|
Post by Dylan Fettig on Apr 23, 2015 22:44:22 GMT -6
Submitted by Jonathan Milliman
2.3.1.1 Roster - Each team may consist of a roster of 10-20 players
My change is asking to increase the roster size from 20 player to 25 traveling player.
The reason I am asking for this change is because I have seen several teams bring several extra players to Nationals and other tournaments but they can not allow their players to play because of the roster restrictions. Increasing the size from 20 players to 25 will allow teams to have a deeper bench which increases the exposure of the league and play ability to more students from our respected campuses. I have read several documents talking about increasing exposure and the easiest way to do so is to allow more people to travel and play with their respected teams.
I have also heard the argument about increasing the roster size means that teams have to worry about more individuals and keeping track of them while they travel, which I fully understand that point but would like to think that if most teams can already manage 20 players adding 5 more (or another car) wouldn't be that big of a difference especially if your club has great leadership. Also I would like to think that the exposure to those extra players that they will get from watching and/or competing in the matches will improve the competitive level within their club making you want to bring more player. I also would like to note that I have seen JMU the last couple of years bring 6+ girls to compete in the woman's game at nationals, along with other teams bringing people to watch them play. This past nationals Central brought and additional 3 players outside of their top 20 but were unable to allow them to play because under the current restrictions it would exceed the allowed roster causing them to forfeit the match if they played, luckily for Central the players understood the rule and didn't get discouraged or have negative thoughts about the league because of their inability to participate. Finally I also want us to think about other major sports (hockey, football, basketball, baseball) and notice that in their respected sport their reserves (or non starters) are higher than the amount of players on the court/field. I believe that we don't need 15 bench players but having ten reserves or 20% of your roster on the bench is the right amount, especially when you compare our reserves to the major sports mentioned about. I believe that increasing the roster size will make matches between top tier clubs and beginning clubs more even because the top tier clubs can allow more of their new members to gain experience while competing against the new teams and this will also help to prevent possible blowouts in matches between the teams. Also increasing the roster size will also allow top tier teams to rest their arms on Saturday and also in early matches on Sunday allowing for more competitive matches in the later rounds due to the teams not having to waste their arms in matches that we easily won or in matches that are not evenly competitive.
Finally if this rule change goes into effect it will subsequently effect rule 2.3.1.2 which states:
2.3.1.2 Low numbers - A team may play a match with no fewer than ten (10) players. The opposing team may still play with a maximum complement of 15 players and a maximum of five (5) substitutes
​Changing the wording from five (5) substitutes to ten (10) substitutes.
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on May 11, 2015 12:53:08 GMT -6
I fully support this. I have been trying to get the roster sizes changed for years. I'm glad someone else has stepped up and posted about it.
|
|
|
Post by jams441 on May 11, 2015 15:14:30 GMT -6
I agree with you spencer.
|
|
|
Post by WKU-Perrone-76 on May 16, 2015 16:52:31 GMT -6
It's no secret that I've been in favor of reducing the playing field from 15v15 to 12v12 (roster cap at 16 or 17), but I am ready and willing to fully support whichever direction the league would like to go in. It depends really on what we would like the purpose of the NCDA to be. If we are looking for more competitive games, where it is the best-of-the-best competing against one another, I believe a smaller roster is the way to do that. If we want to go the direction of inclusion and the "More Dodgeball For All" approach, then the 25 man roster makes more sense.
I am pushing for a smaller roster because the competition would be greater. Aside from the top 3 (maybe 4) schools, every team has at least one or two developing players who some may consider to be a liability during the game. If we removed those players, the average talent on the team would increase; the level of chaos associated with trying to navigate 15 players in such a small space would decrease as well. Team communication and cohesion would be similar to other sports where you never have more than 11 active players on the field. This has its down sides though, because people lose interest in a sport they cannot compete in due to a learning curve or other factors as such. One way to combat this though is for every (or at least most) schools to develop the JV, or B, squads. If every school has a JV squad, then it looks like you'd be bringing at least 24 players to a game/tournament anyway, which is exactly what you're looking for with these roster increases. The only difference is these new and developing players would be playing against competition with similar skill sets as them, thus their spirits will not be crushed when, in our current system, a new team faces GVSU and loses 8-0 in their first game. The games will be closer (on both Varsity and JV squads), more points will be scored, there will be a faster play-style adapted, and it will give the newbies a chance to develop with dignity.
With the roster increases, you will have less playing time for everyone except probably your top starting-7. That means you will bring 25 people to a tournament to play 3 games and 18 of those players may get to play a total of 4 points if they're lucky. If you're one of the bottom 6 or 7 on that 25 person roster, you may not get to see any action if your games are close and very competitive. Just because you're able to bring more people to a tournament doesn't mean more people are going to get to play; it just means more people are going to get to travel. Sure traveling is fun, and I always encourage people not on the rosters to come because the aspect of team bonding is excellent; but wouldn't it be better if you were one of those bottom 5 people on the 25 man roster to just come and watch rather than sit on the sideline and sulk because you're not being put in the game? I know I'd rather do that than have that false sense of hope.
I love talking about this topic though, and would love to discuss this further. What are everyone's thoughts on this matter?
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on May 17, 2015 17:40:50 GMT -6
Okay heres a rule that in my entire 7 year career I have hated to the core, so believe me when I say this is something I'm gonna argue till the end of time with you guys on this. I can't put into words how many players SVSU have had that deserve or needed game experience but couldn't get it because teams are only allowed to play 20 players. On top of that, players who went to every practice, paid dues, and spent their own money to travel hours with the team only to watch the entire time. Honestly I could go on and write a 5 page paper on the subject of rosters, but I'm gonna bullet point it and keep it short and sweet.
- Decreasing players on the court to 12, or even 11. Felix is right on this one and in the past when we had mega teams like SVSU, CMU, and GVSU in 2010-2012 (The talent on those rosters where unreal, players who where the 14th, or 15th members to make the starters would of been all stars on other teams) I might of argued against it, but these days it just seems like those 13, 14, and 15th spots are fillers. Having smaller teams with better talent going head to head will be great for the NCDA. Plus it will be a heck of a lot easier for teams to play in away tournaments since they would only need 3 cars to get there now if need be. - If the above rule is passed lowering the minimum amount of players needed to compete in a game to 7. Yes 7 on 12 might seem like a slaughter waiting to happen but 2 years ago SVSU went into Miami with just 12 players and picked up wins over WKU and Miami earning them valuable points for that season. So its deff doable for teams to win down several players. - Even if the starting players on the court are decreased to 12 or 11, or it stays the same RAISE THE AMOUNT OF PLAYERS ELIGIBLE TO PLAY TO 25! We are the only team sport in the world that is unable to replace the majority of their players in a game with subs. I have no idea why we have this rule, and if someone could explain to me why its a bad thing to increase it please do. - Reasons for increasing rosters. Letting more people play!!! 2 years ago vs DePaul it was pretty clear we had the game in hand and DePaul asked if we wanted to sub anyone in besides our bench. After all we had just traveled 8 hours to Kentucky with 28 members on the team, of course we wanted them to play. We put in a mix of our female players and guys who played on our JV team and the games ended up more competitive, yet fun at the same time. Our players that don't normally get to play ever LOVED being able to compete in the biggest tournament of the year. Sadly by the end of the game the tournament director noticed us playing with players outside our limits and what happens? We get charged a forfeit for the game. All for trying to be more inclusive. Because of this Felix, I'm sorry bud I just don't buy into the whole "sulk for not playing" thing. Players coming in know what their chances of playing are, and who it would it probably be against. If I was a scrub I would have no problem rooting my team on in the big games and then being used to play lower tier teams. The DePaul game is just a small sample as well. I cant count the amount of times SVSU has agreed with opposing teams to let more players play in games, and I've seen plenty of other teams do it as well. - Another reason. Preventing blowouts from happening, or at least making games a bit closer. How many times are teams putting 5-0, 6-0 scores up because they cant sub out talented players, or players who have no chill? Let captains be able to put in players who are less skilled to make games more even. If I'm a new team, I would much rather face the bottom half of GVSU's roster than its regular 10 and the 5 bench players. In particular the poor lower seed teams that get paired up with GVSU or JMU on day 2 and would love to at least win a point or two before heading home. - Prevent injuries. Give more people on a roster more points to sit and rest to prevent injuries from throwing to much in a tournament or running up and down the court. On top of that, what would fans want to see in the Championship games on Sundays? 12 players rested who have only had to play 3 or 4 competitive games that weekend so far or players that have had to play 6 or 7 that whole weekend.
If we want people to stick around we want them to BELIEVE they have a chance at playing in games that matter. Yea JV games are nice but its a lot more endearing for a player to tell his roommates and parents who are coming to the game "Yea I'm on the eligible/starting roster and might get to play!" and have them play when they can rather than having to tell their parents and friends they have 0% chance of playing that day. Talk about a buzz kill.
Like we have all said before the more dodgeball the better, and the more people we have playing dodgeball is key to the growth of the NCDA.
|
|
|
Post by ssmith19 on May 17, 2015 18:39:35 GMT -6
Nationals is the only place I've seen this rule enforced. Not that it shouldn't be if it is the rule, but past tournaments I've attended have all been pretty open in terms of the roster
|
|
|
Post by peters27 on May 17, 2015 19:25:37 GMT -6
I disagree with what you said about the bottom few players being filler on the top 15 Spencer. We had trouble at nationals deciding who should play and who shouldn't because our roster was so laden with talent! I realize not everyone's roster is like this but if we brought a team from literally scratch (granted, we had Bryce, Brett and I left over to begin rebuilding), to a national title runner up in 3 years, I don't understand why other teams in the league are not able to get to the same point Central is once again at. JMU did the same thing when they started their club, literally from nothing!
My disagreement, of course, gives a degree of strength to your overall argument about roster size though haha
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Jardine - SVSU on May 17, 2015 21:18:15 GMT -6
Lowering the roster size down to 12 is not a big deal to me, I wouldn't mind it, but for me the real fight I've been fighting for the past 4 years is getting the number of eligible players for a game increased to 25. Thats the point I will continue to drive to you guys in the next 3/4 of a year all the way till Nationals. And Sean, I have seen schools try to enforce it outside Nationals, I've seen teams protest teams breaking the rule before, and I've seen teams punished for it. Lets just give 5 extra guys a chance to play dodgeball, its not that much to ask 15 players on the court with the potential to replace more than half of them? I see no negatives to that.
|
|
|
Post by cjputnam on May 18, 2015 8:19:22 GMT -6
I agree with the 25 total players on the roster. I also still like 15 players to start.
|
|
|
Post by Zigmister on May 18, 2015 18:23:38 GMT -6
I think 12 player rosters is ideal for the direction of the NCDA. To simplify, same reasons as Felix. More competitive, more approachable for new teams, etc.
I also think the 10 player minimum should stay the same. 7 on 12 is not a good matchup. And to be honest, that rule is meant that a bigger team should match the amount of players a smaller team plays. DePaul has done this vs Moody many times, playing 11 on 11 or 12 on 12. Sadly, many teams are just playing the max they can play and who'ever is down is put at a serious disadvantage.
On the 25 roster, I think this is fine. When we had the vote in Summer 2014, the majority preferred a set roster of 20 players across an event. I still think it's fine if we have 25 person rosters, even if it's 12 players. I think it would make a good preferential vote.
|
|