ASA Proposed 2011 Code Changes - Briefly
 

PA absorb the Metro Philadelphia association
<O:p</O:p
Move PA to Region 2, Midatlantic.
Reasoning: “Pa teams have more in common with NJ and NY teams and not as far to travel”. That applies ONLY to the 10% of the teams located in communities along the Delaware Valley.

Rule changes every even year only
Reasoning: Save on paying for rule book printing. Also, “There is still an emergency rule change procedure.” This is true, but the question should be asked how up to date is there distribution list (I still get council paperwork and I haven’t had a vote for two years) and the percentage of responses they receive to these requests.

Load of JO/College player issues, but one interesting change proposal. Replace Women’s 23Under FP with Women’s 18Over FP. Let me see, wouldn’t that be the same as the Women’s division?

Change classification in JO for every age group
That means an 18U, 17U, 16U, etc. I could be wrong, but it seems to me this would break-up established core teams. Same number of players, fewer teams for tournaments that will cost more to run. Makes no sense.

Establish a Pixie 8U Coach Pitch division (think that would actually be a classification) of play.
Reasoning: This has become a very competitive level of play.

Establish a CoEd E/Rec classification using 14” & 12” balls for the male and female, players respectively. Personally, that may not be a bad idea for all CoEd.

Seriously???????? :confused:

I guess the term "competitive" is relative! ;)

I think it would make more sense just to go to 17U, 15U, 13U, 11U and 9U. Then you would have less of a problem with (college players), moving to 43' for junior high and would be a little more true to school ages.

I would like to see ASA change the cut-off dates back to Sep 1.

That would work!:D

I agree.

While it is apparent to anyone who has talked to me, I really don't care about the college player issue as it is really a red herring.

The ASA's job is to promote the game of softball, ALL games of softball and create a path to a national championship, not to act as an collegiate scholarship clearinghouse.

The misguided parents chasing the carrot have been brainwashed that if their daughter doesn't get seen at a NC, they will not get that almighty scholarship. And, if a college player is allowed to play, that girl could be taking their daughters place or distract the scouts' attention.

Well, I can appreciate their feelings though I also believe they are flawed. In today's world, it is rare that a player receives a scholarship based upon being seen at a national tournament. These coaches know who they are looking for, have very likely already received a resume and video of the player in which they are interested and are there to watch that player in game situations.

Well, if you are interested in seeing how a player handles themself under pressure, why wouldn't the be against the best players available at that age bracket?

Speaking of age brackets, many of the true recruits are playing at the 16U level, at least, now. If the NCAA follows through on recognizing and controlling verbals, that may shift back to 18U shortly.

And speaking of competition, these young ladies play so many friendlies, invitationals and showcases, what is the big deal of playing one tournament simply for the purpose of playing the best ball available against the best competition available and trying to win as part of a team? I know as an umpire, that is where I want to be.

But back to the question, I asked the same of a very knowledgeable board member last year and his response was basically agree, but doesn't believe ASA will ever go back.

I think that once ASA included college participation as an eligibility issue, they pretty much quit.