Heard rumors that Classic League will increase the roster size for U12 and U13 to 18 for the upcoming fall season.
Can somebody confirm that? Happy Feet??
That would be another step closer in really developing our players. Having 7 subs for 12 and 13 year olds.
Great for the clubs not so great for the players.

I heard the same thing and hope it is not true. Happy Feet please say it isn't so. What possible advantage could 7 on the bench have at these younger ages other than benefitting these clubs that already do a good job of messing things up as it is? How about implementing some new rules that help kids and not big brother?

The German wrote:Heard rumors that Classic League will increase the roster size for U12 and U13 to 18 for the upcoming fall season.
Can somebody confirm that? Happy Feet??
That would be another step closer in really developing our players. Having 7 subs for 12 and 13 year olds.
Great for the clubs not so great for the players.

I hope that is not a true rumor. Not really sure that increasing the roster size helps anyone.

SoccerXXX wrote:

The German wrote:Heard rumors that Classic League will increase the roster size for U12 and U13 to 18 for the upcoming fall season.
Can somebody confirm that? Happy Feet??
That would be another step closer in really developing our players. Having 7 subs for 12 and 13 year olds.
Great for the clubs not so great for the players.

I hope that is not a true rumor. Not really sure that increasing the roster size helps anyone.

I heard it is only for the Andromeda team(s)...

7thHeaven wrote:

SoccerXXX wrote:

The German wrote:Heard rumors that Classic League will increase the roster size for U12 and U13 to 18 for the upcoming fall season.
Can somebody confirm that? Happy Feet??
That would be another step closer in really developing our players. Having 7 subs for 12 and 13 year olds.
Great for the clubs not so great for the players.

I hope that is not a true rumor. Not really sure that increasing the roster size helps anyone.

I heard it is only for the Andromeda team(s)...

Well you know, they do have to cater to their best customers, thats what they said on another thread anyway . . .

It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

German, why don't you form a parents committee and see if we can get our say. After all, aren't "we" the ultimate customer? I can't wait for the increased drama with 7 on the bench. Even with all the injuries and all we never had a problem and that was with a roster of 15. It keeps getting better and better, what's next, two year contracts cause all the coaches want to screw the kids a little longer?

Axxman wrote:German, why don't you form a parents committee and see if we can get our say. After all, aren't "we" the ultimate customer? I can't wait for the increased drama with 7 on the bench. Even with all the injuries and all we never had a problem and that was with a roster of 15. It keeps getting better and better, what's next, two year contracts cause all the coaches want to screw the kids a little longer?

I believe it's a roster maximum and not a required roster total. I believe the roster minimum is 14, so it's at the coaches discretion regarding how many players he wants to carry.

And so was the 16, a roster maximum. You really think that the clubs (especially the larger ones) and coaches will pass up on the opportunity to add another $6k to the pot? That also gives them flexibility for more scholarships. And it will all be at the expense of kids that will sit the bench. At U12/13 it's not like you're traveling much or else unless it's by choice and you are still trying to get the most experience you can. This one doesn't make sense to me, but it's all about the league and the coaches. I don't buy the injury/illness ordeal. And if the coaches are petitioning for it, there's a reason don't you think?

Axxman wrote:And so was the 16, a roster maximum. You really think that the clubs (especially the larger ones) and coaches will pass up on the opportunity to add another $6k to the pot? That also gives them flexibility for more scholarships. And it will all be at the expense of kids that will sit the bench. At U12/13 it's not like you're traveling much or else unless it's by choice and you are still trying to get the most experience you can. This one doesn't make sense to me, but it's all about the league and the coaches. I don't buy the injury/illness ordeal. And if the coaches are petitioning for it, there's a reason don't you think?

I couldn't agree more Axx, this stinks. It's nothing more than a money grab at the expense of the kids and dilutes player development, and the result will be more bench time for players. Our pay-to-play system vs. the rest of the soccer world's system once again shows why we are an underachieving soccer country.

happyfeet wrote:It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

Name one thing this does to help the kids in general, player development, or the people paying the bills. Those are three big targets to shoot at, can you hit one?

I hear that next year the coaches are going to petition the board to approve 13 players on the field plus 7 bench players. A chance to add another $6k yet.........

Axxman wrote:I hear that next year the coaches are going to petition the board to approve 13 players on the field plus 7 bench players. A chance to add another $6k yet.........

More likely the extra players will allow the team to have a few extra scholarship players. So you see it is improving our pay for play system.

Now you just need to make sure you put your kid on a team where his ability is in the top half of the team. You'll need to take you rose colored parental glasses off to to that. Good luck.

wbgbpfan wrote:

Axxman wrote:German, why don't you form a parents committee and see if we can get our say. After all, aren't "we" the ultimate customer? I can't wait for the increased drama with 7 on the bench. Even with all the injuries and all we never had a problem and that was with a roster of 15. It keeps getting better and better, what's next, two year contracts cause all the coaches want to screw the kids a little longer?

I believe it's a roster maximum and not a required roster total. I believe the roster minimum is 14, so it's at the coaches discretion regarding how many players he wants to carry.

Are you really that nieve? What do you think is gonna happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jukQX2pl2Q

happyfeet wrote:It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

Did this arise from losing their top players . therefore having to go alittle deeper on their benches. At this age the kids need to play to develope. If the system wasn't so contractually binding it could facilitate the movement of players more .I.E a kid not getting much playtime being loaned from a pool to a team needing players to get through an injury situation.

happyfeet wrote:It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

Hap, did the board conduct any research, or did the committee provide any data, as to the percentage of teams unable to play because of injuries. After two years of Classic, I don't recall this ever being an issue.


I understand the 18 man roster for PA will mimic the Academy program. Not convinced it's a great idea for the U12 age group.

This decision was definitely not made to benefit the players.
At least increase the game time to 35 minute halves now That would give the kids 10 extra minutes to hope for some playing time on the field.

CLUB31 wrote:My kid plays the entire game but at some point he might be riding the bench. This rule sucks for all the kids and for the general happiness of each individual family. Personally, I don't like any kids sitting the bench but if you have 2-4 most of the time they can get in some time and keep most happy. With 6-8 on the bench that is impossible. I would not go to a team unless the caoch assured me through"common sense" that they would only carry 14-16. Track,tennis and golf are sounding better and better.

Wait until 75% rule is needed to move to another Club. 75% of 18 is? Coaches be careful what you wish for. This could be a difficult scenario.

happyfeet wrote:It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

Did they consider a rule similiar too the USSF Academy where a player must start 25% of the teams matches? Perhaps a modified version for this age could be worked out since player re-entry and free substitutions are allowed.

plantit wrote:

happyfeet wrote:It was asked for by the coaches' committee and the board agreed with them. There were a number of teams who struggled due to illness and injuries; therefore, the coaches thought it was the right move.
By the way, it was NOT just the coaches from the larger clubs who wanted this.

Did this arise from losing their top players . therefore having to go alittle deeper on their benches. At this age the kids need to play to develope. If the system wasn't so contractually binding it could facilitate the movement of players more .I.E a kid not getting much playtime being loaned from a pool to a team needing players to get through an injury situation.

I know they changed the U16 rules recently to be able to carry 20 players, but I did not see many if any teams carry more than 18. I would doubt the majority of the coaches want the headache of 18 players for U12, but ....

This increased roster is the worst that can happen to our youth soccer. First of all in 2 years of classic league in 2 age groups I don't think I have ever seen a team play one man down. Second I know for a fact that 90% of the tension within a team (between parents and with the coach) are directly related to play time. So more kids more tension. The short term benefit for the club and the coaches is abvious :more money for the next couple of years. Now 3 years from now ? Way less kids because so many family are going to be way upset and way less soccer players. Coaches are going to regret what they ask for. If this is true this is simply suicidal...

gababa wrote:This increased roster is the worst that can happen to our youth soccer. First of all in 2 years of classic league in 2 age groups I don't think I have ever seen a team play one man down. Second I know for a fact that 90% of the tension within a team (between parents and with the coach) are directly related to play time. So more kids more tension. The short term benefit for the club and the coaches is abvious :more money for the next couple of years. Now 3 years from now ? Way less kids because so many family are going to be way upset and way less soccer players. Coaches are going to regret what they ask for. If this is true this is simply suicidal...

Other than the swine flu summer and a couple of cellar-dwellers who had some kids vamoose for their last games, I haven't seen anyone play down or without subs as well.

Has anyone considered a league where you just require payment but no attendance? Sounds like that's the wave of the future. This, paired with the pre-academies, should really increase the level of play of our national teams. I guess one can at least choose to sit the bench in academy or classic now - more choices are better, right?

A good solution could be to have a " players pass" within the club.
A player can join another team within the club.
I could see some great factors if this is done right.
I could see some bad factors if this is not use for the development and the good of the player.

A Player (maybe PPL) could have a chance to play some classic league games.
A Player (maybe CL) could have a chance to get some playing time in a plano match
A younger player could play up in his/her age group
any more thoughts?

Restrictions
A player should not play more that 2 games per weekend
A player should not be allow to use the Player pass more than (3-4 times?) a season
Any more thoughts?

WTF !!! We are customers ! Coach, you want my kid ? Coach, you want my money ? well, here is what I want...
You know, talking about outrageous inflation in our soccer world. What do you guys think about the price of skill sessions ? $25 for 90 mn for 20 kids ??? Where did that come from ? I heard a few years back it use to be $5. Can somebody confirm that ?

gababa wrote:WTF !!! We are customers ! Coach, you want my kid ? Coach, you want my money ? well, here is what I want...
You know, talking about outrageous inflation in our soccer world. What do you guys think about the price of skill sessions ? $25 for 90 mn for 20 kids ??? Where did that come from ? I heard a few years back it use to be $5. Can somebody confirm that ?

I know that I asked my son's coach and he said that although Classic may allow it he will continue to cap his team at 16.

DZaltron wrote:A Player (maybe PPL) could have a chance to play some classic league games.
A Player (maybe CL) could have a chance to get some playing time in a plano match
A younger player could play up in his/her age group
any more thoughts?

Restrictions
A player should not play more that 2 games per weekend
A player should not be allow to use the Player pass more than (3-4 times?) a season
Any more thoughts?

That would be pretty cool, but I think some Plano opponents might have an issue of a team 'guesting' different players every week up to the championship. Perhaps in such a venue - they couldn't guest people the month before playoffs and during playoffs.
I do think that would be a good way to get players and teams to mix for better fits.

Although - the 2 games per weekend might interfere with Sat/Sun schedules - i.e. a coach might not want to lose a player if they already have 2 games scheduled.

unfortunately Gabs is right, we are the customer. There is always someone willing to sit their kid so he can be on the "top" team. There is always someone willing to pay more money for skills in the hope it will make their kids better. There is always a snake oil salesman saying bring him to me and my skills will make him great. Why should we pay $2000+ to a coach and then have to pay more to a different coach for skills? What is he teaching exactly? Too much skills, too much training, too much "coaching", and not enough "playing". I have come to realize that NTX isn't doing anything too us, we are doing it all too ourselves. So take it up to 18 per or 20 even and the top teams will still be full.