Guess Players Again - Solar Nero - Club Pass

Barca, development for SRSA03 girls does not occur in a younger age group, D3 game. That's absurd.
These particular kids would have gotten far more out of an intra-squad workout. This move was about keeping a team in the league. Period end of story.

Koba wrote:Barca, development for SRSA03 girls does not occur in a younger age group, D3 game. That's absurd.
These particular kids would have gotten far more out of an intra-squad workout. This move was about keeping a team in the league. Period end of story.

This....AND this is how ALL coaches/teams use CPP the wrong way. It's unethical and I would argue that parents hold ALL the power to regulate this behavior. Pull you kid off that team and find a better team. Of course that requires a good character in the parent. But, I can see a coach doing this in a blue moon and making a mistake but then parents need to speak with him/her hold that coach accountable and let them know they won't put up with it as an going tactic to win. If they do, they walk. Simple. These clubs don't run you, the customer, UNLESS YOU allow them to.

FierceLightning wrote:

Koba wrote:Barca, development for SRSA03 girls does not occur in a younger age group, D3 game. That's absurd.
These particular kids would have gotten far more out of an intra-squad workout. This move was about keeping a team in the league. Period end of story.

This....AND this is how ALL coaches/teams use CPP the wrong way. It's unethical and I would argue that parents hold ALL the power to regulate this behavior. Pull you kid off that team and find a better team. Of course that requires a good character in the parent. But, I can see a coach doing this in a blue moon and making a mistake but then parents need to speak with him/her hold that coach accountable and let them know they won't put up with it as an going tactic to win. If they do, they walk. Simple. These clubs don't run you, the customer, UNLESS YOU allow them to.

nice try, except you are under contract and the club decides whether they give you a release and oh yea, they also keep all your money....

silentparent wrote:once again this is a simple fix, NO PLAYING DOWN. You want a CPP? it goes up, then a kid is rewarded and a team thinks long and hard about using her. Not we have  a big club, hey lets use d1 players to save our bacon in d3....

This would make sense and simple to enact. It would also let everybody know WHO wants this in practice or WHO really wants this to "game" a win.

BUT, there is still one problem and it's the problem with all laws and rules that can are punitive. Who is going to monitor it?? What are the consequences and who is going to make sure it is followed? You can't legislate or rule up character. You can only react to it once displayed, good or bad.

I personally think the rule in its form is good enough and parents can regulate their, team and club by pulling the player and finding a better club that will cater to their needs if needed.

silentparent wrote:

FierceLightning wrote:

Koba wrote:Barca, development for SRSA03 girls does not occur in a younger age group, D3 game. That's absurd.
These particular kids would have gotten far more out of an intra-squad workout. This move was about keeping a team in the league. Period end of story.

This....AND this is how ALL coaches/teams use CPP the wrong way. It's unethical and I would argue that parents hold ALL the power to regulate this behavior. Pull you kid off that team and find a better team. Of course that requires a good character in the parent. But, I can see a coach doing this in a blue moon and making a mistake but then parents need to speak with him/her hold that coach accountable and let them know they won't put up with it as an going tactic to win. If they do, they walk. Simple. These clubs don't run you, the customer, UNLESS YOU allow them to.

nice try, except you are under contract and the club decides whether they give you a release and oh yea, they also keep all your money....

Yes, that is big problem. I'm sure a well written letter by a competent lawyer can get that release fairly easy though. I KNOW it's been done. Of course, the few brave soldiers will get all the bullets...but then heck why live on your knees right?

You know, in this whole CPP discussion, there is one thing that isn't adding up to me...

We've had tens of threads on this forum discussing CPP in the past year, totaling hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of individual posts.  People railing on CPP as patently unfair, people defending CPP as a good thing, people telling those complaining to just suck it up, or go play PPL, or just head back to rec, people providing balanced opinions on CPP, people justifying CPP to cover injury, people arguing about whether development via CPP can happen in a playing up vs. playing down scenario, people calling out other teams for using CPP to bring in ringers to win games, people screaming about how players on lower level teams are getting screwed out of playing time by CPP players coming down from higher division teams... and so on... and so on... and so on...

However, in all of the thousands of posts on the subject on this forum, I'm pretty sure that I have not seen a single post by anyone talking first hand about how their DD ended up sitting the bench any more than they normally do, because their coach brought in a CPP player.  No veteran of the board talking about having a dust-up with the coach over something like this.  No one talking about how they got screwed over by their previous team/coach via CPP and quietly rode out the season, but hightailed it to another team as soon as last season was over.  No forum newbie coming on here and describing a situation where their DD was benched for a CPP, and asking for advice on what they should do about it.

If all of these kids are getting screwed over and having significant playing time taken away from them by CPP ringers, how come NONE of them are coming on here and telling their stories?

Are they all just content to let their kid's playing time get taken away for the sake of avoiding relegation?  Are they all completely scared to come on here and complain for fear of being identified and their kid suffering retribution?  Does it only happen to the parents that don't even know this forum exists?  Or are the coaches that are using CPP, even in the case of bringing in ringers, still being mindful of playing time in most cases to make sure that their current players aren't losing significant playing time when the ringers are brought it?

Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

bwgophers wrote:You know, in this whole CPP discussion, there is one thing that isn't adding up to me...

We've had tens of threads on this forum discussing CPP in the past year, totaling hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of individual posts.  People railing on CPP as patently unfair, people defending CPP as a good thing, people telling those complaining to just suck it up, or go play PPL, or just head back to rec, people providing balanced opinions on CPP, people justifying CPP to cover injury, people arguing about whether development via CPP can happen in a playing up vs. playing down scenario, people calling out other teams for using CPP to bring in ringers to win games, people screaming about how players on lower level teams are getting screwed out of playing time by CPP players coming down from higher division teams... and so on... and so on... and so on...

However, in all of the thousands of posts on the subject on this forum, I'm pretty sure that I have not seen a single post by anyone talking first hand about how their DD ended up sitting the bench any more than they normally do, because their coach brought in a CPP player.  No veteran of the board talking about having a dust-up with the coach over something like this.  No one talking about how they got screwed over by their previous team/coach via CPP and quietly rode out the season, but hightailed it to another team as soon as last season was over.  No forum newbie coming on here and describing a situation where their DD was benched for a CPP, and asking for advice on what they should do about it.

If all of these kids are getting screwed over and having significant playing time taken away from them by CPP ringers, how come NONE of them are coming on here and telling their stories?

Are they all just content to let their kid's playing time get taken away for the sake of avoiding relegation?  Are they all completely scared to come on here and complain for fear of being identified and their kid suffering retribution?  Does it only happen to the parents that don't even know this forum exists?  Or are the coaches that are using CPP, even in the case of bringing in ringers, still being mindful of playing time in most cases to make sure that their current players aren't losing significant playing time when the ringers are brought it?

Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

Now BW, don't try to stifle debate. The reason no one is complaining about their kid losing playing time is because all the forum posters DD's are the best on their teams and wouldn't lose time to ringers coming in

bwgophers wrote:You know, in this whole CPP discussion, there is one thing that isn't adding up to me...

We've had tens of threads on this forum discussing CPP in the past year, totaling hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of individual posts.  People railing on CPP as patently unfair, people defending CPP as a good thing, people telling those complaining to just suck it up, or go play PPL, or just head back to rec, people providing balanced opinions on CPP, people justifying CPP to cover injury, people arguing about whether development via CPP can happen in a playing up vs. playing down scenario, people calling out other teams for using CPP to bring in ringers to win games, people screaming about how players on lower level teams are getting screwed out of playing time by CPP players coming down from higher division teams... and so on... and so on... and so on...

However, in all of the thousands of posts on the subject on this forum, I'm pretty sure that I have not seen a single post by anyone talking first hand about how their DD ended up sitting the bench any more than they normally do, because their coach brought in a CPP player.  No veteran of the board talking about having a dust-up with the coach over something like this.  No one talking about how they got screwed over by their previous team/coach via CPP and quietly rode out the season, but hightailed it to another team as soon as last season was over.  No forum newbie coming on here and describing a situation where their DD was benched for a CPP, and asking for advice on what they should do about it.

If all of these kids are getting screwed over and having significant playing time taken away from them by CPP ringers, how come NONE of them are coming on here and telling their stories?

Are they all just content to let their kid's playing time get taken away for the sake of avoiding relegation?  Are they all completely scared to come on here and complain for fear of being identified and their kid suffering retribution?  Does it only happen to the parents that don't even know this forum exists?  Or are the coaches that are using CPP, even in the case of bringing in ringers, still being mindful of playing time in most cases to make sure that their current players aren't losing significant playing time when the ringers are brought it?

Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

Most likely it's for this reason. Why risk making an bad situation worse?

Maybe they just know better then to air their dirty laundry on this forum, at least the old timers SHOULD know better. I've heard plenty of first hand experiences in private conversations. They're out there.

ItsMeAgain wrote:

bwgophers wrote:You know, in this whole CPP discussion, there is one thing that isn't adding up to me...

We've had tens of threads on this forum discussing CPP in the past year, totaling hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of individual posts.  People railing on CPP as patently unfair, people defending CPP as a good thing, people telling those complaining to just suck it up, or go play PPL, or just head back to rec, people providing balanced opinions on CPP, people justifying CPP to cover injury, people arguing about whether development via CPP can happen in a playing up vs. playing down scenario, people calling out other teams for using CPP to bring in ringers to win games, people screaming about how players on lower level teams are getting screwed out of playing time by CPP players coming down from higher division teams... and so on... and so on... and so on...

However, in all of the thousands of posts on the subject on this forum, I'm pretty sure that I have not seen a single post by anyone talking first hand about how their DD ended up sitting the bench any more than they normally do, because their coach brought in a CPP player.  No veteran of the board talking about having a dust-up with the coach over something like this.  No one talking about how they got screwed over by their previous team/coach via CPP and quietly rode out the season, but hightailed it to another team as soon as last season was over.  No forum newbie coming on here and describing a situation where their DD was benched for a CPP, and asking for advice on what they should do about it.

If all of these kids are getting screwed over and having significant playing time taken away from them by CPP ringers, how come NONE of them are coming on here and telling their stories?

Are they all just content to let their kid's playing time get taken away for the sake of avoiding relegation?  Are they all completely scared to come on here and complain for fear of being identified and their kid suffering retribution?  Does it only happen to the parents that don't even know this forum exists?  Or are the coaches that are using CPP, even in the case of bringing in ringers, still being mindful of playing time in most cases to make sure that their current players aren't losing significant playing time when the ringers are brought it?

Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

Most likely it's for this reason.  Why risk making an bad situation worse?

Maybe they just know better then to air their dirty laundry on this forum, at least the old timers SHOULD know better.  I've heard plenty of first hand experiences in private conversations.  They're out there.

Just like Big-Foot.

If you read my post earlier post I mentioned my DD losing playing time to guest players. She was pre CPP but basically the same thing.  Coach brought in her daughers friends for a tourney and others sat more than usual.  Not much developing going on for the paying customers. Interestingly when the coach went to Disneyworld taking her daughetr the team won their only tourney that year using the team's rostered players and some of those who sat before were part of the reason why.  We voted with our walet and left the next season.

Later at another club my DD was not directly effected but I saw other players in the club not get bought up to the top team (CPP'ed) while they brought in a non-paying player outside the club to go with the team to State Cup, Regionals, and Disney Showcase.  The outside club player was better but it sure didn't help any players within the club develop.  When my DD was asked to guest play outside the club in a College Showcase they would not let her play outside the club.  For those and other reasons we left that club as well.  Best of all I was on the payment plan and quit paying after they started pulling their monkey business.

I agree many don't speak up because they are afraid or as I said earlier often the kids quit soccer after the experience.  Also not a positive experience.

BW...what forum veteran in their right mind is going to get on the forum and complain that their daughter lost minutes to a CPP player? Are you serious?

The way i see it if my daughter is benched for a cpp player, cpp had nothing to do with it. She lost minutes because she wasn't performing well enough for the coach to want to use her. Players were benched long before cpp.

My only issue with cpp is these fake rosters where coaches are going into the season knowing full well they don't plan on using players on the roster on which they sign. It's fraudulent.

No playing down isn't the answer IMO...nothing stops a coach from rostering studs to the B or C team so they're available to help keep the bye, but CPPing them to their real team in a higher division every week. Have to limit the # of times any one player can CPP to close the loopholes.

bwgophers wrote:Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

BW I'm going to take a wild guess that Bandito974 selling the number 9 DT kit falls into this category. Based on location, they probably got a release from a team down south that is currently using CPP to offset weaknesses. I say good for the parent for not putting up with it and kudos to the coach for giving the release.

Koba wrote:Barca, development for SRSA03 girls does not occur in a younger age group, D3 game. That's absurd.
These particular kids would have gotten far more out of an intra-squad workout. This move was about keeping a team in the league. Period end of story.

All playing time regardless of level is developmental. Be it to develop skills or boost confidence. If my dd is being requested and both coaches are okay with it, where do I sign up. For the coach it's about avoiding relegation. For me the parent it's about more playing time for my kid. I see both sides of the issue but as the parent, my dd and I are the final decision-makers. I will always lean toward more playing time. Now, if I'm on the other end like Bandito may have been, I'm getting a release. Why? Because it's about playing time.

bwgophers wrote:You know, in this whole CPP discussion, there is one thing that isn't adding up to me...

We've had tens of threads on this forum discussing CPP in the past year, totaling hundreds of pages, and probably thousands of individual posts.  People railing on CPP as patently unfair, people defending CPP as a good thing, people telling those complaining to just suck it up, or go play PPL, or just head back to rec, people providing balanced opinions on CPP, people justifying CPP to cover injury, people arguing about whether development via CPP can happen in a playing up vs. playing down scenario, people calling out other teams for using CPP to bring in ringers to win games, people screaming about how players on lower level teams are getting screwed out of playing time by CPP players coming down from higher division teams... and so on... and so on... and so on...

However, in all of the thousands of posts on the subject on this forum, I'm pretty sure that I have not seen a single post by anyone talking first hand about how their DD ended up sitting the bench any more than they normally do, because their coach brought in a CPP player.  No veteran of the board talking about having a dust-up with the coach over something like this.  No one talking about how they got screwed over by their previous team/coach via CPP and quietly rode out the season, but hightailed it to another team as soon as last season was over.  No forum newbie coming on here and describing a situation where their DD was benched for a CPP, and asking for advice on what they should do about it.

If all of these kids are getting screwed over and having significant playing time taken away from them by CPP ringers, how come NONE of them are coming on here and telling their stories?

Are they all just content to let their kid's playing time get taken away for the sake of avoiding relegation?  Are they all completely scared to come on here and complain for fear of being identified and their kid suffering retribution?  Does it only happen to the parents that don't even know this forum exists?  Or are the coaches that are using CPP, even in the case of bringing in ringers, still being mindful of playing time in most cases to make sure that their current players aren't losing significant playing time when the ringers are brought it?

Does anyone else find this lack of first-hand outcry from those who have DD's that were directly benched as a result of CPP, just a bit curious?

So what you are saying is: "so what if CPP is used to "game" the system and win games that the coach may have felt they wouldn't have won with current roster as long as no kid is losing playing time that they wouldn't have lost anyways?" Is that your point with this specific post? Or do you have another point?

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?

I think the hyperbole in my previous post is confusing the point I was trying to make.

Coaches/teams are clearly abusing CPP with intent to gain competitive advantage.  I'm not denying that it's happening.  I'm not defending it.  Teams have gotten the short end of the stick because of it, and that is both unfortunate, and wrong.

I just hear lots of people wringing their hands specifically about all of the kids that are getting benched for CPP players, but wondering why it's never anybody wringing their hands about their own kid getting benched for CPP players?

People come on here all the time and tell stories, or ask advice about negative situations surrounding their DD and her coach/team/club.  Lack of playing time (non-CPP related), verbal abuse from the coach, being lied to/bait-and-switch, psycho parents, etc...  Why aren't we seeing the same first hand accounts from people who's DD's have been benched for CPP players?  It just seems strange to me.  Nothing more. Nothing less.

The simple and obvious action needed is just to prevent downward movement of players between divisions. It is an easy solution that will address the majority of complaints of unfairness or abuse that have been discussed.

"Sally" gets to keep her playing time.

Parents don't have to  confront coaches abusing the rule.

"Indys" get to compete and fight for their league position on an even and level playing field.

Perfectly stated Chuck...now why is it so hard for the "powers that be" to recognize that and make the adjustment.

ChuckNorris wrote:The simple and obvious action needed is just to prevent downward movement of players between divisions. It is an easy solution that will address the majority of complaints of unfairness or abuse that have been discussed.

"Sally" gets to keep her playing time.

Parents don't have to  confront coaches abusing the rule.

"Indys" get to compete and fight for their league position on an even and level playing field.

But until a rule change can be created, championed and influenced enough to actually get a change which the timeframe will be determined by the amount of resistance to it from the powers to be, what can a parent do? You've got a solution, what are you prepared to do about it? It's Quixotic to chase windmills without specific action to create a rule change. This is all and good, but where and how does it begin?

I would argue that the "abuse" of the rule is in effect and by acceptance, the parents fault. They allow it to occur on their team and don't take action to change it. Why do you feel that a parent talking to a coach about these matters is a "confrontation"? Why can't it be a respectful "conversation"? I would say that if the coach is a tyrant and a parent is afraid to converse with them, then THAT is a reason in itself to find a better coached team. If anybody thinks one coach or club has the answer to Little Mia's fame and fortune in soccer, you are deluding yourself. There are no "chokepoints" in the NTX soccer world.

The unfortunate thing is, rules are much like law, someone will always find the loophole and exploit it...  You can only create a rule to cover a rule so many times before that rule is meaningless...  so rewriting a rule or law or whatever can take time to ensure it's only written once.  I know for a fact that the LH age commissioners come on here and read the forums and pay close attention to the debates on here.  They may even have something in the works to tighten the rules for CPP which isn't a bad thing.  However, like any law, it must be written with everyone in mind and to keep loopholes from forming.  So my guess is, it will come soon enough and may already be in the works - Rome wasn't built in a day you know...

This is my opinion and in no way reflects the thoughts or ideas of Lake Highlands or any of it's governing body...

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?

"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.

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!!!!

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.

Barca is taking a "wild guess" that someone who is selling a DT kit from down South may be in that situation.  Hey Barca - is it really a wild guess based on a bunch of circumstantial evidence, or do you actually know this person and have talked to him/her, and know that they are getting a release because their kid lost time to CPP players?

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?

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.

looking back, i would guess that solar nero would say all this bad publicity simply wasn't worth it. Now people will associate bringing in ringers with this team instead of admiring some nice hardworking girls...

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?