AVMABL

I have an idea, and I'm sure I'm going to get lotsa shit for it. But I'm interested in hearing everyone's honest opinions...

For years, I’ve been trying to present various ways to grow the league. There’s no reason, on the outside anyway, that our league shouldn’t be able to be a lot bigger. The AV is a baseball-hungry area.

The problem is that we’ve had a hell of a time recruiting new players. But more importantly, we’ve had a nearly impossible time keeping them. If you look around the league, so many of our players have been playing for 6 or 7 years. And many of them have been on the same teams. Eventually, they will get too old to play and those teams will flame out. And eventually, the league will cease to exist.

Sure, we get new players every year. And many of those players are average ballplayers, at best. So the argument always is “sure, we added 2 teams this year, but the competition got worse. We don’t want to be a beer league.” And sure enough, after those below average players get a season under their belt, they hang it up. They spend an entire season struggling, and many of them going years without winning a single game.

So we recycle players every year and our league stays stagnant. And worse than that, the same teams are in the championship game year in and year out. I can’t remember the last time our championship game featured teams other than the Phillies and the Cardinals/Padres/Yankees. Aside from the Brewer’s aberration…

The problem is the fact that there are teams who are very advanced, and there are teams who are very below average. And there are teams in the middle. And they all are thrown into the same pot. It’s kinda like having one big major league that includes all of the A, AA, AAA, and MLB teams playing against each other.

I really like what the PCBL does with their various divisions based on skill level. And I think we could do the same thing, but with one cool wrinkle that I’m borrowing from the English Premier League (soccer.)

If we assume 12 teams this year, we separate them into 2 divisions. Using last year’s standings, the top 6 teams go into one division and the bottom 6 teams go into the other. Any new teams automatically go into the lower division. Those two divisions are separate from one another and do not play against each other. Division 1 would play their 18 games against their own division, and Division 2 would play against their own division. Each division would have their own playoffs and their own champion at the end.

The wrinkle? At the end of the season, the top team (or teams? TBD) from Division 2 would move up to the upper division, and the bottom team (or teams) from Division 1 would move down and that’s where they’d play the following season.

Teams in the top division would be subject to certain perks, such as always playing on Field 1 and/or their championship game being at The Hangar. The lower division would play on field 2 and their championship game would be at Rawley Duntley.

I think this solves a bunch of issues, but the biggest one is that it gives those newer teams a chance to be competitive in more games. They won’t lose every week 30-1. They might still struggle, but I guarantee you they will have a lot more close games. And they won’t be discouraged from returning the following year. And they might tell more of their friends about our league because they won’t have such a miserable time.

And many of those top teams have expressed annoyance at playing teams like the Dodgers the past few years who they know they’re going to crush. Ask any of them, and they’ll tell you they’d prefer to play the best teams every week. And as for the teams at the bottom who might not want to play below average competition weekly, they have the added incentive to win their division and move up the next year.

This is why the city’s softball leagues are so successful: they’re accessible to everyone. If your team sucks, you’re going to be placed into a division with other teams that suck so you don’t get shelled every week. And you know what? Those teams come back… every year.

What do you think?

Just so you all can see how this would play out for this season:

Right now, it looks like we're going to have 12 teams. We're not counting on the Dodgers, which means we'd have to either find a team to replace them or we'd have to boot the Brewers out. That leaves us with 12 teams, including 2 new teams (Rangers and Bulls.)

If we agreed to try out my proposal, the divisions, therefore, would look like this:

DIVISION 1
Yankees (2009 Padres)
Phillies
Cubs
Nationals
BlueJays
Diamondbacks

DIVISION 2
Reds
Rockies
A's
White Sox
Bulls
Rangers

Those divisions look pretty even to me... Only question is: where do we put the Bulls? Are they really a new team, after they played in the Fall League? (And did quite well, too.) I suppose that's a question for the Board to address.

Okay Bobby,

Hopefully others will get in on this discussion...

I like your idea...but maybe we shouldn't separate the two divisions completely. Maybe just reduce the games between the divisions, maybe not. I think the biggest hurdle might be costs...but the only one I'm thinking of right now would be the extra 'championship game' in the lower division. Who knows? As for the Bulls...I think you already answered your question. They go in the lower division because they are new. The wood bat league is not our league. I think we should leave room in there...for a case by case basis, but then things become fuzzy because the rules aren't definite.

As for those not in the know, hopefully I can shed some light. For the past two years I've seen, divisions are essentially drawn from a hat and thus the divisions are mismatched.

Oh, and I'd be pissed to be placed in Division B (per say) if the fields' qualities do not remain somewhat similar, umpires aren't similar, etc. The money we pay to play in this league should allow us some right to play on an 'even field' in regards to quality if you ask me.

Let's see where this discussion goes to...

I agree on the fields. It was just an idea. I was kinda throwing as much shit at the wall as I could think of to see what would stick. You make a good point that since we're all paying the same, we should all have the same access to facilities.

To address your question of costs, I think it would be identical to what we've already budgeted. We're going to have the same number of teams, if not fewer, making the playoffs. I'd propose that each division has the top 3 teams in their own playoff to determine a divisional champion, with the 1st seed getting a bye. So 6 teams would make the playoffs. That's actually fewer than last year, where 8 made it.

Yes, there would be an extra championship game, but for this year we have the Hangar for free, so playing 2 games instead of 1 won't cost us anything.

And as for the idea of keeping inter-divisional games: I think that defeats the whole purpose of splitting the divisions in the first place. There isn't much of a point to having the Yankees/Phillies/Cubs play against teams like last year's Dodgers. I mean, if we use my analogy of A, AA, AAA, and MLB teams, you never see the A teams playing against the MLB teams. Everyone plays teams on their own level. Same at the PCBL, or Lancaster's (very successful) softball leagues. The teams are broken up and play only within their own division.

Another idea I had last night with regard the event where we have a weird number of teams that can't be broken down evenly. Let's say we end up with 14 teams again. You can't divide them into two divisions of 7. You would end up with byes or doubleheaders. I think in that scenario, we would just split the league at 6 teams in one and 8 in the other, with the higher division getting the 6 teams. Why? I think that the "elite" division should have fewer teams, so we guarantee that the competition is at it's highest.

I won't be able to make the meeting tonight, but hopefully you guys can find the time to discuss this idea with the hopes of implementing it this year. I will be interested to see how much of the shit I threw out there sticks. If any of it does, I'll consider that progress. Because let's face it, something HAS to give.

If you want to even up the league, and not making it so one sided so that the same three teams are winning everything... have an open draft for every team, and every player. That will give every team a chance to draft these players... What would make you think just because you split up the league would give a team who was good, but not as good as The Phillies, Padres, or Cubs a chance to win the league? This was a horrible idea, not to mention if that team who won the lower division was promoted into the higher league. What is the chance they are going to win?
The whole point of this league is for a bunch of guys who want to get off the couch, and play some ball with their friends. If you have something to prove otherwise then try out for the minors. Or go down to the Pacific Coast League, or stick to softball.
Sorry, I am a little fired up about this because I have been getting phone calls all day from my guys who are concerned about our team The Brewers getting cut. Now, if you went to the meeting last night you would of heard everyone against this idea, and you would of saw me hand over half the cost of our team.

The thing you need to remember is that we live in the AV. Baseball, a once popular sport out here has died out pretty quickly. We do not have the personnel that other leagues have, meaning we are a low income, and low population such as other leagues. We have a junior college, and that is it. You need to look at it that way. I was fortunate enough to get a lot of my friends together who havent played baseball since high school, or pony, but want to play baseball. They have payed, and understand they are not going to be super stars, and get a baseball contract through playing this league, but want to have a good time once a week with a group of friends. With that said, we have 3 guys returning to this league, adn nine guys who havent played baseball in 8-10 years.
We may get spanked a few games, but with good competition we have a chance of getting better.

WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS TO SHARE. ONE IS THAT SOME OF THE IDEAS MAKE SENSE. BUT IMPLEMENTING THEM IN A LEAGUE THAT CONSISTS OF PRE-ASSEMBLED TEAMS(WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A FEW DRAFTED PLAYERS) MAKES THEM SEEM LESS SENSIBLE. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PRIVATE LEAGUE AND ALOT OF THE PLAYERS HAVE BEEN IN IT FOR AWHILE. AND A MAJORITY OF THEM HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME TEAMS. NOW TO SEPERATE THOSE TEAMS/PLAYERS AND PUT THEM INTO AN ELITE LEAGUE BECAUSE THEY PREFER TO HAVE A LITTLE BETTER COMPETITION IS A LITTLE DISCOURAGING TO NEW TEAMS/PLAYERS. I THINK IT SENDS A NEGATIVE IMAGE OF THE LEAGUE. I THINK A TRYOUT FOR PLAYERS IS A FAIR IDEA. I ALSO THINK THAT A PRE-ASSEMBLED TEAM IS A FAIR IDEA. CHEMISTRY HAS ALOT TO DO WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF A TEAM. NOW TO KIND OF MAKE IT FAIR FOR EVERYBODY AND NOT HAVE A LEAGUE OF SELF PROCLAIMED ELITIST... I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A LIMIT PUT ON THE AMOUNT OF RETURNING PLAYERS PER TEAM. THE REST WOULD BE DRAFTED. I THINK THIS WOULD EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD A LITTLE MORE. NEW COMPLETE TEAMS WOULD NEED TO BE EVALUATED AND IF THEY SEEM TO BE STACKED THAN A DECISION SHOULD BE MADE ON HOW MANY SHOULD STAY AND HOW MANY SHOULD ENTER THE DRAFT. MOST PLAYERS I ASSUME JOINED THE LEAGUE JUST TO GET OUT AND PLAY. SO BEING ABLE TO GET OUT AND PLAY SHOULD SATISFY. AND I AM SURE YOU REALIZED THAT THE WHOLE FIELD 1 FIELD 2 IDEA WAS BAD. NOW I KNOW THERE ARE FLAWS WITH MY IDEA. THIS IS WHY I AM NOT A SPORTS PROGRAM DIRECTOR. I JUST THINK THAT CREATING AN ELITIST LEAGUE SENDS A BAD MESSAGE TO NEW TEAMS/PLAYERS. ON ANOTHER NOTE... I APPRECIATE THE FACT THERE IS A LEAGUE LIKE THIS TO BE A PART OF. TO KEEP THE LEAGUE AROUND... I THINK GROWTH IS IMPORTANT. ADVERTISING AND WORD OF MOUTH ARE THE BEST WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT WORD OF MOUTH IS THE MOST TRUTHFUL FORM. SO REPRESENTATION OF THE LEAGUE IS A KEY FACTOR IN HOW PEOPLE PERCEIVE AND SPREAD THE WORD. I DO NOT SEE WHY SOMEBODY WOULD WANT TO JOIN A LEAGUE THAT BASHES ITS TEAMS AND PLAYERS TALENTS. WE ALL PAY TO PLAY, NOT PAID TO PLAY.

as someone who played on the dodgers last year, and has played on teams on the other side of the coin, i completely agree that no one involved gets excited about playing a game they know will be a blow out. while i'll admit my ego doesn't like the idea of being put in a "lower division", it seems completely ludicrous to think that i'd have more fun getting my ass handed to me by the phillies every week.

i understand that this may not be a sentiment shared by everyone in the league, but let's be honest about our own expectations of ourselves. some teams are more balanced than others. some teams have members who actually practice and expect things out of each other, and others are just guys who like playing ball and having a reason to go to the cages once a week. i'm fine with admitting that i fall in the latter category.

on the subject of the divisions being "separate, but equal", they should be just that, or the lower division should be cheaper. the lower division should be able to shrink it's overhead easily if we're conceding equality. maybe only one ump a game, no night games, and less field grooming wouldn't be so bad for a division with a little more relaxed attitude. i know i wouldn't mind if i weren't paying the same as a team that gets such perks.

this isn't to say that i don't think teams from the lower division could play the yankees and hang wth them. everyone should have the chance to play against the best possible opponents and the league should welcome true competition -- but there's no competition when a brand new team of guys who haven't played in years gets rolled over by one that's been playing together for years.

* one additional thought on the premier league theory. it sounds like it would not only make for good competition within the divisions, but also between them. what if the bottom 2 teams of Div. A and top 2 of Div. B didn't just flat out switch, but had a playoff to earn/lose their spot?

First things first....if you want to be heard do not do it in all CAPS and in a long run on paragraph. Its just to hard to read.

I think some of the ideas are good but the league is not big enough for that yet. If we had maybe 18 teams, then I could see it. The cubs are not a good example because they took three years to build...(as far as I see it). The Marlins did not win the world series over night, they did it the quickest of any club EVER.

The Phillies are a good team but nobody knows how he does it every year. Last year he barely scrambled a team together. The Padres or Yankees now are what every team wants to be. They pull in the big players because they were a good team, and have been around for some time. Diamondbacks pulled it together and have gotten better two years in a row.

The teams that always get smashed are the teams cobbled together because of extra people in the draft. Not all or most of those guys stay around because they CANT play baseball and need to go back to softball, where they have the teams and time to suck. The Nats did good as a first year team, and the expos were a good team that quit.

Last example is the Tigers. They were a one win team then, made the playoffs the next year because they were good. Now where are they?

It is a good idea and I would agree if the league was big enough. It is just plain too small and needs to expand in other ways.

First off, all caps had no meaning. I think the point about the league being too small really makes sense. If there were more teams it would be easier to make it work. There are too many details and not enough time to sort it all out.

The thing about the Yankees/Padres kind of sets a tone about the league and some issues it needs to work out. Yeah I understand that every team wants to win. But to already have an unfair advantage because of recruiting or higher standards kind of sends mixed signals. If we were playing in a league that competed regionally or nationally I could see that as a positive thing. But when you are playing in an interleague format it seems to be negative.

Nothing against the teams or league. Obviously things are working for now. But talk about the future and expanding the league seems to be heading in the wrong direction. I beleive in a different format when a proper one can be thought of. But I do not see the league being able to accomplish expansion through exclusion. If people are willing to pay to play than they should feel welcomed.

The idea for a draft has been thrown out there a few times. Shot down every time.

And this "realignment" idea was brought up at the meeting last night and shot down, too.

Looks like the status quo is just fine for the majority of the guys in the league.

Meanwhile, we're losing teams every year. Sure we find teams to replace them, but can you imagine how great and how huge this league would be if we added teams every year instead of simply replaced the teams we've lost? In the past 5 or 6 years, we've probably had around 100-150 players come into the league as newbies and stick around for a year or two before they burn out. That's 8-10 more teams we could have RIGHT NOW if we were formatted better. And I think a 20 team league would be much better than a 12 team league.

Someone mentioned above that we're too small to separate the divisions... I disagree. I actually think that we're too small because we don't separate the divisions.

The league is broken. We're stuck in a holding pattern, and we're not doing anything to get out of it. And until we find a way to keep the new players/teams we recruit and make the league more inclusive and attractive to players on the lower end of the spectrum, we'll continue on this path.

sdub551 wrote:
Sorry, I am a little fired up about this because I have been getting phone calls all day from my guys who are concerned about our team The Brewers getting cut. Now, if you went to the meeting last night you would of heard everyone against this idea, and you would of saw me hand over half the cost of our team.

First, how does this suggestion have anything to do with whether or not the Brewers get to field a team this season? That is completely dependent on numbers. We can't have an odd number of teams... Your situation is dependent on the other teams coming through with their fees and is completely unrelated to this suggestion.

Second, I posted this before the meeting so that the 150+ people in the league who don't attend the meetings could have their opinions heard. Obviously, I didn't know the managers would have shot it down so easily otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting it here. Everyone I spoke with about it prior to the meeting and prior to posting it was intrigued by it, so I thought I'd throw it out there.

I think preservation and expansion of the league is important. Maybe the current format has something to do with it not progressing, maybe it doesn't. It's good to see that the will to accomplish this is there.

Thanks for coming up with ideas and giving us the opportunity to voice our opinions. There are a few other things i wanted to add, but i guess there is no point right now if the idea was shot down already. Hopefully things can get figured out before next season.

rtaggart wrote:
I think preservation and expansion of the league is important. Maybe the current format has something to do with it not progressing, maybe it doesn't. It's good to see that the will to accomplish this is there.

Thanks for coming up with ideas and giving us the opportunity to voice our opinions. There are a few other things i wanted to add, but i guess there is no point right now if the idea was shot down already. Hopefully things can get figured out before next season.

This forum is here to voice opinions among other things. If you have other things to say, my $.02 would tell you to voice it now. This is the current topic of debate...and just because it probably won't be implemented this year does not mean it will never be implemented. The reason this suggestion isn't really being considered this year is because of the negative impacts many believe it COULD have. If we can find a way to reduce or eliminate those negatives, this suggestion COULD happen, sooner than later. This league really is run by a group of guys getting together and making decisions at Vince's. Again, just my $.02.

I think the general idea is good. I like a few of the other additions to this as well. But with a league of this size I feel it really wouldn't help the "lower level teams" excel. Yes the better teams in that category would have an opportunity to advance in the "upper level". For the most part though you would only be playing the same 5 teams that are at the same level. I believe you can only be/get as good as your competition. Lets say that the under performing teams of the "upper level" move down and clean house in the "lower level". They would just get moved back up. So you still have a strong possibility that a few teams may never excel in the league. A majority of their games will still be played at the same stagnant level that was expressed in the start of this thread.

I understand that some of the "elite" teams would like some better competition. If its so difficult to find that level of talent, then why not take a chance and scale down the talent on those teams as well. Not exactly sure of the proper way to do that yet. I think that might bring more teams/players into the league that feel intimidated or not wanted. Unless of course this league is pursuing the "elite" only status. That changes everything.