"Fair" or "No Fair" ? - PYSA

DoubleDDRedux wrote:

Xara wrote:

silentparent wrote:only douche coaches win championships by forfeits, rule or not. sorry not a championship without a game. reschedule and play the game

And only a classless parent would start a post using a wordsthat most boys left a on the playground at 5th grade when they first learned to cuss. Well done.

The OP is protesting PYSA not following its own WRITTEN rules. The opposing team has enough to play. I could maybe - just maybe - understand if the opposing team were going to have to forfeit because half the team was going on a campout. But an academy event causing an issue in a rec league? What a joke. The girls signed up to play on the rec team and are now in the playoffs. They can skip or reschedule just another meaningless SDL or TPGL game. And they have enough to play anyway, so why is it even an issue? Show up to play with the 11 that can make the game and demonstrate to the team the concept of commitment.

Poor form by PYSA.

yeah most of us did like Xara and started saying M Effer, effing C, etc. So please grow up and use big people cuss words like Xara instructs you to.

A little late to this party, aren't you Double DD? Does the "D" stand for "drunk"? I can't make any sense of your post and would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt before leveling a full scale verbal smackdown. Or m effing smack down. I'm not even sure what effing c stands for, so perhaps we should just chock that one up to the Wild Turkey in your system.

If Team A only has 2 subs then that tells you a lot. EVERY team in this league was forced to have 14 players whether they wanted the extra girls or not. Most had 12 and PYSA added 2 players. When Team A played each of these teams those teams had to play those 2 players 50% of the time. I can promise you that the 2 players on each of the other top teams got were not very good. I know for 2 of the teams that those players hurt them when they were in the game. So for you to say your team has injuries but could do it makes me laugh. You bring your club team in to a rec league with your club coach and then you're complaining about this? I'm sure the parents of Team A didn't even know about the mandatory 14 players for other teams but the other top teams know team A weren't forced to have 2 players they didn't want.

For the record I wouldn't mind seeing Team A win.

What does only having 2 subs tell you? Did we tell PYSA “Thanks, but no Thanks…It’s better for our girls to play down or play the entire game without taking a break”…seriously? As you stated, EVERY team was “forced” to have 14 players, so please explain how we got around that “forced” requirement. The truth is we lost one of the original players after the first game because there were too many conflicts with her other activities and she decided she wanted to give her other activities an honest try. As for the 2 players added by PYSA….one never showed (that’s my understanding as I never saw her) and the other never came to practice and played one game and never came back.

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

As for us bringing a “club team into a rec league”, is this just an assumption? The core girls on this team have played PYSA/PSA since they were 4 years old and started out and have remained on the same rec team together. The only additions to the rec team have been by PYSA and 2 club girls that asked to play on the rec league because of the friendship they established with the core girls. As far as I know, our coach started as a Rec Coach and acquired a club team and included his rec players, not vice versa.

The original post was an explanation of the circumstance for the post and if it was fair of PYSA to not follow their own written rules. The bottom line is, we will play regardless and no matter the outcome, both teams have played a hard season and earned the right to play in the playoffs and I wish BOTH teams the best of luck!

OMGoodness wrote:

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

LOL, are you a little sensitive to this or something. I never said your players hurt anyone. I said the two added players on the other teams hurt those teams by having to be played 50% of the game. I know the league has had a ton of emails, letter and calls against your team for the nature of play. For the record, I'm fine with it. I think your girls play very hard and I never have seen them be dirty.

Every one of these girls started out in rec on every team. Your team is a club team playing in a rec league. The coach of the club team is also the coach of the rec team. I don't care where they started. So you had a core group of girls that went club, added to it from that club and have a club coach. Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team? You didn't add those girls from PYSA, you added them from your club. The team you're playing isn't much different except they do have a majority of their team that's rec players. But, they have added from the core groups club team.

Your team could have said no to playing on a different day but chose not to. Why come on here and complain?

layinlow wrote:

OMGoodness wrote:

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

LOL, are you a little sensitive to this or something. I never said your players hurt anyone. I said the two added players on the other teams hurt those teams by having to be played 50% of the game. I know the league has had a ton of emails, letter and calls against your team for the nature of play. For the record, I'm fine with it. I think your girls play very hard and I never have seen them be dirty.

Every one of these girls started out in rec on every team. Your team is a club team playing in a rec league. The coach of the club team is also the coach of the rec team. I don't care where they started. So you had a core group of girls that went club, added to it from that club and have a club coach. Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team? You didn't add those girls from PYSA, you added them from your club. The team you're playing isn't much different except they do have a majority of their team that's rec players. But, they have added from the core groups club team.

Your team could have said no to playing on a different day but chose not to. Why come on here and complain?

So...Team B has club players...and you are disparaging Team A about having club players? I didn't think that was the issue...just sayin'

Seems like the debate about PYSA following their own written rules can't be won, so it's time start with the character assasinations.

I misread your post too...it kinda ran on for a sec, then hit you with the "hurt them"...I had to go back and read it a couple more times before I truly got what you were trying to say. And after all the false accusations of "dirty play" as you elude to, I would imagine that someone constantly being falsely accused would be a bit sensitive..

If you had an issue then you should have addressed it with your coach. I'm not 100% positive but pretty sure they gave him the option and he chose to move the date. He could have said no. Instead he said yes and because of that you're upset with PYSA.

No matter what it should be a good game and I wish you all the best of luck. Both teams are talented and deserve to be there.

20sDad wrote:

layinlow wrote:

OMGoodness wrote:

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

LOL, are you a little sensitive to this or something. I never said your players hurt anyone. I said the two added players on the other teams hurt those teams by having to be played 50% of the game. I know the league has had a ton of emails, letter and calls against your team for the nature of play. For the record, I'm fine with it. I think your girls play very hard and I never have seen them be dirty.

Every one of these girls started out in rec on every team. Your team is a club team playing in a rec league. The coach of the club team is also the coach of the rec team. I don't care where they started. So you had a core group of girls that went club, added to it from that club and have a club coach. Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team? You didn't add those girls from PYSA, you added them from your club. The team you're playing isn't much different except they do have a majority of their team that's rec players. But, they have added from the core groups club team.

Your team could have said no to playing on a different day but chose not to. Why come on here and complain?

So...Team B has club players...and you are disparaging Team A about having club players? I didn't think that was the issue...just sayin'

Seems like the debate about PYSA following their own written rules can't be won, so it's time start with the character assasinations.

I misread your post too...it kinda ran on for a sec, then hit you with the "hurt them"...I had to go back and read it a couple more times before I truly got what you were trying to say. And after all the false accusations of "dirty play" as you elude to, I would imagine that someone constantly being falsely accused would be a bit sensitive..

Also for the record the reason I brought up Team A's club players and "lack of bench" is because of the fact that every other team has the extra players PYSA gave them. Team B has some club players(isn't a club team) but they also will be playing with those "weak" players added to their team. Team A is the ONLY team in this league that doesn't have the extra player issue. If you did have some of those girls playing on your team then you would know what I'm talking about.

As OMGoodness already pointed out, we were assigned 2 new players, just like everybody else. One never showed at all, another never came to practice, came to one game (and played 50%) but then never returned, and a third left to do other things a couple games into the season (she had been with us for about 3 years, so it was sad to see her go). Only 2 players on our roster were friends that were not assigned randomly by PYSA. The rest were all assigned to us and developed by our coach.

Also for clarification, due to the successful development of our players and the resulting success of the team, our coach was approached by a club team to start an academy team...he used the core of the rec team as a base. So...you can say we brought a club team to rec, but you would be wrong...in actuality, we brought the foundation of a rec team to club. So, its a different situation than a select few of our stud players going to play for liverpool or something - it gave our team the opportunity to play at a higher skill level and keep the players (and families) together.

layinlow wrote:If you had an issue then you should have addressed it with your coach. I'm not 100% positive but pretty sure they gave him the option and he chose to move the date. He could have said no. Instead he said yes and because of that you're upset with PYSA.

No matter what it should be a good game and I wish you all the best of luck. Both teams are talented and deserve to be there.

That's not what happened. We were approached about the possibility of having to reschedule before the playoffs even started. Our team manager gave the standard answer of "yes, we are open to discussing it". PYSA rescheduled the game for a time that we had a conflict, and then said "too bad". Our Coach and Manager DID say "no" to the date when it was proposed...but PYSA said "too bad - you are going to have to play short" and refused to find a better date.
So...we tried to be flexible, and instead opened ourselves up for being taken advantage of. Silly us. I guess we should have just said absolutely no to any reschedule in the first place.

layinlow wrote:

OMGoodness wrote:

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

LOL, are you a little sensitive to this or something. I never said your players hurt anyone. I said the two added players on the other teams hurt those teams by having to be played 50% of the game. I know the league has had a ton of emails, letter and calls against your team for the nature of play. For the record, I'm fine with it. I think your girls play very hard and I never have seen them be dirty.

Every one of these girls started out in rec on every team. Your team is a club team playing in a rec league. The coach of the club team is also the coach of the rec team. I don't care where they started. So you had a core group of girls that went club, added to it from that club and have a club coach. Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team? You didn't add those girls from PYSA, you added them from your club. The team you're playing isn't much different except they do have a majority of their team that's rec players. But, they have added from the core groups club team.

Your team could have said no to playing on a different day but chose not to. Why come on here and complain?

This issue is worthy of a separate thread and is something that continues to cause the degradation of recreational soccer in my opinion.

For the record, I personally don't fault recreational teams for carrying academy players on their rosters. The fact is it is NOT against the rules. And it is for that reason that there are so many instances of (1) true neighborhood rec teams getting throttled by girls who play several times a week year round with the clubs, (2) rec coaches deciding they've had enough and bringing in their own academy players to fight fire with fire, and (3) sandbagging coaches who pathetically continue to play their mostly academy teams in rec leagues as a trophy hunt or to live out some invalid part of their life through their players. Yeah, that last one is a jab at any coaches for whom the shoe fits.

But the larger problem is with how NTX soccer has allowed select soccer to start at U5. Sure, technically no one is under contract until U11. But make no mistake, there is almost no difference between the responsiblities and expectations of an academy and club player at this point. And in an effort to follow the money trail, organizations like PSA and even "legitimate" rec leagues look the other way when they see evidence that an academy team has entered their program.

In my opinion, a simple fix would be to set up the divisions so that any rec team with even a single academy player on the roster (i.e. a player rostered to an SDL, TPGL, etc. team) must be required to compete in the academy division. Paint it black and white. If you don't, coaches will work the system. They always do.

layinlow wrote:

20sDad wrote:

layinlow wrote:

OMGoodness wrote:

As for hurting players, soccer is a very physical sport. Our players have never gone out to intentionally hurt another child, nor have they been coached to do so. It is soccer and our girls have been on the receiving end of being hurt as well. Do I fault or label the other team as “dirty or overly aggressive”, NO! While trying to win the ball, collisions happen, trips happen, and grabbing happens. At this age, unintentionally hurting another player can happen, as they are still learning and developing.

LOL, are you a little sensitive to this or something. I never said your players hurt anyone. I said the two added players on the other teams hurt those teams by having to be played 50% of the game. I know the league has had a ton of emails, letter and calls against your team for the nature of play. For the record, I'm fine with it. I think your girls play very hard and I never have seen them be dirty.

Every one of these girls started out in rec on every team. Your team is a club team playing in a rec league. The coach of the club team is also the coach of the rec team. I don't care where they started. So you had a core group of girls that went club, added to it from that club and have a club coach. Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team? You didn't add those girls from PYSA, you added them from your club. The team you're playing isn't much different except they do have a majority of their team that's rec players. But, they have added from the core groups club team.

Your team could have said no to playing on a different day but chose not to. Why come on here and complain?

So...Team B has club players...and you are disparaging Team A about having club players? I didn't think that was the issue...just sayin'

Seems like the debate about PYSA following their own written rules can't be won, so it's time start with the character assasinations.

I misread your post too...it kinda ran on for a sec, then hit you with the "hurt them"...I had to go back and read it a couple more times before I truly got what you were trying to say. And after all the false accusations of "dirty play" as you elude to, I would imagine that someone constantly being falsely accused would be a bit sensitive..

Also for the record the reason I brought up Team A's club players and "lack of bench" is because of the fact that every other team has the extra players PYSA gave them. Team B has some club players(isn't a club team) but they also will be playing with those "weak" players added to their team. Team A is the ONLY team in this league that doesn't have the extra player issue. If you did have some of those girls playing on your team then you would know what I'm talking about.

My apologies for misunderstanding your “hurt” statement.

As for the source of your information about the “ton of emails, letters and calls against our team for the nature of play”, either again, it is just an assumption on your part or you got your information from the same source as “other top teams know team A weren’t forced to have 2 players they didn’t want”

In response to your question “Do you feel like when you're playing club games in UAL that you're a REC team?” I distinguish between the two. When my daughter asks which team I need to dress for I indicate either Rec or Club…not pick one as they are both the same (joke). I believe the Rec Team is a very good Rec team, playing in a Rec league and the Club team is benefitting from a really good Rec Team. You indicated that we “brought a club team into a rec league” and I disagreed with that statement. Regardless, it is common at this age group for players to play both rec and club, so I really didn’t/don’t understand what point you are trying to make. We are not the first team or the last team that will play both…so why is it an issue? For me, I distinguish between our Rec Team and Club team because other than 2 girls, the Rec Team remains the same and the Rec team is BETTER. I feel as though the Rec team played hard and contributes to a newer “club” team and that is why the team as a “unit” was asked to join the Club team. My daughter is one of the 2 club girls that joined the Rec Team and for her the rec team was just a way of getting extra touches on the ball.

I make the distinction between the teams because in my opinion, the original Rec Team is better and makes the Club Team better, not the other way around. The club team is on the newer side and the players have not come together as a solid team. Hypothetically, if our Rec and Club team had to play each other, the Rec Team would win….and my daughter is an original club member (so I say this without any form of bias). Just saying…the label “Club” doesn’t make a better team.

Asking why I/we came on here to complain is the same as me asking why did you bother to comment or why are you searching for a post to comment on. It is a forum. You ask questions, comment, and post thing that others may find interesting. I respect your post, just disagreed with it. When you posted, I thought you had opened the forum for anyone to respond to your post....again my apologies. But what I wouldn’t do…is reply to a post and not answer the questions asked of me and then ask “why come here and complain?”

Justa -
I have been involved with club soccer for going on 15 years now...And, for the record I have always been against the academy system. TM is gone, but if you could go back to the archives, you would see some pretty hefty debate on the issue back when they were first proposing it.

Back then, PSA was the place to be forming your "pre-select" team, because they did not have the restrictions over home association. I remember my son playing there, and the only thing missing was the actual club uniform. The pre-select saturday skills sessions were basically practices with the eventual club coach for that team, and the club coach would watch from the parking lot quite often...

My fears from back then that the academy system would turn out to be all about the money and the overzealous parents have all come true. That much pressure and stress is way too much for an adolecent mind to comprehend, and I really don't think it is a good situation.

Some of you might call my a hypocrite, as my DD plays academy...I had no intention of getting my DD into the club scene until U-10 or U-11 at the earliest. However, when our rec team (the one mentioned above) had the opportunity to go academy as a unit with the same coach, I relented and said OK. My DD and her teammates have been together since 4 years old (half their little lives), and the coach is the same. I know what coach wants and expects, and I know he is not going to play the multi-team club politics with the little girls. If our club team were to dissolve tomorrow, my DD would play rec for a couple more years.

Club membership/championships etc. don't mean a thing until U-15. That's when the college recruiters start looking. Up until then, its all about development. Most players on the academy super-teams will not be on that same team at U-14. My DD has developed nicely under her current coach - she has been recruited by, and could definitely play on pretty much any of the elite academy teams in her age bracket - but I don't want to put that pressure on her yet (I don't want her to lose her love for the game - see fun). If my DD continues to develop and loves the game, she will essentially be able to write her own ticket to whatever team she wants to be on...If she decides that she wants to do something else...oh, well. She is on this academy team because that's where her friends are, and maybe a bit more challenge...nothing more.

I agree with what you've written, 20's. The academy system is broken in many respects. It's just so hard to find a middle ground. Kids these days are expected to pick their "one and only" sport at younger and younger ages. Hey, I'm all for commitment in just about anything. It used to be that girls did whatever they wanted until 5th grade and then joined a club where they were taught to play soccer at a higher level. They were actually selected because they were elite athletes, not because their parents could pay the bills. There was no academy and children had all the time they needed to participate in any sport they liked. I'm not saying that playing on an academy soccer team completely precludes kids from doing other things, but it makes it very, very hard to manage their free time and recovery. It makes the clubs very well paid. And with academy now beginning as early as U5, it's only getting worse.

But to be quite honest - and a little selfish - my attitude has become such that I figure parents who want to over-commit their children can do so as they see fit. It's their call. But it annoys me that the experience is being ruined for the others that have chosen more balance. You have kids whose lives revolve around soccer and have their own venues to do so, yet they continue to infiltrate the recreational ranks under the guise that "they just want to keep playing with their friends". What? They don't have friends on their academy team? No, it's virtually always about the parents wanting to show their little studs off. I know of teams right now in the 6th grade league of a certain rec organization that are largely PPL teams in different jersies for the weekends. This clearly has nothing to do with development. It's rec coaches standing on the shoulders of the club coaches who have trained them and saying "Look how great this team is that I coach!" It's parents of the club players telling their daughters how great they are against marginal competition. And it's true rec players watching from the sideline as the girls who seldom even attend the practices siphon away their playing time.

I get your argument about "turning pro", and therefore banned from amateur competition...lots of issues to work through though...like what if academy just isn't a right fit for the player - are they barred from returning to rec?

How about our situation where a number of the players on the rec team were ready for a bigger challenge, but there were a few that for one reason or another are not? Even though their roster hasn't changed much since U-5? Do you tell these 6/7/8 year olds that they are not good enough to move on with their friends/teammates and they have to go to a different rec team? You could be forcibly seperating some BFFs! Someone will cry!! :-) Some would say I went a bit dramatic on that one...but it does have some truth to it..

Could this be the reason for the rule in the first place that for academy age kids, the rec team comes first and academy is an "additional activity"? Which, by the way, brings us full circle to the original post about the reschedule........just sayin...

For me, it's real simple. If a kid is playing academy, then they should be completely restricted from playing rec with no exceptions. I had one academy player playing up on my rec team for several seasons. She rarely attended my rec practices, as it conflicted with her club practices. If there was a club match or tourney, she prioritized those over the rec games. She's a great kid, and I wish she could have been at more of my training sessions. I was simply happy to have her services when she could fit us (the rec team) in her schedule.

She was the best player on my team, and she got lots of playing time, but at the expense of the other girls that attended practice every week. She left the team when she reached select age and left a big void in my midfield. I'm unsure if she truly enhanced her soccer development by playing with my rec team, but her roster spot was filled with a player with substantially less skill.

The moral of the story is that academy players might benefit by making a few friends and logging more touches on the ball by playing rec, but they can achieve the same thing by playing on two academy teams instead. For rec to be truly "recreational", it is biased to have some teams that are loaded with academy players. For the rec team that loses assigned academy players, they are left scrambling to fill the vacancy at U11.

My vote is to keep academy players in academy only! If a player plays academy and decides it's not for her, then she can return to rec the following season, but she shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.

10sDad wrote:I get your argument about "turning pro", and therefore banned from amateur competition...lots of issues to work through though...like what if academy just isn't a right fit for the player - are they barred from returning to rec?

How about our situation where a number of the players on the rec team were ready for a bigger challenge, but there were a few that for one reason or another are not? Even though their roster hasn't changed much since U-5? Do you tell these 6/7/8 year olds that they are not good enough to move on with their friends/teammates and they have to go to a different rec team? You could be forcibly seperating some BFFs! Someone will cry!! :-) Some would say I went a bit dramatic on that one...but it does have some truth to it..

Could this be the reason for the rule in the first place that for academy age kids, the rec team comes first and academy is an "additional activity"? Which, by the way, brings us full circle to the original post about the reschedule........just sayin...

That's certainly a valid scenario, 10's, and just one of many that could be tough to stomach for some of the kids on a team. But it's all about a coach just being honest with everyone. I've had three rec teams at this point that have moved up in some capacity. The first one did what you described and moved from rec into SDL. We had team meetings, I spoke with parents individually, and I especially let everyone know that if their child were willing to put in the effort and training, she would not be cut. It was my job to develop the players and/or help them find the right spot otherwise. Was everyone happy with the final outcome? No. But there are some that are never happy anyway.

In your scenario, I see it as being similar to a bunch of girls from a rec team leaving to play on an academy team. That could cause the rec team to collapse, but we accept that as not holding back the players who want to move to the next level. What about those that are happy where they are? In a rec system, they are the priority. A team wanting to move en masse to academy should do so. Hasta la vista. That way the kids remaining can find their new teams as soon as possible. That's what the player's pool is for, and there are always other rec coaches looking to fill their rosters because - wait for it - some of their best players have left for academy. Ha ha.

travelin light wrote:For me, it's real simple. If a kid is playing academy, then they should be completely restricted from playing rec with no exceptions. I had one academy player playing up on my rec team for several seasons. She rarely attended my rec practices, as it conflicted with her club practices. If there was a club match or tourney, she prioritized those over the rec games. She's a great kid, and I wish she could have been at more of my training sessions. I was simply happy to have her services when she could fit us (the rec team) in her schedule.

She was the best player on my team, and she got lots of playing time, but at the expense of the other girls that attended practice every week. She left the team when she reached select age and left a big void in my midfield. I'm unsure if she truly enhanced her soccer development by playing with my rec team, but her roster spot was filled with a player with substantially less skill.The moral of the story is that academy players might benefit by making a few friends and logging more touches on the ball by playing rec, but they can achieve the same thing by playing on two academy teams instead. For rec to be truly "recreational", it is biased to have some teams that are loaded with academy players. For the rec team that loses assigned academy players, they are left scrambling to fill the vacancy at U11.

My vote is to keep academy players in academy only! If a player plays academy and decides it's not for her, then she can return to rec the following season, but she shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.

Right there highlights alot of the problem. If she rarely attended practice why was she getting alot of playing time over players that came to all the practices? She should have gotten her half and that was it. But coaches are afraid the parents will be upset that there little star is not out there winning the game. Or the coach and other parents want to win and forget about the reward for the players that show up all the time. Then they wonder why those pure rec players don't come back either. A good coach would keep the same standard for all players regardless of skill and see that the academy players learn how to make those around them better players and not just come to show boat and dominate the play through one vs one on lesser skilled opponents. It does the team and players no benefit. Good players should move up. Playing down for fun with friends is fine but the coach should see that the player is lifting the team up, not dominating the play and being the team.

my2cents wrote:

travelin light wrote:For me, it's real simple. If a kid is playing academy, then they should be completely restricted from playing rec with no exceptions. I had one academy player playing up on my rec team for several seasons. She rarely attended my rec practices, as it conflicted with her club practices. If there was a club match or tourney, she prioritized those over the rec games. She's a great kid, and I wish she could have been at more of my training sessions. I was simply happy to have her services when she could fit us (the rec team) in her schedule.

She was the best player on my team, and she got lots of playing time, but at the expense of the other girls that attended practice every week. She left the team when she reached select age and left a big void in my midfield. I'm unsure if she truly enhanced her soccer development by playing with my rec team, but her roster spot was filled with a player with substantially less skill.The moral of the story is that academy players might benefit by making a few friends and logging more touches on the ball by playing rec, but they can achieve the same thing by playing on two academy teams instead. For rec to be truly "recreational", it is biased to have some teams that are loaded with academy players. For the rec team that loses assigned academy players, they are left scrambling to fill the vacancy at U11.

My vote is to keep academy players in academy only! If a player plays academy and decides it's not for her, then she can return to rec the following season, but she shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.

Right there highlights alot of the problem. If she rarely attended practice why was she getting alot of playing time over players that came to all the practices? She should have gotten her half and that was it. But coaches are afraid the parents will be upset that there little star is not out there winning the game. Or the coach and other parents want to win and forget about the reward for the players that show up all the time. Then they wonder why those pure rec players don't come back either. A good coach would keep the same standard for all players regardless of skill and see that the academy players learn how to make those around them better players and not just come to show boat and dominate the play through one vs one on lesser skilled opponents. It does the team and players no benefit. Good players should move up. Playing down for fun with friends is fine but the coach should see that the player is lifting the team up, not dominating the play and being the team.

On the other hand, I admire Traveling Lights willingness to own up to what happened. He/she sounds like a a coach who was probably caught up in the realization that the player helped the team get wins but now looks back on things differently. There are loads and loads of coaches in the rec leagues who never do come around. They still carry ringers on their rosters even approaching middle school. The rec organizations don't seem to realize (or care) about the issue and it is slowly but surely taking its toll on the number of participants. Then you have organizations like PSA for which it's all about the money. Fill your rosters, fill thier fields, and no refunds under any circumstances. Write the check and they run the show.

Select soccer is like politics and business...you can't legislate ethics - the unethical always find a way around your regluations.

That being said, ethics are different for each person. What seems ethical to one person may be unethical to another.

We should do what is right for the child - which child? Maybe the academy player is struggling with academy, and needs a self-esteem boost to show her that she has progressed from when she played rec and that all her hard work is paying off. Maybe its not fair to the rec player to have to play against that academy girl that needs the boost. Maybe..maybe..maybe...

There are no two stories alike. The more you try to make rules, the more the gray areas of the rules are exploited by the "unethical" who game the system to serve the needs of themselves above others.

>>"Fair" or "No Fair" ?

this thread is missing 2 key points. first, the point of recreation is for the kids to play. pysa recognized this fact, and passed on the request of team B to move the game to team A.

secondly, team A agreed to the reschedule.

there was NO forced changed. if team A didn't want to accommodate the request, they could have said as much and the game would have gone on as originally scheduled.

agreeing to the move, crying about it, and then blaming pysa is where the "bad form" came in.

rmc_plano wrote:>>"Fair" or "No Fair" ?

this thread is missing 2 key points. first, the point of recreation is for the kids to play. pysa recognized this fact, and passed on the request of team B to move the game to team A.

secondly, team A agreed to the reschedule.

there was NO forced changed. if team A didn't want to accommodate the request, they could have said as much and the game would have gone on as originally scheduled.

agreeing to the move, crying about it, and then blaming pysa is where the "bad form" came in.

Calling total BS on your post.

1. Team manager from team A was contacted about a possible reschedule - or Team B would forfeit. A total lie, as they had enough subs to field a full team, let alone the minimum 6 players. Nobody likes to win by forfeit, so manager said...we are open to it, but only if all players from team A could be there. (as all of their subs are hurt, and therefore cannot field a complete team without everyone being there).

2. Team B was missing their players due to an academy conflict, which has been discussed already on this thread as a violation of the WRITTEN NTSSA policy which states in the case of a conflict, rec comes first at this age.

3. Team B wrote to the league admin requesting a tuesday night reschedule, but team A had a conflict. PYSA said too bad, you will have to play short.

4. Team A requested that if a game is scheduled mid-week, that it occur after 7pm due to parents and coaches working hours...PYSA scheduled the game for 6:15 (I imagine the earliest timeslot they could get refs there).

5. Carpenter Park is closed to games as of Monday. PYSA has never appealed for use beyond the closure date prior to this "conflict", yet this one seemed important enough.

6. Friday phone call occurred between coach of team A and PYSA, whereas coach of team A was informed that the game would be rescheduled for mid-week, and that information would follow as to the date and time.

7. Multiple emails were sent to said PYSA admin inquiring as to the date and time of the "too bad" reschedule...no response until very late on Monday night, informing that the game was scheduled for early evening the next day.

So...your post is total BS. Every possible accomodation was made for Team B, yet Team A was told to play short, as well as at a time that was inconvenient...Team A said "no" to the reschedule in the first place, but was over-ruled by PYSA out of "fairness"...hmmmmmmmmmmm....

End result...the game was played tonight, and Team A's player with the conflict was able to get out of her conflict and make it to the game (thank god). It was a hard, fought game and was 1-1 until deep into the second half, when it broke open into Team B's favor. Team A did not play up to their usual form, and Team B won. It happens. Refs were fine, no dispute there. Lots of excuses could be made, but Team A just couldn't hang in there the entire game. Some days are that way...no excuses being offered up here. Oh well.. so if you are keeping score from the "club" perspective, 03 Liverpool beat 04 FC Premier tonight. :-) One other thing...I overheard some of the parents of Team B before the game while we were waiting for a player that was running late lamenting about how it's not fair that they should be forced to play short because one of our players had a conflict - "its not OUR problem they can't get all their players to the game" ...classy.

As I said...no excuses about the game...BUT...crappy politics by PYSA. They are about as successful in hiding their true motives as the Obama administration...just sayin...

JustaSport wrote:

my2cents wrote:

travelin light wrote:For me, it's real simple. If a kid is playing academy, then they should be completely restricted from playing rec with no exceptions. I had one academy player playing up on my rec team for several seasons. She rarely attended my rec practices, as it conflicted with her club practices. If there was a club match or tourney, she prioritized those over the rec games. She's a great kid, and I wish she could have been at more of my training sessions. I was simply happy to have her services when she could fit us (the rec team) in her schedule.

She was the best player on my team, and she got lots of playing time, but at the expense of the other girls that attended practice every week. She left the team when she reached select age and left a big void in my midfield. I'm unsure if she truly enhanced her soccer development by playing with my rec team, but her roster spot was filled with a player with substantially less skill.The moral of the story is that academy players might benefit by making a few friends and logging more touches on the ball by playing rec, but they can achieve the same thing by playing on two academy teams instead. For rec to be truly "recreational", it is biased to have some teams that are loaded with academy players. For the rec team that loses assigned academy players, they are left scrambling to fill the vacancy at U11.

My vote is to keep academy players in academy only! If a player plays academy and decides it's not for her, then she can return to rec the following season, but she shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.

Right there highlights alot of the problem. If she rarely attended practice why was she getting alot of playing time over players that came to all the practices? She should have gotten her half and that was it. But coaches are afraid the parents will be upset that there little star is not out there winning the game. Or the coach and other parents want to win and forget about the reward for the players that show up all the time. Then they wonder why those pure rec players don't come back either. A good coach would keep the same standard for all players regardless of skill and see that the academy players learn how to make those around them better players and not just come to show boat and dominate the play through one vs one on lesser skilled opponents. It does the team and players no benefit. Good players should move up. Playing down for fun with friends is fine but the coach should see that the player is lifting the team up, not dominating the play and being the team.

On the other hand, I admire Traveling Lights willingness to own up to what happened. He/she sounds like a a coach who was probably caught up in the realization that the player helped the team get wins but now looks back on things differently. There are loads and loads of coaches in the rec leagues who never do come around. They still carry ringers on their rosters even approaching middle school. The rec organizations don't seem to realize (or care) about the issue and it is slowly but surely taking its toll on the number of participants. Then you have organizations like PSA for which it's all about the money. Fill your rosters, fill thier fields, and no refunds under any circumstances. Write the check and they run the show.

I think that long term academy players should probably not play rec soccer. My DD has played rec soccer the last 4 years. She has always been the strongest or one of the strongest on her team. She started playing indoor with an academy team. As time went on, the academy coach persuaded us to let our DD play on his team. Right before this, we had signed her up to play rec over the fall.

After being with her academy team, the improvement in her skills were quite remarkable. The structure and discipline of club soccer vs most rec teams can't be overstated. Even though she resisted the change at first preferring to play on her rec team over academy, over time the frustration of practicing/playing with a team that doesn't have near the discipline/teamwork/coaching as her academy made her switch to preferring academy and hating rec, even though she has known these girls for 3 to 4 years. The rec coach is a good guy and the girls love him, but the difference between his and her professional coaches abilities were too much to ignore. We made a commitment to her rec team, but found ourselves missing at least one practice per week and a couple of conflicting games over the season.

Today, the rec coach sent an email to the team that highlighted the north texas rule about prioritizing rec over academy. He sent it to the whole team, but it was clear it was sent to us. We had thought of letting our DD play in rec games (no practice) in addition to academy, but now see that it is probably in the rec teams best interest that she not continue to play, even though she can help tremendously with her much improved skills learned at academy.

I think that there should be a grace period to let girls play club and rec soccer, to see if club is a good fit. After a season (or two), force the family to make a decision. If a girl needs rec soccer to boost her morale, she probably shouldn't be playing academy. If she is destroying the morale on her rec and opposing teams, she probably shouldn't be playing rec.

My $0.02.

Out of curiosity, I went back and looked at some old pictures...of the 10 players on Team A (including the 2 injured players), 8 of them were on the roster at U-5.

This team was developed by their coach - its not a club team brought into rec...its the opposite. I for one am thankful that we were blessed to be assigned to this team and coach - he has taken these girls from daisy-picking to a division championship playing a year up. Trememdous accomplishment and development. Thanks, Coach!!