Term Team is Dead!

Zizou actually had something that wasn't jaded.

KeeperCommander wrote:

Zizou wrote:NTX needs a coaching pay scale that promotes those coaches that one come with the credentials, two are willing to further educate to obtain, and finally put in the time or have the skins to prove it. We have too many Tom, Dicks , and Tracy picking up pay checks at the expense of parents victims of their own ignorance and a corrupt system with zero checks and balances.

You may have a point.  Exception being that there are "some" good coaches that do not have or have not obtained the proper licensing.  I know some very inept A License coaches that would not go near my DD.  Some that seem to get the very best out of the kids but doesnt teach them quite what I would want them to learn.  Just opinion on what someone considers best or worst.

Their will always be exceptions, but to have no standard for coaches growth is creating a unprofessional profession.

Not saying there shouldnt be a standard, but most standards are created by those that it helps the most.

Zizou wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:

Zizou wrote:NTX needs a coaching pay scale that promotes those coaches that one come with the credentials, two are willing to further educate to obtain, and finally put in the time or have the skins to prove it. We have too many Tom, Dicks , and Tracy picking up pay checks at the expense of parents victims of their own ignorance and a corrupt system with zero checks and balances.

You may have a point.  Exception being that there are "some" good coaches that do not have or have not obtained the proper licensing.  I know some very inept A License coaches that would not go near my DD.  Some that seem to get the very best out of the kids but doesnt teach them quite what I would want them to learn.  Just opinion on what someone considers best or worst.

Their will always be exceptions, but to have no standard for coaches growth is creating a unprofessional profession.

Works for BigErn.

Regards

Foxy

No set rosters and lack of coaching seems to be the standard. Colleges are going international now for players it's a bad trend for sure.

Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Slush fund

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Yeah...why the heck is that?

What do you think is paying for DA...duh.

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Same reason a 16oz beer is $8 ...

Because we continue to buy it.

Yes along with the $37 screws and $640 toilet seats our government buys.

Anyone ever wonder why all the good coaches are short and bald?

BigErn wrote:

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Same reason a 16oz beer is $8 ...

Because we continue to buy it.

That is the truth.

Same reason some of these soccer programs charge 8-year-olds $13-16 per hour for a shot at soccer.  That's about the hourly rate I'm paying for Select (and way more than the hourly rate for Academy).  And we get games.

Sucker born every minute.

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Well some of the best coaches are the worst negotiators and vice versa.

SickofStupidity wrote:

BigErn wrote:

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Same reason a 16oz beer is $8 ...

Because we continue to buy it.

That is the truth.

Same reason some of these soccer programs charge 8-year-olds $13-16 per hour for a shot at soccer.  That's about the hourly rate I'm paying for Select (and way more than the hourly rate for Academy).  And we get games.

Sucker born every minute.

Clever!

BigErn wrote:

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Same reason a 16oz beer is $8 ...

Because we continue to buy it.

Yeah, but the beer is better than the coaching.

Schlitz beer bad coaching and teams that don't exist. It's one bad hangover.

Zizou wrote:Players are bound to yearly contracts. Clubs and coaches have zero responsibilities for your child. The least that should be expected is to relegate pay according to the level of the coach and team. Why is it that layers playing is lower divisions are charged as much or more than those in a higher division?

Interesting isn't it!

In a Pay the Players model like the rest of the world, the amount the players get paid generally increases with the level of competition.

In the US Pay to Play model it is often reversed with the lowest level paying the same or in some cases more than the higher levels of competition.  i.e DA free, ECNL scholarships.

Heck of a business model if you can pull it off.

What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Medicine Man wrote:What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Since "the sleeping giant has (already) been awakened", we've become numb to "this", and I had some time to kill ... I thought I'd discuss the good ole CPP a bit.  Wondering if it's really prevalent enough a problem to make the same post a hundred or so times about it?  Let's drill down a bit and check er out --

From what I've read from you, the CPP is used by greedy coaches that feel they need to win the game, to keep the byes, to keep their gigs, to pay their electric bills.  Sooo ... Given this logic, this problem applies to games against difficult opponents in LH D1 in the U11-U12 groups (games north of there shouldn't mean enough to utilize it).  If a third of the coaches (likely more than reality) in those groups use CPP in a third of their games (the tough ones), the CPP would negatively affect (in some folk's eyes) ~20 girls in 6 or so matches this year, also known as .0002% of the girls currently playing soccer in NTX.  Too low?  I didn't include this or that?  Alrighty -- Let's multiply my estimate of the number affected x10, so 200 girls affected.  Now we're at .002%.  Or, in layman terms, utilization of CPP certainly is not prevalent enough a problem to make the same post 100+ times about it while using 5 usernames ... Some of which even argue and question each other along the way (which is awesome but not the good kind of awesome).  

How bout for your next screen name and avatar, you go with 'Donny' along with a pic of Steve Buscemi?  And while you're at it, let's go ahead and discuss your "easy fix" ... It's not rocket science ya know --

C'mon BigE CP is just part of the equation your missing the biggest one the players that are dual rostered in the pyramid scheme.

BigErn wrote:

Medicine Man wrote:What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Since "the sleeping giant has (already) been awakened", we've become numb to "this", and I had some time to kill ... I thought I'd discuss the good ole CPP a bit.  Wondering if it's really prevalent enough a problem to make the same post a hundred or so times about it?  Let's drill down a bit and check er out --

From what I've read from you, the CPP is used by greedy coaches that feel they need to win the game, to keep the byes, to keep their gigs, to pay their electric bills.  Sooo ... Given this logic, this problem applies to games against difficult opponents in LH D1 in the U11-U12 groups (games north of there shouldn't mean enough to utilize it).  If a third of the coaches (likely more than reality) in those groups use CPP in a third of their games (the tough ones), the CPP would negatively affect (in some folk's eyes) ~20 girls in 6 or so matches this year, also known as .0002% of the girls currently playing soccer in NTX.  Too low?  I didn't include this or that?  Alrighty -- Let's multiply my estimate of the number affected x10, so 200 girls affected.  Now we're at .002%.  Or, in layman terms, utilization of CPP certainly is not prevalent enough a problem to make the same post 100+ times about it while using 5 usernames ... Some of which even argue and question each other along the way (which is awesome but not the good kind of awesome).  

How bout for your next screen name and avatar, you go with 'Donny' along with a pic of Steve Buscemi?  And while you're at it, let's go ahead and discuss your "easy fix" ... It's not rocket science ya know --

While I agree that the impacted group of players is a relatively small minority, I don't quite understand the logic that the problem exists against "difficult" opponents "in the U11-U12 groups".

I know a U15 D1 team using CPP with regularity, especially against the bottom teams - a full roster plus 2-3 starting ECNL players (that play the majority of the game).  As long as they can stay ahead of the bottom 2, they retain their D1 slot.  I saw a U15 D2 team utilizing an ECNL starting goalie this past weekend.

SoccerDad75033 wrote:

BigErn wrote:

Medicine Man wrote:What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Since "the sleeping giant has (already) been awakened", we've become numb to "this", and I had some time to kill ... I thought I'd discuss the good ole CPP a bit.  Wondering if it's really prevalent enough a problem to make the same post a hundred or so times about it?  Let's drill down a bit and check er out --

From what I've read from you, the CPP is used by greedy coaches that feel they need to win the game, to keep the byes, to keep their gigs, to pay their electric bills.  Sooo ... Given this logic, this problem applies to games against difficult opponents in LH D1 in the U11-U12 groups (games north of there shouldn't mean enough to utilize it).  If a third of the coaches (likely more than reality) in those groups use CPP in a third of their games (the tough ones), the CPP would negatively affect (in some folk's eyes) ~20 girls in 6 or so matches this year, also known as .0002% of the girls currently playing soccer in NTX.  Too low?  I didn't include this or that?  Alrighty -- Let's multiply my estimate of the number affected x10, so 200 girls affected.  Now we're at .002%.  Or, in layman terms, utilization of CPP certainly is not prevalent enough a problem to make the same post 100+ times about it while using 5 usernames ... Some of which even argue and question each other along the way (which is awesome but not the good kind of awesome).  

How bout for your next screen name and avatar, you go with 'Donny' along with a pic of Steve Buscemi?  And while you're at it, let's go ahead and discuss your "easy fix" ... It's not rocket science ya know --

While I agree that the impacted group of players is a relatively small minority, I don't quite understand the logic that the problem exists against "difficult" opponents "in the U11-U12 groups".

I know a U15 D1 team using CPP with regularity, especially against the bottom teams - a full roster plus 2-3 starting ECNL players (that play the majority of the game).  As long as they can stay ahead of the bottom 2, they retain their D1 slot.  I saw a U15 D2 team utilizing an ECNL starting goalie this past weekend.

Mornin' SoccerDad,

Sounds like you meant to say --

I don't quite understand the logic ... as to why a U15 D1 team is using CPP with regularity, especially against the bottom teams - a full roster plus 2-3 starting ECNL players (that play the majority of the game).  As long as they can stay ahead of the bottom 2, they retain their D1 slot.  I saw a U15 D2 team utilizing an ECNL starting goalie this past weekend.

Based on your message, it seems you agree with my logic + contention that this is nonsensical and shouldn't be done.

BTW ... we're neighbors -- should get together for a beer!

BigErn wrote:

Medicine Man wrote:What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Since "the sleeping giant has (already) been awakened", we've become numb to "this", and I had some time to kill ... I thought I'd discuss the good ole CPP a bit.  Wondering if it's really prevalent enough a problem to make the same post a hundred or so times about it?  Let's drill down a bit and check er out --

From what I've read from you, the CPP is used by greedy coaches that feel they need to win the game, to keep the byes, to keep their gigs, to pay their electric bills.  Sooo ... Given this logic, this problem applies to games against difficult opponents in LH D1 in the U11-U12 groups (games north of there shouldn't mean enough to utilize it).  If a third of the coaches (likely more than reality) in those groups use CPP in a third of their games (the tough ones), the CPP would negatively affect (in some folk's eyes) ~20 girls in 6 or so matches this year, also known as .0002% of the girls currently playing soccer in NTX.  Too low?  I didn't include this or that?  Alrighty -- Let's multiply my estimate of the number affected x10, so 200 girls affected.  Now we're at .002%.  Or, in layman terms, utilization of CPP certainly is not prevalent enough a problem to make the same post 100+ times about it while using 5 usernames ... Some of which even argue and question each other along the way (which is awesome but not the good kind of awesome).  

How bout for your next screen name and avatar, you go with 'Donny' along with a pic of Steve Buscemi?  And while you're at it, let's go ahead and discuss your "easy fix" ... It's not rocket science ya know --

I really must encourage you to stay away from all math.

Using your brilliance, if 20 girls are impacted, and the rate is .0002% (or 200 girls is .002%) - that would mean 10,000,000 - yep 10 MILLION girls playing soccer in NTX?  

I know how much you hate this but

So, stick to your day job and try to avoid math.


That aside - I still don't get the math.  If 1/3 of the D1 teams are using CPP - once or every game - the girls on that team are impacted.  So you are saying that would be roughly 3 teams in U11 or U12 using CPP all season?  Maybe you just aren't seeing the impact in your ivory tower - it's more widespread in more age groups that your supposition.  But I will go with that - so impacted players on the 3 teams would be roughly 50 players on those teams (per age group).

Now, I am also supposing you don't count the 3 opponents as "affected"?  Or the players on the team that is relegated due to a team using CPP retaining an "unearned" D1 spot?  

No one has claimed CPP is a problem for rec soccer, or U-6 players, or even kids in DA.  It is generally limited to D1 teams from large clubs who are desperate to maintain their D1 slots (for which you likely disagree given your prior posts that the Bigs don't care about LH - and for which I ask - what other reason is there to CPP 3 ECNL starters and play them the majority of the game while 8-9 subs sit on the bench?).  

The problem could be easily fixed.  LH has recognized the use of CPP as a tool to avoid relegation (hence the limit on late-season CPP down).  The coaches have worked around it by salvaging their D1 spot prior to the final couple of games.

But ending CPP (or CPP down) would be against the large clubs' interest - clubs that hold the voting power in LH.  Voting to restrict CPP is voting against their own ultimate interests.

BigErn wrote:

SoccerDad75033 wrote:

BigErn wrote:

Medicine Man wrote:What do the kids learn w this format Zizou. Where's the value of working hard and actually earning something that they can go home and feel good about. Where do the parents hold the clubs accountable. Have we become so numb that this is normal?

Since "the sleeping giant has (already) been awakened", we've become numb to "this", and I had some time to kill ... I thought I'd discuss the good ole CPP a bit.  Wondering if it's really prevalent enough a problem to make the same post a hundred or so times about it?  Let's drill down a bit and check er out --

From what I've read from you, the CPP is used by greedy coaches that feel they need to win the game, to keep the byes, to keep their gigs, to pay their electric bills.  Sooo ... Given this logic, this problem applies to games against difficult opponents in LH D1 in the U11-U12 groups (games north of there shouldn't mean enough to utilize it).  If a third of the coaches (likely more than reality) in those groups use CPP in a third of their games (the tough ones), the CPP would negatively affect (in some folk's eyes) ~20 girls in 6 or so matches this year, also known as .0002% of the girls currently playing soccer in NTX.  Too low?  I didn't include this or that?  Alrighty -- Let's multiply my estimate of the number affected x10, so 200 girls affected.  Now we're at .002%.  Or, in layman terms, utilization of CPP certainly is not prevalent enough a problem to make the same post 100+ times about it while using 5 usernames ... Some of which even argue and question each other along the way (which is awesome but not the good kind of awesome).  

How bout for your next screen name and avatar, you go with 'Donny' along with a pic of Steve Buscemi?  And while you're at it, let's go ahead and discuss your "easy fix" ... It's not rocket science ya know --

While I agree that the impacted group of players is a relatively small minority, I don't quite understand the logic that the problem exists against "difficult" opponents "in the U11-U12 groups".

I know a U15 D1 team using CPP with regularity, especially against the bottom teams - a full roster plus 2-3 starting ECNL players (that play the majority of the game).  As long as they can stay ahead of the bottom 2, they retain their D1 slot.  I saw a U15 D2 team utilizing an ECNL starting goalie this past weekend.

Mornin' SoccerDad,

Sounds like you meant to say --

I don't quite understand the logic ... as to why a U15 D1 team is using CPP with regularity, especially against the bottom teams - a full roster plus 2-3 starting ECNL players (that play the majority of the game).  As long as they can stay ahead of the bottom 2, they retain their D1 slot.  I saw a U15 D2 team utilizing an ECNL starting goalie this past weekend.

Based on your message, it seems you agree with my logic + contention that this is nonsensical and shouldn't be done.

BTW ... we're neighbors -- should get together for a beer!

My point was - I don't think CPP impacts games against better opponents as much as is does against lesser opponents. I have usually seen bottom teams using CPP against other bottom teams to make sure they secure the win and stay above relegation.

Once again SoS, you're as right as rain.  

This first thought in my head this morning when I woke up -- oh hell ... I forgot to move the decimal over!  But then I thought ... This'll make SoS's day -- he'll get to throw up a LOL (cringe) and figure he's proven me wrong ... so all was well and I drifted off for another 5 minutes of snooze sleep.

So my gorilla math goes from .0002% to .02%, or 20ish of 170k.  20ish coming from 1/3 of 30 teams in U11, U2 LH D1 with an average of 2 CPP girls for those matches.  Sure ... it's viewed as a major issue to the relatively teeny handful of parents whose kids are the ones affected, but how does this refute my point that this isn't a prevalent enough problem for BigBoy to have to make the same post 100+ times about it?  You can make the average number of kids affected from 2 to 4 per game plus only include the competitive female player numbers in NTX (APL, PPL, LHGCL, JDL, TCL, ENCL, USSDA) ... still minuscule.  

Regarding your "the Bigs don't care about LH" troll ... out of context, but fair enough.  They certainly care about their teams playing in LH as they are a major source of $.  However (and straight from the horse's gob), the DOCs at the bigs couldn't care less which division their 4th strongest team in the age group plays in, as long as they're paying and playing.  I'd bet my bile duct that the CPP'd ECNL "starters" you (and most others that are emotionally tied to this topic so frequently) mention, are kids at the bottom of those rosters not getting enough play time, or are on a rehab assignment.  

And once again right that the problem could easily be fixed --
If you and your LH D1 kid are distraught about having game time taken by a CPP/Dual Rostered/Guest Player, get out a grab a spot on a D2 side ... easy peasy.

You should join SoccerDad75033 and I for that beer sometime ... tons o fun talking soccer, and I'd love to learn more about the voting power in LH.  PM me if interested!