U-13 G stay in MAPLE

[Unregistered]

MAPLE decided not to relegate the 4 losing teams from the play-in games at U-13 girls.

[Unregistered]

NEP pressure forces MAPLE to do what is should have been doing for years

[Unregistered]

NEP pressure forces MAPLE to do what is should have been doing for years

Although I feel this is a good thing to do, it does raise three questions in my mind.

First, if they are all staying, why did MAPLE even have the games and charge the teams $600 each to play?

Second, what happened to MAPLE By-Laws. They can be changed just like that?

Lastly, how does anyone conclude NEP forced this decision? This is about teams and NEP claims to be a league of clubs.

[Unregistered]

Don't you know, the NEP is the evil empire. Yeah right. This past summer, according to posts on this forum, it was dead before it got started. Now its to blame because MAPLE decided not to follow its by-laws. Who benefits from this decision? Why not start there?

[Unregistered]

does this mean there will be 3 div 3 groups

[Unregistered]

It is my understanding there will be 2-10 team Division 3 Groups. We were told that they made the decision because all the teams facing relegation from the league were 3rd/4th place teams with a average winning percentage of .700 and the first matches yesterday were all very, very close.

[Unregistered]

Although I feel this is a good thing to do, it does raise three questions in my mind.

First, if they are all staying, why did MAPLE even have the games and charge the teams $600 each to play?

Second, what happened to MAPLE By-Laws. They can be changed just like that?

Lastly, how does anyone conclude NEP forced this decision? This is about teams and NEP claims to be a league of clubs.

First, of course they took theri money. How else do you get your $80k salary.
Secondly, those are the by-laws until they are not, then they freely ignore them.
Lastly, when you have a relegation league where U13's get kicked out (MAPLE), and a league that doesn't do so that is taking market share (NEP) and then MAPLE changes it' policy apparently contrary to their bylaws, then I feel it is safe to say that the pressure had something to do with it. Either that or MAPLE suddenly and independantly woke up and decided that telling 13 year olds that they weren't good enough to play in their league was a heinous thing to do.

[Unregistered]

First, of course they took theri money. How else do you get your $80k salary.
Secondly, those are the by-laws until they are not, then they freely ignore them.
Lastly, when you have a relegation league where U13's get kicked out (MAPLE), and a league that doesn't do so that is taking market share (NEP) and then MAPLE changes it' policy apparently contrary to their bylaws, then I feel it is safe to say that the pressure had something to do with it. Either that or MAPLE suddenly and independantly woke up and decided that telling 13 year olds that they weren't good enough to play in their league was a heinous thing to do.

Unfortunately, there are still teams that will be relegated. There is a definite unfairness to this decision (and please spare me the "life ain't fair, get over it" spiel). And where does the waiting list begin?

[Unregistered]

Unfortunately, there are still teams that will be relegated. There is a definite unfairness to this decision (and please spare me the "life ain't fair, get over it" spiel). And where does the waiting list begin?

That is the slippery slope you get on when you start to ignore your own bylaws and past practice. However it works very well when you nee dot manage which clubs get favorite treatment and how much $$ you need to bring in.

FROM THE WEBSITE:

Girls:

SS Stingrays 1 Hawks 1
SS Stingrays 1 SS Select 0
Duxbury United 1 Hawks 0
Duxbury United 2 SS Select 1
Duxbury United 1 SS Stingrays 0
SS Select 1 Hawks 0

Stars 0 NH Classics 2
Stars 2 NE Wave 0
Mass Premier 0 NH Classics 1
Mass Premier 0 NE Wave 1
Stars 3 Mass Premier 1
NH Classics 2 NE Wave 0

Given the increase in the number of GU13 teams this year, the difficulty of even qualifying for the tournament,and the fact that the tournament scores were so close, the Commission has decided to keep all the girls teams for the spring 2011 season. Spring 2011 Division 3 will be 2 groups of 10.

[Unregistered]

Although I feel this is a good thing to do, it does raise three questions in my mind.

First, if they are all staying, why did MAPLE even have the games and charge the teams $600 each to play?

Second, what happened to MAPLE By-Laws. They can be changed just like that?

Lastly, how does anyone conclude NEP forced this decision? This is about teams and NEP claims to be a league of clubs.

I have no idea about your 3rd question, but the first 2 are easy. Maple kept the $$$ because Maple is run by fools.

The Maple by-laws are a joke because Maple is run by fools.

[Unregistered]

They didn't keep the best 20 teams in D3....just the top four in each section. Some of the 5th place finishers had better record than some 4th place in other sections. The process is not very good.

[Unregistered]

They didn't keep the best 20 teams in D3....just the top four in each section. Some of the 5th place finishers had better record than some 4th place in other sections. The process is not very good.

Please! This is precisely the type of comment that makes my blood boil. Yes, in a VACUUM, it may be "unfair" because there were 4 10-team divisions in D3 and the teams obviouly play only within their group and thus may get lucks and finish 4th in a "weak" group v. a team that finished 5th in a "stronger" division,

BUT, BUT, BUT...what you fail to realize is this is the Fall season of U13! Any team that did not make the cut into MAPLE for Spring 2011 had plenty of time over the past two years to PROVE they belong. No one can complain. Not one of those teams in D3 that lost a place at the table for the Spring.

Moreover, by its very definition, these are not "Premier" teams. There are at least 20 teams in D1 and D2 who are BETTER than any one of those 5th and 6th place finishers who, accroding to you, "got the shaft". What if MAPLE's policy was to just keep the 20 teams in D1 and D2? Then they all lose. It is a good system, it works, and every team has an equal opportunity to earn their place in MAPLE and do it the old-fashioned way...by performance on the field.

So come'on, look at the big picture, don't just look at this one season in a vacuum.

One more thing to reinforce my argument. My team is now in Boys U12, in the 3rd group. If B12 Orange from the Fall is any gauge of comparable play on the girls side, then all the power to MAPLE with their current system to reduce the number of teams by the time they reach 13-14. I can only speak to this group, but there is a clear drop-off after the top, say, 20ish teams, so those last few that get a chance to fill out the groups in D3 (whether is is 24 or 32 teams making the cut) are interchangeable and perhaps "fortunate" to even have a seat at the table. And this is at U12. I would imagine that, if anything, as teams continue to "settle", the cream will have been firmly established by the U13 age and the pretenders, while I welcome their presence because they are providing kids an opportunity to play (which is all I care about), will have defined themselves by their season-by-season performance on the field (not in any one 7- or 9-game season). Yes, there will continue to be movement in both directions (to wit, Sachems on the one hand, and Hammer, a new entry, on the other), but again, by U13 EVERY single team will have had AMPLE opportunity to decide their own destiny. On the Field.

[Unregistered]

Please! This is precisely the type of comment that makes my blood boil. Yes, in a VACUUM, it may be "unfair" because there were 4 10-team divisions in D3 and the teams obviouly play only within their group and thus may get lucks and finish 4th in a "weak" group v. a team that finished 5th in a "stronger" division,

BUT, BUT, BUT...what you fail to realize is this is the Fall season of U13! Any team that did not make the cut into MAPLE for Spring 2011 had plenty of time over the past two years to PROVE they belong. No one can complain. Not one of those teams in D3 that lost a place at the table for the Spring.

Moreover, by its very definition, these are not "Premier" teams. There are at least 20 teams in D1 and D2 who are BETTER than any one of those 5th and 6th place finishers who, accroding to you, "got the shaft". What if MAPLE's policy was to just keep the 20 teams in D1 and D2? Then they all lose. It is a good system, it works, and every team has an equal opportunity to earn their place in MAPLE and do it the old-fashioned way...by performance on the field.

So come'on, look at the big picture, don't just look at this one season in a vacuum.

One more thing to reinforce my argument. My team is now in Boys U12, in the 3rd group. If B12 Orange from the Fall is any gauge of comparable play on the girls side, then all the power to MAPLE with their current system to reduce the number of teams by the time they reach 13-14. I can only speak to this group, but there is a clear drop-off after the top, say, 20ish teams, so those last few that get a chance to fill out the groups in D3 (whether is is 24 or 32 teams making the cut) are interchangeable and perhaps "fortunate" to even have a seat at the table. And this is at U12. I would imagine that, if anything, as teams continue to "settle", the cream will have been firmly established by the U13 age and the pretenders, while I welcome their presence because they are providing kids an opportunity to play (which is all I care about), will have defined themselves by their season-by-season performance on the field (not in any one 7- or 9-game season). Yes, there will continue to be movement in both directions (to wit, Sachems on the one hand, and Hammer, a new entry, on the other), but again, by U13 EVERY single team will have had AMPLE opportunity to decide their own destiny. On the Field.

I agree, it is very important to tell 12 year olds that they are not good enough to play in MAPLE. How else can we instill self-confidence in the masses? Plus now we know that since we are still in MAPLE that we are really, really good and worthy. Your post and attitude give MAPLE parents everywhere a great name, the kind they have earned and deserved, thank you. Best wishes for a strong yelling voice and lots of latte money for 2011 as well as a new comfy chair for the sidelines.

[Unregistered]

I agree, it is very important to tell 12 year olds that they are not good enough to play in MAPLE. How else can we instill self-confidence in the masses? Plus now we know that since we are still in MAPLE that we are really, really good and worthy. Your post and attitude give MAPLE parents everywhere a great name, the kind they have earned and deserved, thank you. Best wishes for a strong yelling voice and lots of latte money for 2011 as well as a new comfy chair for the sidelines.

Clearly, you did not READ my post. #1 I did not say I agree with limiting the number of teams in MAPLE. (In fact, I said essentially the very opposite when I said that ALL I CARE ABOUT IS KIDS PLAYING). What I did say was that their SYSTEM for determining who stays and doesn't is not flawed...so as long as they are going to linmit the teams, then their current system for whittling down D3 leaves no one with any legitimate beef.

Plus, as MUCH as I am all about the KIDS PLAYING, and nothing more---I have no pretensions that any of these kids will play anythng beyond a little college soccer, if that---last time I looked, it was the Mass PREMIER league, purposefully created for "premier" soccer, and moreover a "voluntary" league created by people who took the initiative. I did not read anywhere that their impetus was to make every single kid in New England who wants to play soccer to have a chance to play on a club team on Sunday. (Isn't that what town/recreational soccer is for?)

So with all your sarcasm, you are barking up the wrong tree. I was only defending the methodology used, not that teams get shut out from the experience. And by providing my experience with the B12 teams, I offered additional concrete back-up. You don't know how much you have me confused with "those" parents that you described.