What CL Teams Won't Make?

Anybody have any scoop? Wednesday will be here pretty quick and am curious who may be scrambling.

I will let you know first thing Thursday morning...

Any updates on this? Anyone heard about any teams not making, consolidating, combining, etc.?

Heard East Texas Titans 96 (D3) might be in trouble. Also Boca from D3. Can anyone confirm?

I had heard about Boca, but thought ETX Titans was good to go, especially after winning the challenge tournament over Memorial Day weekend. There's a thread that the 95 Titans team didn't make, but I hadn't heard about the 96's.

What I also heard is that most of the boca players went to the Longhorns and some to the ntx strikers.

There is not a East Texas Titan 96 on their website anymore. There is however a 96 Titan West team (formerly FW United West).

If the ETX Titans team didn't make, I guess they're planning on sliding the Titans West (former FW United) team into the bye vacated by the ETX Titans team. We'll see how it shakes out. I would imagine there will be a couple of slots vacated at the end of the day, allowing more than just the top 2 challenge tournament teams to slide into D3 as teams move up to fill vacated slots above them.

Cheers!

Looks like Stampede will be back in Classic 3 and Select Force might make it in also. Also heard Titans might make an offer to a current FC Dallas team not currently in Classic dangling a Classic league spot to them. Wonder if this is what the league forsaw when giving the bye back to the club Looks like the Titans have figured out how the "game"is played.

I guess I'm behind on the news. I had heard about the ETX Titans, and see that they're no longer on the website, but they're showing a new(?) Molina 96 team in Dallas, and the new Titans West team, and even a 96 out of Waco. Can't TT put any of these 96 teams into their Classic spot?

I'd also heard rumors about Boca Jrs, but as far as I can tell, they're still having tryouts for their D2 team.

So where do you see the opportunity for two (or more) slots opening up?

This boils down to the unfortunate truth that the bye invite doesn't have the meaning it used to have when a club can fill it with any set of players it wishes. I'd like to see it abolished, but at a minimum they need to compromise that a team that is represented by 'new' players and doesn't bring back last year's team should have to move down one division, or out in the case of D3 teams.

Exactly-letting a new team (or even a non deserving current team) take a bye that another one of the clubs teams earned into Classic is defeating the purpose and intent of their own constitution. At some point, a younger age team will move into Classic for the original team-i.e. a 97 team taking a 96 bye spot-just so the club can retain the bye.

soccerdad1 wrote: At some point, a younger age team will move into Classic for the original team-i.e. a 97 team taking a 96 bye spot-just so the club can retain the bye.

Younger teams playing up is common place in smaller soccer markets. STx for example, Lonestar have their top team in the age group play up for the competition.

The word "deserving" gets thrown around when it comes to byes referring to lower division 96 teams noving up without merit. But if one of the top 97 teams took a bye spot would the same complaint be made. The top 6-7 97s can compete and beat teams 4-13 in the 96 age group.

I agree as we were beat by a top 97 team before. My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye. I am all fore bringing the N+1 rule back.

soccerdad1 wrote:My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye.

Exactly. I realize that many clubs might have good teams available to backfill a bye slot, but they're not required to field an 'equal' team. Even for a club as big as FCD, there was talk earlier about the possibility of them fielding a middle-of-the-pack Plano team into D2. I was just suggesting that the replacement team should have merit.

But let's not hijack the thread and talk about the inequity of the bye system. Have any clubs talked about abandoning their bye invites? I thought the Titans weren't going to fill their slot - until they brought in two new divisions. Boca? I think they'll field something. As will everyone else. That was my point. The new bye rule lets any club (capable of finding 14 kids) to field a team. So why would a club ever give up a bye invite?

soccerdad1 wrote:I agree as we were beat by a top 97 team before. My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye. I am all fore bringing the N+1 rule back.

The classic league people cannot be oblivious. I hope. N+1, I think would not solve the problem. A move up one division and not letting a younger team move up would be a possiblity in conjunction with/and/or a n+1 system might work. Just a thought.

So did any teams not make?

True10 wrote:

soccerdad1 wrote:I agree as we were beat by a top 97 team before. My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye. I am all fore bringing the N+1 rule back.

The classic league people cannot be oblivious. I hope. N+1, I think would not solve the problem. A move up one division and not letting a younger team move up would be a possiblity in conjunction with/and/or a n+1 system might work. Just a thought.

So did any teams not make?

Sorry - the Classic board needs to STOP inventing rules to curb work around. They need to step up and evaluate the violators and put them in their place. Headed in a different direction, the new substitution rule is absurd. How many players will work their butt off during practice only to ride pine during games. WHAT purpose does the rule enforce? If there are too many substitutions, then have the refs deny the number of substitutions at the end of the game. Don't penalize the young men trying to get playing time on a competitive team.

Any specific reason why Dallas Texans White 96 is no longer listed on the Texans website?

They're still listed - just out of order.

Good catch-this should be interesting

RedBaron wrote:

True10 wrote:

soccerdad1 wrote:I agree as we were beat by a top 97 team before. My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye. I am all fore bringing the N+1 rule back.

The classic league people cannot be oblivious. I hope. N+1, I think would not solve the problem. A move up one division and not letting a younger team move up would be a possiblity in conjunction with/and/or a n+1 system might work. Just a thought.

So did any teams not make?

Sorry - the Classic board needs to STOP inventing rules to curb work around. They need to step up and evaluate the violators and put them in their place. Headed in a different direction, the new substitution rule is absurd. How many players will work their butt off during practice only to ride pine during games. WHAT purpose does the rule enforce? If there are too many substitutions, then have the refs deny the number of substitutions at the end of the game. Don't penalize the young men trying to get playing time on a competitive team.

Where you go wrong is thinking the Classic Board is there to help and or protect the players. There purpose, from what I have seen, is to protect and further the goals of the clubs.

cranky is absolutely correct. Make no mistake, they are there to serve the clubs, not the kids.

Enough on that topic..any other news on the original question about what CL teams did not make. So far, only Boca?

just heard that 96 FC Dallas West (old Alliance from Arlington) will get a Classic Bye but do not know which division or for which FC Dallas team

Well, at least they finished third in Arlington last year. Good for them, and good luck.

So would somebody explain to me why teams even bother with the challenges? It seems there's a much easier way to get into Classic.

Cranky wrote:

RedBaron wrote:

True10 wrote:

soccerdad1 wrote:I agree as we were beat by a top 97 team before. My point was a club could put a 97 Plano team in a 96 Classic league spot if they had the bye. I am all fore bringing the N+1 rule back.

The classic league people cannot be oblivious. I hope. N+1, I think would not solve the problem. A move up one division and not letting a younger team move up would be a possiblity in conjunction with/and/or a n+1 system might work. Just a thought.

So did any teams not make?

Sorry - the Classic board needs to STOP inventing rules to curb work around. They need to step up and evaluate the violators and put them in their place. Headed in a different direction, the new substitution rule is absurd. How many players will work their butt off during practice only to ride pine during games. WHAT purpose does the rule enforce? If there are too many substitutions, then have the refs deny the number of substitutions at the end of the game. Don't penalize the young men trying to get playing time on a competitive team.

Where you go wrong is thinking the Classic Board is there to help and or protect the players. There purpose, from what I have seen, is to protect and further the goals of the clubs.

Where you go wrong is thinking the league came up with this out of the blue. It was approved by the coach's committee. So if you don't like it, you may want to go talk with your coach or DOC, as they probably voted for it!

My bad on the Texans White thing. No fair putting teams out of order!

On the other note, doesn't matter what system CL puts in place. Coaches (or directors or parents or whomever you wish to blame today) will find a way around, over or through the rules.