If players are free to get releases and go wherever they want, there will be an imbalance of talent and teams that have many imports will dominate, while those that lose better players will flounder and fail.
I have seen and heard the argument so many times, I’ve lost count, but the problem is - it is only a theory – but it is one that generates enough concern (or fear) to garner support for the status quo.
TBA, COBA, YSBA and a few others have strong local centers with large/growing populations, which will allow them to stay strong in numbers for a long time to come. Strong populations = more players = better chances to have (proportionally) better players = better chances of having stronger teams.
Outside the GTA is where there are teams with less players at tryouts, which is usually a function of less (or limited) population to draw players from. If players from outside the GTA know they can play on a TBA team as “free agents”, how many players will make that jump…1…2? Nobody knows, but it sure as hell won’t be half the team and the likelihood of a team folding that loses even 2 players is very slim.
How about this scenario -- a group of players gets so fed up with a team/coach/association that many of the players boycott local tryouts to FORCE their local team to fold (due to insufficient players). At that point they all are automatically allowed to go elsewhere (with no team in their own area)…you think this is impossible? It is very possible and not hard to coordinate in some areas.
Is the OBA “balanced” now? No, because in most cases population = more strength of teams, so (proportionally) teams that draw from larger populations will win more and have more strong players (not always, but more often).
The OBA allowed PBLO teams into Provincial Elimination Tournaments for years, putting the AAA teams from the OBA at a distinct disadvantage, when trying to qualify to play in the Nationals…how is that fair?
Here are some release scenarios that HAVE occurred:
Player ‘A’ wants a release from a AA Rep team, but the release is denied at all 3 levels of the appeal process -- rather than continue to play on a team with a coach who has exhibited complete disdain for the player (and family), the player quits baseball altogether.
Player ‘B’ wants a release from a AA Rep team, but the release is denied at all 3 levels of the appeal process – the player is clearly a AAA caliber talent (several AAA teams want him), but the rules allow the local association to deny the release and they are supported by the affiliate and by the OBA, so, the player leaves baseball and plays “summer hockey”, never to return.
Player ‘C’ wants a release from an A Rep Team (to play on a AAA team), but the release is denied at all 3 levels of the appeal process – rather than play on a sub-standard OBA team with completely incompetent coaches, the player joins an ECPL team.
All 3 players were 100% willing to continue playing on a new team within their current affiliate and their release would never have resulted in them playing on a team that would have competed against the team they wanted to leave.
All 3 players have now left the OBA completely, so how does the OBA win in ANY of these cases? Yes, they have protected their precious rules and maintained their control over the players that remain, but they have told 3 players that they matter less than a rule that is applied un-evenly (at best).
One last example (this one is not real, but it is all too possible and just plain stupid):
Player ‘D’ left his home association 3 years ago, but now wants to play in a different association than his home, or current association. The player requests his release from the current association and it is granted, but his home association refuses to release the player to the new association because of a “bad taste in the mouth” of the coach from 3 years ago….what does the player do now? His current team knows he wants to leave, but he can’t go where he wants to and his home association team is run by a coach who is clearly holding a grudge.
If you think the Player ‘D’ scenario can’t happen, guess again – there have been several variations of that same set of circumstances and more will no doubt follow.
If NO player was EVER released under ANY circumstances in the OBA, perhaps the current release policy might begin to approach being “fair”, but in reality MANY players have changed teams and more will, so how can a rule be considered fair if it isn’t equally applied (that is a rhetorical question).
The OBA and their supporters can always justify their own rules, even if those same rules don’t pass the “sniff test” that logical and reasonable people would use to judge such decisions.
The "right" to do something does not mean that doing it is "right".
Here’s the ultimate in release policy "fairness" for all associations: ANY association that allows imports MUST allow player releases. How can an association allow a coach the benefit of cutting a local player in favour of an import, but then refuse to allow a player the right to “cut” a coach? What makes a coach’s choices omnipotent and a player’s choices irrelevant? Only one thing – a release policy.
“If moral behavior were simply following rules, we could program a computer to be moral. Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.”