Term Team is Dead!

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!

BigErn wrote: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!

You better set an appointment to have that thing removed.

It amazes me (ok, not really) that you PULL THESE COMMENTS FROM AN AREA OF UNKNOWING AND COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR ASS.  (again where you come off as being a pompous elitist - you really should start working on that)

I have seen ECNL STARTERS (plural - and the word is simple and unambiguous) - NOT on rehab or on the bottom of the lineup with limited play time (those would be non-starters by definition) - being CPP'd to a D1 team and playing 95% of the game.  While 8 subs sat on the bench.  And it wasn't the only game where they did it.
 
With 1 sole purpose - to assist the D1 team (that was, at the time, in last place) in attempting to secure a win (or tie) that they might not otherwise have achieved. (and while the above scenario is particular to this season, I have seen the same in prior years where perfectly healthy, fully-participating players from higher teams are moved down in search of a win)


I know this might be a difficult concept for you, but moving to a different team doesn't fix the problem - it only transfers it to someone else.  So why are you so opposed to eliminating the CPPing of 3 ECNL players to D1 teams?  or limiting it to a single player?  

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.

I know us simpletons in LH probably can't understand the elitist reasonings of a DA parent such as yourself, but give it a try.  If coaches are clearly utilizing CPP beyond LHGCL's stated intent, and are using it to move players down in order to win games, why shouldn't the rule be changed?  It would be an easy fox for LH:

- remove all CPP down
- limit to 1 CPP down
- if the true intent of movement down is to be used to assist teams short-sided, then either (1) provide a certain maximum number of active players, after which CPP down is not allowed, or (2) require a player be deactivated for each CPP down
- injury rehab - require the manager/coach check a box on the CPP request that the move is for injury rehab
(funny, I didn't see your excuse of "ECNL player doesn't get much play time" as one of the intents of the rule)

Why are you so opposed to a rule change, over the tired attitude of "leave if you don't like it"?

BigErn wrote: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!

You boys get so uptight over this silly game.  Why don't you make up and come join foxy for a drink, it might kill the bug up your a$$es.  Ill be at the bar in the quality inn extended stay off George bush around 2:30.  I'm wearing red fcd biker shorts and dark sunglasses, probably the same thing Bigern is.  Bring that little weasel medicine man too, Foxy will teach him how to drink like a man.

Regards

Foxy

SickofStupidity wrote:

BigErn wrote: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!

You better set an appointment to have that thing removed.

It amazes me (ok, not really) that you PULL THESE COMMENTS FROM AN AREA OF UNKNOWING AND COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR ASS.  (again where you come off as being a pompous elitist - you really should start working on that)

I have seen ECNL STARTERS (plural - and the word is simple and unambiguous) - NOT on rehab or on the bottom of the lineup with limited play time (those would be non-starters by definition) - being CPP'd to a D1 team and playing 95% of the game.  While 8 subs sat on the bench.  And it wasn't the only game where they did it.
 
With 1 sole purpose - to assist the D1 team (that was, at the time, in last place) in attempting to secure a win (or tie) that they might not otherwise have achieved. (and while the above scenario is particular to this season, I have seen the same in prior years where perfectly healthy, fully-participating players from higher teams are moved down in search of a win)


I know this might be a difficult concept for you, but moving to a different team doesn't fix the problem - it only transfers it to someone else.  So why are you so opposed to eliminating the CPPing of 3 ECNL players to D1 teams?  or limiting it to a single player?  

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.

I know us simpletons in LH probably can't understand the elitist reasonings of a DA parent such as yourself, but give it a try.  If coaches are clearly utilizing CPP beyond LHGCL's stated intent, and are using it to move players down in order to win games, why shouldn't the rule be changed?  It would be an easy fox for LH:

- remove all CPP down
- limit to 1 CPP down
- if the true intent of movement down is to be used to assist teams short-sided, then either (1) provide a certain maximum number of active players, after which CPP down is not allowed, or (2) require a player be deactivated for each CPP down
- injury rehab - require the manager/coach check a box on the CPP request that the move is for injury rehab
(funny, I didn't see your excuse of "ECNL player doesn't get much play time" as one of the intents of the rule)

Why are you so opposed to a rule change, over the tired attitude of "leave if you don't like it"?

Not opposed at all to removing CPP altogether ... in fact, I'm in favor getting rid of it -- never have been a fan and never have defended it.  

Just wondering ... 1) Why you're so adamant to back Jugglemaster in opposing my claim that he's making too much off the CPP issue by posting the same thing hundreds of times over, just because.  2) How you know that those 8 ECNL players are starters, and even if they were, again, how does that refute my argument regarding BigBoy?  And 3) Why you consistently forget that I am the parent of two other kids not playing in DA (one of which that plays at the LH level)?

Sounds like you're a lil' sensitive to my "easy fix" suggestion -- rest assured that it has nothing to do with the current US political landscape ... Just simple, basic truth for those suffering from the CPP/Dual Roster/Guest Player affliction.

BTW -- I was serious about that beer.  Actually heading out this evening after training if you wanna join : )

Was that an earthquake?  I looked out my window expecting to see Armageddon.

We agree on CPP.

And on juggle/mm/shonuff/bb

I know enough (players themselves, teammates, teams, etc.) to know with certainty on 2, as well as players last year - not that it matters how I know - just laying out the facts and not betting my bile ducts on assumptions.

Thanks for the beer offer, but then I would feel guilty hammering you on the boards.  I prefer to keep this relationship guilt-free.

SickofStupidity wrote:Was that an earthquake?  I looked out my window expecting to see Armageddon.

We agree on CPP.

And on juggle/mm/shonuff/bb

I know enough (players themselves, teammates, teams, etc.) to know with certainty on 2, as well as players last year - not that it matters how I know - just laying out the facts and not betting my bile ducts on assumptions.

Thanks for the beer offer, but then I would feel guilty hammering you on the boards.  I prefer to keep this relationship guilt-free.

Sissy!

CPP is Rampant.

bock bock

MyShinsHurt wrote:Would like to point out that the CPP fun happens in D2 and D3
also. Case in point A sting team in D3 that was 2-4 brought in some CPP players to play the first place team Athletic team.
That sting team dropped them 4-2.

What???!??

Sir, you must surely be mistaken!

BigE says this only happens on U11 and U12 D1 teams - and he would know!  And only with kids at the bottom of the roster or on injury rehab.  

And how do you know they were CPP from higher teams?  Maybe they came from Plano!  Or rec leagues!!  A 2-4 D3 team might be worse than a number of PPL teams.  Maybe the Athletic team was missing players?

So may unknowns here so probably not even reliable.


And once again right that the problem could easily be fixed --
If you and your LH D3 kid are distraught about having game time taken by a CPP/Dual Rostered/Guest Player, get out a grab a spot on a PPL side, or Rec - or better still, move to volleyball ... easy peasy.

Having seen BOTH of these teams several times over the last year and a half i can attest that an 80% strength Athletic team would STILL run roughshod over that Sting team. I do not understand why ANY coach (e.g. - Cuevas) would want to get such a shallow and undeserved win. His girls are good enough on their own merits. :-/

Blob wrote:Having seen BOTH of these teams several times over the last year and a half i can attest that an 80% strength Athletic team would STILL run roughshod over that Sting team. I do not understand why ANY coach (e.g. - Cuevas) would want to get such a shallow and undeserved win.  His girls are good enough on their own merits.  :-/

Losses = relegation = angry parents = team breakup = loss of paycheck to coach (and club $)

Win = remain in DIII = selling point to new players (who have no idea you can't win with your actual team) = $ for coach (and club)

SickofStupidity wrote:

Blob wrote:Having seen BOTH of these teams several times over the last year and a half i can attest that an 80% strength Athletic team would STILL run roughshod over that Sting team. I do not understand why ANY coach (e.g. - Cuevas) would want to get such a shallow and undeserved win.  His girls are good enough on their own merits.  :-/

Losses = relegation = angry parents = team breakup = loss of paycheck to coach (and club $)

Win = remain in DIII = selling point to new players (who have no idea you can't win with your actual team) = $ for coach (and club)

or because 16 players is not enough to play with - need the 3 CPP to take you to 19

OK,
I am sure i will blasted for saying this from some of you guys.
I do see the need for CPP. Alot of these young Athletes play multiple sports in school and such Volleyball, basketball and Track. Schools often have tournaments on the weekends. Some school coaches will tell the athlete that they can not miss any games or they are sat the next game or moved down to B or C team.
I know during the tournament times for the schools volleyball season there could be 2 weekends of tournaments causing a club soccer team to be missing players on the weekend. A club soccer team should be able to get some players to fill out their roster to be able to play.

Does CPP get abused? Sure thats human nature. Everyone is looking for an advantage.

Blast Away!

Blob wrote:Having seen BOTH of these teams several times over the last year and a half i can attest that an 80% strength Athletic team would STILL run roughshod over that Sting team. I do not understand why ANY coach (e.g. - Cuevas) would want to get such a shallow and undeserved win.  His girls are good enough on their own merits.  :-/

May as well just use a blow up doll for the coach.

Hang1053 wrote:OK,
I am sure i will blasted for saying this from some of you guys.
I do see the need for CPP. Alot of these young Athletes play multiple sports in school and such Volleyball, basketball and Track. Schools often have tournaments on the weekends. Some school coaches will tell the athlete that they can not miss any games or they are sat the next game or moved down to B or C team.
I know during the tournament times for the schools volleyball season there could be 2 weekends of tournaments causing a club soccer team to be missing players on the weekend. A club soccer team should be able to get some players to fill out their roster to be able to play.

Does CPP get abused? Sure thats human nature. Everyone is looking for an advantage.

Blast Away!

No blasting necessary - even LHGCL recognizes your scenario:

"To assist teams that may be short sided due to injury, illness, or other commitments."  Fully agree that scenario does happen.  

However, missing a player or 2 doesn't necessarily make a team short-handed.  I have seen teams come to play with 11 or 12 (and even 10) - because they are unwilling (or unable) to CPP.

solutions?
Unlimited (or 3) CPP only from LOWER teams does address CPPing down to get a win
As would a rule requiring teams to deactivate a player for each CPP brought in.
Or a rule stating that XX (14?) active players is sufficient for play without CPP.

I like some of your ideas. Deactivating players may make some parents upset though.
So you mean only be able cpp players in the same division or lower?

If you legitimately need to CPP due to players that are unavailable, then deactivate them from that game's roster. Likely the parent would never know - unless they showed to play.

Allow cpp only from teams in the same or lower division.

understood.
Thank you

Makes too much sense.

therefore - it will never happen

SickofStupidity wrote:

Hang1053 wrote:OK,
I am sure i will blasted for saying this from some of you guys.
I do see the need for CPP. Alot of these young Athletes play multiple sports in school and such Volleyball, basketball and Track. Schools often have tournaments on the weekends. Some school coaches will tell the athlete that they can not miss any games or they are sat the next game or moved down to B or C team.
I know during the tournament times for the schools volleyball season there could be 2 weekends of tournaments causing a club soccer team to be missing players on the weekend. A club soccer team should be able to get some players to fill out their roster to be able to play.

Does CPP get abused? Sure thats human nature. Everyone is looking for an advantage.

Blast Away!

No blasting necessary - even LHGCL recognizes your scenario:

"To assist teams that may be short sided due to injury, illness, or other commitments."  Fully agree that scenario does happen.  

However, missing a player or 2 doesn't necessarily make a team short-handed.  I have seen teams come to play with 11 or 12 (and even 10) - because they are unwilling (or unable) to CPP.

solutions?
Unlimited (or 3) CPP only from LOWER teams does address CPPing down to get a win
As would a rule requiring teams to deactivate a player for each CPP brought in.
Or a rule stating that XX (14?) active players is sufficient for play without CPP.

I thought that rule did address the playing down to get a win? Thougth you could only CPP 1 from higher div?

it does - but that doesn't include ECNL players - so a D2 team could only CPP 1 D1 player, but could CPP 3 ECNL players

LH recognized the problem of CPP in the final games to avoid relegation - so they limited teams to 1 CPP in the final 3 games. Doesn't address the same problem in the other 80%+ of the games

SickofStupidity wrote:Was that an earthquake?  I looked out my window expecting to see Armageddon.

We agree on CPP.

And on juggle/mm/shonuff/bb

I know enough (players themselves, teammates, teams, etc.) to know with certainty on 2, as well as players last year - not that it matters how I know - just laying out the facts and not betting my bile ducts on assumptions.

Thanks for the beer offer, but then I would feel guilty hammering you on the boards.  I prefer to keep this relationship guilt-free.

Love this ^ -- Please lemme know next time ya think you've hammered me on the "boards" ... just for grins.

I think you'd find we agree on a lot more than you think SoS, outside of your support of BigBoy's shenanigans ... you're a smart guy.  It seems we agree that CPP is rubbish and that if it is used, it should only be in U11/12 LH.

And another thing we agree on ... There are just so many unknowns.  Almost as many unknowns as there are soccer dads out there that know the ins and outs of the rosters of all of the teams they play -- especially after their kid's team gets beaten.  They all know how many, where from and why the other teams have guest players.  They all know that those guest players are starters on their ECNL teams, are dual rostered, or come from a pooled play situation.  

And yet another ... "If you and your LH D3 kid are distraught about having game time taken by a CPP/Dual Rostered/Guest Player, get out a grab a spot on a PPL side, or Rec - or better still, move to volleyball ... easy peasy."

Oh now BigE, don't get all frustrated because I spurned your advances. I'm sure one of your other friends would be happy to get a drink with you. Maybe BigBoy is available - sounds right up your alley anyway.

Why don't we make it easy let's have the real CP players dual rostered and Joe blow from another w roster change. Have the paid roster switched out for blow up dolls. Then we got the real team. Fair enough?

Coach can wear a bullseye and foxy can drink her moonshine and throw darts.

BigE would have to be the last woman on an island before we had a cocktail

LOL

SickofStupidity wrote:it does - but that doesn't include ECNL players - so a D2 team could only CPP 1 D1 player, but could CPP 3 ECNL players

LH recognized the problem of CPP in the final games to avoid relegation - so they limited teams to 1 CPP in the final 3 games.  Doesn't address the same problem in the other 80%+ of the games

I see what you are trying to say but it doesnt really make sense. Seeing how most ECNL players in LH are there because of dual roster not CPP.