The Pit - Frisco

The ponzee scheme starts at diaper dandies doesn't it....sounds like a bunch of low class coaches which is typical in N TX.

There are other places to play. IF that is truly how it went down, I wouldn’t return. That being said, parents say a lot of things with absolute certainty at girls games. “She is too old, that is a boy, they paid off the refs...”

Remember, ALL indoor soccer is a business 1st, and a sport 4th or 5th. Shady things happen at most of facilities. It is a hard lesson to learn at 6. If true, it is sad that an indoor championship means so much.

ForReal wrote:

ProDallas wrote:

ForReal wrote:Yea, six-year olds really need to see better players so they can improve their speed, skills, etc.  

ForReal, so, is your point that coaches and parents should NOT try to facilitate player development? I know having fun should be the top priority, but isn't it also fun to continuously improve as an athlete? I never thought it was fun to get beat as a kid, even when I was six. It is a sport. Perhaps if player development isn't part of the equation, the kids you're referencing would be better served playing on a rec team or just play on the swing-set instead.

Look, so long as you think 6-year olds need to be playing for clubs and have to play better talent at age 6 in a championship indoor game to develop, there's no reasoning with you.   Good luck to you and your daughter, Mr. Marinovich.  

Maybe you missed the part where I said I personally don't like the idea of bringing in ringers for such a game. My point is that rather than cry about how these poor DDs lost the game to some other six-year-olds (same age), perhaps they could look at it as an opportunity for their DDs to learn and grow as players. They are soccer players, right? Even if they're really young? Or, do you believe they should be described as something else?

Also, did the victimized parents know exactly who was on the original roster and know exactly who may have missed a previous game due to illness, travel, etc.? I bet not. And, read back to the beginning where the original poster says he/she "overheard" this situation. Should everyone should just believe it because an anonymous person posted it on txsoccer.net?

Yawn.  I've never posted about the veracity of the allegations.  For discussion's sake, I've assumed it to be true - as have you (yes, I know you questioned it earlier, but that's not what our discussion has been about).  Yes, this is a slightly different discussion if, perhaps, the majority of the opposing team had the flu.  But you don't get it because we apparently have a different perspective with how to raise 6 year olds.  So no more back and forth will change that.  And, yes, they are "soccer players" by definition, but they are also "six-year old soccer players."  Hopefully at some point down the road, you will see the difference.  I hope that win felt good for that coach - assuming the OP's facts are true.

So, at what age will using the term "development" be appropriate based on your philosophical approach to bringing young athletes along? Is that term too formal for you? If not development, how would you describe what kids gain from game and practice experience at that age?

You were quick to pass judgement on me because I suggested these kids might actually get some benefit from playing tougher competition. I do not condone breaking the rules or bringing in ringers just to win a championship. I shared that I personally would be frustrated if that happened to my dd's team. But, I would also realize some good could come from the experience.

Based on your judgement of me, it's a good thing I don't have any six year olds or younger. You'll also be happy to know my own DDs did not play academy at that age. Phew. I surely would have ruined them, because you just know it all.

Last post with you. You don't get it. I never said 6 year olds aren't developing or shouldn't develop. Nor did I say they won't develop against better, faster players -sometimes at this age, but more so when they are a bit older. All I intended to say was that it shouldn't happen in the finals of an indoor finals game if the opponent brought in stronger, non-rostered players. Again, if you can't understand that, I can't help you.

ForReal, I actually do understand that. I agree with you. I always agreed with you on those points.

As someone with first-hand knowledge of this situation, it's disappointing to see this issue being brought up here instead of maybe face-to-face with the parents or coach of the opposing team at some point during or after the game.

To clear the air though, the player in question was not a 6 year-old "ringer". In fact, she was a rec player that joined the team in December (including playing against the same opponent earlier, won by the opponent BTW). The difference is that she had 2+ months of practice and development with a qualified coach & better competition and the difference in her skill was evident.

Additionally, all questions were raised to the coach when she joined and he assured us that proper approvals were received by The PIT for her to play and every girl (including her) registered at the desk prior to each game.

I hope this clarifies the situation and just know that these POS parents (as someone so wonderfully called us) are more interested in making sure our 6 year old daughters are having fun and, yes, getting ice cream after the game regardless of whether they won or lost.

Well, their you go! I knew their was another side to the story.

rickyr01 - Thanks for the update. That makes a whole lot more sense...