Shame on you PGF!!!

[PDad]

... I guess one solution would be to make teams accept the berth at the time they qualify, or lose it and pass it down then, rather than wait 3 or 4 weeks.

... Teams are required to accept or decline the berth when they qualify. PGF needs to require teams back it up by collecting a nonrefundable entry fee at the time of acceptance.

I understand the difference. But when you are not getting all of your qualifiers filled, do you really have the clout to demand payment at the time of acceptance.

That's two unrelated issues and the canceled qualifiers are only at the newest age groups.

Teams are either at a qualifier to earn a berth or not. An acceptance without commitment is worthless. Money talks and BS walks...

I agree teams are there to earn a berth. And those same teams were at other qualifers for other organizations to earn a berth there too. One is a priority and one is a contingency. But when there is an alternative, demanding payment, before all a team's alternatives are exhausted, may not get you the result you want. This is true for PGF or ASA.

LMAO You started off saying they need to make teams accept berths at the time they qualify and now you argue against a mechanism to make your original suggestion viable!

As you originally recognized, a team holding a berth as a contingency plan impacts others if they end up not using it. They shouldn't be allowed to do that for free. I'd rather see them give a 'maybe' which entitles them to be placed on a list for an at-large berth. ASA Territorial Nats can be used as the final option of a team's contingency plan.

This is an issue for ASA too because 2 berths from regional qualifiers went unused due to teams dropping out. Those berths should have been passed down or awarded at TQTs, but they went to waste because teams sat on them.

[CULater]

... I guess one solution would be to make teams accept the berth at the time they qualify, or lose it and pass it down then, rather than wait 3 or 4 weeks.

... Teams are required to accept or decline the berth when they qualify. PGF needs to require teams back it up by collecting a nonrefundable entry fee at the time of acceptance.

I understand the difference. But when you are not getting all of your qualifiers filled, do you really have the clout to demand payment at the time of acceptance.

That's two unrelated issues and the canceled qualifiers are only at the newest age groups.

Teams are either at a qualifier to earn a berth or not. An acceptance without commitment is worthless. Money talks and BS walks...

I agree teams are there to earn a berth. And those same teams were at other qualifers for other organizations to earn a berth there too. One is a priority and one is a contingency. But when there is an alternative, demanding payment, before all a team's alternatives are exhausted, may not get you the result you want. This is true for PGF or ASA.

LMAO You started off saying they need to make teams accept berths at the time they qualify and now you argue against a mechanism to make your original suggestion viable!

As you originally recognized, a team holding a berth as a contingency plan impacts others if they end up not using it. They shouldn't be allowed to do that for free. I'd rather see them give a 'maybe' which entitles them to be placed on a list for an at-large berth. ASA Territorial Nats can be used as the final option of a team's contingency plan.

This is an issue for ASA too because 2 berths from regional qualifiers went unused due to teams dropping out. Those berths should have been passed down or awarded at TQTs, but they went to waste because teams sat on them.

I did kind of argue against myself. I guess that is why it is the way it is.

[CoBound]

Dont worry about it !!!

[PDad]

LMAO You started off saying they need to make teams accept berths at the time they qualify and now you argue against a mechanism to make your original suggestion viable!

As you originally recognized, a team holding a berth as a contingency plan impacts others if they end up not using it. They shouldn't be allowed to do that for free. I'd rather see them give a 'maybe' which entitles them to be placed on a list for an at-large berth. ASA Territorial Nats can be used as the final option of a team's contingency plan.

This is an issue for ASA too because 2 berths from regional qualifiers went unused due to teams dropping out. Those berths should have been passed down or awarded at TQTs, but they went to waste because teams sat on them.

I did kind of argue against myself. I guess that is why it is the way it is.

I hope you're not suggesting the status quo is acceptable. It's not fair to the organizer or the teams that spent more money to attend an additional qualifier or two (i.e. the ripple effect).

Nationals with limited berths like PGF and ASA Gold should require a substantial commitment up front from participants that accept a berth because it is very hard to replace them later on when most candidate teams have already made other commitments and travel arrangements.

[CULater]

Surely you are not suggesting that inviting a select group of 20 or so teams is fair to the 35 teams that had to spend money to travel and enter qualifiers. (18HS numbers)

I am saying that the teams have the leverage at this point. Until PGF becomes more of a national presence (without the use of invitations) or until ASA makes the necessary changes to get all of the teams they lost back. Both want all of the good teams, unfortunately this is a evil byproduct of competition.

[Dugout Dad]

[PDad]

Surely you are not suggesting that inviting a select group of 20 or so teams is fair to the 35 teams that had to spend money to travel and enter qualifiers. (18HS numbers)

As Ronnie would say "There you go again..." - going off topic to the invites. LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3GnWTy8Ebg

I am saying that the teams have the leverage at this point. Until PGF becomes more of a national presence (without the use of invitations)

I think the questionable invitations hurt them as much as the understandable invitations help them. Always having it in SoCal holds them back too.

or until ASA makes the necessary changes to get all of the teams they lost back.

What changes are left to be made? Invites? Always hold 2 Nats in Cal - 1 in NorCal and 1 in SoCal?

Both want all of the good teams, unfortunately this is a evil byproduct of competition.

As long as teams are vying for berths, both ASA and PGF have some leverage to make teams conduct business in a somewhat honorable fashion.

[AlwaysImprove]

I think you can end up in this situation and not have to vilify the coaches or the players. If Team A played in their last scheduled qualifier, and failed to qualify, and then choose to play in a less tournament or end their season, these kids would be right to seek out other PGF qualified teams. In fact the rules directly encourage it.

So if a team doesn't qualify for PGF everyone should leave the team even if the team chooses to play in a "less" tournament, and the PGF tournament directors should encourage them?

Your post solidifies you as a moronic PGF stooge and Heybucket's resident buffoon. What cave did they find you in? Seriously. What a arrogant worthless spew of ignorant nonsense.

Being called moronic buffoon by you makes me feel way smarter than I really am.

It has been that way even back when ASA was king. We usually have 2 teams worth of kids that are of national competitive caliber, but will send 4 teams to national tournaments. All four teams are hoping that one of the other folds, and fills out their offering.

The flip side is to let some dufus coach sell you on the fact that he has an "A" team, only to find out he has no idea what "A" means. Then when his "A" team is unable to qualify you are now handcuffed to his sinking ship.

Definitely two sides to this, and very hard to tell whom is in the right.

[Safebyahare]

I agree with Dugout Dad.

[Battle]

I agree with Dugout Dad.

Sho am glad yall cleared dat up. I didn't no dat. Who would have thunk it?

Mr and Mrs Pacman...Is that really you?