CPP Question

Packrabbit wrote:Instead of crying, complaining and throwing out generalities and accusations, I  tried to document an actual case where CPP was used  anti-competitively, got a ton crap over it, ... and you want to razz me for... exactly what?  Having "non-existent awareness?"  if you aren't apart of the solution, you are a part of the problem... so either get some relevant information or go back to watching cartoons

You took it to another level of testiness.    I'm not complaining or crying about the rule. I'm more wanna be pundit analyst than wanna be revolutionary. The rule does not really affect me or mine, but I have enough good samaritan in me to be concerned at the way it affects others. If there were more like minded souls in club soccer, this rule would not exist in its current form. Also - I am not anonymous and have never tried to be, so I don't say anything on the forum I wouldn't say to anyone in person. Trying to litigate a single team's use of CPP makes no good sense for me, and not sure I would do it even if I were trying to be anonymous.

Net - your case that LH does not primarily represent the interests of big clubs is not made. And thus the idea LH would eliminate this rule, and others, which primarily benefit big club interests, seems absurd. That is my opinion, which is I why didn't lead with "fact is...".

OLJW wrote:Not a fan of CPP, but since it's for player development, we like to do our part. Whenever we come across a team with CPP's, we try our best to insure they get the most advanced development we can possibly render.

I'm listening. LOL THANKS!

haterinho wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Instead of crying, complaining and throwing out generalities and accusations, I  tried to document an actual case where CPP was used  anti-competitively, got a ton crap over it, ... and you want to razz me for... exactly what?  Having "non-existent awareness?"  if you aren't apart of the solution, you are a part of the problem... so either get some relevant information or go back to watching cartoons

You took it to another level of testiness.    I'm not complaining or crying about the rule. I'm more wanna be pundit analyst than wanna be revolutionary. The rule does not really affect me or mine, but I have enough good samaritan in me to be concerned at the way it affects others. If there were more like minded souls in club soccer, this rule would not exist in its current form. Also - I am not anonymous and have never tried to be, so I don't say anything on the forum I wouldn't say to anyone in person. Trying to litigate a single team's use of CPP makes no good sense for me, and not sure I would do it even if I were trying to be anonymous.

Net - your case that LH does not primarily represent the interests of big clubs is not made. And thus the idea LH would eliminate this rule, and others, which primarily benefit big club interests, seems absurd. That is my opinion, which is I why didn't lead with "fact is...".

I think I need a snickers.

My personal feelings are a mix of your and OJW's ... Bring guests, and let them suffer with you. But unlike last weekend, don't send someone else to do your dirty work.

You're right, you can't litigate every team use of CPP, so it can't be fixed. CPP is damaged goods now.

In the end, abusing CPP will do more harm to Sting than good. There are probably more upset people inside Sting than outside by last weeks match.

So who else besides Sting is clearly and regularly violating the supposed spirit of the rule?

That wasn't aimed at you guys or any other team specifically. It was meant to be funny, but it's also true.

I've heard multiple accounts (1st, 2nd, and 3rd hand) of Texans, and Solar doing it in different age groups.

I don't think any of the clubs have a particular policy or culture of "abusing" the rule over other clubs. From what I've seen, it's more about whether an individual coach is willing to use it or not.

There's a fairly prominent coach at Sting, that to my knowledge, has not yet used CPP in an LHGCL league game, despite having several opportunities to do so last Spring and this Fall where it could have even been "justified" due to having multiple key players out with injuries for multiple games.

OLJW wrote:That wasn't aimed at you guys or any other team specifically.  It was meant to be funny, but it's also true.

I know. It was never offensive to me, and that is why it is so funny. It started as a descriptor w us, but got legs because we hadn't shown anything to outsiders at that point. It is the same chip your girls and our girls play with today. I like it. Fuels the fire. Nothing given. No quarter. Just play.

Pack was all for the CPP last season when Sting Ferretti was on the verge of relegation due to the injuries on their roster. Now, Andro doesn't have a pool of players to draw from, suddenly it's about principals.

Scoobysnacks I think you missed the point. As you stated Sting F had injuries while Sting North seemed to have a full and fit team. Sting Central not Sting North stood to benefit from the CPP usage by having Andro tie. This had nothing to do about Andro's injuries. Also, if you read this thread in its entirety you would have noticed Pack's statement regarding his reassessment of the CPP policy. Put simply- he changed his mind.

bwgophers wrote:I've heard multiple accounts (1st, 2nd, and 3rd hand) of Texans, and Solar doing it in different age groups.

I don't think any of the clubs have a particular policy or culture of "abusing" the rule over other clubs.  From what I've seen, it's more about whether an individual coach is willing to use it or not.

There's a fairly prominent coach at Sting, that to my knowledge, has not yet used CPP in an LHGCL league game, despite having several opportunities to do so last Spring and this Fall where it could have even been "justified" due to having multiple key players out with injuries for multiple games.

Not sure if it's the same Sting team/coach as who we played, but this team rolled with who they had when they played us despite a shortened roster, not the least of which was the starting GK being out. Much respect. Yet word is that a few days earlier one of their fellow Sting teams wasn't quite so respectful to them.

scoobysnacks wrote:Pack was all for the CPP last season when Sting Ferretti was on the verge of relegation due to the injuries on their roster. Now, Andro doesn't have a pool of players to draw from, suddenly it's about principals.

Thanks Scoob, urr urr..

This is putting CPP in the realm of the forum poster:

You have a nice job that you love. You like the people you work with day in and day out, through the tough times and the really tough times. You like your boss and they give you direction and praise (hopefully). You and your team have been working on this project for months. You put in long hours. You are so dedicated that you forgo time with your family, your friends away from work and you miss out on special moments all in the name of the project. Your team is ready to make the presentation. You have been given the opportunity to be the presenter. You know this will give you time to show what you have learned and show that you can do more than what you are currently doing. The day of the presentation, your boss tells you to have a seat on the sideline because he has decided to bring in someone from division I headquarters to give your presentation. The presentation goes great and there is a big contract signed. The presenter is rewarded with a promotion and you are relegated to remain where you are. This happens every time there is an opportunity for you to showcase your talent. You maintain your status quo because no one gets to see how you have developed as a worker and presenter.

I know that sounds like something that would make me practice more, work harder and continue to improve. No it is bs. As is CPP when it is used to bring DDs down to stave relegation for a TEAM or to put another team in jeopardy of relegation. This is not for the team but for the CLUB. So why have team names. Just put Sting vs Texas. Then they see who the opponent is and they can adjust their roster accordingly.

has anyone ever thought about the fact that it is the parents on said team that allows the players to be brought in. CPP is a rule but the parents allow it. You do not work for the coach, he works for you. It is the parents who quietly sit back and allow a coach to bring in players to consume a service they have paid for. But hey this is NTX so most of the parents on the CPP teams are probably happy as long as they are winning.

go99 wrote:has anyone ever thought about the fact that it is the parents on said team that allows the players to be brought in.  CPP is a rule but the parents allow it.  You do not work for the coach, he works for you.  It is the parents who quietly sit back and allow a coach to bring in players to consume a service they have paid for.  But hey this is NTX so most of the parents on the CPP teams are probably happy as long as they are winning.

The parents collectively should have the final say so, but that is very rarely the case.  The coach/club has the power to determine if they are going to utilize the CPP.  There are the group of parents on every team that will agree with any and everything the coach wants to do because they want their DD to continue to get lots of play time, remain a starter or get more playtime.  If you complain to the coach you risk getting DD benched or 'out of favor'.  We would all like to think that it doesn't work that way but it generally does.

CPP is in place solely to benefit the big clubs.  The argument that is for player development etc... is ridiculous.  For every time it is used to benefit a team hurting for one reason or another, there is an example of a player or players on the team who paid their dues, come to every practice, work their tail off who are sitting on the bench while some outside player is getting the opportunity to play.

Back in the day when LHGCL was considered truly one of the premier leagues in the country, there was no CPP and teams had to retain 75% of their players to maintain a bye into the league.  I believe these rule changes are in place because of the league trying to placate the big/ECNL clubs.

go99 wrote:has anyone ever thought about the fact that it is the parents on said team that allows the players to be brought in.  CPP is a rule but the parents allow it.  You do not work for the coach, he works for you.  It is the parents who quietly sit back and allow a coach to bring in players to consume a service they have paid for.  But hey this is NTX so most of the parents on the CPP teams are probably happy as long as they are winning.

I don't think that is a fair statement. I don't believe the parents "allowed" or were complicit with taking player time from their own kids.

Go: How exactly would you have handled the situation when guest players showed up on your team that Sunday?

scoobysnacks wrote:Pack was all for the CPP last season when Sting Ferretti was on the verge of relegation due to the injuries on their roster. Now, Andro doesn't have a pool of players to draw from, suddenly it's about principles.

First, let me welcome you to the forum. I am glad you joined on to add some salt to the soup.

That said, I don't remember Pack defending Ferretti last year for CPP, nor did I narrow his current posts to coming from an Andro parent though it is probably what they...and Pulp...and anyone else who feels that CPP used that way is abusive was thinking. I don't know, nor do I care about Pack's affiliation, but I think you could draw a target on people who don't deserve it by pushing that assumption.

The principle issue is the abuse of CPP to me. I think we all tend to agree that the use/abuse of it is AT LEAST controversial. It isn't fair to work hard and earn a spot at the top...take everyone's best shot every game...then wind up playing an All-Star cast while their roster is benched for "guess" players.

I guess what I am saying is that regardless of my affiliation, I would be rather frustrated if the team we were playing benched players for CPP help. I don't say too much that is controversial, but it does burn me to see what I feel is an injustice...on any team. I took his post to be unveiling that injustice.

go99 wrote:has anyone ever thought about the fact that it is the parents on said team that allows the players to be brought in.  CPP is a rule but the parents allow it.  You do not work for the coach, he works for you.  It is the parents who quietly sit back and allow a coach to bring in players to consume a service they have paid for.  But hey this is NTX so most of the parents on the CPP teams are probably happy as long as they are winning.

You have a point go99. I am in contact with our coach quite often, and when we discussed the use of CPP on our team last year, we felt it was right and fair, and I gave my blessing because I thought it was the right thing to do for 16 girls.

If he was going to use CPP to falsely inflate our team, I would certainly disagree.

If my healthy dd was being benched for a CPP player, we would be looking.

I would contend that any time (with possible exception of GK) a CPP player is used a healthy roster player is not getting to play as much as they otherwise would/should. I would think that it is a rare scenario that for a given league match that a team would not have enough to field 11 uninjured players. When the player development rationale is used it's usually in connection with the CPP. What about the development of the lesser used roster player(s) from whom minutes are otherwise being taken by the CPP? It's more about getting the W as I believe most who are opposed to it's abuse would agree.

I am with dadof3 I would have had a serious conversation with the coach and Doc and would be looking. And I am not in the my dd must play boat but I do at least think the players taking time should be ON the team.

KnKsDad wrote:

scoobysnacks wrote:Pack was all for the CPP last season when Sting Ferretti was on the verge of relegation due to the injuries on their roster. Now, Andro doesn't have a pool of players to draw from, suddenly it's about principals.

Thanks Scoob, urr urr..

Glad to hear Nancy Drew and Colombo are on the case... I hope you two don't cause some non-rabbit grief.

I don't recall ever being in favor of healthy players, from any team, being sat for guest players, nor was I aware Andro had been short of players this season.

Until recently, I had assumed the rule was similar to the boys...

CLUB PLAYER PASS RULE (for LH Boys)

Purpose:  The Club Player Pass Rule is designed to maximize the development of the player by allowing players to play on a team from the same Club at an older age level on a temporary basis.

Requirement:  The Club Player Pass Rule to be used for the Boys Classic League must follow the current rules, guidelines (for example: roster sizes), and the following criteria:


Club Player Pass may only play in a higher division within their age group. For example: A D2 player may play for a D1 team.  D3 Players may play for either D2 or D1 teams.
Players may not transfer to higher ranking teams within their own division.

Club Player Pass may play at an older level, but, only at the same or higher level. For example:
     
U12 D1 player can play U13 (or older) D 1 and cannot play in U13 D2 or D3.
U12 D2 player can play U13 D2 or U13 D1 and may not play U13 D3.
U12 D3 player may play in any division of an older age bracket.

Club Player Pass must only play one game per day (this includes his primary team). For example:

U12 D3 player on a Saturday, plays with U13 D3 team, and on Sunday can play on his original U12 D3 team.  Players can only play one game per day!

A team may receive a maximum of 3 club player passes per game.

Club Player Pass is not allowed to participate in the league qualifying games or league qualifying tournaments.  This includes Challenge games, U11 Qualifying Tournament, etc.

After a Classic league team has completed 75% of their planned full year’s league games (the combined total of planned games for the Fall & Spring season), no Club Player Passes will be allowed.

A player, is eligible for a club pass into any age group he is birthdate/year eligible for regardless of what age group that player’s rostered team participates in, providing other restrictions are met. For example: A player who is classified as a U15 and is rostered to a U16 D2 team, may use a club pass to a U15 D1 team. In this situation he would satisfy age requirements as well as avoid breaking “playing down” restrictions currently in place.
         8.    Any rules not covered here, refer to North Texas State Soccer  Association Bylaws and  Rules.


Clubs with Divisions:

For the purposes of this rule, a Club having a similar name with other clubs will be considered to be the same club if the club shares a common Board of Directors and is within the same metropolitan area.   All club pass players must be officially registered with North Texas Soccer Association.  
For example:      

Clubs with an affiliation in Austin, TX, cannot use players in NTX unless the Club has the same Board of Directors.



Penalty:

Coach/Club in violation of this rule will be subject to review by the Boys Classic League A & D Committee.

If the girls had adopted the same exact rules, instead of the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this board it would have probably been reduced to 10 or twenty. It's amazing how much more since the boys makes.

rockindaddy wrote:If the girls had adopted the same exact rules, instead of the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this board it would have probably been reduced to 10 or twenty. It's amazing how much more since the boys makes.

It makes no SENSE that LH girls league didn't take the number of post on txsoccer.net into consideration before adopting this rule. Those guys are just clueless about soccer.

futbollove wrote:

rockindaddy wrote:If the girls had adopted the same exact rules, instead of the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this board it would have probably been reduced to 10 or twenty. It's amazing how much more since the boys makes.

It makes no SENSE that LH girls league didn't take the number of post on txsoccer.net into consideration before adopting this rule. Those guys are just clueless about soccer.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion by reading my post. I was only stating that the boys rule make more SENSE. If you can't see that then so be it.

rockindaddy wrote:

futbollove wrote:

rockindaddy wrote:If the girls had adopted the same exact rules, instead of the hundreds if not thousands of posts on this board it would have probably been reduced to 10 or twenty. It's amazing how much more since the boys makes.

It makes no SENSE that LH girls league didn't take the number of post on txsoccer.net into consideration before adopting this rule. Those guys are just clueless about soccer.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion by reading my post. I was only stating that the boys rule make more SENSE. If you can't see that then so be it.

Read the first 8 words ( sounds like you may need to do it slowly)