Aug 2011 SRI Council Meeting Community Rule

[Unregistered]

New take on the 3 town rule for the upcoming SRI council meeting. As much as I am in principle opposed to the community rule in general, I think below is a step in the right direction.

What is frustrating is for the SRI board to avoid taking a position (until the actual vote occurs -- "The Soccer Rhode Island Board of Directors did not voice an opinion on this policy change")

Isn’t taking a stand a strong part of leadership? The BOD exists in part to help and guide the larger council (associations) in promoting and fostering the game in RI. The community rule has a major impact (positively or negatively depending on your perspective) on the game in RI so to be silent as a board is simply poor leadership. If there is a difference of opinion, then outline the different views.

"Nothing is so fatal to an organization as indifference."


PROPOSED REVISION:
Team Roster Limits. Each and every team may not have more than three (3) communities;
Each team is independent of all other teams in that association.
Limits apply to U14 teams and below. Limits do NOT apply to U15 teams and above.
Limits do not apply to Recreational, Indoor, Tournament, and SRI Member Premier Club teams or to any nonstandard soccer.

http://www.soccer-ri.com/Assets/Socc...unity+rule.pdf

------------

Also from SRI -- seems once again SRI is content to keep what should be the most elite tournament run by the state association as a get it over and done with event. Why this event has to be forced upon teams early when the weather, fields, and other activities (leagues, school vacations) are less accommodating to allowing the players to determine more of the outcome is still puzzling.

Here's a thought -- wait until the entry deadline and then decide based on the number and type (premier/town) of teams. There is no reason you can't push the schedule back a couple of weeks and use a seeding system like other states do.

"Just because you have always done something a certain way does not make it the right way"

Dates for 2012 Competitive Events are as follows:
RI Championships – Entry Deadline January 20, 2012
Draw – February 2, 2012
Game scheduling period ends March 30, 3012
Roster freeze* – April 9, 2012*
U12 - U18 – Final Date to Play Games – Saturday, May 12, 2012
U12 - U18 – Semi-Finals – Saturday, May 19, 2012
U12 – U18 – Finals – Sunday, May 20, 2012

[Unregistered]

SRI changes things like the Vatican - so backwards thinking.

[JBsoccer]

SRI changes things like the Vatican - so backwards thinking.

Agree. But nobody else complaining - including myself - steps up to run for a Board position.

I have to say this - it's hard to take complaints about SRI policy - including my own - when the complainers aren't willing to take on the responsibility of running youth soccer in the state. You want their authority? Then accept their responsibility.

They take the time and make the time. If anyone thinks they can do things better, I encourage them to run. Start at the town level and work your way up. Trust me, soccer parents are starving for new blood.

JB

[Unregistered]

Agree. But nobody else complaining - including myself - steps up to run for a Board position.

I have to say this - it's hard to take complaints about SRI policy - including my own - when the complainers aren't willing to take on the responsibility of running youth soccer in the state. You want their authority? Then accept their responsibility.

They take the time and make the time. If anyone thinks they can do things better, I encourage them to run. Start at the town level and work your way up. Trust me, soccer parents are starving for new blood.

JB

Take away the 3 town rule and soccer will benefit from it all. Lousy run programs will fall which is what they deserve. Better run programs will be able to compete with premier less expensively. Create a bulletin board for teams to find players and players to find teams. Apply the current recruiting rules to town programs. Make all Superliga games to be played on Saturdays and premier games to be played on Sundays.

[Unregistered]

Take away the 3 town rule and soccer will benefit from it all. Lousy run programs will fall which is what they deserve. Better run programs will be able to compete with premier less expensively. Create a bulletin board for teams to find players and players to find teams. Apply the current recruiting rules to town programs. Make all Superliga games to be played on Saturdays and premier games to be played on Sundays.

I forgot to add weaker players will also benefit from this.
some weaker players living in towns with poor programs end up not playing as they hit u10's and above because their towns do not have teams and other towns cannot take them due to the 3 town rule. The bulletin board will help the weaker and the stronger players find teams where they can continue to enjoy their younger years playing the sport they love at a cheaper cost than premier.

the current system is prejudiced against people with less financial income. Premier can be great but even the best run premier teams cannot fit all qualified kids into their teams on scholarships.

[Unregistered]

Take away the 3 town rule and soccer will benefit from it all. Lousy run programs will fall which is what they deserve. Better run programs will be able to compete with premier less expensively. Create a bulletin board for teams to find players and players to find teams. Apply the current recruiting rules to town programs. Make all Superliga games to be played on Saturdays and premier games to be played on Sundays.

Better idea. Just move all the anchor games to Saturday so to allow premier players who wish to play Superliga can do so. It is not hard. SRI can adopt that policy.

[Unregistered]

Take away the 3 town rule and soccer will benefit from it all. Lousy run programs will fall which is what they deserve. Better run programs will be able to compete with premier less expensively. Create a bulletin board for teams to find players and players to find teams. Apply the current recruiting rules to town programs. Make all Superliga games to be played on Saturdays and premier games to be played on Sundays.

I would not go that far to say local clubs can competing with premier clubs. So far, only SC can compete fairly well against weak premier teams. I personally would not want parents coaches at the highest level of competition. Yes, there are weak premier clubs in RI but the stronger club will still dominate. Plus, if we go that route RI will certainly be at a disadvantage at Regional and even President's Cup. The 3 communities rule only apply for U14 and under. I think nobody want super clubs which is not good for soccer here in RI. Kids of all skill levels should have a platform to play this game. My concern is Superliga should be able to co-exist with premier by accommodating the players who wishes to play both leagues.

[Unregistered]

I would not go that far to say local clubs can competing with premier clubs. So far, only SC can compete fairly well against weak premier teams.


* A few others here and there too (certain age groups/teams), but the larger point -- how can they compete if the system intentionally keeps them from becoming more competitive? Give SC credit for achieving a level of success at the whole club level, but the least amount of premier club penetration is in the southern part of the state given most (all ?) of the better premier clubs have to get some MA players. Eliminate the 3 town rule for anchor level teams only and then let's see if local clubs can compete.


I personally would not want parents coaches at the highest level of competition.


** Hmm..so is SC a parent coach because he coaches his son's BW team? There are club "parent coaches" with higher level playing and coaching license than some premier coaches. I don't think anyone wants inexperienced coaches at the "highest level", but coaches have several roles -- teacher, motivator, trainer, etc. One of the reason premier clubs command a premium is in general, you expect a better coach across all the functions a coach must do -- but you also get in general more committed players.


Yes, there are weak premier clubs in RI but the stronger club will still dominate. Plus, if we go that route RI will certainly be at a disadvantage at Regional and even President's Cup.

** Why? Because RI has been doing so well up to now in Regionals, ODP, and President's Cup?



The 3 communities rule only apply for U14 and under. I think nobody want super clubs which is not good for soccer here in RI.

** Because super clubs like PDA in NJ and others have not had success? There seems to be a mindset in RI that what is successful in other states - from how clubs are organized to how leagues are run, and how ODP is conducted, etc.. -- certainly would not be good for soccer in RI.

[Unregistered]

I would not go that far to say local clubs can competing with premier clubs. So far, only SC can compete fairly well against weak premier teams.


* A few others here and there too (certain age groups/teams), but the larger point -- how can they compete if the system intentionally keeps them from becoming more competitive? Give SC credit for achieving a level of success at the whole club level, but the least amount of premier club penetration is in the southern part of the state given most (all ?) of the better premier clubs have to get some MA players. Eliminate the 3 town rule for anchor level teams only and then let's see if local clubs can compete.


I personally would not want parents coaches at the highest level of competition.


** Hmm..so is SC a parent coach because he coaches his son's BW team? There are club "parent coaches" with higher level playing and coaching license than some premier coaches. I don't think anyone wants inexperienced coaches at the "highest level", but coaches have several roles -- teacher, motivator, trainer, etc. One of the reason premier clubs command a premium is in general, you expect a better coach across all the functions a coach must do -- but you also get in general more committed players.


Yes, there are weak premier clubs in RI but the stronger club will still dominate. Plus, if we go that route RI will certainly be at a disadvantage at Regional and even President's Cup.

** Why? Because RI has been doing so well up to now in Regionals, ODP, and President's Cup?



The 3 communities rule only apply for U14 and under. I think nobody want super clubs which is not good for soccer here in RI.

** Because super clubs like PDA in NJ and others have not had success? There seems to be a mindset in RI that what is successful in other states - from how clubs are organized to how leagues are run, and how ODP is conducted, etc.. -- certainly would not be good for soccer in RI.

1. I personally agreed with you three communities rules. However, do you think the 29 communities will go along with that?

2. SC has played at the highest level and has experiences so he is more than qualify to coach at the premier level. I glad you memtioned committed players. That is why most committed players play premier. Is you want to go that route you can use Sachem FC in MA as a model. They have a town and a premier program within one umbrella.

3. Why? Because RI has been doing so well up to now in Regionals, ODP, and President's Cup? Yes, this past summer 3 teams made it to the regional semi-final which is not bad for a state our size. I think going forward there will be much successes. However, I think the real reason why RI is not doing well at the regional, ODP and President's Cup is because everyone is soo territory. There are town clubs who prohibit their players from playing premier. Is that good for the players? NO.


4. What ever RI agree to the bottom line should be in the best interest of the players. I believe premier and local club should co-exist and so does Superliga and the other premier leagues. What I struggle to understand is the "US vs THEM" mentality which hurt our players development.

[Unregistered]

1. I personally agreed with you three communities rules. However, do you think the 29 communities will go along with that?

** In the past, attempts to eliminate the community rule get voted down, usually by the smaller town clubs and premiers. This rule change really simplifies rostering and affects more the larger clubs that have multiple classic teams, where in the past they could add another town or two, but had to use the initial 3 from their top team as the base for all teams in the age group. It would be nice if the board could take a position given the proposal is from the board's own policy committee.

2. SC has played at the highest level and has experiences so he is more than qualify to coach at the premier level. I glad you memtioned committed players. That is why most committed players play premier. Is you want to go that route you can use Sachem FC in MA as a model. They have a town and a premier program within one umbrella.

** Not a knock on SC, just the point that he is a parent-coach (so was Bob Bradley when he was USMNT coach) so we shouldn't just label "parent coach" to mean "less than qualified to coach" in all cases...my son's town team has a former D1 player, National D license coach..and the assistant is former D1, semi-pro player..but no licenses..the head of PDA-NJ only has the equivalent of a Y2 (F license) and was a Wall Street business guy..and his teams have won at high level.. of course, good program, good players.. and I'm sure folks here have examples of great coaches with little high level playing experience.. I do agree that clubs could adopt the a model of town-premier hybrid..or premier clubs could partner with town clubs as a way around the rule.

3. Why? Because RI has been doing so well up to now in Regionals, ODP, and President's Cup? Yes, this past summer 3 teams made it to the regional semi-final which is not bad for a state our size. I think going forward there will be much successes. However, I think the real reason why RI is not doing well at the regional, ODP and President's Cup is because everyone is soo territory. There are town clubs who prohibit their players from playing premier. Is that good for the players? NO.

** Ok, being objective here..and not knocking any of the teams that made it to regionals..good for them and I'm sure it was great experiences regardless of the outcomes..but..72 possible semi-finalists over 15 potential state/regional participants..random/uniform distribution might suggest you would get 4 to 5 into semis..let's say size makes a difference, then you would still get 2-3.. VT had 3..

Now, let's also be objective that one of those age groups, U12B, even if the team is a very skilled group of players, is in a group that only 6 regions participate (no VA, no MD, etc. and maybe that team would still have made it to semis, but the bracket is less than half the region 1 participants) -- and then how did those teams that made it to the semis do in the semi match? I think a couple were 6 or 7 goal blow outs.. again, not a knock on those teams, just an objective response to your comment of "not bad for our size"

A possible outcome from eliminating the community rule is some town teams are able to keep some of the good/better (perhaps not "best") players that now populate what you termed "weaker premier" teams..and thus the premier teams have to compete even more..or some of those "weaker" teams fade out


4. What ever RI agree to the bottom line should be in the best interest of the players. I believe premier and local club should co-exist and so does Superliga and the other premier leagues. What I struggle to understand is the "US vs THEM" mentality which hurt our players development.

** In general, best interest of players is to give them the most possible options based on the various factors most important to the players and their families...make it easier to form teams, clubs, and leagues.. less regulations and restrictions..look at what works well in other states..

[Unregistered]

JB - I do agree that part of the responsibility (fault?) rests with those who offer suggestions but are not willing to run.. but how easy does SRI make the information available?

Do they send out an email or even post on-line the process to volunteer/get elected to the board? Or do they rely on club presidents to get the word out? Geez, how many club presidents even go, let alone report, let alone go beyond to encourage participation at the state level?

Also, although SRI does put out a note to invite them to the annual/required meetings for most clubs (not sure on the LLCs, but would think most town clubs are 501c3) , does it require clubs to report they held the meetings..you hear stories of some clubs that skip it or have such lack of transparency that making changes/getting new people is quite difficult...and has SRI ever sanctioned a club for not following its by-laws?

Again, it's mostly all volunteer so swimming against the tide when one has only so much time and effort to devote to such things means that those with more "skin in the game" tend to take and then hold power..but I'd prefer to disagree with those in charge when they take a position and articulate the reasoning for them (why is there even a 3 town rule, why can't SC schedule be pushed back) than have a board that outwardly displays indifference by failing to take a position or by keeping the status quo despite the same problems occurring every year.

[Unregistered]

JB - I do agree that part of the responsibility (fault?) rests with those who offer suggestions but are not willing to run.. but how easy does SRI make the information available?

Do they send out an email or even post on-line the process to volunteer/get elected to the board? Or do they rely on club presidents to get the word out? Geez, how many club presidents even go, let alone report, let alone go beyond to encourage participation at the state level?

Also, although SRI does put out a note to invite them to the annual/required meetings for most clubs (not sure on the LLCs, but would think most town clubs are 501c3) , does it require clubs to report they held the meetings..you hear stories of some clubs that skip it or have such lack of transparency that making changes/getting new people is quite difficult...and has SRI ever sanctioned a club for not following its by-laws?

Again, it's mostly all volunteer so swimming against the tide when one has only so much time and effort to devote to such things means that those with more "skin in the game" tend to take and then hold power..but I'd prefer to disagree with those in charge when they take a position and articulate the reasoning for them (why is there even a 3 town rule, why can't SC schedule be pushed back) than have a board that outwardly displays indifference by failing to take a position or by keeping the status quo despite the same problems occurring every year.

JB, what is happening at SRI level is no different then in at Lincoln. I wish you would run for a position in SRI. Your ideas are what is needed in RI. But you need to start looking at bylaw (term limits) for SRI. Some of them has been there toooooooo long. These old guards do not understand that they not going to be there forever and their role to to develop new leadership.

[JBsoccer]

JB, what is happening at SRI level is no different then in at Lincoln. I wish you would run for a position in SRI. Your ideas are what is needed in RI. But you need to start looking at bylaw (term limits) for SRI. Some of them has been there toooooooo long. These old guards do not understand that they not going to be there forever and their role to to develop new leadership.

Thanks, I do appreciate the kind words.

I was "this close" a few years ago to running for president of our town's youth soccer program. But, between my job, my involvement with other youth sports (Spinners baseball, basketball, premier soccer, etc.) , my own kids participation and life in general, I decided not to....

If you're going to do it right, it's a very big commitment to volunteer at that level. I really respect the guys and ladies who put a lot into it for no pay and a lot of grief.

I have to say that at the present time, fortunately, LYSA has got its act together. There's a good group of people - JL, PG, RK, etc. - who really work hard at it. It's no longer an esoteric clique like it was only 3 years ago. Our prez is pretty much out of the day-to-day picture so he no longer gets in the way too much. Honestly, there's never been more openness and opportunities for Lincoln kids to play soccer than there is today. So...there's really no need for me to stick my nose in there ...it ain't broke :)

And I also have to say that it appears to me that SRI is showing signs of reform, too. I wouldn't have said that 2 years ago, but I do see some positive changes. There are more premier clubs - aka parents' choices - than ever before. Town associations are trying new things like entering teams in Maple, offering "select" programs.

Don't be surprised if the "3 town rule" gets amended or abolished sooner rather than later. There's obviously too many problems with it in its current form.

As far as term limits go...I 100% agree. But someone has to step up and volunteer to take the places of the current administration. Think that's easy? It's not - let me give you an example. The prez of our LL has been trying to step down for years but nobody wants to take over. And the guy cares too much about the program he's built to just walk away without feeling comfortable with the person or persons who are taking over. Understandable.

Right now, I just enjoy coaching teams, the competition, and watching the kids play. Maybe I will jump in the deeper end someday, ...who knows?

JB

[JBsoccer]

JB - I do agree that part of the responsibility (fault?) rests with those who offer suggestions but are not willing to run.. but how easy does SRI make the information available?

Do they send out an email or even post on-line the process to volunteer/get elected to the board? Or do they rely on club presidents to get the word out? Geez, how many club presidents even go, let alone report, let alone go beyond to encourage participation at the state level?

Also, although SRI does put out a note to invite them to the annual/required meetings for most clubs (not sure on the LLCs, but would think most town clubs are 501c3) , does it require clubs to report they held the meetings..you hear stories of some clubs that skip it or have such lack of transparency that making changes/getting new people is quite difficult...and has SRI ever sanctioned a club for not following its by-laws?

Again, it's mostly all volunteer so swimming against the tide when one has only so much time and effort to devote to such things means that those with more "skin in the game" tend to take and then hold power..but I'd prefer to disagree with those in charge when they take a position and articulate the reasoning for them (why is there even a 3 town rule, why can't SC schedule be pushed back) than have a board that outwardly displays indifference by failing to take a position or by keeping the status quo despite the same problems occurring every year.

Agree 100% with you on this.

If you can't volunteer, then the least you can do is voice your opinion AND offer an alternative solution. Very good point.

JB

[COL]

JB - perhaps RI should take a cue from other states. Instead of functional board positions that allow for a certain group to take control, the board is comprised more of geographic and a couple at-large/general members.

In the current set-up, what SRI now calls the regional commissioners should in fact become BOD positions with those regional commissioners elected by only the member clubs in their area of responsibility. This would make individual BOD members a bit more responsive to a smaller constituency and ensure at least potentially different perspectives have (in theory) a chance to be represented. Make the voting for those BOD spots 1 vote per club. Premier clubs can have 1 commissioner as well.

Functional positions like ODP, TOPS, PR, etc., except for perhaps treasurer and secretary, should be committee chairs that report to the BOD. Add the national by-law clause to SRI by-laws that anyone employed by or owns a for-profit/LLC that has business affected by or activities governed by SRI can not be on the BOD.