Lake Highlands 04 DIII Week 5

SoccerShocker wrote:

Paulie Walnuts wrote:Sure sounds like a bunch of whinning going on in here over a u11 soccer game.  I think it is funny that a club that is perceived to be a small club used the CPP on one of the biggest clubs and they beat the big club.  Good for Spirit.  However, I never want to hear a 04 Spirit parent whine about the CPP going forward because it is unfair that only the big clubs can take advantage of the rule.  Personally I think the rule is garbage and you should play with the roster you have, but I do not make the rules.

Well, since we were the first to apparently use the CPP rule, I doubt anyone from TXSR will complain or whine about the Big Club affects of CPP.  Interestingly enough, I have no real opinion on whether it's good or bad since this is my first DD to come through the land of Select soccer so I have nothing to compare it to.   However, if it went away tomorrow, not sure anyone would notice or care since our team was the only one to use it so far.

I think it's how a club uses CPP, doesn't matter if they are big or small.  The perception is this was done mainly to get a win.  The reality of it, is when done this way, if that was the case, it's condoned cheating.  Whats the point of having different divisions?  How do the rostered kids feel when they know the win came because of this?  I don't have a kid on either team, but thought it was cool that Sting west was on a roll, Kind of bs their record took a blemish because of this.

Should be fun to watch Feet Black play TXS in D-3 this season.  

I think JK might have more integrity though and play with the team he signed.

soccerjack wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

Paulie Walnuts wrote:Sure sounds like a bunch of whinning going on in here over a u11 soccer game.  I think it is funny that a club that is perceived to be a small club used the CPP on one of the biggest clubs and they beat the big club.  Good for Spirit.  However, I never want to hear a 04 Spirit parent whine about the CPP going forward because it is unfair that only the big clubs can take advantage of the rule.  Personally I think the rule is garbage and you should play with the roster you have, but I do not make the rules.

Well, since we were the first to apparently use the CPP rule, I doubt anyone from TXSR will complain or whine about the Big Club affects of CPP.  Interestingly enough, I have no real opinion on whether it's good or bad since this is my first DD to come through the land of Select soccer so I have nothing to compare it to.   However, if it went away tomorrow, not sure anyone would notice or care since our team was the only one to use it so far.

I think it's how a club uses CPP, doesn't matter if they are big or small.  The perception is this was done mainly to get a win.  The reality of it, is when done this way, if that was the case, it's condoned cheating.  Whats the point of having different divisions?  How do the rostered kids feel when they know the win came because of this?  I don't have a kid on either team, but thought it was cool that Sting west was on a role, Kind of bs their record took a blemish because of this.

Should be fun to watch Feet Black play TXS in D-3 next week.  

I think JK might have more integrity though and play with the team he signed.

And perceptions lead to assumptions and assumptions lead to a grapevine of misleading information - which is fine...  like I said, we were the first to utilize it and now we know the backlash that comes with utilizing it.  Thank you for making your feelings abundantly clear on this subject - and that goes for everyone that seems overly concerned about it.

Note to everyone in LHGCL - CPP is the devil!!!

SoccerShocker wrote:

Paulie Walnuts wrote:Sure sounds like a bunch of whinning going on in here over a u11 soccer game.  I think it is funny that a club that is perceived to be a small club used the CPP on one of the biggest clubs and they beat the big club.  Good for Spirit.  However, I never want to hear a 04 Spirit parent whine about the CPP going forward because it is unfair that only the big clubs can take advantage of the rule.  Personally I think the rule is garbage and you should play with the roster you have, but I do not make the rules.

Well, since we were the first to apparently use the CPP rule, I doubt anyone from TXSR will complain or whine about the Big Club affects of CPP.  Interestingly enough, I have no real opinion on whether it's good or bad since this is my first DD to come through the land of Select soccer so I have nothing to compare it to.   However, if it went away tomorrow, not sure anyone would notice or care since our team was the only one to use it so far.

And if Sting should happen to load up their roster with CPP players next time and put an 8-10 goal beat down on your team, how would you and your DD feel about that?

SoccerShocker wrote:

soccerjack wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

Paulie Walnuts wrote:Sure sounds like a bunch of whinning going on in here over a u11 soccer game.  I think it is funny that a club that is perceived to be a small club used the CPP on one of the biggest clubs and they beat the big club.  Good for Spirit.  However, I never want to hear a 04 Spirit parent whine about the CPP going forward because it is unfair that only the big clubs can take advantage of the rule.  Personally I think the rule is garbage and you should play with the roster you have, but I do not make the rules.

Well, since we were the first to apparently use the CPP rule, I doubt anyone from TXSR will complain or whine about the Big Club affects of CPP.  Interestingly enough, I have no real opinion on whether it's good or bad since this is my first DD to come through the land of Select soccer so I have nothing to compare it to.   However, if it went away tomorrow, not sure anyone would notice or care since our team was the only one to use it so far.

I think it's how a club uses CPP, doesn't matter if they are big or small.  The perception is this was done mainly to get a win.  The reality of it, is when done this way, if that was the case, it's condoned cheating.  Whats the point of having different divisions?  How do the rostered kids feel when they know the win came because of this?  I don't have a kid on either team, but thought it was cool that Sting west was on a role, Kind of bs their record took a blemish because of this.

Should be fun to watch Feet Black play TXS in D-3 next week.  

I think JK might have more integrity though and play with the team he signed.

And perceptions lead to assumptions and assumptions lead to a grapevine of misleading information - which is fine...  like I said, we were the first to utilize it and now we know the backlash that comes with utilizing it.  Thank you for making your feelings abundantly clear on this subject - and that goes for everyone that seems overly concerned about it.

Note to everyone in LHGCL - CPP is the devil!!!  

In fairness to you all, you are correct I don't know the facts. The problem, at least in this case, is the appearance of what happened clouds whatever the facts were. I do know CPP is a bunch of crap and and the negatives outweigh the positives.

Use of CPP to give a player a chance to play up is one thing.

Using it for a goalie when yours is out is one thing.

Using it to "replace" girls you never had is another.

To claim "We had a short roster and had to do something" is a load of bull, and you know it.  If you have 15 rostered players, and use CPP to add a 16th, it has nothing to do with a "short roster".


When you have CPP players that play more than 20% of the total minutes, well . . .



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 commitments.


Sure - Texas Spirit Red met the "requirements" of the rule, but regarding the intent and spirit, can you say that the intent is met when you CPP a player onto your roster for a player who doesn't exist?

Lefty wrote:

SoccerShocker wrote:

Paulie Walnuts wrote:Sure sounds like a bunch of whinning going on in here over a u11 soccer game.  I think it is funny that a club that is perceived to be a small club used the CPP on one of the biggest clubs and they beat the big club.  Good for Spirit.  However, I never want to hear a 04 Spirit parent whine about the CPP going forward because it is unfair that only the big clubs can take advantage of the rule.  Personally I think the rule is garbage and you should play with the roster you have, but I do not make the rules.

Well, since we were the first to apparently use the CPP rule, I doubt anyone from TXSR will complain or whine about the Big Club affects of CPP.  Interestingly enough, I have no real opinion on whether it's good or bad since this is my first DD to come through the land of Select soccer so I have nothing to compare it to.   However, if it went away tomorrow, not sure anyone would notice or care since our team was the only one to use it so far.

An if Sting should happen to load up their roster with CPP players next time and put an 8-10 goal beat down on your team, how would you and your DD fell about that?

Well, she's 10 (almost 11), I would guess for a few minutes she'd be upset until we stopped for ice cream and then she'd move on... I would guess the parents would let the loss linger for weeks...

soccer chuck wrote:Use of CPP to give a player a chance to play up is one thing.

Using it for a goalie when yours is out is one thing.

Using it to "replace" girls you never had is another.

To claim "We had a short roster and had to do something" is a load of bull, and you know it.  If you have 15 rostered players, and use CPP to add a 16th, it has nothing to do with a "short roster".


When you have CPP players that play more than 20% of the total minutes, well . . .



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 commitments.


Sure - Texas Spirit Red met the "requirements" of the rule, but regarding the intent and spirit, can you say that the intent is met when you CPP a player onto your roster for a player who doesn't exist?

Are you pissed about the "spirit" of the rule or the assumption of it's use or just the plain idea that Sting lost? The reality is, you can beat a dead horse until its soup but it won't change the fact that it's over and like I said, I think we've all learned a little lesson here. Use CPP and get ridiculed for it. Whether we had a good excuse and good intentions, it won't matter. I could give you ALL the specifics and it wouldn't matter cause you've already set in your mind that it was used under the ideals of a conspiracy. The more this dead horse gets dragged around, the more I'm beginning to feel like many others on here - CPP might be a nice thing to utilize in concept but probably should be shelved overall because some people take 11 year old soccer entirely too serious...

SoccerShocker wrote:

soccer chuck wrote:Use of CPP to give a player a chance to play up is one thing.

Using it for a goalie when yours is out is one thing.

Using it to "replace" girls you never had is another.

To claim "We had a short roster and had to do something" is a load of bull, and you know it.  If you have 15 rostered players, and use CPP to add a 16th, it has nothing to do with a "short roster".


When you have CPP players that play more than 20% of the total minutes, well . . .



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 commitments.


Sure - Texas Spirit Red met the "requirements" of the rule, but regarding the intent and spirit, can you say that the intent is met when you CPP a player onto your roster for a player who doesn't exist?

Are you pissed about the "spirit" of the rule or the assumption of it's use or just the plain idea that Sting lost?  The reality is, you can beat a dead horse until its soup but it won't change the fact that it's over and like I said, I think we've all learned a little lesson here.  Use CPP and get ridiculed for it.  Whether we had a good excuse and good intentions, it won't matter.  I could give you ALL the specifics and it wouldn't matter cause you've already set in your mind that it was used under the ideals of a conspiracy.  The more this dead horse gets dragged around, the more I'm beginning to feel like many others on here - CPP might be a nice thing to utilize in concept but probably should be shelved overall because some people take 11 year old soccer entirely too serious...

Particularly the ones who make a living from it.

The only one accountable for the ethics of it's use is the coach, in this case Mr. AC. May be as simple as using every method possible to try and keep his cash flow intact for next year.

Lady Aztecs 2 - SRFC 42. I guess SRFC must have CPP'd the USWNT! Seriously though, the boy's side has it right with only allowing players to play up. I'm pretty confident that LHGCL with see the error of their ways and change their rule to mirror this. Relying on a coach/club to use the rule with integrity and in the "spirit" that it was intended will never happen as long as money drives this bus!

soccernovice04 wrote:Lady Aztecs 2 - SRFC 42. I guess SRFC must have CPP'd the USWNT! Seriously though, the boy's side has it right with only allowing players to play up. I'm pretty confident that LHGCL with see the error of their ways and change their rule to mirror this. Relying on a coach/club to use the rule with integrity and in the "spirit" that it was intended will never happen as long as money drives this bus!

Never been a fan of CPP - seems very inconsistent with how other competitive sports are played at all levels.   Ironically, most rec leagues won't let you share players.  Not to change the subject, but what some might feel is more pressing - Ebola in Dallas - scary stuff.  Now that is something worth fretting over

So...Spirit Red had to cheat to get a win...I guess Aztecs, ETU and Shamrocks will do the same thing?

Oh, snap....they can't. Guess they have to merge with a big club or get relegated to rec. It's a stupid rule created by the big clubs to make sure they can keep as many teams in LH as possible, integrity be darned.

AC has fired the first shot

only goes downhill from here

Good luck to those teams who can't (or won't) CPP.  Your team qualified for LH D3.  Hope your daughters enjoy the D1 competition.  Oh yeah, and having to re-qualify next summer.

I still consider Sting West to be undefeated against D3 competition - good group of girls.

Peak_Performance_Dad wrote:

soccernovice04 wrote:Lady Aztecs 2 - SRFC 42. I guess SRFC must have CPP'd the USWNT! Seriously though, the boy's side has it right with only allowing players to play up. I'm pretty confident that LHGCL with see the error of their ways and change their rule to mirror this. Relying on a coach/club to use the rule with integrity and in the "spirit" that it was intended will never happen as long as money drives this bus!

Never been a fan of CPP - seems very inconsistent with how other competitive sports are played at all levels.   Ironically, most rec leagues won't let you share players.  Not to change the subject, but what some might feel is more pressing - Ebola in Dallas - scary stuff.  Now that is something worth fretting over

Good point...there are more important things to worry about. The problem is the guy that brought Ebola over here was bringing his daughter to cpp this weekend. This just shows how dangerous cpp is. Cpp must be stopped before its too late.

So what you're saying is, CPP is the the Ebola...

Mandalorian wrote:So what you're saying is, CPP is the the Ebola...  

That's correct. At the very least, it's the root cause of it entering our great country. I think cpp can also be tied too all that's bad and must be eradicated. Do you think when Germany invaded Pearl Harbor our people just looked the other way. I think not, we stood up and did what's right.

soccerjack wrote:

Peak_Performance_Dad wrote:

soccernovice04 wrote:Lady Aztecs 2 - SRFC 42. I guess SRFC must have CPP'd the USWNT! Seriously though, the boy's side has it right with only allowing players to play up. I'm pretty confident that LHGCL with see the error of their ways and change their rule to mirror this. Relying on a coach/club to use the rule with integrity and in the "spirit" that it was intended will never happen as long as money drives this bus!

Never been a fan of CPP - seems very inconsistent with how other competitive sports are played at all levels.   Ironically, most rec leagues won't let you share players.  Not to change the subject, but what some might feel is more pressing - Ebola in Dallas - scary stuff.  Now that is something worth fretting over

Good point...there are more important things to worry about.  The problem is the guy that brought Ebola over here was bringing his daughter to cpp this weekend. This just shows how dangerous cpp is. Cpp must be stopped before its too late.

You are right - turns out CPP applies not only to clubs in regions but clubs globally. He had brought his DD over from Liberia to help out some of the clubs struggling to score in D1. The strategy will work well - as soon as parents understand her dad has Ebola, their defender daughters will run away as she drives the ball towards the goal.

Not sure if anyone on here had read Dan Brown's (author of The Davinci Code) book The Inferno, but it presents some pretty scary ideas around how an epidemic can wreck havoc on societies if not contained. Scary stuff that helps put 10 yr girl soccer in proper perspective, with or without CPP.

Well.......it appears our select soccer has now devolved into germ warfare. Luckily our club foresaw this eventuality and issued NBC suits as part of our kit. Gonna make the game a lot harder, running in a gas mask is tough, especially when it starts to fill up with sweat.

That brings up an interesting question. Is a nerve gas mortar round considered a foul? I don't see anything about it in the LOTG.

Sting W.E.S. T. (Whining Efficient Soccer Team).

I don't see the big deal here. A non competitive game was turned into a competitive game. Success for CPP and the girls playing. Wins and losses only matter this much to the parents.

Qualifiers are in place to even out league competition, not to maintain someone's lake highlands status. Re qualifying isn't a big deal if you are at the right level.

deepblack wrote:I don't see the big deal here.  A non competitive game was turned into a competitive game.  Success for CPP and the girls playing.  Wins and losses only matter this much to the parents.

Qualifiers are in place to even out league competition, not to maintain someone's lake highlands status.  Re qualifying isn't a big deal if you are at the right level.

That's right...and borrowing 3 D1 players via CPP to replace 2 D3 players in order to win a game means you are at the right level  

canaryman wrote:

deepblack wrote:I don't see the big deal here.  A non competitive game was turned into a competitive game.  Success for CPP and the girls playing.  Wins and losses only matter this much to the parents.

Qualifiers are in place to even out league competition, not to maintain someone's lake highlands status.  Re qualifying isn't a big deal if you are at the right level.

That's right...and borrowing 3 D1 players via CPP to replace 2 D3 players in order to win a game means you are at the right level  

Wait, what does that have to do with requalifying? Your context is misplaced...

SoccerShocker wrote:

canaryman wrote:

deepblack wrote:I don't see the big deal here.  A non competitive game was turned into a competitive game.  Success for CPP and the girls playing.  Wins and losses only matter this much to the parents.

Qualifiers are in place to even out league competition, not to maintain someone's lake highlands status.  Re qualifying isn't a big deal if you are at the right level.

That's right...and borrowing 3 D1 players via CPP to replace 2 D3 players in order to win a game means you are at the right level  

Wait, what does that have to do with requalifying?  Your context is misplaced...

I'm saying their coach is probably worried that they aren't at the right level and is trying to avoid having to re-qualify...hence using CPP to win and gain points and hopefully avoid having to re-qualify. Obviously you're either the team Manager of Red, or an involved parent, so I don't expect you to agree...but you have to admit Spirit Red took advantage of the CPP rule in order to win...ultimately trying to avoid re-qualifying. If he wasn't worried about re-qualifying cause they are on the "right level"...then why was brining extra players in necessary. Bring in a GK if needed...but no reason for more with 13 other girls. Let those 13 players play...not like you didn't have enough

Everyone needs to figure out how you define "development" of players to ensure you know what you're talking about. Just because a player is D1 or D3 really has no bearing on anything. The question is, is the player being used in a developmental way? Lets pretend Sting West brought three players down from one of the D1 teams, they were all forwards and progressed to play them on defense the entire game - would that not be considered development of players? You certainly wouldn't want to put them in that position on their D1 team to learn a new position would you? Some might but most would not. So at what level do we decide what's truly development and what's just for a win? Last nights game was delightfully competitive I thought. There was no beat downs and both teams had scoring opportunities fly high and wide on goal so it truly could have gone either way. One Spirit player showed up last night that was fighting strep all weekend but showed to play anyway and was on the field most of the match (she wasn't contagious anymore, just FYI). So we can argue and debate and the less educated will call it cheating, which it certainly is not. Development of players, in the grand scheme of things, transcends wins and losses at this age, it's about the competition and the learning experience in the correct forum. Why put your D1 player in a position they can't be successful on their D1 team when you can play them out of position on the D3 team and give them a chance to develop and learn that position or a different scheme or even just learning to play with different players. Had TXSR lost last night this conversation wouldn't be happening it's just the fact that everyone called a blowout in favor of Sting and instead it was nice evenly matched competitive game for both teams. I would implore everyone to use the CPP when available... find out if it truly is a good or bad thing instead of jumping to conclusions just because the team that decided to use it actually won a match everyone expected them to lose.

Interesting Ebola factoid: the Ebola virus can live within the male semen for up to 7 months after treatment.

soccernovice04 wrote:Paulie I don't see anyone "whining". I just see facts being presented. 1) Spirit Red was not short players. 2) They did not use CPP to "develop" the D1 players who weren't getting enough playing time on their respective team or to backfill players that were out. 3) Spirit simply used CPP to help their D3 team win a regular season game.
Personally I don't like CPP being used to play "down" but I think it's great to play players "up" because playing up is for development of the player and playing down is used just to get a win. All I can say is we ALL better get used to CPP being used/abused going forward!

No one whining???  Have you read this string?

Cmon man...........I am not buying they were developing those 3 players.  Why not develop the players they had on the bench for most of the game while those 3 played.  I guess those players did not deserve to be developed......now jumping off my high horse and hoping not to break a leg

Havingfunyet wrote:Cmon man...........I am not buying they were developing those 3 players.  Why not develop the players they had on the bench for most of the game while those 3 played.  I guess those players did not deserve to be developed......now jumping off my high horse and hoping not to break a leg

Two Reds played up (development no?) and one played after being sick (was expected not to play) - if you didn't catch that in my thread... you do the math but I think that equals 3 - any math wizards out there that can check my math here?