Why is Primetime discriminating?

Coachdom23, did the boy teams protest it because they did not want to get beat by a bunch of girls?   That seems to be the opinion on this board.  I find that hard to believe, but I am often wrong.   Once again, I have never heard a boy or a parent afraid of being beat by a girl team.  Now, for other reasons, they might not want to play a girl team, but it is not out of fear of being destroyed by the opposite gender.  If anything that is a good thing for a young boy to learn, it prepares him for the rest of his life.

timmyh wrote:

Sho'Nuff wrote:

ForReal wrote:

AtThePitch wrote:There is literally nothing stopping a boys or girls team from playing up into U11 or U12 for that matter in any non NTX sanction league... Primetime is one of them.  You want faster speed of play, harder tackles, bigger hits... MOVE ON UP!

They will play up some.  But Solar 07 just thrashed very good 06 teams in the Woodlands.  http://texasrush.bonzidev.com/sam/standings/ss/schedule.php?containerID=Mjg3NDIyMA==

I highly doubt the 06 teams in PT (who aren't in LH, Plano or Arlington) would provide them and Kicks with real competition.  Heck, Solar and Kicks might be better off just playing a handful of the 07 top division teams instead.

I'm sure these '07s are fantastic, but don't act like beating third tier STX teams is noteworthy.  

Perhaps you'll remember this is the same group of parents that pre-Surf Cup said they have "the best 07 team in the country with multiple future YNT players on it."
Great team (they really might be #1).  Crazy parents.

Think I saw one of those same parents yelling at their future YNT player to "go sit down look at your body language" as they got beat by a group of 08 boys last night at the PIT! Because yelling at their future YNT player in a meaningless indoor game in the winter season is of course how you mold future YNT players. Crazy parent. And yes they are a really good team.

This is a much bigger issue for the parents and coaches egos than it is for the kids.

Girls parents and coaches love the notoriety and crowing to their friends how their daughter is so good at soccer that her team plays boys teams.

Boys parents and coaches feel they should be embarrassed if their team is beaten by a girls team.

Kids couldn't give a crap either way. 30 minutes after the game they have moved onto binge watching Jessie on Netflix or FIFA16 and can't understand why 24 hours later dad is still typing furiously about it on some soccer forum....

The reality is the boys tend to act a little differently on the rare occasion that they play a girls team. Society teaches them not to beat up on girls and it feels a little weird to be playing against girls.

It is less weird to the girls team as they are playing boys teams more frequently.

My son is 14 and has played girls a handful of times since he was 7 in either leagues or scrimmages. Pre-Select age the games can be very competitive. I am of the opinion that it doesn't matter what gender or age the opponents are. What the kids want is a competitive game. That they win or at least draw

It is the adults who get bent out of shape.

I would also echo that competitive games are more enjoyable than blow outs either way. But 90% of development is done in practice. The other 10% of development occurs learning to execute in a competitive game.

Oh and there are always outstanding pre-select teams that look for tougher opponents. (Future YNT.....)

The parents get so excited because it must mean their daughters are better than everyone else and the next Alex Morgan.

The reality is they are just the team whose coach done a good job and assembled the strongest line up around. Plenty of equally good or better players are scattered around on other teams and mixed in with weaker players.

Throw in a few years of different development trajectories and suddenly at U15 it looks really hard for little suzy to lock up that YNT spot......

davito wrote:Oh and there are always outstanding pre-select teams that look for tougher opponents. (Future YNT.....)

The parents get so excited because it must mean their daughters are better than everyone else and the next Alex Morgan.

The reality is they are just the team whose coach done a good job and assembled the strongest line up around. Plenty of equally good or better players are scattered around on other teams and mixed in with weaker players.

Throw in a few years of different development trajectories and suddenly at U15 it looks really hard for little suzy to lock up that YNT spot......

Very easy for Susie to win a spot on her team. At U15 it should be hard to lock up that YNT spot. She is now competing against 1000's.

Davito, I am in my living room slow clapping for your response.  You nailed it.

Uncleof05AP wrote:Coachdom23, did the boy teams protest it because they did not want to get beat by a bunch of girls?

Here's what I heard for 17 years:

1. "It's a no-win. If we win, then people say 'you are supposed to beat a girls team'. If we lose, they say 'dude, you lost to girls"

2. "I will lose my better players if we are beaten by girls"

3. "Refs allow girls to be more physical and dirty against boys, but call fouls whenever boys get near a girl"


You can work around one boys team who refuses to play with girls, but not multiple teams... expecially when the boys coaches have teams in multiple age groups and threaten to walk.

coachdom23 wrote:

Uncleof05AP wrote:Coachdom23, did the boy teams protest it because they did not want to get beat by a bunch of girls?

Here's what I heard for 17 years:

1. "It's a no-win. If we win, then people say 'you are supposed to beat a girls team'. If we lose, they say 'dude, you lost to girls"

2. "I will lose my better players if we are beaten by girls"

3. "Refs allow girls to be more physical and dirty against boys, but call fouls whenever boys get near a girl"


You can work around one boys team who refuses to play with girls, but not multiple teams... expecially when the boys coaches have teams in multiple age groups and threaten to walk.

I have no doubt that this is 100% accurate and all three of those points are fair. But I have an honest question...

My question is: If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues. Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

Ron Mexico wrote:

coachdom23 wrote:

Uncleof05AP wrote:Coachdom23, did the boy teams protest it because they did not want to get beat by a bunch of girls?

Here's what I heard for 17 years:

1. "It's a no-win. If we win, then people say 'you are supposed to beat a girls team'. If we lose, they say 'dude, you lost to girls"

2. "I will lose my better players if we are beaten by girls"

3. "Refs allow girls to be more physical and dirty against boys, but call fouls whenever boys get near a girl"


You can work around one boys team who refuses to play with girls, but not multiple teams... expecially when the boys coaches have teams in multiple age groups and threaten to walk.

I have no doubt that this is 100% accurate and all three of those points are fair.  But I have an honest question...

My question is:  If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues.  Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

Too many leagues now. Teams have options to go somewhere else. With that comes director coddling and thus the teams have more power now.

Ron Mexico wrote:

coachdom23 wrote:

Uncleof05AP wrote:Coachdom23, did the boy teams protest it because they did not want to get beat by a bunch of girls?

I have no doubt that this is 100% accurate and all three of those points are fair.  But I have an honest question...

My question is:  If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues.  Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

The bolded below is the issue for me. I don't think anyone can say that a girls team has been successful against the top 5-8 boys teams of the same age. There may be an occasion or two, but certainly not enough to define it as successful.

My point to all of this is, if a girls team needs to play boys teams that are average in order to get a good game, why not just play up against girls or get a game or two against a boys team within the same club. Sting would be the only one that would have difficulty in making that happen, given they have no boys teams.

Ron Mexico wrote:My question is:  If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues.  Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

The biggest issue was always U10 and sometimes U9. In U6, there are seasons where they do not have enough girls teams, so they mix with boys without much complaining by girls or boys.

Personally, once you get to 7v7 play, girls and boys teams should be kept separate. PTS now has girls leagues up through U15. Because they do not have to abide by NTSSA's ridiculous rule forbidding U10's from playing U11 competitive, teams can play up as many levels as they wish with PTS. Leave the boys alone and play older girls. You will still be able to brag about beating older teams and have an excuse if you don't.

coachdom23 wrote:

Ron Mexico wrote:My question is:  If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues.  Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

".....NTSSA's ridiculous rule forbidding U10's from playing U11 competitive..."

Fix this and the entire problem goes away forever. Added benefits of actually following US Soccer recommendations and the fact that it's in the best interest of both the advanced players and for the less advanced players currently being Dribble to play against them.

I get the reasons why boys don't want to play girl teams. I get why some girl teams want to seek better competition.

So why isn't everyone's ire directed at NTSSA and this dumb rule?

timmyh wrote:

coachdom23 wrote:

Ron Mexico wrote:My question is:  If this is such a recurring issue, why don't the leagues/organizations just make a rule that girls can't play in boys' leagues.  Why continue to re-hash it every year by letting girls teams play until they are successful enough against boys for the complaints to start, then subsequently banning them from the league?

".....NTSSA's ridiculous rule forbidding U10's from playing U11 competitive..."

Fix this and the entire problem goes away forever.  Added benefits of actually following US Soccer recommendations and the fact that it's in the best interest of both the advanced players and for the less advanced players currently being Dribble to play against them.

I get the reasons why boys don't want to play girl teams.  I get why some girl teams want to seek better competition.

So why isn't everyone's ire directed at NTSSA and this dumb rule?  

So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense. It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

KeeperCommander wrote:
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Help me understand this new problem. Does something magical occur between u10 and u11, other than the 2nd mortgage that needs to be taken out?

boilerjoe_96 wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Help me understand this new problem.  Does something magical occur between u10 and u11, other than the 2nd mortgage that needs to be taken out?

I get the whole playing up revolution. I like it. I also get that playing up has them at a disadvantage from the start. But academy already operates with a no stipulation on roster. They get to do what they wish. Select has rules and those rules would then be pushed on the playing up team.
If a girls team plays boys and can not compete then they should not be allowed to play boys. If they can compete and boys coaches are pansies and don't want to play them that's different.
Perhaps technically it is not a problem as it is just a conflicting rules situation.

KeeperCommander wrote:
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Allowing girls teams to play older girls teams is better than playing boys. Again, this is from the league/tournament director perspective.

NTSSA allows U10 players to play on U11 recreational teams, but not on U11 competitive teams. They will tell you it is to protect the U10 player (injury, contracts, etc). The truth is their motivation is to keep U10 players paying money to their association and not leaving early for competitive leagues.

NTSSA Academy leagues were originally supposed to be on Sundays, so the U9 and U10 players could play on their recreational team on Saturdays. Despite this, UAL (NTSSA-sanctioned) would play on Saturday and Sunday, working against their own associations... but I digress - George Ostrander is smarter than everyone else and NTSSA doesn't have the stones to restrict UAL to Sunday-only.

In order to change the U10-U11 rule, it would have to be brought in front of the Presidents of all NTSSA home associations for a vote. They are not going to vote to change the rule. That is money out of their pockets.

coachdom23 wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:  
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Allowing girls teams to play older girls teams is better than playing boys. Again, this is from the league/tournament director perspective.

NTSSA allows U10 players to play on U11 recreational teams, but not on U11 competitive teams. They will tell you it is to protect the U10 player (injury, contracts, etc).  The truth is their motivation is to keep U10 players paying money to their association and not leaving early for competitive leagues.

NTSSA Academy leagues were originally supposed to be on Sundays, so the U9 and U10 players could play on their recreational team on Saturdays. Despite this, UAL (NTSSA-sanctioned) would play on Saturday and Sunday, working against their own associations... but I digress - George Ostrander is smarter than everyone else and NTSSA doesn't have the stones to restrict UAL to Sunday-only.

In order to change the U10-U11 rule, it would have to be brought in front of the Presidents of all NTSSA home associations for a vote. They are not going to vote to change the rule. That is money out of their pockets.

I'm liking the untethered Dom. Sorry you're out of the business. But now, please start spilling the beans.

coachdom23 wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:  
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Allowing girls teams to play older girls teams is better than playing boys. Again, this is from the league/tournament director perspective.

Playing up is playing up to me however there are 2 different objectives that can be achieved by playing both up in girls and playing boys. My DD has done both many times. When you play up in a girls div you are playing bigger faster girls. They are somewhat more physical but not exclusively. When you play against boys they usually are about the same size but have an athletic presence that at U12 can rival the girls. Obviously there are teams that do not fit so nicely into these categories but most do. The older girls are perturbed that the younger girls are playing and the boys laugh and try to embarrass the girls. Styles of play are usually different. Girls may play more physical but the boys will give you a harder fight. Play both and you will see results. That is from an observer standpoint.

coachdom23 wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:  
So are we now saying it makes more sense to allow academy teams to play select teams than girls to play boys? Hell that makes no sense.  It's solving a prob with a prob. Fix a problem, do not start another one.

Allowing girls teams to play older girls teams is better than playing boys. Again, this is from the league/tournament director perspective.

NTSSA allows U10 players to play on U11 recreational teams, but not on U11 competitive teams. They will tell you it is to protect the U10 player (injury, contracts, etc).  The truth is their motivation is to keep U10 players paying money to their association and not leaving early for competitive leagues.

NTSSA Academy leagues were originally supposed to be on Sundays, so the U9 and U10 players could play on their recreational team on Saturdays. Despite this, UAL (NTSSA-sanctioned) would play on Saturday and Sunday, working against their own associations... but I digress - George Ostrander is smarter than everyone else and NTSSA doesn't have the stones to restrict UAL to Sunday-only.

In order to change the U10-U11 rule, it would have to be brought in front of the Presidents of all NTSSA home associations for a vote. They are not going to vote to change the rule. That is money out of their pockets.

Once again it's all about the money!

If you want to understand one of the many issues that US Soccer has from a competitive standpoint (more the men than women) then this is one of them we have to discuss.

We are discussing teams playing up, but what we should be discussing is players playing up. Not nearly enough of them do and that is why we see entire teams wanting to do this. No matter how good a team is, there are players on that team that are not ready to be playing against the best of the best a year older. Many times, it hinders their development if the team is playing up, even if the team is successful.

Starting at U6, one, two or three great players can make a team great. That diminishes each year as they get older, but still at U10 and U11, a couple of great players can make a team very good, result wise.

We need clubs that move players up, not teams. I realize this occurs with some normality in each club, but not as much as it should. If there is a roster of 18 '05 girls, I don't think anyone here would say that the best 4-5 '06 girls would not easily make the '05 roster. That is what should be happening, but its not, partly due to our wonderful NTSSA friends.

I know that we have been discussing boys/girls, but the issue I speak of above plays a role in the current debate. If we want to be like Solar 07 and do nothing but develop YNT players, the model is quite simple. Fill out each roster with the best 18 players in the club that meet the age requirement. Start with the U19 team and work your way down.

KeeperCommander wrote:
Playing up is playing up to me however there are 2 different objectives that can be achieved by playing both up in girls and playing boys. My DD has done both many times. When you play up in a girls div you are playing bigger faster girls. They are somewhat more physical but not exclusively. When you play against boys they usually are about the same size but have an athletic presence that at U12 can rival the girls. Obviously there are teams that do not fit so nicely into these categories but most do. The older girls are perturbed that the younger girls are playing and the boys laugh and try to embarrass the girls. Styles of play are usually different. Girls may play more physical but the boys will give you a harder fight. Play both and you will see results. That is from an observer standpoint.

I understand wanting to play against better competition. It is much more admirable than trophy hunting in the silver division of a tournament or bragging about winning the bronze division of an academy league that does not post standings nor give out awards.

Girls teams needs to understand it from the boys' perspective. They are trying to recruit and keep players, also.

I am not going to single out a club or team (they know who they are), but when you do play a boys team, I suggest your parents be gracious and courteous. Over-celebrating each goal like you just won the World Cup, demanding a foul every time a girl goes to the ground, and gloating at the fields or on social media are good ways of not getting invited/allowed to play against boys team.

coachdom23 wrote:

KeeperCommander wrote:
Playing up is playing up to me however there are 2 different objectives that can be achieved by playing both up in girls and playing boys. My DD has done both many times. When you play up in a girls div you are playing bigger faster girls. They are somewhat more physical but not exclusively. When you play against boys they usually are about the same size but have an athletic presence that at U12 can rival the girls. Obviously there are teams that do not fit so nicely into these categories but most do. The older girls are perturbed that the younger girls are playing and the boys laugh and try to embarrass the girls. Styles of play are usually different. Girls may play more physical but the boys will give you a harder fight. Play both and you will see results. That is from an observer standpoint.

I understand wanting to play against better competition. It is much more admirable than trophy hunting in the silver division of a tournament or bragging about winning the bronze division of an academy league that does not post standings nor give out awards.

Girls teams needs to understand it from the boys' perspective. They are trying to recruit and keep players, also.

I am not going to single out a club or team (they know who they are), but when you do play a boys team, I suggest your parents be gracious and courteous. Over-celebrating each goal like you just won the World Cup, demanding a foul every time a girl goes to the ground, and gloating at the fields or on social media are good ways of not getting invited/allowed to play against boys team.

Don't get wrong I agree with you wholeheartedly about everything you just said. I do not like trophy hunting. Celebrating a goal, well some can go a touch overboard with it.
Takes all kinds I guess. For example if a top 07 team were to score on and beat the top 06 I am sure the celebration would be much deserved. I just doubt it happens.

The top girls teams out-athlete most boys teams until about u10/u11.

Dom's coach complaints are absolutely true...refs allow girls to beat up on the boys with stuff they would likely call if it were same gender.

By u12/u13, the top girls teams can't hang with top boys teams, but can hang in a reasonably competitive game with mid or lower tier boys. Some of the top boys teams think more, with more variety in types of play.

Even the top girls teams are mostly made up of either bangers or heads down speedy dribblers. Very little variety in decision making. Dribblers get the ball and always dribble. Bangers always compete for balls and give them up when they get it.

Girls benefit from playing boys and the different styles of play, but don't see boys getting anything out of it, other than ulittles having to face bigger/more physical opponents at the early ages...which may not be beneficial for their long-term development anyway.

One solution could be for girls' coaches to work with boys teams and embed some of their players for games and maybe 1 practice a week. Let them hang as long as they can...individually...not as teams. When they can't hang anymore, let them stay with their girls team only.

If they're still hanging with the boys into u13/u14...you probably have a special player on your hands.

slrsoccer wrote:

We are discussing teams playing up, but what we should be discussing is players playing up.  

......

We need clubs that move players up, not teams.    

Great point!!

It only takes one or two teams to play up and then the rest think they need to and before you know it the U10 division is stuffed with U9 teams playing up and the U9 division us full of U8 teams.

Outstanding individual players and bigger/faster/stronger players should be moved up for added challenge, not entire teams.

This is how it works in DA.

Thank gosh for da. It should fix all these problems.

You should be Sarcasmjack