A few things...
This was clearly stated on the tournament signup page
Age Eligibility: 2018 Graduate or younger.
Perhaps by strict definition a 2018 should not be considered an underclassman, in this tournament everyone entered knew what age bracket or class it was. The Upperclass eligibility was 2017 or younger. Perhaps the wording should have left out Upper or Underclass, but false advertising? No not at all! In our summer WWBA and BCS tournaments they are listed as 18u, 17u, 16u, 15u, and so on. When we do underclass showcases it includes any player that is not in their senior year of HS or not in their draft eligible year. There has never been a complaint about these age divisions before this? But I suppose it is a reasonable concern, so we will simply drop the Upperclass, Underclass titles in the future just to make it less confusing.
The team in question had a lot of talent. They could have won the championship. Of the four games they played they lost two games by one run and they won one game by one run. They didn't play against a bunch of young neighborhood teams. San Diego Show won the tournament. Lots of very good teams! Northeast Baseball won the Upperclass. All three tournaments were excellent for the most part.
Once again it seems like people don't understand the quiet period. Obviously it is better if the college coaches could be there. However, I don't think some people understand how closely they follow these things. First of all, just because they aren't there doesn't mean they don't have eyes there. And even if they don't have eyes there, they have our people there. And our people gather information from every player in every game. We are first and foremost a scouting service! We don't miss many good players and we report to colleges and MLB scouting departments. Our phones get very busy after quiet period events. Yes, it's best if they are there, but this is second best! Let's think about this, there are many early commitments, don't you think their future college coach would want to know what we saw? Don't you think college coaches would want to know what we saw among other uncommitted players?
Quick story from the past. I once saw in Nebraska a HS pitcher from Kansas throw two innings in a tournament. We had never even heard of the kid and other than his travel coach it seemed no one really knew about him. It was the only two inings he threw in the tournament. Anyway, he threw 90-92 that day, but it was the prettiest 92 I had ever seen with plus plus life and he could also really spin the curve ball. He was 6-4/200 or so. There was very little doubt in my mind that he could throw harder and for sure would in the future.
We sent that report to MLB clubs and many of the top colleges. I wasn't there the next time he pitched, but was told there were over 40 scouts including several MLB scouting directors and many Crosscheckers at that game and he was up to 95 that day. The following spring he went early in the draft and signed for a lot of money. Before that he had committed to a national power college. His career, like so many, ended by injury.
Point is, there weren't any MLB teams or college recruiters that saw him that first time. Word travels like wild fire in baseball. And to be blunt, we are responsible for most of it when it comes to amateur baseball. That is what we have been doing for over 20 years. We are far from perfect or geniuses, we just have the biggest scouting department and the most information contained in, by far, the largest database of amateur players in the world. Kind of simple, we see more players than anyone. And just from our own events that includes nearly a thousand that have made the Big Leagues and most of the players drafted in the first 200 picks. It doesn't make us that special... Anyone reading this would be pretty good at picking out players if they could have seen that much talent over the years. The more you see, the more certain things other than the obvious standout.
Very sorry if this sounds like bragging. Sometimes it is just hard to explain things.
