Bulldogs Respond to Bolingbrook Park District
June 29th, 2007Below is the official response that I sent to Chris Corbett of the Bolingbrook Park District earlier today. This was in regards to the e-mail response from Chris Corbett that I wrote about under the post “Bolingbrook Park District Official Response” on Thursday, June 28. Feel free to leave your comments and thoughts. If I receive a response from the BBPD I will be sure to post it here.
Hi Chris,
Thank you for responding so quickly. I had a lot of things that were on my mind that I didn’t think a 5-minute conversation would do any justice. I have elected to put my thoughts down in writing and invite you to respond.
We’re not looking for handouts and breaks, we prefer to earn our way to our championships. We will make every effort to field a team next Friday.
The reason I mention all this, is because what you are about to read below is my arguments and thoughts about what transpired. I am not only making criticisms but also offering suggestions on how to avoid a situation like this in the future. I truly hope that you take this e-mail in the spirit in which it was written and that is to improve upon the league for everyone’s benefit.
Regarding the issue of scheduling on the week of July 4th, I was simply inquiring as to why there were games scheduled. I agree that the schedule has been posted since April 23 and that any “issues” regarding that week should have been brought up then. I’m not going to dispute that issue.
However, I feel that adding this team to the league has caused a disruption with greater ramifications then had the games allowed to go on as forfeits.
First, you are replacing a team half-way through the season (8 games had passed) of which four teams received “free wins”. How is this fair to the remaining teams who hadn’t played Lincoln Mutual who now actually have to ‘win’ their games against this new team? How is it fair that there are teams that do not have to play the new team at all?
I understand your logic in wanting to replace the team to honor the commitment of 14-games, however that’s a moot point once games have been forfeited. Automatically you are playing one less game in the year once a team forfeits. So in the case of Lincoln Mutual, there were 4-teams who were not going to have a full 14 game schedule regardless.
Based on the above logic, why aren’t we replacing Hussman Brawlers? Why are we not replacing those games?
I think there was another way to avoid missing games without replacing the team that would have been a better solution. That would have been to replace all of the spots on the schedule where Lincoln Mutual was to play (and Hussman Brawlers now) with additional games against the teams that are already in our league. In my opinion, this is better then introducing an “unknown” team into a league and potentially changing the makeup of the league that was established for half a season. This would have also satisfied providing us with the 14-game schedule that we paid for.
Which brings me to another point. You stated that it was not your fault that “my” guys made the assumption that we didn’t have to play on July 6th since Lincoln Mutual had forfeited 4-games. When it stipulates in the rule book “Any team that forfeits three (3) games will be dropped from the league with no refunds.” How is this an assumption on my teams part? How is my team to know that you are working on replacing that team, when no where in the rules it stipulates that you could or would possibly do this? If assumptions were made, they were made on both sides.
Also, you mentioned that Closers was going to pickup the remaining fee owed by Lincoln Mutual. How is it that Lincoln Mutual was allowed to play after week 3 without having paid their full dues? Once again, the league rules stipulate that the registration fee is due in full by the first week and the non-residents due by week 3. Lincoln Mutual was allowed to play 4-games and they forfeited the next 4 (over 3-weeks) yet they hadn’t paid their fee in full. How was that possible?
You mentioned that you spoke with some of the captains in the league, but not all. In the future, I would like (as a paying customer) to have the “options” proposed to all captains. Every team’s circumstances are different and polling just a couple of teams is not sufficient. I would like to see that all captains are consulted on these types of situations and work with you to decide the best way that is amicable for all teams and the league to move forward.
I agree with you that this is recreational softball and that when money is involved it can get competitive. One reason many good teams come to Bolingbrook is because BBPD pays out money. It helps to offset costs for the fall or up coming season. However, that is why it is that much more important that all owners are consulted when it comes to changes like this in the league. We have a heated race going on for 1st & 2nd place. These are the two biggest payouts. Aftershock no longer has to play the new team and we may take a 2nd loss on a forfeit that shouldn’t have happened. This also affects the middle of the pack vying to make the playoffs, as well. Closers is certainly not out of reach of those teams and a team now can get bumped from the playoffs due to these changes, as well.
We are going to do everything we can to ensure we have at least 9 players for next weeks game, but we are going to be handicapped. The points that I make above are to give you an “owners” perspective on the affects of the decision. I would certainly like to work with you in coming up with a process that can be inserted in the rules on how to handle this in the future. In fact, I will be insisting on it as a rule modification or addition for the fall and 2008 season.
Sincerely,
Nelson Rivera