Should S.A teams break up to mentor the A division players?

Discussion in 'MINUTE MAN Dart League (MMDL)' started by Chitown599, Mar 15, 2010.

  1. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    OK I asked this before and today someone PMed me asking about it again since last time I got no replies. What do people really see as being a problem with going to smaller rosters for SA?
    Benefits are evident, but what are the cons. Jakesy maybe you can list why you feel that smaller roster sizes aren't the answer? Adam...anyone really...???
  2. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    I look at it like matter what sport you play the very top levels are always smaller than the lower why not in the MMDL is no secret the number of SA players that can compete with each other on a weekly basis is small. So why keep the roster size the same? Look at Football...there are no limits to roster size in high school, in Div 1 college there is a roster limit of 105 and then the pros the limit is decreased to why not the MMDL. We see this on a different scale with the number of divisions in the league...E and D and C have 3 or 4 divisions...up to A then only 2 then into SA with 1 but really only half a division since there are only 4 teams. Unless someone has played this format with only 3 other teams...they can't really say anything about the fact that some of the teams and players talk of boredom...and the shouldn't start to talk about whinning or complaining about it. They have not experienced it for themselves and have no footing to stand on when arguing the point.
    People are going to play with whoever they want for different reasons. The league has no say in this...and should never have a say in it unless they wanted to opt for a draft. (we know that won't happen). i play on my team because of friendships first and then also because we are very competative. PLayers of like caliber tend to hang together...we see each other at all the LODs and tournaments and have friendships that have grown out of that...and form teams based on these relationships. But if the roster size was would basically be able to field at a minimum 3 more teams if not a complete 8...some individuals may not have a spot on the team they want and may have to either join another group,start their own team, or just go to a different div. This i don't see as a problem. If a few young guns want to give it a whirl it is a hell of alot easier to find 4 to 5 like minded guys to join you than trying to field 9 and still be at all just makes sense...when the talent pool is as shallow as it is, it is silly to try to field 9 man teams when there will be 1 maybe 2 teams in each area that dominate. and then the ever revolving 4th place finisher...they don't want to be there. with 9 person rosters they have little chance. Unless they want to sit out there 3 worst every week. which is not fun for anyone involved. lets hear it...not just the endless flow of what ifs and maybes...but lets hear what is wraong with a short roster...what is the big flaw???
  3. Eddie_C

    Eddie_C New Member

    As someone who shot in SA last season, then lost two of our top shooters and now shooting in A, I couldn't agree anymore, last season in the playoffs I took Krueger to 3 games in Singles Cricket, this season I couldn't tell you 2 players from the opposing teams.

    How do you go from a playoff match against Freddy, B'Na, Sean Moran, Spin and Derek to showing up and throwing Darts, the competition and the constant bantering isn't the same. If you were to ask me today right now what level of darts I'll be shooting in the Fall I'd say SA whether I have to put my own team together and take our lumps for a couple seasons or someone finds it in their heart to think I am worthy of a spot on their roster
  4. AmericanBadAss

    AmericanBadAss Administrator Staff Member Site Admin

    Derek, the con I see with smaller rosters is moving teams up. You force a team up and at the same time they have to cut up to 3 players from their team, that's a tough sell to say the least.
  5. kirby

    kirby New Member've come a long way since the "Sandbagging" days Eddie.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
  6. Eddie_C

    Eddie_C New Member

    Kirby ur still a wart on a frogs ass :lol: :lol:
  7. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    we have already discussed that it must be a voluntary div...we have seen that forcing teams to play in the top div doesn't work...WeRSFaced and now mecca swamp box ar proof...Mecca has trouble getting 6 there every week (not an issue when they were in A and winning...nothing against them, but it can't be fun) and We R S faced got outright killed and lost some shooters because of for the rest of the league moving up the winners works because there is far less of a difference from B-A or C-B than going from A - SA.
  8. kirby

    kirby New Member

    Yep.. :wink:
  9. Chitown599

    Chitown599 Administrator Staff Member Site Admin Site Moderator

    The only flaw I see in lowering the roster sizes are it may cause those left off their S.A. rosters, to decide to play in A div.
    It's not far fetched to realize that a good number of those players, who will be told that they are no longer on the roster are true A division players in the first place.
    So theoretically speaking of course, this will not create the extra teams that we would be expecting. It would only cause us to lose more players. Don't get me wrong, I am all for smaller rosters, but I fear it won't net the results we all are hoping for.
  10. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    i hear you frank...Like I said though, i feel we could end up with 6 maybe 7 teams...I feel that a team like the Donkeys will become a good SA team...they have had 5 or 6 in the past that wanted to play SA and could...also I see the making treble team and our team forming at least 4 teams between us..maybe there are already 4 or 5 if the Seadogs follow suit and then also any up and comers like jakesy put in something...then we are would even the as far as the other areas are concearned...Boston could fathombly putin 4-6 teams as well...and like wise for the north shore...central may be the only hang up...but for years when the old SA was around they didn't have any SA I don't see the big problem...At the very least i think it warrants at least a season to try or some REAL in depth investigation by the league before just offing it.
  11. AmericanBadAss

    AmericanBadAss Administrator Staff Member Site Admin

    Speaking for myself I'm not opposed per se to SA being voluntary. That said unless and until it is shorter rosters sholdn't be the case. This could cause the same issue from several years ago in B, same couple of teams win the division over and over but don't/can't go up.

    FWIW I would love to see 6 SA teams per area.
  12. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    Also i think you may see some old time players return because they don't have to have 9 guys to play...they can get together with 3 or 4 of their pals and have a team...then the short handed crap and so forth goies by the wayside...people may actually want to play every week when they know that they are needed and will be in fuse that with the single game of doubles 501 and there will be some real competition in the division and more of a chance for the upset that so many people are talking about.
  13. Sharkey

    Sharkey New Member

    "Outsider looking in"
    I think a 4 man roster would be Great.
    * more playing time

    * not the same team every 3 weeks

    I want my 4 best shooters. Not my 4 best friends....
    The same group of players now in SA. Will be playing. Just divided up into smaller groups. People didn't leave, just playing against your old team mates.
    1 Solid 8 man team, or 2 (4) man teams. 8 Good guys are still there? Competition, didn't change....IMHO Shark
  14. AmericanBadAss

    AmericanBadAss Administrator Staff Member Site Admin

    Derek, Central not having SA may or may not have been an issue for SA, but I know for years A teams would complain about playing the Central A team in state's.
  15. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    can't please everyone...and if central wouldn't filed any teams in SA I would be shocked...
  16. kirby

    kirby New Member

    I don't want to sound like an Arse and if I do so what, I've got years in this league over all of ya except for Capt. John.. :roll:

    You're issue is this, You have Super A, but the night is toooo long for "some" players as it stands now..Its voluntary yet teams get forced up when they did'nt want to and other teams that wanted to stay or move up were ignored and put where ever the powers to be wanted to put them..You want smaller rosters but the "match profile" would have to be changed..It would be totally different than the rest of the league..Smaller rosters means breaking up the 9 man roster as it now stands yet teams can't even field a full 6 man team on a regular night, so how are you going to field a 4 man team with those same players who won't be there every week???
    I could go on but I don't want to sound like I'm whinning..I'll play and captain a team in a nice sound A division where travel does'nt bother me and everyone on my team will play and we'll be home at a decent hour.. :wink:
  17. shady3900

    shady3900 New Member

    i think 4 man is too small 7 man would be good with the same format in 501 and cricket then go to 5 301s double in double out
  18. DEREK

    DEREK Active Member

    we were saying 4 man minimum anda 6 man max....but the 301s suk in my opinion ...STEeeeeevvvvveeeeee ooOOOOOOO :lol:
  19. jakesy

    jakesy New Member

    Derek, I agree that shorter rosters are the only "acceptable" answer to enhanced competition in S.A. any pros and cons are subjective and speculation but should be thought out. That said:


    increased # of competitive teams

    ability to keep a hybrid of same format

    no need to force teams up. (hope the BOD wouldn't do that)

    easier for top level A shooters to put a competitive roster together and move up and be competitive voluntarily.


    Will teams be willing to split and should they have to. (Sea Dogs?)

    Better competition in S.Shore but does it widen the gap in other div. particularly N.Shore.

    Can short rosters field a team night in night out

    Beyond the top 4 teams, will it cause a migration into the lower divisions?
    So while it will obviously work on the S.S. (two powerhouse teams)
    What's the effect on the other 3 div.
    Example: Right now N.Shore plays the 9 three times, beyond that all matches are pretty competitive. Split them now your playing the hybrid of them twice 4 times. Don't forget they barely got four teams together this season
    Will this create the opportunity for central to eliminate S.A. representation
    (Some have said Central doesn't want S.A.)

    I'd say put up a pole for S.A. shooters on if they'd split their team but you wouldn't get a good sample
    Maybe Trip B can answer this, Would the 9 split? I think they like what they've got.
    All tolled, I think there's still a lot of questions to be answered with short rosters
  20. Skizrock

    Skizrock Moderator Staff Member Site Moderator

    Ok, heres a challenge to all of you.

    Build it. Build your 4 to 6 man roster now. Lets see how many teams we can get. Also, i still believe your going to have the same issues with lack of team as you do now. I would predict zero teams in Central (which is probably ok anyways) maybe 2 teams in Boston (I hope im wrong) maybe 3. The North could have 4 to 6, it could also have 1 or 2. If you want this to happen, as well as any Super A that has volunteer teams, you must recognize that your likely going to have to travel to Boston or the North Shore or combine those two areas. The other side effect will be "stacked" teams in A. This will happen. A group of good players that dont want to be beat up in Super A, will put in for A.

    But that doesnt mean that if you guys want a Super A, that it cant happen. I think if the players can demonstrate that they have the players and the numbers to sustain a small roster Super A, that they should start organizing it asap. Maybe even have a beta Summer season to work the kinks out. What say you?

Share This Page