Did LHGCL ever vote on that "player pass" rule?

Are you suggesting the clubs will bypass the extra $3k per player in order to give them more PT?

soccerdad1969 wrote:Are you suggesting the clubs will bypass the extra $3k per player in order to give them more PT?

In the older divisions, teams may roster some ECNL spots for just in case. In other words, four girls from the ECNL are "rostered" on the D-1 team, although they don't practice or play with them generally. Then, when the big D-1 game comes up, they drop down and help with that game.

Then again, that saps revenue from the club.  And it also threatens to really tick off parents on those teams who fork out big money, only to see their kid sit in big games as the renegage mercenaries come in to take away their playing time.

It might have the reverse effect of beefing up the smaller clubs.

soccerdad1969 wrote:Are you suggesting the clubs will bypass the extra $3k per player in order to give them more PT?

Not necessarily bypass the revenue. You can always create another team! It's easier to make the roster of 14 if you know you can have some kids play up if you need them.

Handing out chances to play up with a higher team would be a very effective incentive to keep a lot of kids on lower level teams. And if your kid is good enough to be the 16th player on a D1 team, wouldn't you rather her be the top player on a D2 team, get playing time, and be able to play up sometimes?

For the club, that 16th player riding the bench might only be good for one year's revenue stream, because they probably have a higher chance of leaving if they're not getting playing time.

Anyway, this is only my take on what might happen. I am interested to see how it plays out this year.

People would rather play on a team with a guaranteed bye than join a new team.  Those people would  just go somewhere else.

should be a one-way rule - play up but not down. this might keep more players playing in D1 that otherwise are sitting on the bench in ECNL. Playing down should not happen without a transfer, or perhaps allow 2 roster moves per player per year, or something like that - could prevent the "mercenary" scenario.

This could already be done between ECNL and LHGCL. Rather than it being used for "mercenaries" in LHGCL games, it has been used to provide girls who are on the bubble in ECNL a place to play games. The big concern for girls joining ECNL is "am i gonna pay all this money to watch my daughter sit the bench all year?" Dual roasting girls is how clubs ensure that every girl will play.

Fair enough. Suits the "player development" side of the discussion. However, ...

There has been a discussion on the boys' side concerning "passing" players down to D2 and D3 teams to help avoid relegation. The same could be said for ECNL players helping a D1 team avoid relegation. Supports the argument that the system favors big clubs with respect to retaining byes.

I don't think that happens often if at all. Coaches know each other and know the teams. I think that would be considered shameful. Every year near the end of spring there are people who preemptively accuse the big clubs of having their top teams intentionally lose games to keep lower teams within the same division. Every time I can remember the top team will crush the lower team because it's a rivalry. For the same reason, I doubt ECNL teams lend their top players. In addition, it would be disaster for an ECNL stud to get hurt for that.

Lucky 7's wrote:does anyone besides me think this rule is a bunch of B/S?

 

Looking at this from the LHGCL standpoint and not the ECNL standpoint - this rule allows teams to stay intact and provides a stronger team for State Cup. This has been allowed in State Cup as it provides the potential for a stronger NTX representative team at Regionals. After all, there is more than just league play at stake for NTX.

If there are injuries on a short roster - this allows for substitutions as well. We would have loved this to be the case last year when we finished the Spring season with no subs. Been with two teams that couldn't pay someone to come tryout - it's not fun at all but, it's an individual's decision as to where to go - if the majority go somewhere and it is a big club, so be it.

Relative to the 'Big Club' conspiracy theory...if you own a business, and your biggest customer needs some catering or they will go elsewhere, do you ignore that? My kids have played on big and small club teams - plus/minus in both respects. Is one club better than another? Depends what your criterion might be - personally, the club didn't matter much to me, mainly the coach/team members.

On a side note, I did have a parent tell me big clubs get all the calls - then, our team became a big club team and he said 'well...the other club gets the calls...'.

If you think clubs would make moves to avoid relegation - you are totally correct. I can't see parents being able to prevent that really as they have little power during the year.

Lucky 7's wrote:does anyone besides me think this rule is a bunch of B/S?

dido

clueless wrote:Looking at this from the LHGCL standpoint and not the ECNL standpoint - this rule allows teams to stay intact and provides a stronger team for State Cup. This has been allowed in State Cup as it provides the potential for a stronger NTX representative team at Regionals. After all, there is more than just league play at stake for NTX.

If there are injuries on a short roster - this allows for substitutions as well. We would have loved this to be the case last year when we finished the Spring season with no subs.  Been with two teams that couldn't pay someone to come tryout - it's not fun at all but, it's an individual's decision as to where to go - if the majority go somewhere and it is a big club, so be it.

Relative to the 'Big Club' conspiracy theory...if you own a business, and your biggest customer needs some catering or they will go elsewhere, do you ignore that?  My kids have played on big and small club teams - plus/minus in both respects.  Is one club better than another? Depends what your criterion might be - personally, the club didn't matter much to me, mainly the coach/team members.

On a side note, I did have a parent tell me big clubs get all the calls - then, our team became a big club team and he said 'well...the other club gets the calls...'.

If you think clubs would make moves to avoid relegation - you are totally correct. I can't see parents being able to prevent that really as they have little power during the year.

Great post Clueless... And on that side note: That is a very good point.. Back in the Revolution days, several times they accused LH of being bias against the small clubs.. And now they are FC Dallas.. Same folks, but no longer able to use that excuse..

Some of the folks currently with small clubs in here complaining will one day soon be with a big club and will be excited when the DD is asked to help out a Sister Team..

Didn't the old Revolution just win Grand Champion? So maybe there is something to the argument that big clubs get the calls

It's an absurd rule, example Team A is stinking up the season, so bring in new players midway or sign with Team A and half way through the season getting seated or booted to team C, in this case why have team try outs, why not just have club try outs and let em stick you where they may. This leaves no responsibility on the team, coach, club, etc to win with who they sign. Maybe we should just quit keeping score and we all could be winners.

Or just keep academy rules about guest players in place.

TNT wrote:It's an absurd rule, example Team A is stinking up the season, so bring in new players midway or sign with Team A and half way through the season getting seated or booted to team C, in this case why have team try outs, why not just have club try outs and let em stick you where they may. This leaves no responsibility on the team, coach, club, etc to win with who they sign. Maybe we should just quit keeping score and we all could be winners.

Agree on the mid season aspect of it but not if the club is willing to dual roster from the beginning.

I know my DD will play ECNL and be rostered on the D1 team next year, or we will most likely move to another club who has been asking us to move for the last two years. It can be a benefit to the player/parent as well....just another point to consider.

Hook It wrote:

TNT wrote:It's an absurd rule, example Team A is stinking up the season, so bring in new players midway or sign with Team A and half way through the season getting seated or booted to team C, in this case why have team try outs, why not just have club try outs and let em stick you where they may. This leaves no responsibility on the team, coach, club, etc to win with who they sign. Maybe we should just quit keeping score and we all could be winners.

Agree on the mid season aspect of it but not if the club is willing to dual roster from the beginning.

I know my DD will play ECNL and be rostered on the D1 team next year, or we will most likely move to another club who has been asking us to move for the last two years.  It can be a benefit to the player/parent as well....just another point to consider.

Their is a limit to the number of players that can dual roster at this time. I think the magic # is 4. The club pass rule would allow more players and would definitely benefit the large club and its control over LHGCL. It almost seems that LHGCL is giving into the fact that if they cannot compete with ECNL then join them.

The Club Pass encourages all clubs to field a minimum of 2 teams in every age group.  If you're only fielding 1 team in an age group, you’re facing a competitive disadvantage before the games even start.  

For larger clubs I don't believe this will result in a change.  I do believe though that medium clubs, small clubs, and independent teams will need to change their behaviors.  The cost of entry just got higher.  Before adding their first team in an age group, they will need to decide "If we add this team, will we be able to form another team in the same age group because of the Club Pass rule?"  You can’t just have 1 team anymore.  They’ll need to have at least 2.

Recruiting to smaller clubs can be very difficult and a lot of times their answer to that question might be "No, we can't."  I think we’ll see a lot of instances where a smaller clubs have 2 teams in one age group (i.e. two ‘04s) and none in the next age group (i.e. zero ‘03s).  Because of this, I think the decision to fold teams in smaller clubs will be made much more easily.  The club’s decision will need to come at the expense of individuals.

We do not have as many medium clubs, small clubs and independents as we used to in this market.  I don't know if that's good or bad.  This Club Pass rule though, it seems to me, encourages those size organizations to consolidate.

I personally wouldn't make any judgements until the LHGCL rule is published. I'm confident that about 1/2 of the conjecture here won't come to fruition due to the league specific rule. Only a short time until the annual meeting, so guess away...

News

Club Pass Player Rule
JUL 31 2013
The Plano Preimer League will not be utilizing the newly passed NTSSA rule for Club Pass Players.

PPL has made their decision....next LHGCL.

SolarPower00 wrote:News

Club Pass Player Rule
JUL 31 2013
The Plano Preimer League will not be utilizing the newly passed NTSSA rule for Club Pass Players.

PPL has made their decision....next LHGCL.
 

awesome! now if only LHGCL would follow suit.

Lucky 7's wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:News

Club Pass Player Rule
JUL 31 2013
The Plano Preimer League will not be utilizing the newly passed NTSSA rule for Club Pass Players.

PPL has made their decision....next LHGCL.
 

awesome!   now if only LHGCL would follow suit.

Ya Right! Dont hold your breath! Who do you think wanted it the most?

Lucky 7's wrote:

SolarPower00 wrote:News

Club Pass Player Rule
JUL 31 2013
The Plano Preimer League will not be utilizing the newly passed NTSSA rule for Club Pass Players.

PPL has made their decision....next LHGCL.
 

awesome!   now if only LHGCL would follow suit.

What people seem to be missing is that Clubs are already using the "Dual Roster" and also utilizing ability to have a player switch NTX Rosters one every soccer year. Also, the Club pass already exist in NTX at State Cup, again at Regionals and again at Nationals. The new rule would not change much at all, just make it easier to administer. Plus it is already up and running in STX and OK, which is why NTX really wanted to look at it.

Lucky 7's wrote:does anyone besides me think this rule is a bunch of B/S?

Yes. Throws the concept of "team" right out the window. If a league adopts this, league play will become like most tournament play. You'll no longer be playing the "team" that qualified for that league, you'll be playing the "club". Total joke. This rule will make a mockery of "team". It's "team", with a wink and a smirk.

Dual rostering is a completely separate issue. I have zero problem with dual rostering. You don't need this rule to dual roster. You can already dual roster.

Big clubs won't have to resort to as many scholarships this way. One scholarship will go a long way if this rule is adopted.