player pass should be revoked

I thought about this and think it needs to go for a variety of reasons.

1. it gives an unfair advantage to big clubs
2. it violates the spirit of the game
3. it is unfair to money paying parents and kids who paid for their kids to play
4. it undermines morale on a team, go to practice work hard, and when there's an opportunity? sit on the bench so a star player from another team can fill that role?
5. teams should play with whoever they have available
6. with teams putting together 18 man rosters the need for a player pass player is remote
7. it is abused in relegation games, this is rampant on the boys sides

8. finally, and most importantly, it's not good for the kids and that's what this is all about..

I totally disagree. Player pass is great motivation for kids to get better. The best players should get more playing time - they have earned it. If that means a less skilled player has to sit out, then so be it. If nothing else it will be an important life lesson. Those who work hard to be the best will reap the rewards and those who don't, won't. It's no different than a pro team signing a star player to replace a not-so-good player. And yes, there are financial consequences in both situations.

soccer_mom_tx19 wrote:I totally disagree. Player pass is great motivation for kids to get better. The best players should get more playing time - they have earned it. If that means a less skilled player has to sit out, then so be it. If nothing else it will be an important life lesson. Those who work hard to be the best will reap the rewards and those who don't, won't. It's no different than a pro team signing a star player to replace a not-so-good player. And yes, there are financial consequences in both situations.

I think your logic is a little flawed. Professional players don't jump between teams weekly.

They also don't complain about the rules.

soccer_mom_tx19 wrote:I totally disagree. Player pass is great motivation for kids to get better. The best players should get more playing time - they have earned it. If that means a less skilled player has to sit out, then so be it. If nothing else it will be an important life lesson. Those who work hard to be the best will reap the rewards and those who don't, won't. It's no different than a pro team signing a star player to replace a not-so-good player. And yes, there are financial consequences in both situations.

So a good player should be brought in from THEIR team to take minutes from a weaker player on another team, just because she is better.

They don't EARN playing time on another team. They earn playing time on their team.

This forum never fails to amaze me.

silentparent wrote:I thought about this and think it needs to go for a variety of reasons.

1. it gives an unfair advantage to big clubs
2. it violates the spirit of the game
3. it is unfair to money paying parents and kids who paid for their kids to play
4. it undermines morale on a team, go to practice work hard, and when there's an opportunity? sit on the bench so a star player from another team can fill that role?
5. teams should play with whoever they have  available
6. with teams putting together 18 man rosters the need for a player pass player is remote
7. it is abused in relegation games, this is rampant on the boys sides

8. finally, and most importantly, it's not good for the kids and that's what this is all about..

While I do not agree in whole with CPP, if used within the sprit of the rule, it can be beneficial. The problem is that it has been exploited by and large. A tweaking of the rule is needed at the very least.

In response to your above reasons I propose a different point of view:

1. Big clubs are what makes LH what it is
2. The spirit of the rule is being violated - needs more oversight
3. Unfair? We as parents can address this with coach prior to signing - I have
4. It can undermine if used improperly and not within the spirit of the rule
5. By signing with a big club you become part of a larger pool of available players and in many instances the reason for signing with big club
6. By the time they reach junior high age the injuries can add up fast, I recall our roster of 18 left us with 11 available players on some game days due to injury
7. It is being abused. However, the implementation of only 1 CPP for the last 3 games was an attempt to resolve this issue
8. It can be good for the kids is used within the spirit of the rule

Now, here is the a part of the CPP rule as written that I think needs tweaking:

2. A Club Pass Player may play League games for other teams within their Club
(referred to as “Receiving Teams” herein) under all of the following restrictions:
a. A Club Pass Player may not “play down” for a team in a younger age
group (e.g., an under-15 Club Pass Player may not play on an under-14
Receiving Team);

This should read "play down" PERIOD. If you are a D1 player, you cannot play down in D2 or D3. If you are on a true "00" playing up in "99" D3, you should not be able to play in "00" any division. That to me is playing down regardless of age.

This is what LH describes as the spirit of the rule:

G. Club Pass Players
The LHGCL board of directors believes that the rule was incorporated in order to fulfill two basic needs:
 Foster the development of players by allowing them to participate within their own club at a higher level of competition without the commitment of a roster transfer.
 To assist teams that may be short sided due to injury, illness, or other

I read this to primarily mean that it allows a player to compete at a higher level. The second part of this rule is what I believe is being abused and should be more closely monitored.

soccer_mom_tx19 wrote:I totally disagree. Player pass is great motivation for kids to get better. The best players should get more playing time - they have earned it. If that means a less skilled player has to sit out, then so be it. If nothing else it will be an important life lesson. Those who work hard to be the best will reap the rewards and those who don't, won't. It's no different than a pro team signing a star player to replace a not-so-good player. And yes, there are financial consequences in both situations.

Can't really compare select soccer and pro soccer.

In pro soccer, the player is PAID (and regardless of play time, is generally paid the same amount).  In addition, the pro player can be traded or take his craft elsewhere.

In select, the player pays to be on a team - huge difference.  They do not have the ability to move out of their contract for a year.  Their play time on that team that they signed up and pay for (remember your term sheet, that included a provision on team size) is based on their performance compared to their team-mates.  Player pass allows a team to add a non-paying player (a player who is not paying for your coach) to the roster, which will necessarily take time from paying players.

The "goal" of player pass may be motivation - in practicality, the concern is that its abuses and opportunities for abuse far outweigh that motivation.  Isn't the player motivated to improve her performance to maximize play time on her own team?  Do they then excel "beyond" their team?  If so, then they, like everyone else (club or not) will have the ability to try out for a new (better) team every June.  And a non-performing player can look for a "lower" team then as well.

Should we provide this "motivation" tool only to club players?  CPP only operates to benefit club teams - not on a club, no CPP benefit.

If you allow easy movement between TEAMS by using CPP, then why even have team names?  Let's not call them teams.  Call them LP slot 1, LP slot 2, Sting slot 1, Sting slot 2 - and allow coaches to select their teams on a weekly basis with free movement between groups throughout the season.  Also let them change clubs as LP 1 may not need the "much improved" forward from LP 2, but Sting 1 could sure use them.  After all, that improved player should have the opportunity to play at the highest level she has improved to whenever she wants.

Oh yea - that's called Academy soccer.

and I generally agree with fatherofoneplayer -

CPP had a noble intent

It is being abused and provides for many opportunities to be abused outside the "spirit" of the rule

I don't have a huge problem with CPP being used to move players UP

I completely oppose CPP being used to move players down (as this is where the majority of "abuses" occur)


And honestly, if a player on the "B" team has improved so much this early in the season, that they will receive substantial playing time on the "A" team, then it sounds like the "A" team coach probably did a poor job evaluating talent in June.  I find it quite remarkable - and props to the player - that has developed from a point of not even being player #16 or #18 on the "A" team, to "earning" substantial play time on the "A" team, in 3 months.  

(or maybe a parent decided in June that they didn't want Suzie being #12 on the "A" team, and she would get more playing time on the "B" team - and now has buyers remorse)

I say all this with injuries aside - so maybe there should be some provision for something like the 15-day DL.  Every team can survive a single game without one or two players (goalies excluded).  If multiple players are out for an extended time due to injuries, then there should be some consideration there.

Unfortunately, it is being used more often then not to bring higher level players down to play with a lesser skilled team, thus effecting the game results. If a team has no injuries and has enough subs, there is no reason to use CPP. If you can't complete with the team you signed, you have no business playing that level of competition. That and giving byes to clubs and not teams has turned the whole system into somewhat of a joke.

soccer_mom_tx19 wrote:They also don't complain about the rules.

I don't think it's complaining about the rules as much as how they are being interpreted or bent. A kid earns playing time on "their" team. I would assume the original intent was to help out a team that is short on players for a game or promote someone up. Not to stack a team for a win.

soccer_mom_tx19 wrote:They also don't complain about the rules.

unfair rules should be overturned. your logic is flawed. the kid who is being player passed is playing on another team and supplanting a kid. If the kid was not good enough to play, he should not have been offered a contract, unless it was a money grab...

Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

3. Unfair? We as parents can address this with coach prior to signing - I have

silly, once you sign the contract you have absolutely no leverage with a coach, he can say tough and all you have left is you holding your schlong.....

Wired wrote:Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

exactly, its a team sport not a club sport. its not fcd slot vs sting slot each week. This is a terrible rule and if LH really had any integrity they would have told the clubs no, but they are little more than lackeys...

Wired wrote:Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

GREAT POINT!!!!

I was doing research on the age that different associations around the country start 11v11...happened to notice just about ALL states around the country have added these player pass rules. It's not going anywhere, some allow even more liberal usage than we do (5 players instead of 3..etc).

One interesting concept was one state only allows someone to play down 1 level....D1 can play down to D2 but not D3.

Wired wrote:Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

I'll steal a line from one of my favorite movies:

"A team isn't a bunch of kids out to win.
A team is
Something you belong to.
Something you feel.
Something you have to earn"

CPP tears at the fabric of 'team'. Kids earn a spot on a select team only to be benched or worse yet,deactivated, for a more talented Player Pass player.
Maybe there's a place for player pass as these kids get older and injuries become more prevalent.
But, for the little ones, it's a frequently abused rule designed and tailored for the big clubs.

Koba wrote:

Wired wrote:Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

I'll steal a line from one of my favorite movies:

"A team isn't a bunch of kids out to win.
A team is
Something you belong to.
Something you feel.
Something you have to earn"

CPP tears at the fabric of 'team'. Kids earn a spot on a select team only to be benched or worse yet,deactivated, for a more talented Player Pass player.
Maybe there's a place for player pass as these kids get older and injuries become more prevalent.
But, for the little ones, it's a frequently abused rule designed and tailored for the big clubs.

yep tell me again when you have 4 subs why you need a player pass? PLAY WITH YOUR TEAM THAT YOU SIGNED!

Most people for player pass have an anything goes mentality. They will do whatever it takes to get ahead or win. I think most of them can't win on their own.

Heard of an instance just a few weeks ago where a team used the CPP and got a result that would have never happened without those players. Feel bad for the team that got robbed of the 3 points they deserved.

The idea that player pass is ok because "the better player should play" is crazy. A team has a roster of x amount of players, you usually have a starting line up on that team. The starting girls are usually the one's that earned it that week. That gives the rest of girls on that team something to work for. When you bring in players who have not competed and they play ahead of those players who have, what does that tell them about there hard work. It tells them they have busted it for nothing.

Why is it always the "losing" parents that complain about CPP? I would like to hear from the poor "supplanted player" every now and then.

If CPP is ALL about "development" and "player injuries" (and not points) . . .

How about a rule that when a club passes a player from a higher team to a lower team, they aren't rewarded with any points that the "team" "earned".  After all, the "team" did not earn them.  Or maybe establish the rule that if there is more than one CPP down, the points are rewarded as a forfeit - because obviously, the team passing players down could not field enough players without the CPP players anyway.

Wired wrote:Player pass completely destroys the idea of a team. Soccer is a team sport not club sport. If you like player pass, why dont we just have the clubs play not the teams. The best 11 from a club play each week.

I like this idea. Club ranks players from week to week, and fill in spots on the corresponding teams. Everyone else plays rec. Now we've got "Select" soccer again.