Guess Players Again - Solar Nero - Club Pass

OLJW wrote:I'd guess it's for the very same reason that we don't see people coming on here complaining that their daughter doesn't get enough playing.

Let me try a different angle using a hypothetical situation

A team with 18 players, 3 of them are CPP's, is going to play  a game that lasts 1 hour.

We all know that means 11 players will be on the field at all times ( it's a LH game, so there aren't any red cards)

60 minute game X 11 players = 660 minutes of play

Is somebody really going to argue with me, that the CPP players are going to take away playing time from the starters and the bench players are gonna be unaffected? Really???    Make a real argument....cause that one's stupid!!!!

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

bwgophers wrote:

OLJW wrote:I'd guess it's for the very same reason that we don't see people coming on here complaining that their daughter doesn't get enough playing.

Let me try a different angle using a hypothetical situation

A team with 18 players, 3 of them are CPP's, is going to play  a game that lasts 1 hour.

We all know that means 11 players will be on the field at all times ( it's a LH game, so there aren't any red cards)

60 minute game X 11 players = 660 minutes of play

Is somebody really going to argue with me, that the CPP players are going to take away playing time from the starters and the bench players are gonna be unaffected? Really???    Make a real argument....cause that one's stupid!!!!

Again, you seem to be missing my point...  I am NOT arguing that CPP players don't come in and take up minutes on the field, that in their absence, would go to regular roster players.  I am asking why we are hearing essentially zero outcry from anyone who feels their DD directly lost playing time to a CPP?  

Actually, my comment wasn't intended as a response to you. Reading through the thread, I can absolutely see how you thought it was.

If they air that dirty laundry publically, that will certainly solve their playing time problem. Their playing time will go to zero immediately.

bwgophers wrote:

gimeemore wrote:"Why aren't we seeing the same first hand accounts from people who's DD's have been benched for CPP players?"

So we have heard from a few that have had playing time effected due to CPP.  On the flip side, is there anyone out there brave enough to share their story about their DD playing on another of their club teams on a CPP?  Wondering if there is that perspective available.

Where?

Hard practice talked about his DD losing playing time to guest players in academy, not CPP in select.  Then he talked about a case where players from his own club didn't get CPP'd to a higher level team, in favor of a guest player (not a CPP player).  So again, while they may be similar in nature, and I may be splitting hairs, these are not direct examples of kids in select (where they are bound by contracts vs. the free-for-all-you-can-switch-teams-at-any-time world of academy) losing playing time on their own team, because a CPP player was brought in.

Actually my DD's are both in college now and I said the incident was pre CPP because it (CPP) didn't exist at that time.  I have however seen the whole cycle of multiple youth sports from many sides (coach, parent, star, and not a star) and know there are many constants.  The most consistant is parents will care about their DD the most.  Second is they will want to win.  Niether are bad but you just have to be aware of how they bias the opinions they spout.  One of the most absolute is some coaches will find a way around rules.  For example the only play up was instituted where we are from.  Yep, coaches just rostered their dual players to the lower team.  You can make it harder to get around for example the best solution is limiting the number of times a player can CPP but they will probably come up with something you never thought of before to skirt that.


Now Packrabbit says that kids from Sting North clearly lost playing time, but he didn't say that his/her kid lost playing time, and also didn't specify if the kids or parents of those kids were markedly upset over the situation, and if so, did they leave the team, or threaten to leave the team as a direct result of this, or, were they totally fine (or even grudgingly fine) with riding the pine in this case because the CPP players were helping to prevent their team from being relegated?

See my comments above about parenst.  As long as they are winning and it is not their DD who loses time most are OK with bringing in a ringer.  Some will not be crazy about it but few will rock the boat if THEIR kid is happy and the team is winning.  Those who are unhappy as others said fear losing all playing time, their daughter being picked on for speaking up and just sit quietly or leave.

The loudest cries about CPP are understandably coming from the parents on the teams that feel that they didn't win a game that they should have, because their opponent brought in ringers via CPP.  I would think the second loudest cries would be coming from people who's kids lost playing time due to CPP players coming in, yet it's crickets outside of a bunch of indirect references.  Again, I'm curious as to why and would love to hear from some of these people, even if it's by PM.  Anonymity fully assured.

If anyone can say in a promotion relegation format bringing in star players creates a fair system you are kidding yourself.  Simple mathmatics of minutes says if someone from outside (CPP or otherwise) comes in to play someone else is not (maybe they are hurt or out of town but without a doubt some are sitting on the bench not playing).  In my view this is a given whether someone comes on here to talk about it or not.

gimeemore wrote:so...since nobody wants to say that their DD is CPP playing for someone, maybe a different question.  If your DD was asked to help another team on your club, would you turn it down?  

gimeemore wrote:so...since nobody wants to say that their DD is CPP playing for someone, maybe a different question.  If your DD was asked to help another team on your club, would you turn it down?  

jsullivan81 wrote:Does anyone know if Solar Nero uses CPP? I was just curious and couldn't find the answer.

soccerjack wrote:A team losing a game to a team with non rosetered players is just as bad as a kid losing playing time. It's legalized cheating. In my mind that's the real problem. Team a works as a team to qualify for a division and do well. They lose to team b that barely qualified but brought in players in to win the game. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Again why sign a contract for a team and why have different divisions. It takes away all goals of a team.

LHD wrote:

soccerjack wrote:A team losing a game to a team with non rosetered players is just as bad as a kid losing playing time. It's legalized cheating. In my mind that's the real problem. Team a works as a team to qualify for a division and do well. They lose to team b that barely qualified but brought in players in to win the game. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Again why sign a contract for a team and why have different divisions. It takes away all goals of a team.

You may not like CPP - but the team in question did not cheat if it followed league rules in assembling its roster for the match.

If one of the main goals of a team at this age is development (as often claimed on this site) doesn't playing against better competition help accomplish that goal?  Perhaps the team in question had the altruistic goal of providing better competition to help its opponent develop and thus benefiting NTX soccer as a whole?

soccerjack wrote:A team losing a game to a team with non rosetered players is just as bad as a kid losing playing time. It's legalized cheating. In my mind that's the real problem. Team a works as a team to qualify for a division and do well. They lose to team b that barely qualified but brought in players in to win the game. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Again why sign a contract for a team and why have different divisions. It takes away all goals of a team.

LHD wrote:

soccerjack wrote:A team losing a game to a team with non rosetered players is just as bad as a kid losing playing time. It's legalized cheating. In my mind that's the real problem. Team a works as a team to qualify for a division and do well. They lose to team b that barely qualified but brought in players in to win the game. I don't know why that's so hard to understand. Again why sign a contract for a team and why have different divisions. It takes away all goals of a team.

You may not like CPP - but the team in question did not cheat if it followed league rules in assembling its roster for the match.

If one of the main goals of a team at this age is development (as often claimed on this site) doesn't playing against better competition help accomplish that goal?  Perhaps the team in question had the altruistic goal of providing better competition to help its opponent develop and thus benefiting NTX soccer as a whole?

Packrabbit wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

Fierce, if you are finding my disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting, I would suggest you ignore my posts altogether.  It's not worth the high blood pressure.

Although I have deviated on this CPP ordeal, the disclaimer is a reminder (to myself and others) that this forum stuff is supposed to be fun, non-confrontational and one should make up their own darn mind.

gimeemore wrote:so...since nobody wants to say that their DD is CPP playing for someone, maybe a different question.  If your DD was asked to help another team on your club, would you turn it down?  

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

Fierce, if you are finding my disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting, I would suggest you ignore my posts altogether.  It's not worth the high blood pressure.

Although I have deviated on this CPP ordeal, the disclaimer is a reminder (to myself and others) that this forum stuff is supposed to be fun, non-confrontational and one should make up their own darn mind.

Pack..I did not find your disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting. I found it to be enlightening about you.

As far as being a reminder, I don't think disparaging yourself with a disclaimer creates any fun for most readers. It just makes some think you aren't serious about any post you are writing altogether. It lends less credence to your posts. I happen to think you are trying to be helpful and positive, but your Disclaimer discredits anything you write.

ballhead wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

Fierce, if you are finding my disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting, I would suggest you ignore my posts altogether.  It's not worth the high blood pressure.

Although I have deviated on this CPP ordeal, the disclaimer is a reminder (to myself and others) that this forum stuff is supposed to be fun, non-confrontational and one should make up their own darn mind.

Pack..I did not find your disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting. I found it to be enlightening about you.

As far as being a reminder, I don't think disparaging yourself with a disclaimer creates any fun for most readers. It just makes some think you aren't serious about any post you are writing altogether. It lends less credence to your posts. I happen to think you are trying to be helpful and positive, but your Disclaimer discredits anything you write.

So, in your opinion, most of us would read a post of Pack's and think it helpful and positive, until we get to the obvious attempt at humor in his "disclaimer" and then throw it all out?  

You might not find it humorous, that's different for all of us, but it has nothing to do with the value of any of the posts.  At least not in my opinion.

FierceLightning wrote:

ballhead wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

Fierce, if you are finding my disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting, I would suggest you ignore my posts altogether.  It's not worth the high blood pressure.

Although I have deviated on this CPP ordeal, the disclaimer is a reminder (to myself and others) that this forum stuff is supposed to be fun, non-confrontational and one should make up their own darn mind.

Pack..I did not find your disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting. I found it to be enlightening about you.

As far as being a reminder, I don't think disparaging yourself with a disclaimer creates any fun for most readers. It just makes some think you aren't serious about any post you are writing altogether. It lends less credence to your posts. I happen to think you are trying to be helpful and positive, but your Disclaimer discredits anything you write.

So, in your opinion, most of us would read a post of Pack's and think it helpful and positive, until we get to the obvious attempt at humor in his "disclaimer" and then throw it all out?  

You might not find it humorous, that's different for all of us, but it has nothing to do with the value of any of the posts.  At least not in my opinion.

Understood. You see it that way. I don't. I think the disclaimer disparaging your opinions that you may post says a lot about those opinions or at least about how the poster sees it. I see it as a comedian mocking eveything. Who finds anything a comedian says worthwhile other than a good laugh? Is that what this forum is for, to have good laughs?

FierceLightning wrote:

ballhead wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Packrabbit wrote:Bw- A lack of testimonials on this subject is not tangible evidence that the rule isn't being manipulated and doesn't adversely affect home team players.  How the rule is currently being used is indefensible.

I'm not surprised a parent hasn't publicly highlighted that their kid was affected my this rule, and I'm not holding my breathe for the 1st one. Could you imagine the type of replies that story would receive?  Injuries to the starters should be an opportunity for "bench" players to get extra playing time to step up, and prove themselves. What happened to just getting a chance?

I can definitively tell you some Sting Garrett players playing time was affected by their guest players.

Lastly, a good friend sent me the Boys CPP rule, which is very fair, precise and radically different from the girls version. Why the difference?

Forum Politeness Disclaimer 2.0:
Section I: The author of this post's above attempts at humor should be viewed and/or criticized for its entertainment value only. Hopefully, no one's feelings or facts were injured during the production of this post.
Section II: The author does not claim to speak intelligently or with authority about ANY posted topic. The author further acknowledges that any information presented is an opinion most likely based on incomplete observations and should not, in form or fashion, be treated as NEWS or FACTS of any type. All information should be questioned, ridiculed and/or discarded, as deemed appropiate by the individual reader.

So based on your disclaimer, we should just ignore your posts as "pi##ing in the wind'? You aren't serious and/or mindful about anything posted on here?

Fierce, if you are finding my disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting, I would suggest you ignore my posts altogether.  It's not worth the high blood pressure.

Although I have deviated on this CPP ordeal, the disclaimer is a reminder (to myself and others) that this forum stuff is supposed to be fun, non-confrontational and one should make up their own darn mind.

Pack..I did not find your disclaimer controversial and/or upsetting. I found it to be enlightening about you.

As far as being a reminder, I don't think disparaging yourself with a disclaimer creates any fun for most readers. It just makes some think you aren't serious about any post you are writing altogether. It lends less credence to your posts. I happen to think you are trying to be helpful and positive, but your Disclaimer discredits anything you write.

So, in your opinion, most of us would read a post of Pack's and think it helpful and positive, until we get to the obvious attempt at humor in his "disclaimer" and then throw it all out?  

You might not find it humorous, that's different for all of us, but it has nothing to do with the value of any of the posts.  At least not in my opinion.

Understood. You see it that way. I don't. I think the disclaimer disparaging your opinions that you may post says a lot about those opinions or at least about how the poster sees it. I see it as a comedian mocking eveything. Who finds anything a comedian says worthwhile other than a good laugh? Is that what this forum is for, to have good laughs?