player pass should be revoked

OLJW wrote:F. Number of Players
1. Minimum Number: A team must have a minimum of eight ( properly equipped
and uniformed players to start a game and seven (7) eligible players to continue a game. If both teams have at least eight ( players properly equipped and uniformed for the game, the game shall begin at the start time, and not wait for more players to arrive.

Law 3, my friend. No Jedi mind tricks on me! 

Number of Players

A match is played by two teams, each consisting of not more than eleven
players, one of whom is the goalkeeper. A match may not start if either team
consists of fewer than seven players.

https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/xx3byxqgodqtl1h15865/1/2125502146

Download the 2014-2015 LOTG

I just copied & and pasted straight out of LHGCL rules. Thought that was the league being discussed. I don't do the Jedi thing, but I am a fan of the Missouri boat ride.

OLJW wrote:I just copied & and pasted straight out of LHGCL rules. Thought that was the league being discussed. I don't do the Jedi thing, but I am a fan of the Missouri boat ride.

WHAT!??!?

LHGCL isn't playing by US Soccer LOTG!?

What's up with that?

Also, I have no idea why those smiley faces showed up. They were not in the rule that I copied and I didn't put them there.

futbollove wrote:

haterinho wrote:

futbollove wrote:

Lefty wrote:

futbollove wrote:Isn't it ironic, and hypocritical at the same time, that forum members constantly whine about development over winning. And then turn around and criticize a program that is designed to enhance development all because their team didn't win.
What happened to all the development talk? Why not look at it as a way for your team to "develop" against higher caliber players, win or lose? I'm in no means defending CPP. Personally, I could care less one way or the other. CPP, no CPP. Bring in whomever you want, D1,D2, ECNL, heck bring some players in from SoCal. All I'm interested in is how my DD improves and competes against said players. As long as it's not an older player coming in, WHO CARES

Why draw the line with age?

It is just an arbitrary date that is picked and gives certain birthdays a built in advantage.  How is competing at age anymore of a meaningful criteria to drive development vs height, weight?

They are going to play against older kids in HS and college anyway.

Oh and yes both of mine played up to maximize development.

Because txsoccer.net would overload from the outrage
I agree with you for the most part about age as well. If a kid can compete and get better playing against older kids, go for it. I don't think I see the benefit of allowing older kids to play in a younger league, or age division though.

The very top players in most age groups are as good and sometimes better than most all the players in age group one year older. Some of them are physically just as dominant as older players. In terms of impact on the field - a top player playing down is often no different than an older kid playing down. How can one be good for development and not the other?

It may be development for the team playing against them, but what good does it do for that player?

futbollove, to make sure I understand you correctly, you're saying it wouldn't be good for the development of the older player to play down in age group, but it would be good for development of the ECNL/D1 player to CPP down to their respective clubs D2 or D3 team for example? Maybe, I'm totally missing your point, but it appears there's some contradiction in your comments.

futbollove, to make sure I understand you correctly, you're saying it wouldn't be good for the development of the older player to play down in age group, but it would be good for development of the ECNL/D1 player to CPP down to their respective clubs D2 or D3 team for example? Maybe, I'm totally missing your point, but it appears there's some contradiction in your comments.

yep, still trying to figure that out, how it would be good for a ecnl player to play at d2 or d3. now maybe if you have  a thin roster and a deserving d2 d3 kid has earned the right to get some playing time above them well, maybe. but bringing in ringers is a travesty...

Can anyone cite examples of CPP's being used to play up in division?

I must say KnKsDad and SP, I'm a little bit disappointed in both of you for taking so long to point out the contradiction.
True, it MAY not be good for development for a player to come down in much the same way it's not good for a player to play down in age. But keep in mind, being a D1, D2, ECNL player does not necessarily make that player a better player. Perhaps they are not quite on the level that they currently play. Should they be forced to play at that level simply because the coach, club, parent mis-placed them? Or maybe that player is just in a funk and needs some confidence that they are not able to get because they are stuck at the end of a D1, or ECNL bench.
I know the same could be said about an older player. But that is a very slippery slope. Why not play down 2 age groups? Why not 3?

futbollove wrote:I must say KnKsDad and SP, I'm a little bit disappointed in both of you for taking so long to point out the contradiction.
True, it MAY not be good for development for a player to come down in much the same way it's not good for a player to play down in age. But keep in mind, being a D1, D2, ECNL player does not necessarily make that player a better player. Perhaps they are not quite on the level that they currently play. Should they be forced to play at that level simply because the coach, club, parent mis-placed them? Or maybe that player is just in a funk and needs some confidence that they are not able to get because they are stuck at the end of a D1, or ECNL bench.
I know the same could be said about an older player. But that is a very slippery slope. Why not play down 2 age groups? Why not 3?

sorry occasionally i do things in the real world and my BS meter is put in hibernation. This whole posts reeks of desperation. so now player pass is about giving supposedly elite players a pick me up when they are down in the dumps?

So the issue here is your understanding of D1, D2, ECNL etc...?
So here it is again. Being on an ECNL, D1 roster doesn't all of a sudden give a player some sort of super power. With 5 ECNL rosters of at least 22-30 players each, those rosters are full of players that aren't elite by any stretch of the imagination. There are players in D3 that are much better than some players on ECNL rosters.
But good to see your BS meter has awaken again.

futbollove wrote:So the issue here is your understanding of D1, D2, ECNL etc...?
So here it is again. Being on an ECNL, D1 roster doesn't all of a sudden give a player some sort of super power. With 5 ECNL rosters of at least 22-30 players each, those rosters are full of players that aren't elite by any stretch of the imagination. There are players in D3 that are much better than some players on ECNL rosters.
But good to see your BS meter has awaken again.

oh its working all right and going off the charts each time you post....

futbollove wrote:I must say KnKsDad and SP, I'm a little bit disappointed in both of you for taking so long to point out the contradiction.
True, it MAY not be good for development for a player to come down in much the same way it's not good for a player to play down in age. But keep in mind, being a D1, D2, ECNL player does not necessarily make that player a better player. Perhaps they are not quite on the level that they currently play. Should they be forced to play at that level simply because the coach, club, parent mis-placed them? Or maybe that player is just in a funk and needs some confidence that they are not able to get because they are stuck at the end of a D1, or ECNL bench.
I know the same could be said about an older player. But that is a very slippery slope. Why not play down 2 age groups? Why not 3?

Why is that slope (age) any more slippery than any other slope in getting kids of comparative soccer capability aligned for development?  

Freshman play against seniors in HS & College, and older players against younger in National Teams and Pros.

And in your examples, it's younger kids playing UP against older kids. Not the other way around. How many 18yr olds are there on the u16 NT?

futbollove wrote:And in your examples, it's younger kids playing UP against older kids. Not the other way around. How many 18yr olds are there on the u16 NT?

Grasping at straws to avoid the question?

Lefty wrote:

futbollove wrote:And in your examples, it's younger kids playing UP against older kids. Not the other way around. How many 18yr olds are there on the u16 NT?

Grasping at straws to avoid the question?

Straws?? How so? The question along with your examples don't hold water, so no need for straws
Here's an idea, forget about age groups, lets play everyone together. U8-U18. That'll be fun. And make for a much more competitive league.

rick astley will get you banned immediately and rightfully so...

At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

I don't think most kids would consider it a reward to sit on the bench.

slrsoccer wrote:At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

thats what academy is for, in select you chose teams, teams that practice together,with the same coach and all trying for the same goal. your idea reduces players to unknown cogs in a machine where there is no team, no cohesiveness and no sense of pride. No thanks..

slrsoccer wrote:At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

Your approach seems to work well in a 'pay the player to play' or 'no cost to the player' environment focused on player development.  

Just not sure that it translates well to a 'pay to play' and 'winning' focused environment.  

Question how many parents would be willing to sign up and pay, not knowing what team, coach or players their kid is going to practice and play with week to week.  May cause a lot of revenue fallout in a 'pay to play' environment.

Lefty wrote:

slrsoccer wrote:At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

Your approach seems to work well in a 'pay the player to play' or 'no cost to the player' environment focused on player development.  

Just not sure that it translates well to a 'pay to play' and 'winning' focused environment.  

Question how many parents would be willing to sign up and pay, not knowing what team, coach or players their kid is going to practice and play with week to week.  May cause a lot of revenue fallout in a 'pay to play' environment.

The sentence in red above sums it all up.

Lefty wrote:

slrsoccer wrote:At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

Your approach seems to work well in a 'pay the player to play' or 'no cost to the player' environment focused on player development.  

Just not sure that it translates well to a 'pay to play' and 'winning' focused environment.  

Question how many parents would be willing to sign up and pay, not knowing what team, coach or players their kid is going to practice and play with week to week.  May cause a lot of revenue fallout in a 'pay to play' environment.

As I mentioned, I think there are some parents that would be on either side of the fence. They would have to make a decision based on club size and philosophy. The thought process of my kid can only play for XXXXX coach is complete bollocks. Most kids will play for numerous coaches with different philosophies and need to understand how to perform their roles as required by each coach. They should be playing different formations that require different things. If your kid can only play left back and their coach leaves and the new coach comes in with a new system that requires a wing back instead of a left back, they will risk losing their spot unless they can adapt.

I do understand where you are coming from. We live in a very entitled society and youth soccer is a reflection of that society as a whole. You would have parents moaning constantly that little Susie came up from the D2 team and got to play more than my little Becky even though we made the original roster. Never mind the fact that little Susie has been working her tail off and improving why little Becky felt she had made it on signing day and doesn't have to work hard any longer.

The system now tabs players as great, good or average way too early and those monikers stick way too long and therefore only recognizes improvement on an annual basis.

I also think you are kidding yourself if a young kid wouldn't think it would be rewarding to be called up to the top team, even if it were to sit on the bench for a game. It gives them recognition and it keeps the other kids on their toes. It's called competition and it can only be healthy if you want to develop as a player.

Haven't met a real player yet who'd be happy to be called up to sit the bench. Plenty of parents that might, but no players.

Its a game. Kids want to play games, not watch.

I haven't witnessed it used to promote up. I see players on d1 teams being brought in to play in a different division. center mids and goalie. Both times, those players were well developed and active in Odp and playing for top 5 teams. The center mid wasnt there for any reason to benefit her. It was for the club/team to benefit.

slrsoccer wrote:

Lefty wrote:

slrsoccer wrote:At the risk of getting slotted by you lot, I am going to go out on a limb here.  These are one persons opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

I agree that kids are a member of a "team" but do not lose sight of the fact that the "team" is a member of a "club."

There are really two choices here, play for the small club that has 1 or 2 teams in an age group or play for the larger club that may have many.  

I for one am in favor of a more YourApeeIn type club structure to which the big clubs could follow.  If they have 3 or 4 teams in an age group, let them move around, up or down.  If the 16th player on the roster on the D1 team didn't get to play in his game then why shouldn't he be able to go down and play in the D2 game?  They need the game time just as much as any other kid in the club pool.  If a player on the D3 team has been playing great then move him up to the D2 team for a week.  That doesn't mean they have to see the field, but it is a reward for putting in the effort and playing well.  

I would encourage the player movement up and down with a caveat - there has to be a limit set on the number of games a kid can play in a given period of time.  I think you could do this by the month instead of the week and say a kid can play a max of 6 games per month in the league.  This would force the club to think about player movement and actually have a strategy regarding player movement.

If you are part of a big club you should want your 25-30 best players getting plenty of game time no matter what the level.  If you are players 31-50 then you have something to work towards in training in order to get more time on the pitch.

Your approach seems to work well in a 'pay the player to play' or 'no cost to the player' environment focused on player development.  

Just not sure that it translates well to a 'pay to play' and 'winning' focused environment.  

Question how many parents would be willing to sign up and pay, not knowing what team, coach or players their kid is going to practice and play with week to week.  May cause a lot of revenue fallout in a 'pay to play' environment.

As I mentioned, I think there are some parents that would be on either side of the fence.  They would have to make a decision based on club size and philosophy.  The thought process of my kid can only play for XXXXX coach is complete bollocks.  Most kids will play for numerous coaches with different philosophies and need to understand how to perform their roles as required by each coach.  They should be playing different formations that require different things.  If your kid can only play left back and their coach leaves and the new coach comes in with a new system that requires a wing back instead of a left back, they will risk losing their spot unless they can adapt.

I do understand where you are coming from.  We live in a very entitled society and youth soccer is a reflection of that society as a whole.  You would have parents moaning constantly that little Susie came up from the D2 team and got to play more than my little Becky even though we made the original roster.  Never mind the fact that little Susie has been working her tail off and improving why little Becky felt she had made it on signing day and doesn't have to work hard any longer.  

The system now tabs players as great, good or average way too early and those monikers stick way too long and therefore only recognizes improvement on an annual basis.  

I also think you are kidding yourself if a young kid wouldn't think it would be rewarding to be called up to the top team, even if it were to sit on the bench for a game.  It gives them recognition and it keeps the other kids on their toes.  It's called competition and it can only be healthy if you want to develop as a player.

Kids and parents have many different motivations and objectives for participation in 'select' soccer.  No doubt there would be some parents on the other side of the fence, me included.    All I'm saying is that with that approach there would likely be a lot less happy customers, and therefore paying customers, and the clubs want no part of that.

KnKsDad wrote:Can anyone cite examples of CPP's being used to play up in division?

As a Ref, I saw it several times last year. I have saw it once this year, so far. When a 99 Meja team CPP'd a 00 player to help out because of injuries