|
Post by nakedcrayon on Apr 15, 2015 8:22:57 GMT -5
We made it to the quarterfinal gold bracket a couple of years back and there were over 100 teams in American and at least 24 in open that year. The idea to move it Houston caused teams to forgo the Lone Star because even though a car ride instead of a plane trip the rest of the $$ for meals hotels etc. are the same.
I think the fact that it is a one year possibility is fine however if this becomes a annual thing Lone Star would cease to exist in two years for the 18s in the Open division which if Nationals are moved up then would happen anyway
|
|
r018
High School
Posts: 6
|
Post by r018 on Apr 20, 2015 12:55:15 GMT -5
This seems to be a "payback" to the GRB & Houston market for moving the Tour of Texas finals out of Houston and up to Austin. Political money decisions over what is best for the recruiting potential of the tournament/athletes.
That said, JUST looking at the difference in 18's, LoneStar lost $36,720 in reduced entries - and multiply out the $ lost in overall "revenue generated" with rooms, meals, parking, etc...this wasn't a good decision!
18's teams 2015 = 97 18's teams 2014 = 145 18's teams 2013 = 138 18's teams 2012 = 141
|
|
jcvb
Sophomore
Posts: 155
|
Post by jcvb on Apr 20, 2015 13:22:34 GMT -5
Austin Juniors runs this tourney. And even THEIR top 18s bailed on it. I think that speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 20, 2015 13:57:48 GMT -5
This seems to be a "payback" to the GRB & Houston market for moving the Tour of Texas finals out of Houston and up to Austin. Political money decisions over what is best for the recruiting potential of the tournament/athletes.
That said, JUST looking at the difference in 18's, LoneStar lost $36,720 in reduced entries - and multiply out the $ lost in overall "revenue generated" with rooms, meals, parking, etc...this wasn't a good decision!
18's teams 2015 = 97 18's teams 2014 = 145 18's teams 2013 = 138 18's teams 2012 = 141 They didn't have enough court space in Dallas. They would've had to turn away entrants and lose even more teams if they didn't add the Houston site.
|
|
jcvb
Sophomore
Posts: 155
|
Post by jcvb on Apr 20, 2015 18:46:02 GMT -5
This seems to be a "payback" to the GRB & Houston market for moving the Tour of Texas finals out of Houston and up to Austin. Political money decisions over what is best for the recruiting potential of the tournament/athletes.
That said, JUST looking at the difference in 18's, LoneStar lost $36,720 in reduced entries - and multiply out the $ lost in overall "revenue generated" with rooms, meals, parking, etc...this wasn't a good decision!
18's teams 2015 = 97 18's teams 2014 = 145 18's teams 2013 = 138 18's teams 2012 = 141 They didn't have enough court space in Dallas. They would've had to turn away entrants and lose even more teams if they didn't add the Houston site. They had the same number of courts they had every other year. Same space, same divisions.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Apr 20, 2015 19:35:06 GMT -5
They didn't have enough court space in Dallas. They would've had to turn away entrants and lose even more teams if they didn't add the Houston site. They had the same number of courts they had every other year. Same space, same divisions. But every other division increased. That means they would have to cap divisions and turn away teams. What about the impact of other Qualifiers going on, and the impact of the Chicago Qualifier? Does the disney qualifier always conflict? What would have the impact been if they moved another division away?
|
|
|
Post by owlsem on Apr 20, 2015 20:22:44 GMT -5
Defending an indefensible injustice to the athletes. One tournament one city. They could move the whole thing to Houston or find the courts in Dallas. there are other great facilities.
|
|
|
Post by nakedcrayon on Apr 20, 2015 21:11:16 GMT -5
rumor is that the 12 team Open tourney in Houston received 3 bids due to number of entrants at deadline being over 25. If that is the case and the rumor is true the rules need to change, the gaming of the system is just sad. hell the owners of the Lone Star Qualifier didn't even put his open team in the tourney to play
Edit Turns out that only two teams got bids
|
|
|
Post by vbct3 on Apr 20, 2015 21:13:46 GMT -5
I wonder if they could have pulled it off had they move the Boys tournament to Houston instead.
|
|
jcvb
Sophomore
Posts: 155
|
Post by jcvb on Apr 21, 2015 10:34:04 GMT -5
They had the same number of courts they had every other year. Same space, same divisions. But every other division increased. That means they would have to cap divisions and turn away teams. What about the impact of other Qualifiers going on, and the impact of the Chicago Qualifier? Does the disney qualifier always conflict? What would have the impact been if they moved another division away? Of course the divisions increased...because of the move. Are you implying that qualifiers don't NORMALLY put any caps on divisions? Of course they do. Space dictates size of divisions. But again, the space didn't change. And I highly doubt they had SUCH a rush of teams this year (as opposed to any other) that their hand was forced. I believe that it just came down to money. The Lonestar directors make a lot of it and they wanted to make more. So they thought they could have their cake and eat it too. Move the age group, those 18s will all still show up (because it's Lonestar and EVERYONE wants to play in Lonestar), and we can boost all the other age divisions' numbers too!! Win-win right? But at the expense of what? An entire age division lost nearly all of it's recruiting standing in what's a crucial recruiting weekend for a TON of kids. Plus one of the most respected 18s qualifiers in the country became a joke. To me, that's tragic.
|
|
|
Post by knowitall on Apr 21, 2015 10:45:30 GMT -5
I wonder if they could have pulled it off had they move the Boys tournament to Houston instead. I think there were only 3 or 4 courts used for boys. For 97 teams they would have needed about 12-14 courts
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Apr 21, 2015 11:34:47 GMT -5
I am relatively new to this. That being said, has there been any discussion of the formation of a parents committee to get a seat at the table when all of these decisions are being made? The parents if united, could wield some power especially by flexing some financial muscle. I would love to hear ideas on what parental concerns are and what they would like input on.
|
|
|
Post by sevb on Apr 21, 2015 11:51:11 GMT -5
Yeah... I dont see that happening anytime soon
|
|
|
Post by vbct3 on Apr 21, 2015 12:23:41 GMT -5
I am relatively new to this. That being said, has there been any discussion of the formation of a parents committee to get a seat at the table when all of these decisions are being made? The parents if united, could wield some power especially by flexing some financial muscle. I would love to hear ideas on what parental concerns are and what they would like input on. Parental concerns: 1) Why isn't my daughter being looked at by [insert top 10 team here]? 2) Why isn't my daughter starting? 3) Why isn't my daughter playing more? 4) Why isn't my daughter getting more sets? Parents tend to be some of the least rational voices when it comes to tournaments. Not everybody, but the loudest voices tend to be the least rational. And it's the loudest voices that would demand to be on such a "committee."
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Apr 21, 2015 12:32:13 GMT -5
I am relatively new to this. That being said, has there been any discussion of the formation of a parents committee to get a seat at the table when all of these decisions are being made? The parents if united, could wield some power especially by flexing some financial muscle. I would love to hear ideas on what parental concerns are and what they would like input on. Parental concerns: 1) Why isn't my daughter being looked at by [insert top 10 team here]? 2) Why isn't my daughter starting? 3) Why isn't my daughter playing more? 4) Why isn't my daughter getting more sets? Parents tend to be some of the least rational voices when it comes to tournaments. Not everybody, but the loudest voices tend to be the least rational. And it's the loudest voices that would demand to be on such a "committee."
|
|