Lake Highlands QT

There was a '98 Sting West team that folded a couple years ago when they dropped from D2 to D3.  When they figured they would not get anywhere near enough girls to keep the original team together, Sting went hunting for teams to take that bye.  They conned some independent East Texas team into paying Sting prices in exchange for that Bye.  They didn't have any of the same players, nor the same coach and practiced an hour away from where the original team practiced.  In effect, the bye was auctioned off to the highest bidder.  That team ended up getting killed in D3 and finished in last place.  Clearly, that is an example of where competition was harmed, not helped.  Some team earning a spot in a QT would have been better for the league.


Edit: At the same time, imagine a situation where a D2 team joins a club and plays for a full season and ends up 3rd place in D2. Pretty good but not good enough to get into D1. Meanwhile the same club has a D1 team that struggles to stay in D1. So they get 3rd to last year after year. It makes sense for that club to be able to move all the top players onto the D1 team and the rest to the D2 team. That raises the level of competition overall. Girls will have more playing time against their appropriate level of competition, and all is good. If we had some sort of 75% or even 50% rule, then that probably wouldn't be possible.

The clubs do have the ability to move players up and down with player pass, that would not be affected by a 50% rule. The point is a club shouldn't be able to lose the majority of its players then fill that spot with a completely different team just because they are affiliated with the same club.

There is a lot of complaining about this every year, so that indicates, to me, that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  I would think if a team kept 50% of its players, that team should keep the bye.  IMO, those who don't keep 50% should have to requalify.  If the team is truly competitive, they will get back in.   If not, then said team probably belongs in a different league anyway, where they can develop and certainly have more fun.   Then move all the teams, with byes, up until all the slots are filled.  Then the remaining spots would be open to qualifying teams.  I can think of probably 4-6 teams, in the 02's, who would have not kept byes if these were the rules, but I think this would make the league more competitive overall.  Of course, this opens up another set of problems because I don't think LH would have the field space to accommodate all the qualifying teams.  I would think LH would also make more money off this deal, with more teams having to pay the $800.  Lol!

Zeko2 wrote:There is a lot of complaining about this every year, so that indicates, to me, that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  I would think if a team kept 50% of its players, that team should keep the bye.  IMO, those who don't keep 50% should have to requalify.

50% + 1 was pretty much how it worked until US Club came along and threatened their very existence. LHGCL caved to the clubs on who the bye belonged to.

Because of this rule, this year relegated teams will actually be promoted, newly formed teams will step into D2 and in one case, a D3 team barely above requalifying gets promoted to D1. LHGCL needs to remove any verbage that still claims its about making the most competitive league possible.

The reason why 50%+1 is too high is because of a situation where you consolidate 2 teams (which happens a lot). If you wanted to take a given set of 32 girls from 2 teams in LH and put the top 16 on the top team and the bottom 16 on a lower team, then one or both teams could loose their bye because each team could have 50% not 50%+1. If 1 or 2 girls leave on top of that, then the math really screws it up. It's not like one team is trying to "steal" a bye. Both teams "earned" their spot in LH. Nobody is cheating, but now because a club wants to make the teams competitive and allow the girls the most playing time possible, they are faced with losing their bye. That's why I think 33% is a better number.

The problem with 33 % is that in theory you could have 3 teams claiming the same bye. Their is a realistic chance you would have 2. In addition, if this is about "earning" the place in a league, if a team only has 33% of their team returning really earn their bye?

Teams can't claim the bye. The bye belongs to the club as long as at least 33% of the roster stays intact. If a coach or team is pissed at the club for some decisoin they make, then they can leave, take 75% with them, and retain their bye. 33% is far better than 0% like right now.

Regarding the whole "earning" it, how far can you take it? There are plenty of girls who go from Arlington to D1. Should they be denied a spot on that D1 team beause they didn't "earn it" in a QT? Should they be forced to play D3 before they can play D2, and then D1? What if a girl is on a team that earned 5th place in D3? If she leaves that team and joins the 4th place D3 team, has she "earned it"?

So you have know problem with texans switching out their d1 and d3 clubs? I am not positive but would guess dt south retained 33. % of their players?

I'm not sure a team that retains their bye because they retain 33% really makes a difference from a competitive balance standpoint. I thought the majority of the people on the board indicated the bye should belong to the players, in other words the girls that earned the bye on the field.

What do you mean by switching out? Like have d1 team and d3 team trade places (except 33%)? If so, then why would a club do that?

9876 wrote:I'm not sure a team that retains their bye because they retain  33% really makes a difference from a competitive balance standpoint.   I thought the majority of the people on the board indicated the bye should belong to the players, in other words the girls that earned the bye on the field.

100% of the players?

Essentially either the club retains the bye , or the players retain the bye,, which is better? If it's the players, then I think you probably need at least a n+1 rule. If it is the club, then I don't think anything is gained by putting any min rule. 33% It is an arbitrary number. Why not 20% why not 40%. I could say it should 15% or 40% and no one could prove 33% is better than either 40 % or 15% so why institute an arbitrary number

People argue arbitrary percentages all the time: 50% to pass a bill, 60% to block a filibuster, 66% to override a veto and propose an amendment, 75% to ratify an amendment, etc. It's a matter of how hard they want things to be.

This entire thread and others in the past are dedicated to complaining about it being at 0% right now. So that's no good. Making it 100% is clearly no good either, since if just one girl leaves her team, then the entire team needs to requalify. Every QT at every age would basically be like the U11 QT. So it's clear that it has to be somewhere between 0% and 100%. It's just a matter of arguing where.

So what about 50%? My argument above is that it needs to be below 50% to account for the common occurance of consolidating 2 teams. 50% in that case would clearly harm competitive level in the league. So now we are talking somewhere between 0%-50%. Originally I started to type 25%, but that seemed too low since a club could keep a bye if only 4 out of 16 girls stay. So I simply took the 1/2 and added 1 to the denominator and made it 1/3. Seemed a nice simple round number. It's closer to 50% than 0%, and seemed reasonable enough to me.

9876 wrote:So you have know problem with texans switching out their d1 and d3 clubs?  I am not positive but would guess dt south retained 33. % of their players?  

Texans switched their D1 spot with a D3 team.  Then took their new D3 spot and gave it to a 03 team that didnt' even qualify  in LH last year.
That shouldn't have been allowed. Not really fair to the poor girls who are out of their league and to the girls who ARE prepared but are not in a mega club.

I would guess that DT south did NOT retain 33% of their players. That team will likely get rocked. What D1 quality player would want to hang around for that?

How about a 50% + 1 approach - with the ability to petition the board if a team consolidation occurs.

Ultimately, this is a monopoly set up by LHGCL and maipulated by the clubs.  It is absolutely ridiculous that big clubs should get to fill open slots with weaker teams just because they happen to be part of the club.

This does not promote the best competiion on the field, and isn't really intended to.

The LH Board is selected by member teams. Member teams will do their best to protect thier interest, so it is a never-ending cycle.  They make sure to maintain as many seats as possible, by working to maximize the number of teams they have in the league.  Which works great for the big clubs, but to the detriment of smaller clubs and independents (and competition).

Why is it that the Board members don't also list thier club affiliation???

I'm not a fan of things like petitions. It allows bias and personal preference to enter the mix. I'd rather have it set in stone and to make LHGCL a league of laws rather than a league of men/women (to borrow from the founding fathers). If it's true that the board is pro this or pro that, then they should be removed from the equation as much as possible.

Personally, I don't think it's any sort of corruption or anything. It makes sense that more people affiliated with big clubs would be on the board. Many small club personnel have other jobs and wouldn't have time for stuff like that. Big clubs are more likely to have full time soccer employees & coaches. I do not think that LHGCL is pro-big club first. I think they want the league to be as good as possible, and think that if their policies trying to achieve that goal happen to benefit larger clubs, then so be it.

If the majority of the board comes from big clubs then of course it's going to look after the best interest of the big clubs. Allowing the big clubs to keep a bye, then give it to any team they want is no way looking after the best interest of competition. It's about keeping as many teams in lake highlands as they can. If they have a team in lake highlands they have more players coming out in June and more control of the board.

Somebody start a new league, preferably more centrally located.

And return the bye to the players, where it belongs. And where it was for most of LHGCL history.

If a bunch of small club guys in there, they would look after the interest of small clubs. It's human nature. If it were up to me (and I have one dd in a big club and another in a small club), I'd do the 33% thing. I think anything outside the 25%-49% range adversely effects the level of competition in the league. 33% seems to be a good middle ground.

I wouldn't use the term "corruption"

maybe "self-serving" or "anti-competitive"

"as good as possible" - for who? Giving teams who can't compete a slot becasue they happen to belong to a club is not good for anyone (except the club)

This "secret society" works to promote their own best interests first.  Why weren't all qualifying rules (including how they would handle second weekend re-seeding) spelled out in advance?  Why does it change each year without an explanation?

And return the bye to the players, where it belongs. And where it was for most of LHGCL history.

Again, what does this even mean? It is a meaningless platitude. Even in the "good ol days" if a girl left a team, she didn't take her 1/16th of a bye with her. It never "belonged" to the player.

Good question. Why is that a secret?

The problem is LHGCL has POLICIES that work counter to their stated OBJECTIVES.

OBJECTIVE- offer the highest level of competition possible.

POLICY- we're gonna let teams into the league, because they have uniforms that look like the uniforms of that other team that failed.

When your objectives and your policies are counter opposed, you're a hypocrite.

Or they just suck at achieving objectives.

If a majority of a team leaves and another team has a chance to earn that spot during qualifying, how would that not belong to the players.