough volunteers to run it for the league and the clubs. how can you manage all the options, every time you take the field for a game someone has to open up, run a canteen and clean up. that's a 4 hour show!!!! where will they play mid week a games, how many grounds have lights.... at the moment if you went back to the club committees you might just find they are stretched to capacity. Who umpires all these games, club players, like they have to for the lower grades, hows that going for most clubs. Open Saturday and Sunday and a couple of mid weekers, oh and lets ask the players to put in for junior coaching and also see them turn up Sunday morning to umpire the juniors. yes all this and we are suppose to support the national league as well. not a thought has gone into working in with the Aces at all.

But the local clubs can bring in 3 imports..... 3 airfares, accommodation, food and transport ?

It was loudly expressed that the league has not grown over the last few years, well not so sure about that. how many new masters teams are there and how many new junior teams are there and senior teams, plenty. Maybe spread around a little but there has been growth and we cant even get this fixturing right how would this new system go. as for the cross over players who pays those fees and uniform costs and the player that plays Saturday in the premier league decides he's a bit sore for next weeks home team game in AAA but then is OK for the higher placed club which he is not a member of. who is going to police this and how is going to police the license requirements, just a criteria by another name.
Oh and the best initiative, a corporate league at local clubs mid week late afternoon games!!!! made up of local business people.

The clubs are being asked to go way beyond the normal promotion of our sport, this promotion is the leagues responsibility. To ask the clubs to triple the participation with in 2-3 years is unrealistic.

this proposal was not what the clubs discussed at the previous meeting. Too many questions, why not create a sub committee of 8 club people to go over the options and submit it to the clubs not the board and let the clubs decide what we want. Remember they are there for us the clubs not the other way around.

By all means changes are necessary but to make such big changes all at once will just erode all our hard work.

Now I need a drink its been a rough week.

[perfeckt]

I love this forum !

[headinsand]

Agreed perfeckt, I hear a bit of comment about how negative this forum can be at times but the truth is it is a true reflection of where baseball is at in Victoria and i think this discussion paper is nothing more than a "pipe dream"!!
When I read comments regarding BV not even responding to simple questions via phone or email from clubs or individual's I ask myself "are these people making this up ?" just for the sh1t stir ? I think not! BV really does have some poor business practices!

[oldmanriver]

Had the chance to discuss the paper with a couple of applicants and halfway through the discussion, raised was way to many questions that would need to be clarified by the authers of this review. It is no point in putting forward a paper unless you have the answers to show how it works. It is all well and good to have a dream, but it is better if you can have a viable and practiable plan to put forward. As it is, baseball costs three times the cost of cricket and most cricket associations only have one paid official and the rest made up of volunteers.
Perhaps it would be better if BV looked within and waited for the ABL to come forth with a model and then BV can work with or around and then plan how to go forward. The costings of this grand plan could send clubs to the wall and could very well finish up with a reduced number of clubs and players. There is just way to many questions to be asked and I feel that there will be way to many answers not coming forth. My suggestion would be to take small steps and not wade in with giant strides. For this grand plan to work it will take anything up to 10 to 15 years. As my old pappy used to say, you can't build a hotel complex on a suburban block of land. Sure, the competition needs tweaking, just doesn't need a major overhaul unless it is truly viable.

[wako]

I think BV might find it hard to get an 8 team Western Division from clubs that are actually in the west (which BV want - "postcode baseball") in Premier League that won't result in thrashings (which BV want to avoid), at least based on how clubs are performing now. Likewise, an 8 team Eastern Division would exclude a lot of very strong clubs from Premier League who would most likely meet any reasonable PL criteria. Maybe 6 team divisions - West, East and South, with the inter-divisional play as proposed - would be the way to go for PL (where 1sts teams play 1sts teams only) and 8 team divisions (East and West) would be better for lower leagues where eg: 2nds may play 4ths, 3rds may play 5ths, etc.

[Deleted]

As someone who 3 years ago proposed to BV the geographical shift in Masters Ball to Region based competition in Div 2 I can say that in my view it has been great (partic re Monday night peak hour travel across town) BUT it also (after a few years) is a bit too 'insular' in playing the same small group of clubs/players each week (which again is great on one level re have a beer and a chat etc but also leaving one with the feeling that you never see the other 2/3rds of players playing elsewhere).

So the region based options for Sunday ball need to be carefully looked at with this in mind too Id suggest.

Ideally Sunday ball is region based to the half way point of the season then opened up to all regions perhaps ?

Also, while Brett may liked to have got this doc/plan out there prior to his departure I cant help but think that it may scare off a number of his potential replacements, I mean would you want to have this handed to you in the role on day 1 and be told to make it happen in this form whilst trying to just get the basics right in terms of fixturing etc ?

[jrj]

Well said Pirates and besides all that, has any consideration been given to those clubs who don't have access to a ground on a Saturday due to cricket being played. Are they to be excluded?

[wako]

Apr 8, 2013 10:42:23 GMT 10 authentic said:

As someone who 3 years ago proposed to BV the geographical shift in Masters Ball to Region based competition in Div 2 I can say that in my view it has been great (partic re Monday night peak hour travel across town) BUT it also (after a few years) is a bit too 'insular' in playing the same small group of clubs/players each week (which again is great on one level re have a beer and a chat etc but also leaving one with the feeling that you never see the other 2/3rds of players playing elsewhere).

So the region based options for Sunday ball need to be carefully looked at with this in mind too Id suggest.

Ideally Sunday ball is region based to the half way point of the season then opened up to all regions perhaps ?

There is certainly that about it. Maybe the tournaments alluded to in the proposal (they suggest it for teams missing finals) could go some way to addressing that, eg: a state AA tournament.

[baseless]

Has anyone seen the "mock-up fixture" that was promised at the P+S meeting? It was requested so clubs to see how it could work. It was said that it would be done and circulated within a few days. P+S was a while ago now.

[pirates]

ha ha ha we thought it was just us that missed out....does it really surprise.
"No probs will have it done in one day".
can you imagine how long it would take for cross over fixtures and mid week games and ground allocations.

Anyway we have drafted our response how has everyone else gone.

[baseless]

Our club just received a further questionaire to be filled out and returned by 29th!!!!!!!!! We are summer clubs in recess! When do they think we will get this done in 5 DAYS? We have already had a meeting to discuss the Competition Review. BV can send extra questions out but STILL NO "MOCK UP FIXTURE"

[Deleted]

Just out of interest (and not taking into account possible safety issues for a minute) does anyone think that going to an all wood competition throughout all fo baseball will help or hinder the grand (arguably unrealistic) plan of growing the sport to the extent suggested within such a short timeline ?

[aueagle30]

Apr 24, 2013 10:52:49 GMT 10 authentic said:

Just out of interest (and not taking into account possible safety issues for a minute) does anyone think that going to an all wood competition throughout all fo baseball will help or hinder the grand (arguably unrealistic) plan of growing the sport to the extent suggested within such a short timeline ?

Authentic, two points...

First, on your comment 'arguably unrealistic'... BV has a stated objective of increasing from 4500 participants to 15,000 participants in 2015.

10,500 participants represents a 230% increase over the next two years.

For some perspective... in it's 2011-2012 Annual Report, the ABF noted a "significant" increase in participation nationally of 8 per cent. It also noted this increase resulted in the Australian Sports Commission rating baseball's efforts in increasing participation as 'High", making it one of only four sports to achieve that rating.

Additionally, the ABF noted it was on track to reach its target of 50,000 particpants in 2014, from 40,000 in 2009.

ABF = 8% annual growth is significant, striving for 10,000 new particpants over five years, nationally.

BV = 230% growth over two year period, striving for 10,500 new participants over two years, statewide.

Still arguable?

On the issue of wood bats, I'm not sure if it will have any impact on the participation plan... despite the fears of introducing wood bats in 2003, there was no noticable impact on the participation rate, at least from my experience.

Once it becomes commonplace, most people adapt and it becomes normal... there is an argument that using wood bats at a young age reduces development, but that's for another time.

[oldmanriver]

IMHO, I think that the grand plan may have just taken a dive, I can't see the Vic Gvt handing over a bucket load of cash just when the ASC has cut 37% from Baseball funding. The one question that should be asked, if we have 4500 participants this year, what will be the retention rate for next year and how many then do we have to recruit to keep the projected figures on track. Any figure that comes from the ABF should be treated with caution. 50,000 in 2014, who is kidding who, there is over 200,000 in Victoria alone playing cricket every Saturday. Take into account what the other States can offer from cricket, no wonder Baseball got the snip.
The architechts of the grand plan should now reassess the whole situation and came back to the Clubs with a more plausable and acceptable plan, especially where every page doesn't raise a plethora of questions.

[aueagle30]

OMR, what has led to your thinking the Vic Government was ever planning to hand over any cash to baseball? I'm not being facetious, I'm honestly wondering if this was ever an idea put into the public domain or just an assumption.

From my understanding, the new structure has never had any concept of additional funding tied to it, other than a broad thought bubble that noted an increase in participation would hopefully be followed by additional funding.

[oldmanriver]

I will admit to making an assumption, but usually there is a Gvt grant in there somwhere, any funding that may have(once again assuming) come from the ABF will now shrink due to the big snip to our sport. I must admit I was also including the grand plan for upgrading or developing major regional centres that was discussed sometime ago. I am just a bit dubious as to where the money is now to be raised. Tapping the baseball public now would be a bit over the top unless there is a money tree hidden somewhere that only a few people know about. Just using myself as an example, to play baseball cost me 50% more than playing cricket. Nothing ever happens unless there is an expenditure somewhere.