FastTodd
Banned User
OK, I just had to do the math over the whole "ball cost are expensive" B.S. that I get from every tournament and league director as an excuse to why they can't give us good balls anymore.
Here's some interesting conclusions based on 10 teams, double elimination, including the "if" game:
Gross Revenue @$350/team = $3500
* Umpires @$25/game = $475 23.5%
* Field Rental @$50/game = $950 46.0%
* Insurance per Tournament = $100 5%
* Balls $5/ball = $95 4.7%
* Prizes = $400 19.8%
Net Costs = $2020
Total Profit = $1480
Obviously I'm not including cost of employees, gate fees, consessions, etc. as that is a separate topic. I'm just trying to stick to the basic that everyone can understand.
#1 cost by far, field rental per game. Price is typically not negotiable.
#2 cost is umpire fees per game. Price is typically not negotiable.
These two costs alone are 70% of the total costs to run a tournament.
Coming in closely behind these costs are prizes at 20%, which is typically a fixed cost and is not dependent upon the total number of teams. Therefore, the more teams, then less cost as an overall percentage. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the director to have as many teams as possible because he can then increase his total profit.
On to the balls discussion. Balls are less than 5% of the total cost of the tournament. Directors are claiming that balls "are very expensive" - at most $5/ball. I know this to not be true as I have provided them with links to Dudley Thunder and Trump Stote for $30-$36/case or approximately $3/ball. So why they are buying crap balls for $5 is beyond me considering it pisses off so many of their "customers". So let's imagine that a director decides they want to attract more teams to a tournament. There are really only two ways to do it. Offer a better prize package, which cuts into profits in the 20%+ range - very expensive way to get teams to come and you really have to attract a lot of teams to cover the increased prize cost because your big expenses, umpires and field rentals, have to be covered. Or, by the flawed logic of the directors, they can spend an extra $1 per ball to get better balls. I know of no player that wants to play with a Worth 40/375 Gold Dot when it's >75º outside. Especially when the tournament has 320 ft, 400 ft, or even open fields. So let's say the balls actually cost $1/ea more. That's still only $20 for the entire tournament! Or if they use my links to better balls they can actually make $40 in profit by buying better balls and attracting more teams. The good will created by a tournament using better balls will bring more teams and more profit to the director. Am I blind to this point of view? Am I the only one that sees this?
Next, I've heard the argument that insurance is expensive. Well, I researched that too. I found several on-line insurance policies for men's softball tournaments. A single day insurance policy only runs on average $100. The directors buy insurance for the entire year either through the association or on their own. It covers both liability and accidentals. When was the last time you tried to file a claim with the director for an injury. You have to use your own insurance first! Then you can file a claim and hope that you don't have to sue the director. So far, I've been playing tournament ball for over 10 years and have only seen 1 person truly injured where the rest of his life was significantly impacted as a result of the injury. I'm pretty sure he didn't file a claim against the association for the loss of his eye. However, he does still play ball! Because they buy a single policy up front for the entire year, I know the costs have to be significantly lower. Therefore, even overestimating the cost at $100/tournament the cost of insurance is still a fixed cost and only runs 5% of the overall total. It is a negligible cost that can be reduced by the more teams that play. Again.... back to the one thing the directors can control. Better balls = more teams = more % profit. Proof in point - ESA. I don't know a single team that doesn't want to play ESA because "the balls suck". Everyone wants to play ESA - better bats, better balls, better fields. Albeit the Temecula fields are far more expensive ($150 fee per team, per day), but I've not ever been to an ESA tournament where we didn't have at least 12 teams per division. Plus, they charge teams the extra $150 to cover the field costs. So they really aren't losing any money as they are passing the cost through to the teams and the teams are willing to pay it to play because of the better equipment. Guaranteed, if they used crappy balls and didn't take care of the fields, nobody would be willing to pay $450. That's like asking teams to pay $450 to play in Ramona. How many teams do you think would actually show up? I would bet my house than nobody would play for $450. Therefore, there has to be a reason why teams are willing to pay an extra $150. I bet on better equipment.
Another excuse I've heard from directors is that they are limited in terms of which balls they can use by the association and the insurance companies. Again, I call B.S. The insurance companies insure the association based on the rule book and association standards. The insurance companies don't dictate which equipment can be used. They simply insure the association for what they specify to use. For example, SSUSA specifies 47/525 Trump Stote as the specified ball. What do we get? - Spirit 40/375 garbage ball. ASA specifies 47/375, 44/375, or 40/375 with pretty much all manufacturer's being approved to supply balls. What do we get 40/375 Worth Gold Dot that hits like a 30/300 when they could be using a Thunder or Trump or even the DeMarini balls that actually last more than 5 swings. If you don't believe me you can find all this information on line at SSUSA and ASA. The point I'm trying to make is that the arguments made by the directors are completely unfounded. They are actively making a choice to reduce their profits by using crappy balls. For example, let's say "good balls" cost $1/ball more, which we know isn't true, but for argument sake.... that only increases the total tournament cost by $19 or 0.1% total cost. On the flip side, if they improved the good will of their association by being known for supplying good balls, they could attract more teams and hence make more profit. By simply attracting 2 more teams they only increase the total number of bracketed games by 4 to 23 games, which provides them with $380 more profit or an increase of total profit of 20%! Hmmm... let's see 0.1% increase in costs to make 20% more profit....I know I have an MBA and a PhD., but it's shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
So my point here is that directors that will even go so far as to use the actual spec ball from the association will surely stand to make more profit and improve the good will of their tournaments. Can you imagine running any business where you tell the CEO you aren't willing to spend 0.1% to improve the good will of the company and make 20% more profit? I'd surely fire the person that didn't spend the 0.1% because they were being cheap. So why is it that they insist on shooting themselves in the foot over $20 for better balls? How many times do I have to offer to pay the extra $20 out of my own pocket for the entire tournament before they stop saying that the teams don't want to pay the extra $2/team? It's only $2/team to buy 19 better balls! Hell, even ESA forces you to buy $5 balls for backups and $150 extra fee for the fields. Therefore, the logic that the extra $2/team will prevent teams from showing argument by the directors is complete nonsense. Yes, people complained the first year that ESA came to town because they were used to the associations providing backups. But after a while, people stopped complaining because they liked hitting a great ball 400 feet. I'm sure teams will get over the $2 increase very quickly and if they don't I'll be happy to pay the extra $20 for everyone - you cheap bastards ;-)
So now that I've de-bunked the math, the balls, the insurance, and the logic behind this trend, I'm curious to know what other people think.
Here's some interesting conclusions based on 10 teams, double elimination, including the "if" game:
Gross Revenue @$350/team = $3500
* Umpires @$25/game = $475 23.5%
* Field Rental @$50/game = $950 46.0%
* Insurance per Tournament = $100 5%
* Balls $5/ball = $95 4.7%
* Prizes = $400 19.8%
Net Costs = $2020
Total Profit = $1480
Obviously I'm not including cost of employees, gate fees, consessions, etc. as that is a separate topic. I'm just trying to stick to the basic that everyone can understand.
#1 cost by far, field rental per game. Price is typically not negotiable.
#2 cost is umpire fees per game. Price is typically not negotiable.
These two costs alone are 70% of the total costs to run a tournament.
Coming in closely behind these costs are prizes at 20%, which is typically a fixed cost and is not dependent upon the total number of teams. Therefore, the more teams, then less cost as an overall percentage. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the director to have as many teams as possible because he can then increase his total profit.
On to the balls discussion. Balls are less than 5% of the total cost of the tournament. Directors are claiming that balls "are very expensive" - at most $5/ball. I know this to not be true as I have provided them with links to Dudley Thunder and Trump Stote for $30-$36/case or approximately $3/ball. So why they are buying crap balls for $5 is beyond me considering it pisses off so many of their "customers". So let's imagine that a director decides they want to attract more teams to a tournament. There are really only two ways to do it. Offer a better prize package, which cuts into profits in the 20%+ range - very expensive way to get teams to come and you really have to attract a lot of teams to cover the increased prize cost because your big expenses, umpires and field rentals, have to be covered. Or, by the flawed logic of the directors, they can spend an extra $1 per ball to get better balls. I know of no player that wants to play with a Worth 40/375 Gold Dot when it's >75º outside. Especially when the tournament has 320 ft, 400 ft, or even open fields. So let's say the balls actually cost $1/ea more. That's still only $20 for the entire tournament! Or if they use my links to better balls they can actually make $40 in profit by buying better balls and attracting more teams. The good will created by a tournament using better balls will bring more teams and more profit to the director. Am I blind to this point of view? Am I the only one that sees this?
Next, I've heard the argument that insurance is expensive. Well, I researched that too. I found several on-line insurance policies for men's softball tournaments. A single day insurance policy only runs on average $100. The directors buy insurance for the entire year either through the association or on their own. It covers both liability and accidentals. When was the last time you tried to file a claim with the director for an injury. You have to use your own insurance first! Then you can file a claim and hope that you don't have to sue the director. So far, I've been playing tournament ball for over 10 years and have only seen 1 person truly injured where the rest of his life was significantly impacted as a result of the injury. I'm pretty sure he didn't file a claim against the association for the loss of his eye. However, he does still play ball! Because they buy a single policy up front for the entire year, I know the costs have to be significantly lower. Therefore, even overestimating the cost at $100/tournament the cost of insurance is still a fixed cost and only runs 5% of the overall total. It is a negligible cost that can be reduced by the more teams that play. Again.... back to the one thing the directors can control. Better balls = more teams = more % profit. Proof in point - ESA. I don't know a single team that doesn't want to play ESA because "the balls suck". Everyone wants to play ESA - better bats, better balls, better fields. Albeit the Temecula fields are far more expensive ($150 fee per team, per day), but I've not ever been to an ESA tournament where we didn't have at least 12 teams per division. Plus, they charge teams the extra $150 to cover the field costs. So they really aren't losing any money as they are passing the cost through to the teams and the teams are willing to pay it to play because of the better equipment. Guaranteed, if they used crappy balls and didn't take care of the fields, nobody would be willing to pay $450. That's like asking teams to pay $450 to play in Ramona. How many teams do you think would actually show up? I would bet my house than nobody would play for $450. Therefore, there has to be a reason why teams are willing to pay an extra $150. I bet on better equipment.
Another excuse I've heard from directors is that they are limited in terms of which balls they can use by the association and the insurance companies. Again, I call B.S. The insurance companies insure the association based on the rule book and association standards. The insurance companies don't dictate which equipment can be used. They simply insure the association for what they specify to use. For example, SSUSA specifies 47/525 Trump Stote as the specified ball. What do we get? - Spirit 40/375 garbage ball. ASA specifies 47/375, 44/375, or 40/375 with pretty much all manufacturer's being approved to supply balls. What do we get 40/375 Worth Gold Dot that hits like a 30/300 when they could be using a Thunder or Trump or even the DeMarini balls that actually last more than 5 swings. If you don't believe me you can find all this information on line at SSUSA and ASA. The point I'm trying to make is that the arguments made by the directors are completely unfounded. They are actively making a choice to reduce their profits by using crappy balls. For example, let's say "good balls" cost $1/ball more, which we know isn't true, but for argument sake.... that only increases the total tournament cost by $19 or 0.1% total cost. On the flip side, if they improved the good will of their association by being known for supplying good balls, they could attract more teams and hence make more profit. By simply attracting 2 more teams they only increase the total number of bracketed games by 4 to 23 games, which provides them with $380 more profit or an increase of total profit of 20%! Hmmm... let's see 0.1% increase in costs to make 20% more profit....I know I have an MBA and a PhD., but it's shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
So my point here is that directors that will even go so far as to use the actual spec ball from the association will surely stand to make more profit and improve the good will of their tournaments. Can you imagine running any business where you tell the CEO you aren't willing to spend 0.1% to improve the good will of the company and make 20% more profit? I'd surely fire the person that didn't spend the 0.1% because they were being cheap. So why is it that they insist on shooting themselves in the foot over $20 for better balls? How many times do I have to offer to pay the extra $20 out of my own pocket for the entire tournament before they stop saying that the teams don't want to pay the extra $2/team? It's only $2/team to buy 19 better balls! Hell, even ESA forces you to buy $5 balls for backups and $150 extra fee for the fields. Therefore, the logic that the extra $2/team will prevent teams from showing argument by the directors is complete nonsense. Yes, people complained the first year that ESA came to town because they were used to the associations providing backups. But after a while, people stopped complaining because they liked hitting a great ball 400 feet. I'm sure teams will get over the $2 increase very quickly and if they don't I'll be happy to pay the extra $20 for everyone - you cheap bastards ;-)
So now that I've de-bunked the math, the balls, the insurance, and the logic behind this trend, I'm curious to know what other people think.
