Sand Baggers? Not So Fast

Sand Baggers? Not So Fast

Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 2:30 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:13 am #1

After seeing my share of Bantam games, and seeing recent posts on here, maybe it is time to put our efforts into a more reliable system as opposed to attacking the winners.

http://lacrosseinsidethegame.com/2008/0 ... t-so-fast/
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:00 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:38 am #2

I'm with Kawartha Lakes and we had to put up with the same crap comming out of provincials last year. Combination of being put into a lower division than we thought and our team peaking right at the provincials, then all of a sudden I get called a sandbagger.

Anyways, Gary, I'm not sure if you have it completely right here. But you are at least starting the dialogue. I'm not entirely convinced by making penalty minutes the tie breaker and I know that there are some Markham parents who would disagree with you. They use this method in Stayner and Markham lost by 2 minutes to Peterborough. Tough way to get sent home. I think that you have to still use head to head first. But in the case of a three way tie, maybe you go with goals against being the first tie breaker, then going to penalty minutes as a last resort? The result there would see teams taking less penalties to perserve their goals against and maybe make it more of a team effort?

My suggestion is that you keep up the consultations, then get up at the AGM and make some changes!

Thanks,
Paul
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:32 am

Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:26 am #3

After seeing my share of Bantam games, and seeing recent posts on here, maybe it is time to put our efforts into a more reliable system as opposed to attacking the winners.

http://lacrosseinsidethegame.com/2008/0 ... t-so-fast/
If people really wanted fairness it would of been taken care of long ago. The solution really isn't rocket science. The teams need 10 game sheets for the ratings meetings. Simple,the names that appear on all 10 game sheets is the list of your eligible players to be used at Provincials.
I know,everyone is going to use the excuse of injuries,but it seems funny that all the broken legs,arms and ankles all heal just the week before Provincials.
Some solutions to other contributing factors:1}Move the final signing date ahead to June 1st.instead of July 1st. Either you are playing this season or you aren't.Make a decision. Either you are playing Minor or you are playing Junior.Make a decision.
2}If you are the coach and/or manager, "Make A Decision" who is on your team,get them signed and get them in the required number of games.
3}The OLA needs to put teams in the classification where they are competitive.they have preached for years to strive to make your centre better,so I don't care how many teams can compete in "A".That's how many should be at the Qualifiers then.If you have 16 teams that can play "A" you can't let only 12 go to Qualifiers and send the other 4 to B1,then send 4 teams from B1 to B2,and 4 tems from B2 to C1 etc.,etc,and then not expect a number of blow-outs at the Provincials.Like it or not,either accept them all at Qualifiers or go A1 and A2 like you do for all other classes.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 12:47 am

Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:49 pm #4

The suggestion of having A1, A2 etc. or Elite A and A is an excellent one. This allows more teams to compete at the A level and also keeps teams where they should be all the way down through B C and D as you have eluded to.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 9:46 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 4:59 pm #5

If people really wanted fairness it would of been taken care of long ago. The solution really isn't rocket science. The teams need 10 game sheets for the ratings meetings. Simple,the names that appear on all 10 game sheets is the list of your eligible players to be used at Provincials.
I know,everyone is going to use the excuse of injuries,but it seems funny that all the broken legs,arms and ankles all heal just the week before Provincials.
Some solutions to other contributing factors:1}Move the final signing date ahead to June 1st.instead of July 1st. Either you are playing this season or you aren't.Make a decision. Either you are playing Minor or you are playing Junior.Make a decision.
2}If you are the coach and/or manager, "Make A Decision" who is on your team,get them signed and get them in the required number of games.
3}The OLA needs to put teams in the classification where they are competitive.they have preached for years to strive to make your centre better,so I don't care how many teams can compete in "A".That's how many should be at the Qualifiers then.If you have 16 teams that can play "A" you can't let only 12 go to Qualifiers and send the other 4 to B1,then send 4 teams from B1 to B2,and 4 tems from B2 to C1 etc.,etc,and then not expect a number of blow-outs at the Provincials.Like it or not,either accept them all at Qualifiers or go A1 and A2 like you do for all other classes.
In Bantam 'A' this year, the top 9 teams were fairly close and the bottom 4 were close to each other but not in the running to the top 9. I bet there was not that much difference between these bottom 4 and the top 6 in 'B' so actually looking at who can be competitive would certainly make for as level a field as possible. Makes it harder to schedule though!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:14 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:09 pm #6

I think Gary Mark should run for President and change everything!!!

VOTE FOR MARK
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:32 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:18 pm #7

In Bantam 'A' this year, the top 9 teams were fairly close and the bottom 4 were close to each other but not in the running to the top 9. I bet there was not that much difference between these bottom 4 and the top 6 in 'B' so actually looking at who can be competitive would certainly make for as level a field as possible. Makes it harder to schedule though!
Mandatory tournaments are not feasible. Sure at younger age groups its alot easier to pack kids up and head on down to a tournament. But what about older age groups with jobs and responsibilities and lives. There are also teams that have players that need to drive hours to come to practice. Its just not realistic to expect these teams to be able to drop everything and participate in mandatory tournaments. What if something coes up and for w/e reason that team cant field enough players to play in the tournament? Now they have to miss out on provincials as well.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:24 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:28 pm #8

In Bantam 'A' this year, the top 9 teams were fairly close and the bottom 4 were close to each other but not in the running to the top 9. I bet there was not that much difference between these bottom 4 and the top 6 in 'B' so actually looking at who can be competitive would certainly make for as level a field as possible. Makes it harder to schedule though!
OLA has not been accepting every tournament application (to host) filed over the last few years... they have turned down centers hosting tournaments (especially on the same day as other tournaments). If your going to REQUIRE tournament attendance, how will you ENSURE adequate tournament spots (more than one opportunity especially) to ALL teams across ALL ages, addressing ALL competitive categories and geography. Parents and players invest 100's of $$$ in every overnight tournament (Prov. included) you are talking about mandating several hundred $$$ extra per parent per year, for what? To "satisfy" the disgruntled whiners after they lose at provincials to a team they don't like for whatever reason?
OK, I'll agree, to spend the $$$ as long as you advocate public flogging for whiners. (It won't change the issue anyway, so a team shows up at a tournament with 9 runners and 3 AP's, solidifies their rating, then shows up to provincials with 18 runners, their #1 goalie, and they dominate, did they fake not having enough players for the tournament?) What's better, going in a tournament for the wrong reasons with an non-representative team, or skipping the tournament (if it's not your real team that's going to be there) and taking your chances at provincials?
Critics criticize.
Whiners whine.
10000 tournament games are NOT going to change that.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 2:30 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:53 pm #9

Mandatory tournaments are not feasible. Sure at younger age groups its alot easier to pack kids up and head on down to a tournament. But what about older age groups with jobs and responsibilities and lives. There are also teams that have players that need to drive hours to come to practice. Its just not realistic to expect these teams to be able to drop everything and participate in mandatory tournaments. What if something coes up and for w/e reason that team cant field enough players to play in the tournament? Now they have to miss out on provincials as well.
throw that right back at ya (not trying to be a smart a$$).

How do you explain to a team of parents / kids / heck even Intermediate young men, that take three days off work to drive to Whitby, stay over here, eat here, spend lot of money here so that they compete against a team they have not seen all year and they get it handed to them?

Or better yet, you make it to a Final in whatever division (other than "A"), and get it handed to you "In The Finals".

I guess the point I was trying to make is that yes, costs will be incurred in making tournaments mandatory, but what about the costs for the teams that don't get a fair chance at the biggest tournament of the year?

All because some folks cannot make it all year for whatever reasons, but can make the Provincials a priority. Who is it that is being treated unfairly?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 2:30 pm

Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:01 pm #10

OLA has not been accepting every tournament application (to host) filed over the last few years... they have turned down centers hosting tournaments (especially on the same day as other tournaments). If your going to REQUIRE tournament attendance, how will you ENSURE adequate tournament spots (more than one opportunity especially) to ALL teams across ALL ages, addressing ALL competitive categories and geography. Parents and players invest 100's of $$$ in every overnight tournament (Prov. included) you are talking about mandating several hundred $$$ extra per parent per year, for what? To "satisfy" the disgruntled whiners after they lose at provincials to a team they don't like for whatever reason?
OK, I'll agree, to spend the $$$ as long as you advocate public flogging for whiners. (It won't change the issue anyway, so a team shows up at a tournament with 9 runners and 3 AP's, solidifies their rating, then shows up to provincials with 18 runners, their #1 goalie, and they dominate, did they fake not having enough players for the tournament?) What's better, going in a tournament for the wrong reasons with an non-representative team, or skipping the tournament (if it's not your real team that's going to be there) and taking your chances at provincials?
Critics criticize.
Whiners whine.
10000 tournament games are NOT going to change that.
"To "satisfy" the disgruntled whiners after they lose at provincials to a team they don't like for whatever reason?"

Yes sometimes this is the case, but other times you have to admit, teams are not rated properly.

The Provincials I always thought were the "showcase" of the lacrosse year, where the teams come to compete and the games are typically close, exciting and while there are favorites, there are not typically "locks" to win.

As for your comment about picking up affiliates and kids not able to make tournament games, I would say that if you don't play XX games throughout the summer, you don't play at Provincials.

There was a lot of talk earlier this summer about making players sign the game sheets, similar to what hockey does. GP then is easily tracked. I'm not saying you have to be at everything, but let's make the games played a reasonbale number. That would show the "real" status of a team.

You're right, whiners will always whine. These are just some suggestions to try to improve the system.
Quote
Like
Share