Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 08:10 am

I say there isn't, or very little. I think it is used as a tool to cheat. I would say 90% cheat with it and 10% use it morally. Am I wrong or right? Are there teams using D111 players in D1 games?

by fatherofoneplayer 18/02/15, 08:15 am

A new season must have started..........here we go......

by Guest 18/02/15, 08:18 am

It's like dejavu all over again.

by Guest 18/02/15, 08:50 am

There is plenty of moral value in the concept of CPP, and there are plenty out there that are using it for legitimate development opportunities.

However, the implementation of CPP in LHGCL is currently flawed, and leaves the door wide open for those who want to use it solely for competitive advantage... and there is plenty of that going on as well.

by SD69 18/02/15, 08:58 am

FierceLightning wrote:I say there isn't, or very little. I think it is used as a tool to cheat. I would say 90% cheat with it and 10% use it morally. Am I wrong or right? Are there teams using D111 players in D1 games?

I know an '04 team that has used a DIII player on a DI team. She is a player that deserves to be playing DI.

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 09:11 am

I disagree that there is much moral value in the concept of CPP. Here is why. It can be used in an immoral way and still be considered ok to be used that way. To be used morally, depends on the character of the person using it. The ones that use it to cheat use it immorally and they are still able to use it that way with no adverse consequences. Therefore, the concept of CPP as written has little moral value. As an example to highlight the differences between moral value in a concept, let's use "The Golden Rule". The Golden Rule is completely moral in its concept because one can either adhere to the morality of it or they don't and if they don't then they are NOT following the Golden Rule. No skirting its use. Whereas, the use of CPP can be used or implemented in a moral or immoral way and still be considered valid.

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 09:15 am

SD69 wrote:
FierceLightning wrote:I say there isn't, or very little. I think it is used as a tool to cheat. I would say 90% cheat with it and 10% use it morally. Am I wrong or right? Are there teams using D111 players in D1 games?
I know an '04 team that has used a DIII player on a DI team. She is a player that deserves to be playing DI.

Would you say that fits into the 10:90 ratio that I think is reality or would you say that it is used more correctly? Question begging to be asked is if this 04 player was a true D111 skilled player and needed development by playing up in D1 but perhaps not as developed would the coach have done that?

by SD69 18/02/15, 09:44 am

I would say it is used correctly. She is not a DIII level player, but playing up does develop her more as the speed of play between the two leagues is different. In this particular case, it benefits both the DIII player and the DI team. I'm not sure a true DIII (or lower) skilled player will develop any more in a DI environment due to lack of play time, discouragement, etc,.. If she is already playing at her skill level, she is probably still developing. It should be beneficial to both the team and player to work properly.

I also think CPP'ing a DIII level player on a DI team down to a DIII (or lower) team would also be fair. It develops a player who is not getting much play time and can also be beneficial to the DIII team.

I'm personally not a fan of sending the DI level player to DIII teams as this is only beneficial to the DIII team, and not so much for the player.

by Guest 18/02/15, 10:05 am

FierceLightning wrote:I disagree that there is much moral value in the concept of CPP. Here is why. It can be used in an immoral way and still be considered ok to be used that way. To be used morally, depends on the character of the person using it. The ones that use it to cheat use it immorally and they are still able to use it that way with no adverse consequences. Therefore, the concept of CPP as written has little moral value. As an example to highlight the differences between moral value in a concept, let's use "The Golden Rule". The Golden Rule is completely moral in its concept because one can either adhere to the morality of it or they don't and if they don't then they are NOT following the Golden Rule. No skirting its use. Whereas, the use of CPP can be used or implemented in a moral or immoral way and still be considered valid.

I will still argue that what you have an issue with is the implementation of the CPP rule, and not the concept.

In concept, CPP is no different from what professional soccer clubs, or professional baseball clubs have in place. In all 3 cases, you can move players back and forth between teams associated with the same club that play at different competitive levels. In all 3 cases, there are 3 primary reasons to use these rules.

1) Player development - move players back and forth between levels as necessary to maximize the development of the player
2) Injury backfill
3) Competitive advantage - Now, I'm admittedly no familiar with professional soccer rules in this area, but in MLB, there is no rule that I am aware of that would prevent an MLB team from sending it's best player down to AAA to help them win a game or two. However, MLB teams will bring players up from AAA for short stints of time, specifically for competitive advantage, although it may also be related to #1 and #2. (This would be analogous to a D1 team bringing a solid keeper from a D2 team up to backfill for an injured keeper, rather than putting one of their field players in goal.)

I will argue that the reason why you don't see MLB teams doing this, and why people don't get up in arms about cheating in this manner in MLB, has to do with implementation of the rule, not the concept of the rule. There is no promotion/relegation in minor league baseball, all of the clubs have similar resources (i.e. they ALL have several minor league teams), AND the club is actually paying all of the players, so the risk to the club in sending a highly paid star player down to help a AAA team win a game or two is far greater than the potential reward to the club. The IMPLEMENTATION of the rules is what keeps "abuse" to a minimum.

In NTX soccer, there is promotion/relegation, clubs do not all have equal resources to draw from, and the players are paying to play for the club, so the risk/reward equation is drastically different. This does not mean that the CONCEPT of CPP is any different, it means that the IMPLEMENTATION of CPP rules needs to be different because the risk/reward balance alone does not compel clubs to avoid sending players from higher level teams down to lower level teams simply for competitive advantage.

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 10:34 am

Here is my take. I believe the concept and the implementation of that concept are flawed. Take all the hypocrisy out of the CPP and simply state that any club can move any player around for any reason as long as they are in the correct age group. THEN it has put morality back into it. The club can move players to WIN games and its ok the rule is explicit in that use. Now an argument whether a rule like that is right or not would be for another discussion. But when a rule has a concept that is NOT explicit in its use and people generally think it is used to cheat and win games, then the concept is not well conceived. It's the motivation of its use that is the problem. I argue that the motivation is NOT for its intended or conceived use, but for all the other uses that it morally does not support. Therefore, its concept is flawed.

The MLB example is a bit of a stretch. When was the last time a Major League club sent down a Jeter to help their AAA win games. Most, if not all, players relegated down is because they are too deep for the roster and can't the player hold onto the spot, so go down and get better.

I think just because everybody else does this doesn't mean it is right or that NTX should do it. I would be much more accepting of it if they just took all the hypocrisy out of it and make it a free for all. I've had conversations with parents who absolutely believe that their D1 player coming down to play in a D111 game was essential for the D111 team to help them "develop" their game like a D1 team. "show'em how its done" I have yet had a coach tell me that though....lol

by Guest 18/02/15, 11:16 am

FierceLightning wrote:Here is my take. I believe the concept and the implementation of that concept are flawed. Take all the hypocrisy out of the CPP and simply state that any club can move any player around for any reason as long as they are in the correct age group. THEN it has put morality back into it. The club can move players to WIN games and its ok the rule is explicit in that use. Now an argument whether a rule like that is right or not would be for another discussion. But when a rule has a concept that is NOT explicit in its use and people generally think it is used to cheat and win games, then the concept is not well conceived. It's the motivation of its use that is the problem. I argue that the motivation is NOT for its intended or conceived use, but for all the other uses that it morally does not support. Therefore, its concept is flawed.

We're disagreeing over semantics here, but agree to disagree. IMO concept of CPP is totally fine. It's the implementation in NTX needs to be improved. Won't get me to back off of that.

The MLB example is a bit of a stretch. When was the last time a Major League club sent down a Jeter to help their AAA win games. Most, if not all, players relegated down is because they are too deep for the roster and can't the player hold onto the spot, so go down and get better.

Not a stretch at all. There is no rule to prevent an MLB club from sending a Jeter down to a AA/AAA team at any time, just like there is no rule in LHGCL to prevent a D1 team from sending players down to a D3/D2 team. So then why don't MLB clubs ever do something like that except in cases of "rehab" assignments coming off the DL, while it supposedly happens in NTX soccer all of the time for the purpose of trying to win a game? Simple. When you have similar choices, but a different risk/reward equation, different choices will be made. If you changed the risk/reward equation in LHGCL (i.e. eliminated promotion/relegation and forced all teams to requalify for all divisions every year), you'd see different behavior related to CPP.

I think just because everybody else does this doesn't mean it is right or that NTX should do it. I would be much more accepting of it if they just took all the hypocrisy out of it and make it a free for all. I've had conversations with parents who absolutely believe that their D1 player coming down to play in a D111 game was essential for the D111 team to help them "develop" their game like a D1 team. "show'em how its done" I have yet had a coach tell me that though....lol

by Guest 18/02/15, 11:29 am

I think the solution is quite easy. CPP can ONLY be used to bring players UP in a division, d3 to d2, d2 to d1 etc., not down under any circumstances, not sideways but UP. then it is a reward and a tool and not a cynical way to CHEAT.....

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 11:35 am

Implementation is implicit in the rule. It's ok to send players over to win games. You can look at the idealism of CPP and think that the concept is good. But the idealism in the rule is impotent because it does not create proper implementation, I would argue, 90% of the time. Thus, it is a flawed concept. But enough said, you have your position I have mine.

The solution of changing the reason for the cheating would help. This assumes though that CPP was explicitly put in place for that purpose, and if so, then conceived immorally. But then, would we even need a CPP rule? I argue that the reason you stated is its intended use, BUT the hypocrisy of it is intentional and obstructive, so it cannot be a moral concept. This ALL assumes that it was put in for the reason, as you stated, was to gain an advantage in the league. And if that was the reason and NOT your idealistic reason, then it is corrupt not worthy of any organization worth its salt, and so on.....

by Guest 18/02/15, 12:19 pm

Made my point. Not going to get into any more minutiae over semantics.

Uncle.

by FierceLightning 18/02/15, 12:39 pm

There is much more here than semantics for sure, but I'll save that for another day.

by Guest 18/02/15, 02:04 pm

Ugh. Against my better judgement, but here goes...

The CONCEPT of CPP (as I am defining it), is simply that when you join a club, that club can move your child freely between teams within that club as they see fit, with those decisions hopefully guided by what is in the best interest of your child from a development standpoint. This includes opportunities to play in full-sided games of different types and formats to give your child the appropriate level of competition to enhance their development (scrimmages, tournaments, league games, etc.).

IMPLEMENTATION of CPP refers to RULES put in place by specific sanctioning bodies (NTSSA, LHGCL, PPL, etc.) that place boundaries and limitations on how CPP can be used during competitions that are sanctioned by their organization.

Your issue is with the LHGCL RULE that specifies how CPP can be used in games played in their league. Therefore, under my semantic definition of concept vs. implementation, your issue is with the implementation, not the concept. If you disagree with my definition of concept vs. implementation, then we are arguing over semantics, not content.

You make the following statement earlier in this thread...

"Take all the hypocrisy out of the CPP and simply state that any club can move any player around for any reason as long as they are in the correct age group. THEN it has put morality back into it. The club can move players to WIN games and its ok the rule is explicit in that use."

This statement doesn't modify anything about the concept of a club being able to move players back and forth between rosters. It only modifies the way in which the concept is implemented via the rules that govern it's use.

Based on your above statement, do you have any problem with the following rule regarding the use of CPP?

4.10 CLUB PASS PLAYERS

4.10.1

Competitive teams will be permitted to have club pass players for league
and/or tournament games if specifically allowed by the league or tournament
rules. The use of club pass players shall be in accordance with the following:

1. The club pass player must be a competitive player registered with XX
to another team within the same club.
2. The club pass player may not play down from their own age group.
3. A release from the team to which the player is rostered is not required. It
is up to the club to manage any issues within their
teams/parents/coaches relating to club pass players.
4. Club pass players may practice with the team to which they are scheduled
to player pass.
5. The team and club pass player must follow the rules of the competition,
including but not limited to total numbers of club pass players allowed per
game and/or the number of teams with which a player may compete in a
day, week or event.

4.10.2
Any coach/team utilizing a club pass player outside of these rules or the rules
of the competition will be considered to have played and ineligible player and
will be subject to sanctions/discipline under the rules governing use of an
ineligible player.

I argue that the difference between this CPP rule, and the LHGCL CPP rule, is not in the concept of CPP - they both refer and deal with the ability of a club to move players between rosters, but rather the implementation of limits on when/how CPP can be used.

By the way, have you figured out where this CPP rule comes from yet?

by dadof3 18/02/15, 05:20 pm

The flaw I see in the mlb and LH division analogy is this: an mlb team has only 1 top division team, so marshaling resources to help the top team is perfectly fine. The issue I have with implementation here is that you can theoretically promote ALL your teams into the top division if you have more resources...say more teams to draw your talent from and moving talent from one top team to another intra-divisionally depending on the need. If the cardinals could send out their best pitcher to the Yankees to help beat the rangers, then get him back to beat the rangers again, it would be unfair. And that is essentially what CAN happen w CPP...within the "rules"... And it isn't cheating as the rule is written.

by Sooner than later 18/02/15, 06:13 pm

silentparent wrote:I think the solution is quite easy. CPP can ONLY be used to bring players UP in a division, d3 to d2, d2 to d1 etc., not down under any circumstances, not sideways but UP. then it is a reward and a tool and not a cynical way to CHEAT.....

Tell us how you really feel, lol

by kick_tha_ball 18/02/15, 08:31 pm

bwgophers wrote:
FierceLightning wrote:Here is my take. I believe the concept and the implementation of that concept are flawed. Take all the hypocrisy out of the CPP and simply state that any club can move any player around for any reason as long as they are in the correct age group. THEN it has put morality back into it. The club can move players to WIN games and its ok the rule is explicit in that use. Now an argument whether a rule like that is right or not would be for another discussion. But when a rule has a concept that is NOT explicit in its use and people generally think it is used to cheat and win games, then the concept is not well conceived. It's the motivation of its use that is the problem. I argue that the motivation is NOT for its intended or conceived use, but for all the other uses that it morally does not support. Therefore, its concept is flawed.

We're disagreeing over semantics here, but agree to disagree. IMO concept of CPP is totally fine. It's the implementation in NTX needs to be improved. Won't get me to back off of that.

The MLB example is a bit of a stretch. When was the last time a Major League club sent down a Jeter to help their AAA win games. Most, if not all, players relegated down is because they are too deep for the roster and can't the player hold onto the spot, so go down and get better.

Not a stretch at all. There is no rule to prevent an MLB club from sending a Jeter down to a AA/AAA team at any time, just like there is no rule in LHGCL to prevent a D1 team from sending players down to a D3/D2 team. So then why don't MLB clubs ever do something like that except in cases of "rehab" assignments coming off the DL, while it supposedly happens in NTX soccer all of the time for the purpose of trying to win a game? Simple. When you have similar choices, but a different risk/reward equation, different choices will be made. If you changed the risk/reward equation in LHGCL (i.e. eliminated promotion/relegation and forced all teams to requalify for all divisions every year), you'd see different behavior related to CPP.

I think just because everybody else does this doesn't mean it is right or that NTX should do it. I would be much more accepting of it if they just took all the hypocrisy out of it and make it a free for all. I've had conversations with parents who absolutely believe that their D1 player coming down to play in a D111 game was essential for the D111 team to help them "develop" their game like a D1 team. "show'em how its done" I have yet had a coach tell me that though....lol

The difference is Major League teams don't give a crap whether their minor league affiliates win or lose. They don't lose or make money based on that. Those affiliates serve one purpose, development. Then it's off to the show.

by Guest 18/02/15, 08:33 pm

dadof3 wrote:The flaw I see in the mlb and LH division analogy is this: an mlb team has only 1 top division team, so marshaling resources to help the top team is perfectly fine. The issue I have with implementation here is that you can theoretically promote ALL your teams into the top division if you have more resources...say more teams to draw your talent from and moving talent from one top team to another intra-divisionally depending on the need. If the cardinals could send out their best pitcher to the Yankees to help beat the rangers, then get him back to beat the rangers again, it would be unfair. And that is essentially what CAN happen w CPP...within the "rules"... And it isn't cheating as the rule is written.

That's not a flaw in the analogy, that's an integral part of the analogy. The reason why MLB teams aren't shipping their All Stars down to AAA or AA on a regular basis to help those teams win games isn't because it's prohibited by a rule (it's actually perfectly legal). The reason is because there is no tangible benefit or reward for doing so. Now, if MLB suddenly changed it's rules, and said that a franchise could have more than one team in the majors, and the team with the best AAA record would get promoted to the majors for the next season, while the team with the worst AAA record would get bumped down to AA for the next season, but they didn't change their rules which allow players to be sent from the majors to the minors for any reason, you can be damn well sure that you would suddenly see a bunch of MLB starters getting sent down to AAA or AA to help those teams win some critical games, because now, the potential reward of getting another team into the majors and getting additional revenue for the organization, might outweigh the risk of a single player getting injured or missing a major league game.

By the same token, if LHGCL turned around tomorrow and eliminated promotion/relegation and decided that they would run a full QT every year at every age group to populate all of D1-D3, without changing CPP rules as they applied to league games, I guarantee you would see different usage of CPP by the clubs during the season, because there would be no specific benefit to the club for sending a D1 player down to D2 or D3, just to help that lower division team win a league game.

So the analogy stands. At the most basic level, the CPP rule in LHGCL is very similar to the rules that allow MLB teams to move players back and forth between teams within their organizations at different levels, including the major league teams. The reason you don't see MLB teams sending healthy starters to the minors on a regular basis has nothing to do with any restrictions on doing so, it is totally because there is no tangible reward to offset the risk of injury to that player. So what happens, is that players get moved back and forth between teams primarily based on player development needs, injury needs, and when possible, to give the major league team a competitive advantage. If you got rid of promotion/relegation in LHGCL, you would see the clubs modify their behavior along these exact lines.

Please note that:

a) I am not advocating that LHGCL should get rid of promotion/relegation, I am only stating that if they did this, and left their CPP rules in tact, you would see different behavior from the clubs.
b) I am not defending the current implementation of CPP in LHGCL. I have been on this board multiple times stating that the rules covering CPP as currently written for LHGCL don't mesh well with a promotion/relegation based system, allow for "abuse" to occur, and that LHGCL should examine the statistics on CPP's going up vs. CPP's going down and if the number confirm an imbalance of CPP down instances, that they need to look at modifying the rules to modify the behavior of the clubs.
c) I AM in favor of CPP as a concept, when it is used to benefit the development of a player.

by Guest 18/02/15, 08:49 pm

We interrupt this program to bring you a brief message from THE SURGEON GENERAL:

THE SURGEON GENERAL has determined that banging your head against a brick wall, may result in concussion.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

by dadof3 18/02/15, 10:13 pm

bwgophers wrote:
dadof3 wrote:The flaw I see in the mlb and LH division analogy is this: an mlb team has only 1 top division team, so marshaling resources to help the top team is perfectly fine. The issue I have with implementation here is that you can theoretically promote ALL your teams into the top division if you have more resources...say more teams to draw your talent from and moving talent from one top team to another intra-divisionally depending on the need. If the cardinals could send out their best pitcher to the Yankees to help beat the rangers, then get him back to beat the rangers again, it would be unfair. And that is essentially what CAN happen w CPP...within the "rules"... And it isn't cheating as the rule is written.

That's not a flaw in the analogy, that's an integral part of the analogy. The reason why MLB teams aren't shipping their All Stars down to AAA or AA on a regular basis to help those teams win games isn't because it's prohibited by a rule (it's actually perfectly legal). The reason is because there is no tangible benefit or reward for doing so. Now, if MLB suddenly changed it's rules, and said that a franchise could have more than one team in the majors, and the team with the best AAA record would get promoted to the majors for the next season, while the team with the worst AAA record would get bumped down to AA for the next season, but they didn't change their rules which allow players to be sent from the majors to the minors for any reason, you can be damn well sure that you would suddenly see a bunch of MLB starters getting sent down to AAA or AA to help those teams win some critical games, because now, the potential reward of getting another team into the majors and getting additional revenue for the organization, might outweigh the risk of a single player getting injured or missing a major league game.

By the same token, if LHGCL turned around tomorrow and eliminated promotion/relegation and decided that they would run a full QT every year at every age group to populate all of D1-D3, without changing CPP rules as they applied to league games, I guarantee you would see different usage of CPP by the clubs during the season, because there would be no specific benefit to the club for sending a D1 player down to D2 or D3, just to help that lower division team win a league game.

So the analogy stands. At the most basic level, the CPP rule in LHGCL is very similar to the rules that allow MLB teams to move players back and forth between teams within their organizations at different levels, including the major league teams. The reason you don't see MLB teams sending healthy starters to the minors on a regular basis has nothing to do with any restrictions on doing so, it is totally because there is no tangible reward to offset the risk of injury to that player. So what happens, is that players get moved back and forth between teams primarily based on player development needs, injury needs, and when possible, to give the major league team a competitive advantage. If you got rid of promotion/relegation in LHGCL, you would see the clubs modify their behavior along these exact lines.

Please note that:

a) I am not advocating that LHGCL should get rid of promotion/relegation, I am only stating that if they did this, and left their CPP rules in tact, you would see different behavior from the clubs.
b) I am not defending the current implementation of CPP in LHGCL. I have been on this board multiple times stating that the rules covering CPP as currently written for LHGCL don't mesh well with a promotion/relegation based system, allow for "abuse" to occur, and that LHGCL should examine the statistics on CPP's going up vs. CPP's going down and if the number confirm an imbalance of CPP down instances, that they need to look at modifying the rules to modify the behavior of the clubs.
c) I AM in favor of CPP as a concept, when it is used to benefit the development of a player.

I agree with you principally regarding your assessment; I merely disagree with your analogy.

IF there was only ONE team allowed in LH from each of the clubs...like in ECNL (or MLB), then the analogy works.

As it is, LH clubs can have multiple teams in the "major leagues" and can move players between their teams so that they can stack one to win, or stack against an opponent to affect the standings. In MLB (or in ECNL) the entire club can only ultimately build to the top team. Where your analogy fails is that some clubs have multiple teams within a division, and thus they can manipulate the standings by offering players intra-divisionally. That is simply collusion.

Take the 00 division-there are 4 Sting teams in D1...they can use CPP to move players to other teams within the division. This can manipulate the standings, and is thus problematic. The accusation last fall was that the first place Sting team sent players to the last place Sting team when the last place team was playing the second place team (Andro). Why would D1 players need development against other D1 players when they already play each other twice in a season? Or was it a stab at knocking #2 from its perch (helping the #1 team), and/or hopefully helping the last place team ultimately avoid relegation...

The Rangers "RED" can't lend to Rangers "BLUE" within MLB. I agree with you that it doesn't matter that the Rangers send anyone down to win; however, for the analogy to work, you would need multiple Rangers teams that shared players...not vertically, but horizontally.

Hopefully Josey's head doesn't explode...

by Packrabbit 18/02/15, 11:40 pm

dadof3 wrote:
bwgophers wrote:
dadof3 wrote:The flaw I see in the mlb and LH division analogy is this: an mlb team has only 1 top division team, so marshaling resources to help the top team is perfectly fine. The issue I have with implementation here is that you can theoretically promote ALL your teams into the top division if you have more resources...say more teams to draw your talent from and moving talent from one top team to another intra-divisionally depending on the need. If the cardinals could send out their best pitcher to the Yankees to help beat the rangers, then get him back to beat the rangers again, it would be unfair. And that is essentially what CAN happen w CPP...within the "rules"... And it isn't cheating as the rule is written.

That's not a flaw in the analogy, that's an integral part of the analogy. The reason why MLB teams aren't shipping their All Stars down to AAA or AA on a regular basis to help those teams win games isn't because it's prohibited by a rule (it's actually perfectly legal). The reason is because there is no tangible benefit or reward for doing so. Now, if MLB suddenly changed it's rules, and said that a franchise could have more than one team in the majors, and the team with the best AAA record would get promoted to the majors for the next season, while the team with the worst AAA record would get bumped down to AA for the next season, but they didn't change their rules which allow players to be sent from the majors to the minors for any reason, you can be damn well sure that you would suddenly see a bunch of MLB starters getting sent down to AAA or AA to help those teams win some critical games, because now, the potential reward of getting another team into the majors and getting additional revenue for the organization, might outweigh the risk of a single player getting injured or missing a major league game.

By the same token, if LHGCL turned around tomorrow and eliminated promotion/relegation and decided that they would run a full QT every year at every age group to populate all of D1-D3, without changing CPP rules as they applied to league games, I guarantee you would see different usage of CPP by the clubs during the season, because there would be no specific benefit to the club for sending a D1 player down to D2 or D3, just to help that lower division team win a league game.

So the analogy stands. At the most basic level, the CPP rule in LHGCL is very similar to the rules that allow MLB teams to move players back and forth between teams within their organizations at different levels, including the major league teams. The reason you don't see MLB teams sending healthy starters to the minors on a regular basis has nothing to do with any restrictions on doing so, it is totally because there is no tangible reward to offset the risk of injury to that player. So what happens, is that players get moved back and forth between teams primarily based on player development needs, injury needs, and when possible, to give the major league team a competitive advantage. If you got rid of promotion/relegation in LHGCL, you would see the clubs modify their behavior along these exact lines.

Please note that:

a) I am not advocating that LHGCL should get rid of promotion/relegation, I am only stating that if they did this, and left their CPP rules in tact, you would see different behavior from the clubs.
b) I am not defending the current implementation of CPP in LHGCL. I have been on this board multiple times stating that the rules covering CPP as currently written for LHGCL don't mesh well with a promotion/relegation based system, allow for "abuse" to occur, and that LHGCL should examine the statistics on CPP's going up vs. CPP's going down and if the number confirm an imbalance of CPP down instances, that they need to look at modifying the rules to modify the behavior of the clubs.
c) I AM in favor of CPP as a concept, when it is used to benefit the development of a player.

I agree with you principally regarding your assessment; I merely disagree with your analogy.

IF there was only ONE team allowed in LH from each of the clubs...like in ECNL (or MLB), then the analogy works.

As it is, LH clubs can have multiple teams in the "major leagues" and can move players between their teams so that they can stack one to win, or stack against an opponent to affect the standings. In MLB (or in ECNL) the entire club can only ultimately build to the top team. Where your analogy fails is that some clubs have multiple teams within a division, and thus they can manipulate the standings by offering players intra-divisionally. That is simply collusion.

Take the 00 division-there are 4 Sting teams in D1...they can use CPP to move players to other teams within the division. This can manipulate the standings, and is thus problematic. The accusation last fall was that the first place Sting team sent players to the last place Sting team when the last place team was playing the second place team (Andro). Why would D1 players need development against other D1 players when they already play each other twice in a season? Or was it a stab at knocking #2 from its perch (helping the #1 team), and/or hopefully helping the last place team ultimately avoid relegation...

The Rangers "RED" can't lend to Rangers "BLUE" within MLB. I agree with you that it doesn't matter that the Rangers send anyone down to win; however, for the analogy to work, you would need multiple Rangers teams that shared players...not vertically, but horizontally.

Hopefully Josey's head doesn't explode...

D3: Well said and true. Unfortunately, there is a club incentive to send "varsity" players to the "JV" teams ...

BW: I hear what your sayin' and I also initially agreed with the concept of CPP, until it was revealed how widespread the girls' version was manipulated last year. The LHGCL text of the girls' CPP version, and it's subsequent misuse, polluted the CPP concept.

The boys' CPP version you printed above is much more throughly written for player development, and therefore provides a honorable concept I beleive you support.

by Guest 18/02/15, 11:51 pm

Packrabbit wrote:
The boys' CPP version you printed above is much more throughly written for player development, and therefore provides a honorable concept I beleive you support.

That's not the boys version. That's straight from the NTSSA bylaws, just replaced the singular reference to NTSSA with XX to not make it 100% obvious where it came from.

by Guest 19/02/15, 12:24 am

dadof3 wrote:

I agree with you principally regarding your assessment; I merely disagree with your analogy.

The analogy is completely valid as it pertains to the fact that the lack of relegation/promotion in MLB essentially eliminates almost all tangible reward that an MLB team might gain from sending players down to the minors for the primary purpose of trying to manipulate the minor league standings. Therefore, the risk (injury, not having that player available to play for the major league team that day), outweighs the reward.

Moving players between teams within the same league/division to manipulate standings is fundamentally equivalent to moving players from a higher division to a lower division team to manipulate standings. If you allow either to happen, and if there is any significant tangible benefit (promotion to a higher league, relegation to a lower league, financial gain from "winning" a championship) that can occur from manipulating the standings, then you will certainly be encouraging teams/clubs to do so. If MLB was structured to allow a "club" to have multiple teams in the major leagues, and to share players between those teams with minimal restrictions, you would get the exact same kind of behavior you allude to in the '00 D1 example, because the monetary value a team would gain from making the MLB playoffs, would offset quite a bit of risk. So while my analogy my not be perfect, it is valid for the point I was making.

Again, the problem isn't with allowing players to move between teams, the problem is when you have an environment where the tangible benefits of gaining competitive advantage are on par or greater than the risks incurred by sharing players.

by Sponsored content

Join Heath Soccer Academy (Rockwall area)	29/08/24, 10:58 pm	socroc
Join Heath Soccer Academy (Rockwall area)	29/08/24, 11:02 am	socroc
09/10 COMPETITIVE TEAM IN ROCKWALL AREA	17/08/24, 02:26 am	Jumpman
Last call Solar 09/10 Rockwall	22/07/24, 10:48 am	socroc
Last call Solar 09 Rockwall	22/07/24, 10:15 am	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 08:15 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 06:35 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	15/07/24, 05:18 pm	socroc
Solar 09 NPL NTX (Rockwall)	26/06/24, 10:29 am	socroc
2008G Dallas Texans Tryouts (Final 1-2 spots)	26/06/24, 10:20 am	Dallas Texans East
2008G Dallas Texans Tryouts	26/06/24, 09:52 am	Dallas Texans East
Solar 07 Spear DII Classic League	25/06/24, 01:42 pm	socroc
Solar 06B RL and DI Classic	25/06/24, 01:34 pm	socroc
RSC 11' GCL w/Coach Adam	23/06/24, 01:15 pm	acst
Oh Yeah! movin' on UP 09's	23/06/24, 09:58 am	acst
Open Practice	20/06/24, 10:00 am	Coach Jim
BvB '06 Gold D-1 Coach Chris Obara formerly with Ayses	17/06/24, 11:18 am	BiroBiro
Renegades 2016G and 2017G North Blanton	16/06/24, 06:30 pm	tareyncarol
FCP Dynamos 2010B - Looking For Players	16/06/24, 05:02 pm	fcpcoach
Solar 2014B Williams - White - Needing 2 more players	09/06/24, 02:39 pm	Marvelousmar
RSC ELITE CAC	09/06/24, 12:10 pm	acst
RSC 08Clark	02/06/24, 05:43 pm	acst
Sting 2011 Boys ECNL RL NTX	02/06/24, 06:17 am	Jumpman
NTX Celtic 2011B ECNL-RL-NTX Opportunity	01/06/24, 11:04 pm	FSFFL
NTX Celtic 06/07G ECNL-RL-NTX Opportunity	01/06/24, 10:49 pm	FSFFL

Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?

Re: Is there any Moral Value in CPP?