Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SRI "5 release limit" and "no state cup" rules

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    SRI "5 release limit" and "no state cup" rules

    At the request of posters on this forum, let's start a thread specific to these rules.

    I am inviting SRI officials, town association officials, premier club officials to please shed some light on these rules, how they originated, what their intent is and most importantly...what effects, if any, they have had on youth soccer in RI today. Are they working the way they were intended?

    Let's refrain from bashing particular clubs or assoociations. Let's have a healthy pro and con debate. I do think that RI parents and kids who are affected by these rules are owed an explanation and some reasoning.

    Ok, who can step up and answer some of these questions?

    JB

    #2
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    At the request of posters on this forum, let's start a thread specific to these rules.

    I am inviting SRI officials, town association officials, premier club officials to please shed some light on these rules, how they originated, what their intent is and most importantly...what effects, if any, they have had on youth soccer in RI today. Are they working the way they were intended?

    Let's refrain from bashing particular clubs or assoociations. Let's have a healthy pro and con debate. I do think that RI parents and kids who are affected by these rules are owed an explanation and some reasoning.

    Ok, who can step up and answer some of these questions?

    JB
    Finally, this is a good move as I was getting a little tired of the club bashing. I for one am leaning towards opposing the rule but would like to know it's intent. Ie. How did the discussion start and why was the rule imposed.

    Comment


      #3
      From the Bashing Post:

      I'm glad we can laugh a little and realize we are just having fun. Btw I'm up to bat for you on the 5 release rule. I've done some homework and it's a stupid rule put in place by towns that are sick of the mass defections they get when a coach pulls a team from town and takes them to premier. I don't think they will be able to enforce it for state cup since they've already set a precedence of ignoring the rule for league play. I think SRI appeased it's members by letting it pass but will not try to enforce. It's not like a town meeting where there is a town solicitor there advising the council.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        From the Bashing Post:

        I'm glad we can laugh a little and realize we are just having fun. Btw I'm up to bat for you on the 5 release rule. I've done some homework and it's a stupid rule put in place by towns that are sick of the mass defections they get when a coach pulls a team from town and takes them to premier. I don't think they will be able to enforce it for state cup since they've already set a precedence of ignoring the rule for league play. I think SRI appeased it's members by letting it pass but will not try to enforce. It's not like a town meeting where there is a town solicitor there advising the council.
        Thanks for your support.

        I've gotten some phone calls and private emails from various parents I know from around the state who know me regarding this post.

        What I have learned is that existing SRI premier clubs don't like the "no state
        cup" rule - they actually welcome more competition in the state cup tournament. It was brought to my attention that there were as few as 2 entries into state cup this past spring in certain age groups. Specifically, 1 Rays Mom told me that the Rays WANT the NE Wave to participate in state cup.

        Some town associations have taken steps to improve their own competitive programs. Locally, Cumberland and Lincoln now have Challenger coaching and training their fall travel teams. Cumberland even created a "Cumberland Select Program" which mimics a premier club experience for less than half the price. Bravo.

        Also, I have learned that the "5 release limit" has had zero effect on deterring players from leaving town programs and joining Mass premier clubs if they choose. SRI is working around their own rule by issuing "waivers" for RI players 6 -plus who join a Mass club. Personally, I can attest to this fact as all 3 of my kids play for RI-based non-SRI clubs and are competing in MAPLE and MASC with 100% RI resident rosters.

        All of which begs the question - why bother making the rules in the first place?

        JB

        Comment


          #5
          Let's talk about the "unintended" effect of SRI's 3 town rule at the younger age groups.

          What has that caused? In my opinion,

          (1) a proliferation of premier clubs that has watered down the collective level of talent of RI teams playing in Region 1 finals. Yes, the VA, E-PA, and NY will always be tough. However, I've been in VA, AZ, NY, and GA --and on a proportion basis, I'm pretty sure RI has the highest per player concentration of premier clubs..no offense, but there are some pretty bad premier teams (not overall programs -- most of the people involved are good soccer people, but for some, it's still a business and numbers matter) that have 2 or 3 talented players that should be playing either with their local club or the top premier club(s) that have emerged..and then have 8-12 kids who should be playing with their local club, making them stronger and saving the parents $$$..look the performance of some RI clubs in MAPLE and you know what I mean.

          (2) the rule has kept weaker local programs afloat (competitive, not rec)..I guess it's a RI thing, but the as a parent, I can look at a program 5 miles from away with better facilities, coaching, etc..and that club may not be able to field the best team possible (or exclude my kid) because 2 other families from neighboring towns also have a strong player and want to be on that team.. so my only choice is premier..a couple of programs like South County and Bristol have found ways to have competitive teams in state cup, but those are generally a one shot cohort that the coach has kept the players together..and had strong enough support so not to jump to premier.. However, take the situation where there are teams that develop 4-6 good players.. Local club A can only add kids from 2 other towns (so good luck getting 4 good players from towns A and B)..premier club can take from unlimited communities..very UNFAIR when State cup rules say all teams competing are supposed to be playing under the same set of rules..not true in RI, but Region 1 folks do not want to make it an issue with RI..

          How many other states have similar rules to RI 3 town rule..Zero has far as I know..

          and not bashing, but...

          Why does USYS national by-laws says Directors/BOD members can NOT make money from businesses that do business with USYS..but that clause is dropped from the SRI by-laws..how can we have SRI Board members who profit from businesses whose operations are governed by SRI..talk about conflict of interest....but then again, it's RI, right?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            Let's talk about the "unintended" effect of SRI's 3 town rule at the younger age groups.

            What has that caused? In my opinion,

            (1) a proliferation of premier clubs that has watered down the collective level of talent of RI teams playing in Region 1 finals. Yes, the VA, E-PA, and NY will always be tough. However, I've been in VA, AZ, NY, and GA --and on a proportion basis, I'm pretty sure RI has the highest per player concentration of premier clubs..no offense, but there are some pretty bad premier teams (not overall programs -- most of the people involved are good soccer people, but for some, it's still a business and numbers matter) that have 2 or 3 talented players that should be playing either with their local club or the top premier club(s) that have emerged..and then have 8-12 kids who should be playing with their local club, making them stronger and saving the parents $$$..look the performance of some RI clubs in MAPLE and you know what I mean.

            (2) the rule has kept weaker local programs afloat (competitive, not rec)..I guess it's a RI thing, but the as a parent, I can look at a program 5 miles from away with better facilities, coaching, etc..and that club may not be able to field the best team possible (or exclude my kid) because 2 other families from neighboring towns also have a strong player and want to be on that team.. so my only choice is premier..a couple of programs like South County and Bristol have found ways to have competitive teams in state cup, but those are generally a one shot cohort that the coach has kept the players together..and had strong enough support so not to jump to premier.. However, take the situation where there are teams that develop 4-6 good players.. Local club A can only add kids from 2 other towns (so good luck getting 4 good players from towns A and B)..premier club can take from unlimited communities..very UNFAIR when State cup rules say all teams competing are supposed to be playing under the same set of rules..not true in RI, but Region 1 folks do not want to make it an issue with RI..

            How many other states have similar rules to RI 3 town rule..Zero has far as I know..

            and not bashing, but...

            Why does USYS national by-laws says Directors/BOD members can NOT make money from businesses that do business with USYS..but that clause is dropped from the SRI by-laws..how can we have SRI Board members who profit from businesses whose operations are governed by SRI..talk about conflict of interest....but then again, it's RI, right?
            Great post. Thanks for contributing.

            I've long been a major critic for the way youth soccer is run in the USA and nowhere is this issue more apparent than here in RI.

            There are far too many "grown-up" agendas - including making money - that affect how, when, where, RI kids can play soccer. SRI has got it all wrong. Just go to the SRI website, look at the SRI Policies and Procedures file and sift through that encyclopedia. There's more rules in there than in any law book you'll ever find. And, some of those rules contradict other rules in the same document!

            I don't get why a youth sports organization that it supposed to be about kids playing soccer (SRI) so determined to make rules that obstruct RI kids from playing soccer???

            Listen, I've said it before and I'll say it again...the folks who run SRI are genuinely nice people. But their intentions are misguided and too focused on what town and club officials want versus what parents want for their kids. Parents want choices.

            We only need to to look east of Rte. 95 to see how it should be done - Mass Youth Soccer has it right. Open registration, no limits on where kids can play, easy to do business with...the list goes on....why does SRI make it so complicated?

            The 3-town limit rule you mention is just another example of this zealous over-regulation of youth soccer in our state.

            I've been involved with Little League baseball and softball, AAU baseball, AAU basketball, RIYBA basketball, RIPCOA, RI Interscholastic League, various youth socer programs as a coach, manager, board member, official, volunteer and even as a player.....trust me, no one entity makes it as difficult and complicated for kids to play as SRI. It's not even close.

            Simple solution. Dump our rules and reg's - adopt Mass's.

            JB

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Let's talk about the "unintended" effect of SRI's 3 town rule at the younger age groups.

              What has that caused? In my opinion,

              (1) a proliferation of premier clubs that has watered down the collective level of talent of RI teams playing in Region 1 finals. Yes, the VA, E-PA, and NY will always be tough. However, I've been in VA, AZ, NY, and GA --and on a proportion basis, I'm pretty sure RI has the highest per player concentration of premier clubs..no offense, but there are some pretty bad premier teams (not overall programs -- most of the people involved are good soccer people, but for some, it's still a business and numbers matter) that have 2 or 3 talented players that should be playing either with their local club or the top premier club(s) that have emerged..and then have 8-12 kids who should be playing with their local club, making them stronger and saving the parents $$$..look the performance of some RI clubs in MAPLE and you know what I mean.

              (2) the rule has kept weaker local programs afloat (competitive, not rec)..I guess it's a RI thing, but the as a parent, I can look at a program 5 miles from away with better facilities, coaching, etc..and that club may not be able to field the best team possible (or exclude my kid) because 2 other families from neighboring towns also have a strong player and want to be on that team.. so my only choice is premier..a couple of programs like South County and Bristol have found ways to have competitive teams in state cup, but those are generally a one shot cohort that the coach has kept the players together..and had strong enough support so not to jump to premier.. However, take the situation where there are teams that develop 4-6 good players.. Local club A can only add kids from 2 other towns (so good luck getting 4 good players from towns A and B)..premier club can take from unlimited communities..very UNFAIR when State cup rules say all teams competing are supposed to be playing under the same set of rules..not true in RI, but Region 1 folks do not want to make it an issue with RI..

              How many other states have similar rules to RI 3 town rule..Zero has far as I know..

              and not bashing, but...

              Why does USYS national by-laws says Directors/BOD members can NOT make money from businesses that do business with USYS..but that clause is dropped from the SRI by-laws..how can we have SRI Board members who profit from businesses whose operations are governed by SRI..talk about conflict of interest....but then again, it's RI, right?
              FYI - somebody must be listening to you. If you visit SRI's website, they have listed a proposal for Nov. 15 mtg. to dump the 3-town rule for competitive teams all the way down to U11. This would open up choices for parents as to where their kids play soccer.

              Of course, all the association prez's have to vote to approve it. Whether or not they are willing to risk their little feifdom's remains to be seen.

              JB

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                FYI - somebody must be listening to you. If you visit SRI's website, they have listed a proposal for Nov. 15 mtg. to dump the 3-town rule for competitive teams all the way down to U11. This would open up choices for parents as to where their kids play soccer.

                Of course, all the association prez's have to vote to approve it. Whether or not they are willing to risk their little feifdom's remains to be seen.

                JB
                Not sure the 3 town rule applies to a state cup roster. So if you want to put together a state cup roster or tournament roster you can have kids from anywhere I believe. The hard part would be getting opportunity to play together aside from tourneys and friendlies. I could be wrong.

                RG

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  Not sure the 3 town rule applies to a state cup roster. So if you want to put together a state cup roster or tournament roster you can have kids from anywhere I believe. The hard part would be getting opportunity to play together aside from tourneys and friendlies. I could be wrong.

                  RG
                  Aaahhhh, I'm going to have to scroll through SRI's voluminous rules to figure that one out....

                  Let me throw this out there...not 100% sure this is right, mind you...I think a team must be playing in USYSA or SRI-recognized league (MASC, MAPLE, SuperLiga) to qualify for state cup. Thus, the state cup roster must be the same as the league roster (?). If so, then a SuperLiga town team would have to adhere to the 3-town rule. However, I think there is some flexibility that a certain number of players can play for a state cup team if they are also rostered for a team not particpating in state cup......but I'm not sure if that means they must already be rostered/dual-rostered?????

                  I know there's something in there like that. I think I know more about SRI's rules than most...but even I'm not sure. And, it's probably open to interpretation....and, SRI gives out waivers for these types of things sometimes.....and it all goes out the window if your RI-resident kid plays for the NE Wave :)

                  Soccer is hard. You can't just pick up the ball with your hands and throw it into the net. SRI makes it harder :)

                  JB

                  Comment


                    #10
                    New England Wave? Is that a soccer club?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      New England Wave? Is that a soccer club?
                      Why you @$&/@$ !!!!!!

                      LOL. :)

                      JB

                      Comment


                        #12
                        JB - You are correct (I think) -- not a lawyer bit did stay at that Holiday Inn Express on Douglas Pike.

                        You must be in a USYSA affiliated league of with at least 4 teams in your age group to qualify for State Cup.

                        Now, the NCS (Natl Championship Series) rules also state you can NOT form a "select" team for the NCS tournament. I believe they qualify that rule by a certain continuity of players from the "league" roster to the State Cup/Qualifying tournament roster.

                        So, here's the rub. It's a SRI rule about the 3 towns -- it applies to all leagues, of course there is no RI "premier league" and as long as the rule exists, there won't be one. I think the premier clubs are just as happy to stay with MAPLE/NEP or Regional league anyway. Thus, town teams (U12 and up) are at a disadvantage because their SuperLiga rostered team pretty much has to become their State Cup team. To the extent you could add a few players "just" for State Cup, those players can't be rostered on any other team so where do you find 2-3 decent players just "hanging out" for State Cup?

                        To me, it clearly violates the spirit of the USYSA by-laws about equal opportunity in "competitions" and in the larger aspect is a form of socio-economic discrimination.

                        I did see where Ocean State has brought up the change. It looks like the same argument brought up last year. The big clubs support. The premier clubs will vote against (obviously). The medium/smaller clubs will look at the "allow kids to go to better coaching" and wonder if that is an insult to them..probably will fail.

                        What will be clearly absent is a quantitative discussion to what will be the argument from a few clubs that the rule will force them out of business. I suspect you will find some clubs have gotten bigger, some will have gotten smaller (especially the ones who will protest the most). It's like the businesses that argue for subsidies..having protection makes them less likely to take the steps to better. All that the rule has truly done is enable a proliferation of premier clubs.

                        I note how SRI has not 'taken a position.' Really -- you have a rule that no other state has and you can't "take a position." Why does the rule exist? Has it accomplished the purpose for the rule? If you believe so, then come out in support and explain why. If not, then go back to why you have the rule (the underlying purpose) and have an intelligent discussion of whether the purpose makes sense and what might be a better way to accomplish.

                        But really, could we at least acknowledge that the rule makes the playing field uneven between premier and town associations? Boards exist to demonstrate leadership -- I may disagree with it, but I can respect if the board attempted some justification for the rule.

                        -COL

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          JB - You are correct (I think) -- not a lawyer bit did stay at that Holiday Inn Express on Douglas Pike.

                          You must be in a USYSA affiliated league of with at least 4 teams in your age group to qualify for State Cup.

                          Now, the NCS (Natl Championship Series) rules also state you can NOT form a "select" team for the NCS tournament. I believe they qualify that rule by a certain continuity of players from the "league" roster to the State Cup/Qualifying tournament roster.

                          So, here's the rub. It's a SRI rule about the 3 towns -- it applies to all leagues, of course there is no RI "premier league" and as long as the rule exists, there won't be one. I think the premier clubs are just as happy to stay with MAPLE/NEP or Regional league anyway. Thus, town teams (U12 and up) are at a disadvantage because their SuperLiga rostered team pretty much has to become their State Cup team. To the extent you could add a few players "just" for State Cup, those players can't be rostered on any other team so where do you find 2-3 decent players just "hanging out" for State Cup?

                          To me, it clearly violates the spirit of the USYSA by-laws about equal opportunity in "competitions" and in the larger aspect is a form of socio-economic discrimination.

                          I did see where Ocean State has brought up the change. It looks like the same argument brought up last year. The big clubs support. The premier clubs will vote against (obviously). The medium/smaller clubs will look at the "allow kids to go to better coaching" and wonder if that is an insult to them..probably will fail.

                          What will be clearly absent is a quantitative discussion to what will be the argument from a few clubs that the rule will force them out of business. I suspect you will find some clubs have gotten bigger, some will have gotten smaller (especially the ones who will protest the most). It's like the businesses that argue for subsidies..having protection makes them less likely to take the steps to better. All that the rule has truly done is enable a proliferation of premier clubs.

                          I note how SRI has not 'taken a position.' Really -- you have a rule that no other state has and you can't "take a position." Why does the rule exist? Has it accomplished the purpose for the rule? If you believe so, then come out in support and explain why. If not, then go back to why you have the rule (the underlying purpose) and have an intelligent discussion of whether the purpose makes sense and what might be a better way to accomplish.

                          But really, could we at least acknowledge that the rule makes the playing field uneven between premier and town associations? Boards exist to demonstrate leadership -- I may disagree with it, but I can respect if the board attempted some justification for the rule.

                          -COL
                          Another great post. Thanks.

                          Personally, I like the proposed rule change for 2 reasons. 1. It gives parents more choices as to where there kids can play soccer, and 2. It provides incentive for town associations and clubs to improve so that they might continue to attract families.

                          The market will dictate which clubs/associations fail and which will survive. IMO, that's the way it should be.

                          Funny you should mention the idea of a "RI Premier League". I know that there was talk of that this summer within SRI. For existing SRI-member premier clubs who are already struggling to attract RI premier players, playing in a RI-only Premier League would be another nail in their coffins. By isolating themselves from regional competition in MAPLE, MASC, etc. RI families of talented players would be further incentivized to seek out Massachusetts premier clubs that do play regional competition. I just don't get the whole SRI theory of building walls around the state of RI. It never works.

                          When the proposal was brought up last year, the SRI Board said it did NOT recommend this change. This time, they offer no recommendation, remaining neutral. No idea why. But I do know that the current leadership of SRI is not leading, they're following....following the whims of a handful of grown-ups who have their own agendas rather than really looking at what's best for RI soccer families.

                          The playing field IS uneven between town associations and premier clubs, but that's the nature of the beast. They are 2 distinctly different animals right now. However, if they abolish the "3-town rule" it opens the door for town associations to further model themselves as a premier club as they will be able to attract kids from all over. I think it's a great idea. Open it up, baby.

                          JB

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I agree with you to let the market decide -- but back to Econ 101 and competition requires equal information, equal access, etc.

                            I'm just afraid the "common sense" argument of more choice = better value for parents = better developmental opportunities for kids is not sufficient to get the rule changed.

                            Again, my larger point:

                            If you introduce a unique and sweeping rule/restriction, please include:

                            (1) The justification for it
                            (2) What the intended outcomes from having the rule are
                            (3) The metrics for assessing those outcomes
                            (4) A timeline for reviewing the rule

                            and how can you have no recommendation as a board on this rule -- it's unique to RI. Either it serves a purpose that you can justify/demonstrate or not. If not, you should be recommending its elimination.

                            _COL

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                              I agree with you to let the market decide -- but back to Econ 101 and competition requires equal information, equal access, etc.

                              I'm just afraid the "common sense" argument of more choice = better value for parents = better developmental opportunities for kids is not sufficient to get the rule changed.

                              Again, my larger point:

                              If you introduce a unique and sweeping rule/restriction, please include:

                              (1) The justification for it
                              (2) What the intended outcomes from having the rule are
                              (3) The metrics for assessing those outcomes
                              (4) A timeline for reviewing the rule

                              and how can you have no recommendation as a board on this rule -- it's unique to RI. Either it serves a purpose that you can justify/demonstrate or not. If not, you should be recommending its elimination.

                              _COL
                              My friend, I do believe you are making much too much sense to be posting on this board. You get my vote as next prez of SRI - if I ever had a vote:)

                              Well stated.

                              JB

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X