Ideas and Improvement suggestions,WCLL all conf process

[SDSULAX]

Let us use this thread to post constructive suggestions and ideas on how to improve the WCLL All-Conference selection process.

[Theflow]

I guess I will repost this here...

All anyone wants out of the league on everything is acountability. Anytime the process or criteria is kept a secret, and there are results that may be suspect, there are bound to be questions. This is a good place to talk about it, and there is a hope that things can be better explained. Congratulations to those that got picks, and I am sorry to all of those that got slighted. There are players that fit in to latter category that are more obvious than others.

HERE IS MY SOLUTION:

I have been a hs coach in the past in a state where each coach does a write up for the players they want nominated. It is not just a name, but it is their stats and a few sentences about why they should be selected. Coaches can nominate an equal number of players, and no team gets more or less for making the playoffs. Then, a group of coaches that is selected by each division (they are voted in by ALL of the coaches, not chosen by a few), has a meeting (could be over the phone as long as everyone has the same names and stats in front of them). The selected coaches from each league have the responsibility of presenting players from each team within their league. Since they play every team, they know the players much better then what is on paper. It is through that process in which each select team is voted. It is not perfect, but I think it is a much better balanced system then what we have today where only a few vote, teams have unequal representation with how many nominations they have, and only lists of names are turned in.

Just my thoughts. Open to debate...
_________________

[Ravaging Beast]

I would have to say it is being done as fair as possible with the resources we have. Maybe if all games were televised, voters could be better informed, but that won't happen...ever. The point of all the bickering is to point out the people who got shafted. It seems like people are only complaining about a few players and that will likely happen with the All-America team. The voters and players involved should not take it personal.
I believe most of the voting is based on stats and word of mouth. So if teams want a player's name out there, coaches have to do some talking. I read a past post talking about having laminated cards at the scorer's table defining assists, saves, and ground balls. That might be helpful. Or maybe opposing coaches signing off stats. Sort of a check and balance system.

[Ravaging Beast]

I have been a hs coach in the past in a state where each coach does a write up for the players they want nominated. It is not just a name, but it is their stats and a few sentences about why they should be selected. Coaches can nominate an equal number of players, and no team gets more or less for making the playoffs. Then, a group of coaches that is selected by each division (they are voted in by ALL of the coaches, not chosen by a few), has a meeting (could be over the phone as long as everyone has the same names and stats in front of them). The selected coaches from each league have the responsibility of presenting players from each team within their league. Since they play every team, they know the players much better then what is on paper. It is through that process in which each select team is voted. It is not perfect, but I think it is a much better balanced system then what we have today where only a few vote, teams have unequal representation with how many nominations they have, and only lists of names are turned in.

Just my thoughts. Open to debate...

I like your solution. My only problem is that the better teams should be able to nominate more people because they have better players. Why should Stanford (I just picked them because no one ever talks about them) have more nominations than UCSB, Arizona, SSU, or Chapman?

On another note, I think all the voters were held accountable for their votes this year. Not only were the results sent out, but who voted for who was also sent out. Before anyone says anything, I don't think that should be available to the public.

[Theflow]

I agree that who voters vote for should not be public. It is the process and voting criteria that should be public. For equality of nominations, everyone having 5 or even 8 nominations is better than one team having 5 and the other having 8. Since we are not voting for the best team, but the best players, the cream always rises to the top, so to speak. Someone could be playing for the worst team in the WCLL, heck there could be 6 or 7 on that team, that deserve a nod. With that, the better teams have an earned advantage of showing off their players for as far as they go in the WCLL playoffs, a luxury that the lesser teams do not have. Thus, equal votes, but the better teams have the chance to really show off their players in a way that is earned.

[SDSULAX]

I am also pretty sure that we had coaches that did not nominate anyone, most likely for various reasons ranging to the fact that the season for them was over to bad email and contact info, let's face it, some of our teams are run by students, they are not asked to nominate anyone or to vote for anyone. Participation and providing nominations to All Conference teams needs to be clearly defined to your Coach at the beginning of the year. It is also something that needs to be kept in mind as the season goes along and you see that outstanding player, no matter that he might be kicking your team's collective rear at the time, he is probably deserving of your vote and nomination as the season goes along. We still have some coaches that have not submitted all of their game reports. The All Conference selection process is and was discussed at the League meeting in the fall.

[Sean Lenihan]

How about a fan vote for any/all WCLL players for all conf?
I know this site can do polls....with so many opinions some motivated fan should set it up.

This debate topic is almost like clockwork....every season.... and it saddens me that Gary has to once again post the explanation/defense. Everyone at the league meetings know what the deal is and they all agree on what ever the plan is that season. To many critics and not enough workers/volunteers. I would like to publicly thank Gary and the others who worked on this project for donating their time. The all-conference team is important and helps the league in several ways. So thank you and keep up the good work!

Good to have you back on the boards Dtrain! I know you know the WCLL and think you could do a lot in a leadership position....so if it fits in your schedule I know you could do a great job.

One more small point....I think the objective of making these types of things "fair" is futile.....especially since "fair" in this case is subjective and constrained by the limited information & time on evaluating a players all-conf worthiness. Life is not "fair".....so this can be one of those "sports-is-like-life" learning points.

[dtrain34]

A very good point on the "fairness" of things....

I would be more than happy to help, now that my coaching career is done.
I think the commute to the bay might be a few too many miles on the lease though. If it every does start to rotate, count me in.

Speaking of organizing things down here, when are you going to treat us to hosting the final four again my friend? All joking aside, after the job you did the last time, I wouldn't mind it was at LMU every year. I take that back, El Denn-yo does an amazing job up north when he hosts. You and LMU had the best venue I have ever seen though.

[Theflow]

One more small point....I think the objective of making these types of things "fair" is futile.....especially since "fair" in this case is subjective and constrained by the limited information & time on evaluating a players all-conf worthiness. Life is not "fair".....so this can be one of those "sports-is-like-life" learning points.

No question people work hard to get all of this done, but just because it has been done a certain way in the past does not mean it is the best way to do it. "Fair" can be interpreted many ways, but I think that attempted equality should be the goal. If there is a better way to do it, why would we not try it? This league is not the same size as it was years ago. In fact, it may be too big for just one league. It is not fair to knock the effort of those in charge, because there is no question that this is not easy. However, they should not be offended by advise and constructive crtisism on how to make things better.

It sounds like next year's coaches meeting could be a very long one indeed...

[dtrain34]

Just an idea, because the league is so big now, why not one team for each of the four divisions?

We have three teams now, plus honorable mention. It would comparatively be the same number on selections. And the benefit to this is everyone would have seen who they are voting for.

Or if that is too extreme, two teams - North/South? That is how it used to be.

[bsleezy19]

There should be a first team and second team, and thats it. Though there are many deserving players, not everyne can be an all star. The most important part is that coaches should make an honest effort in evaluating and selecting who should be a put on the all conference team, maybe in the future the writers for the various news articles could have some input as well.

[sohotrightnow]

Bsleezy, you are correct. Beyond two teams, the entire process becomes diluted and being named an "all-star" loses its luster. Since I was such an incredible player, much like yourself, I never had to worry about being named second team or (gasp!) third team All-League.

[Theflow]

Bsleezy, you are correct. Beyond two teams, the entire process becomes diluted and being named an "all-star" loses its luster. Since I was such an incredible player, much like yourself, I never had to worry about being named second team or (gasp!) third team All-League.

Problem with that is that going by this year's selections, some of the best player would have been left out since they only made "third team." For a league of 20 teams, having only two does not do the league justice. If we only had five or six teams like the RMLC, I would agree, but that is just not the case.

[westcoastlax]

I think the idea of having a north and south all star selection is good. There could be first and second teams for the north and the south.
Then during the final four weekend the north and south should play each other for bragging rights.

[dtrain34]

Before the national tournament (and the risk of injury), that is exactly what the league used to do.

I am starting to think, when you compare the fact that our league is literally twice the size as the other leagues, it might be time to split into two leagues completely...