Only if you have access to the 'good old boys' network or have something they want.
It is always a power play to control who is in and out.
Michael Lewis's audio book about travel softball; playing to win
- Thread starter Tazman
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
It is always a power play to control who is in and out.
- Jun 8, 2016
- 16,118
- 113
How other than to rig the pools/brackets in the tournaments where you can get points?
PGF has the ping pong ball drop. Kinda hard to rig!
- Dec 11, 2010
- 4,730
- 113
PGF board member. Cut and pasted from another forum, kind of relevant to what we are talking about here:
”I agree that PGF has had to make adjustments. We still invite just less then 50% of the teams which still provides more than 50% to qualify at the 16 and 18 age levels. The biggest difference is that we now make almost all the invites after the Fall instead of splitting it with a second wave of invites in the Spring. We also hosted Fall qualifiers that weren't part of qualifying process until two years ago.”
”I agree that PGF has had to make adjustments. We still invite just less then 50% of the teams which still provides more than 50% to qualify at the 16 and 18 age levels. The biggest difference is that we now make almost all the invites after the Fall instead of splitting it with a second wave of invites in the Spring. We also hosted Fall qualifiers that weren't part of qualifying process until two years ago.”
- Dec 11, 2010
- 4,730
- 113
It is my opinion that certain org heads have too much influence in recruiting. “Take this kid and I’ll get you that pitcher.”
“Oh, you like that kid? I know she’s been to your camp and you like her but I think you should look at THIS kid instead.”
“Coach, you’ll like this one. She comes from a great family”.
”Hey College Coach! High School Junior Sally is looking at how College Sophomore Sandy isn’t getting much playing time and is thinking about reopening her recruiting.”
Etc, etc, etc. There is some seriously nefarious stuff that goes on in recruiting, that should be a surprise to no one.
No, I’m not suggesting that.
I’m aware of that.
Last edited:
OK.....
But college coaches have one job - to win.
While no doubt there are deals cut at times, it's hard to believe college coaches would consistently engage in recruiting that doesn't benefit their team. And with 5-6 slots available each year, there's not much slack in the system for underperforming players.
Also, how long would coaches continue a relationship with a org who consistently passes them underperformers?
The unevenness in PGF is not in how the brackets are formed, it's in the limited number of qualifying tournaments and limited births within each of those tournaments relative to the number of teams, salted with post-qualifier invites to platinum for those who couldn't secure a birth AFTER spending $$$$$$ trying.
Last edited:
- Dec 11, 2010
- 4,730
- 113
This is not a shot or a dig- I’m asking it because I don’t know. How familiar are you with college softball? Do you have kids that play in college, have you played or do you have friends whose kids have played that will speak to you honestly about it?
There are deals being cut.
They are trying to benefit their team. They are making deals to get pitchers and a few impact players. Position players are dime a dozen and there usually isn’t much difference in talent once you get past the top 1%. (Stat also made up on the spot.)
Under performers may not be the exactly correct word but it’s close enough for our purposes. The coaches make a deal, they live with it until they decide not to. Intangibles and all. Solutions are the portal, and replacing with a freshman if they decide to run them off.
Idk… I’m not a true sports person. The people who live and breathe this stuff seem to see it much differently. It does not look like a bastion of competition where the cream rises to the top to me. It’s much more nuanced.
Sort of. I will make up this stat here on the spot- 1% of college softball coaches have expectations placed on them to win. The rest will be fine as long as they are scandal free and don’t rock the boat no matter what their record is.
There are deals being cut.
They are trying to benefit their team. They are making deals to get pitchers and a few impact players. Position players are dime a dozen and there usually isn’t much difference in talent once you get past the top 1%. (Stat also made up on the spot.)
With 5-6 slots available each year, and a roster of 25 plus…. Well… how many seniors are on the college team we are talking about here?
As long as the org has players the college coach wants. (I’m personally still thinking pitchers here.)
Under performers may not be the exactly correct word but it’s close enough for our purposes. The coaches make a deal, they live with it until they decide not to. Intangibles and all. Solutions are the portal, and replacing with a freshman if they decide to run them off.
Idk… I’m not a true sports person. The people who live and breathe this stuff seem to see it much differently. It does not look like a bastion of competition where the cream rises to the top to me. It’s much more nuanced.
I am familiar with college softball and college sports. Played myself and have kids that play. Have friends, know coaches, heck I even have a relative that spent a summer recruiting for a top 5 D1 softball team.
Yes, there's some horse trading that goes on, but it's not widespread. There simply aren't enough spots or enough horses.
Agree that coaches can have longevity by going along to get along but cases like UCSB are rare (
I'm naming names). Most coaches have a few years of a losing record before they're fired.I know of two players right now - one in the Pac12, one in a mid-major D1 on the East Coast - that are where they are because of a horse trade. I also know of a pitcher that was recruited for her looks. But those are exceptions.
Maybe there's more that goes on, but I haven't seen or heard it.
But I do know of one TB org head that was shut down/shut out from top D1 recruiting because he was talking up and sending non-competitive players to top D1 camps. And I know some other org heads who are consistently anxious about overpromoting their players for fear of shutting off their connections.
Seems to go both ways.
But, I do suppose that if you're Marty Tyson you can get away with quite a bit more. idk for sure though. Just guessing.
Cheers.
Last edited:
- Aug 3, 2019
- 159
- 28
Anyone notice this paradox?
Early on, when his daughter’s team is losing—it’s mentioned that softball is a blue-collar sport and the author mocks “Republicans” and their cargo shorts, pick-up trucks and ice chests. Along with comments about the best softball players coming from the areas with the cheapest real estate.
Then later in the book when his daughter lands on a strong team, he goes on to talk about how girls with limited means don’t get the same opportunities as girls who gave families capable of paying for more elite training.
Overall, I thought the book had a lot of good content but found the author to come across as a bit elitist.
Early on, when his daughter’s team is losing—it’s mentioned that softball is a blue-collar sport and the author mocks “Republicans” and their cargo shorts, pick-up trucks and ice chests. Along with comments about the best softball players coming from the areas with the cheapest real estate.
Then later in the book when his daughter lands on a strong team, he goes on to talk about how girls with limited means don’t get the same opportunities as girls who gave families capable of paying for more elite training.
Overall, I thought the book had a lot of good content but found the author to come across as a bit elitist.
Similar threads
