5 District Schedules for 2016-2017?

[easoccer]

I would think the best approach is work offline and update later. Guess not here.

@rich our schedules mirror each other, offset by a week. Kind of hurts to lose those points though. Part of tiering I guess. Makes me wonder why they just don't fill that bye week.

 

[rich]

Yeah, it's two weeks worth of scores gone. One for us was our bye, so meh...weird that they'd wipe out the Oct 22 scores.
I'm gonna go with "not done yet" and see what happens over the next few days

 

[Krutov]

U16 5 district div 1/2/3 Team movement
It looks to me like the dust has settled and the only movement is Bottom div2 team and top div3 team have swapped spots. So the top 2 teams in div2 did not move up even though people have mentioned on here that this was requested and their records indicate this was a reasonable request.

 

[TKBC]

U16 5 district div 1/2/3 Team movement
It looks to me like the dust has settled and the only movement is Bottom div2 team and top div3 team have swapped spots. So the top 2 teams in div2 did not move up even though people have mentioned on here that this was requested and their records indicate this was a reasonable request.

strange!

 

[easoccer]

U16 5 district div 1/2/3 Team movement
It looks to me like the dust has settled and the only movement is Bottom div2 team and top div3 team have swapped spots. So the top 2 teams in div2 did not move up even though people have mentioned on here that this was requested and their records indicate this was a reasonable request.

No. We said they "should" have requested. But in order for 1 to move up another needs to move down. By building the schedule past the tiering date, they make it much harder to make changes.

Anyway, I guess it's a good benchmark to test our teams.

The real changes will be made after Dec 10.

 

[WHITECAPS]

So if we project out in U16 Div2 in 5 district by December
WCA will have a +50 differential and Langley will be +58 in half a season
All this does by leaving teams like this in divisions like this is discourage the lesser players on lesser teams from signing up the following year.

"Should we expect movement or status quo like in previous years? I know there are huge blowouts happening, but again for a team to move up, another may have to be playing poorly to move down.

Anyway, I'll wait with bated breath."

In the calendar, tiering was supposed to be completed by October 31 but despite huge blowouts, changes have not been made. A perfect example of teams needing to be moved up is U18 DIV 4 where CCB Cobras and PC Red Devils are blowing teams away and both deserve to be playing at DIV 2 level. Not sure why the league is not making changes so that it's fair for all players of all levels.

 

[LFC]

How were your games this weekend ? Hopefully someone creates a new topic for this weekend.

 

[easoccer]

How were your games this weekend ? Hopefully someone creates a new topic for this weekend.

LFC create a separate thread, the Admin will sticky it, and I'll post there.

 

[Admin]

LFC create a separate thread, the Admin will sticky it, and I'll post there.

I am on the ball, already started!

 

[juninho]

In the calendar, tiering was supposed to be completed by October 31 but despite huge blowouts, changes have not been made. A perfect example of teams needing to be moved up is U18 DIV 4 where CCB Cobras and PC Red Devils are blowing teams away and both deserve to be playing at DIV 2 level. Not sure why the league is not making changes so that it's fair for all players of all levels.

Was just told by my district rep that all changes that were going to be made have been done already.

 

[easoccer]

Was just told by my district rep that all changes that were going to be made have been done already.

Too many egos to protect. More concern should be placed on the kids.

 

[LFC]

Was just told by my district rep that all changes that were going to be made have been done already.

Too many egos to protect. More concern should be placed on the kids.

Still cannot understand why tierring was not done when in some Divisions its glaringly obvious that teams don,t belong there.
The addition of a Div 3 in some age groups would have helped resolve some problems .
In many cases there are Gold level players/teams playing in house divisions and Dist 5 should have made the changes as necessary for the better development and enjoyment of all players, but they choose not to make any changes.

All this makes a mockery of the LTPD model

 

[easoccer]

So I was told its up to the clubs to complain. There is no one out there deciding it for us. Apparently no committe reviewing results.

Either a teams needs to request a promotion or demotion. You can complain and hope for a review but chances are slim.

 

[Admin]

The tiering "system" falls apart at this point and is pretty much useless in the grand scheme of things.

May as well scrap it and make scheduling easier for all

 

[4_the_kids]

Still cannot understand why tierring was not done when in some Divisions its glaringly obvious that teams don,t belong there.
The addition of a Div 3 in some age groups would have helped resolve some problems .
In many cases there are Gold level players/teams playing in house divisions and Dist 5 should have made the changes as necessary for the better development and enjoyment of all players, but they choose not to make any changes.

All this makes a mockery of the LTPD model

Unfortunately the politics of sport play out in these cases. Whether it be administration at district or club or teams, coaches directors etc. Case and point, look at U13 Div1 - SMSA ( PUFC) Select 04 - denied metro application for whatever reasons ( political) and are cleaning house in Div 1 - 8 games - 8 wins - 65 goals for and 3 against.
I understand there are reasons clubs get denied applications - some legit .
Someone needs to explain how these decision support the LTPD model, how is having a team destroy everyone good for anyone's development , all players suffer in this case both from the strong team and their opponents. Decisions like these are not about player development.
If a club is not following procedures, playing within the rules or suspect of any wrong doing we need away to deal with the issue without punishing the kids and still support player development.
As for teams playing down a level on purpose , I think the only solution for U13-U18 is to bump up the top 1-2 teams and bump down the bottom 1-2 teams, no committee, no negotiation just a pure black and white move. The only exceptions would be moving a div 1 team to metro and of course cant move any lower than div 4... or outside the box:
First 8 weeks play 8 games, try to massage schedule so teams play both stronger and weaker teams. Starting Nov 1. Top 3 teams of one div pay the bottom 3 of the next higher div - for 5 weeks. At end of the 5 weeks the top 3 teams go to the higher div and the bottom 3 go to the lower div.

 

[rich]

If a club is not following procedures, playing within the rules or suspect of any wrong doing we need away to deal with the issue without punishing the kids and still support player development.
As for teams playing down a level on purpose , I think the only solution for U13-U18 is to bump up the top 1-2 teams and bump down the bottom 1-2 teams, no committee, no negotiation just a pure black and white move. The only exceptions would be moving a div 1 team to metro and of course cant move any lower than div 4... or outside the box:
First 8 weeks play 8 games, try to massage schedule so teams play both stronger and weaker teams. Starting Nov 1. Top 3 teams of one div pay the bottom 3 of the next higher div - for 5 weeks. At end of the 5 weeks the top 3 teams go to the higher div and the bottom 3 go to the lower div.

Reasonable suggestions. Only problem - how do you know how to schedule against the stronger and weaker teams? No one could really know who those teams are, especially at the U12-U14 age groups, when player movement and individual player growth patterns can change things for a team drastically.

Having 3-4 seperate re-tiering dates is labour intensive...who wants to do the work? For every single division? Just playing devil's advocate...I agree with you!

I agree that the whole tiering system needs to be fixed...just not sure what the answer is!

 

[4_the_kids]

Reasonable suggestions. Only problem - how do you know how to schedule against the stronger and weaker teams? No one could really know who those teams are, especially at the U12-U14 age groups, when player movement and individual player growth patterns can change things for a team drastically.

Having 3-4 seperate re-tiering dates is labour intensive...who wants to do the work? For every single division? Just playing devil's advocate...I agree with you!

I agree that the whole tiering system needs to be fixed...just not sure what the answer is!

If it was easy we would be doing it
U10-U12 should be development and house period. Can break development into tiers 1-3 , re tier only if there is a obvious need to and should be only at the request of the coach and TD.
U13 to U18 , and as you especially U13 to say U15 is a real challenge. If we had two streams with 3-5 tiers in each ( HP? and recreational ) it would be much easier .
Either way we must pick a date, and make the changes on that date , cup play for district 5 further complicates things with the Champions series final running from Jan to March.

 

[TKBC]

Unfortunately the politics of sport play out in these cases. Whether it be administration at district or club or teams, coaches directors etc. Case and point, look at U13 Div1 - SMSA ( PUFC) Select 04 - denied metro application for whatever reasons ( political) and are cleaning house in Div 1 - 8 games - 8 wins - 65 goals for and 3 against.
I understand there are reasons clubs get denied applications - some legit .
Someone needs to explain how these decision support the LTPD model, how is having a team destroy everyone good for anyone's development , all players suffer in this case both from the strong team and their opponents. Decisions like these are not about player development.
If a club is not following procedures, playing within the rules or suspect of any wrong doing we need away to deal with the issue without punishing the kids and still support player development.
As for teams playing down a level on purpose , I think the only solution for U13-U18 is to bump up the top 1-2 teams and bump down the bottom 1-2 teams, no committee, no negotiation just a pure black and white move. The only exceptions would be moving a div 1 team to metro and of course cant move any lower than div 4... or outside the box:
First 8 weeks play 8 games, try to massage schedule so teams play both stronger and weaker teams. Starting Nov 1. Top 3 teams of one div pay the bottom 3 of the next higher div - for 5 weeks. At end of the 5 weeks the top 3 teams go to the higher div and the bottom 3 go to the lower div.

I don't know if that's feasible with respect to scheduling etc but I agree it's a good idea!

If POCO was denied entry into MSL I wonder if there is already a CMF and POMO entry at MSL at that age and that may be why? Tri Cities would have denied them, if I understand the application process, not MSL.

 

[TKBC]

Reasonable suggestions. Only problem - how do you know how to schedule against the stronger and weaker teams? No one could really know who those teams are, especially at the U12-U14 age groups, when player movement and individual player growth patterns can change things for a team drastically.

Having 3-4 seperate re-tiering dates is labour intensive...who wants to do the work? For every single division? Just playing devil's advocate...I agree with you!

I agree that the whole tiering system needs to be fixed...just not sure what the answer is!

SMALLER DIVISIONS! Cap divisions within each tier to 6. You schedule 4-5 games, then re-tier/re-group!

 

[4_the_kids]

I don't know if that's feasible with respect to scheduling etc but I agree it's a good idea!

If POCO was denied entry into MSL I wonder if there is already a CMF and POMO entry at MSL at that age and that may be why? Tri Cities would have denied them, if I understand the application process, not MSL.

It was Pacific United who was denied by SMSA at U13 . BC Tigers, SGU, CCB and SFC were all granted teams some arguably weaker teams than PUFC. I am not going to get into guessing as to why or the details , there are enough issues with that as is.... Point was we need a way to get pass the politics for the benefit of the development of the kids... No one benefits form winning or losing a game 19-0