Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Islander]

Schedules and brackets are posted:

http://wys-2012founderscup.affinitysoccer.com/tour/public/info/accepted_list.asp?tournamentguid={D0B68498-67BC-40B9-8ACC-E4E464052D5F}

[Independent]

This brings up a question I would like to pose to the forum.  I am following the progress of a friend's sons team through the Rec cup.  Their next opponent is WS Crush '00 a team that plays in what appears to be a select level division (they finished a solid 4th). 

The vast majority of teams from their division are playing in the Founders Cup.  Given that this team is Rec, but playing up, which tournament should they (in the interest of fair competitive play) be in?

http://district-3.org/season_2011/scorekeeping/standings.php?report_id=B11G

[EWSoccer64]

Why shouldn't they be in a rec cup?   Anything else would discourage teams from playing up in league play.

[Independent]

Why shouldn't they be in a rec cup?   Anything else would discourage teams from playing up in league play.

Hmmm?  I don't think I understand your point.  The way it appeared to me was they were choosing to play in a competition against teams of (likely) lower quality than the teams they play in league play.  The reason to play up is because you believe you can compete against a higher level competition, which they have done.  Why would you then fall back to the lower level for a tournament, unless you want to simply increase your odds of winning a tournament.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. 

[EWSoccer64]

No one has a problem with a Crossfire team playing up a year in league play and then playing on age during State Cup.
So why should you have a problem with a team playing at it's own level - rec - in it's state cup.

Further, depending on the area, there is no "rec" league for teams at certain ages.  They are forced to play in a district league.

Lastly, it may have some competition available in a "rec" league locally, but wants to go for more serious competition in a district league to prepare itself for state cup, to better develop the players and team, and/or to decide if as a team it wants to make the jump to become a "select" team.

Again, why should anyone have a problem with it?   It's not like being 4th in league play in the lowest competitive (perhaps only) district division it can play in makes it a contender for the state select cup.

Why shouldn't they be in a rec cup?   Anything else would discourage teams from playing up in league play.

Hmmm?  I don't think I understand your point.  The way it appeared to me was they were choosing to play in a competition against teams of (likely) lower quality than the teams they play in league play.  The reason to play up is because you believe you can compete against a higher level competition, which they have done.  Why would you then fall back to the lower level for a tournament, unless you want to simply increase your odds of winning a tournament.

Perhaps you can clarify what you mean. 

[Independent]

No one has a problem with a Crossfire team playing up a year in league play and then playing on age during State Cup.
So why should you have a problem with a team playing at it's own level - rec - in it's state cup.

Further, depending on the area, there is no "rec" league for teams at certain ages.  They are forced to play in a district league.

Lastly, it may have some competition available in a "rec" league locally, but wants to go for more serious competition in a district league to prepare itself for state cup, to better develop the players and team, and/or to decide if as a team it wants to make the jump to become a "select" team.

Again, why should anyone have a problem with it?   It's not like being 4th in league play in the lowest competitive (perhaps only) district division it can play in makes it a contender for the state select cup.

Comparing competitive soccer to rec soccer is apples to oranges.  You could argue that by allowing a team that is too good (or believes it is too good)to play Rec during league play is doing a disservice to those Rec teams who do not share similar aspirations.  Those Rec teams are not being afforded a level playing field.

And, I believe District II has a team (Rec) that played up with Select teams that was not allowed to play in the Rec for similar reasons to the ones I am stating.  So, I am not likely the only one who holds a position that you so easily (and I might add with a hint of condescension) dismiss.

[Turner b1kr]

This brings up a question I would like to pose to the forum.  I am following the progress of a friend's sons team through the Rec cup.  Their next opponent is WS Crush '00 a team that plays in what appears to be a select level division (they finished a solid 4th). 

The vast majority of teams from their division are playing in the Founders Cup.  Given that this team is Rec, but playing up, which tournament should they (in the interest of fair competitive play) be in?

http://district-3.org/season_2011/scorekeeping/standings.php?report_id=B11G

This is a good question.  You have to look to the Rec Cup Rules for which teams qualify.  Here is the pertinent Rule:

REGISTRATION AND TEAM ELIGIBILITY
A) This cup will be open to recreational teams only. A “recreational” team is defined as any team where the use of tryouts, invitations, recruiting or any like process to roster players selectively on the basis of talent or ability is prohibited. Individual Member Associations will determine whether their teams fit the “recreational” classification, subject to District/Region approval. District/Regions will apply good judgment in order for teams to be placed in the appropriate state-hosted tournament.

http://www.wsysa.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=229H3xcA8SU%3d&tabid=380&language=en-US

So, I think you make a good point.  The team you identified plays in a District League against "Select" teams.  However, if they do not use tryouts invitations, recruiting or any like prcoess, they are eligible to paly in the Rec Cup, assuming their member association determines they are a rec team and the district/region approves.

The other posters make really good points, as many teams in the state play up and then compete at age in some of the other cups.  In many ways, I think this points out the challenges of the "rec", "select" and "premier" designation based system.  Many posters have pointed this flaw out and suggest that a competition based system (using promotion/relegation) and open leagues would be a better system.

I hope that's helpful!

[EWSoccer64]

If District Two screwed up and improperly prohibited a rec team from playing int he rec state cup, then the rec team and/or its association should have taken action - filed a greivence.  If it was not a true rec  team, by the state definition, then D-2 acted appropriately in your  purported example.

No one has a problem with a Crossfire team playing up a year in league play and then playing on age during State Cup.
So why should you have a problem with a team playing at it's own level - rec - in it's state cup.

Further, depending on the area, there is no "rec" league for teams at certain ages.  They are forced to play in a district league.

Lastly, it may have some competition available in a "rec" league locally, but wants to go for more serious competition in a district league to prepare itself for state cup, to better develop the players and team, and/or to decide if as a team it wants to make the jump to become a "select" team.

Again, why should anyone have a problem with it?   It's not like being 4th in league play in the lowest competitive (perhaps only) district division it can play in makes it a contender for the state select cup.

And your apples and oranges comment is way, way off base.   Rec vs Competitive is about how the teams are formed, and what their aims are.  It is not a qualitive distinction.   If you want to go to qualitive distinctions between classifications, the first thing you have to do is to abolish the RCL, as it is not - by definition - about the quality of individual teams.   It is about the standing of the parent clubs.

As anyone who has been around the WSYSA for a while can tell you, it was not unheard of for certain select teams to be better than many (about half?) of the premier teams.    Yet, these teams were still select (often to the chagrin of their clubs and associations, but by their own choice, never having been premier, they did not want to go that route.).

Back when some clubs were first starting up U-11 select teams, it was not uncommon to see them face against true enighborhood rec teams in tournaments.  (Almost two decades ago, now).   Often these true neighborhood rec teams would beat the select teams and win the tournaments.    That does not make the rec teams any less recreational. 

Comparing competitive soccer to rec soccer is apples to oranges.  You could argue that by allowing a team that is too good (or believes it is too good)to play Rec during league play is doing a disservice to those Rec teams who do not share similar aspirations.  Those Rec teams are not being afforded a level playing field.

And, I believe District II has a team (Rec) that played up with Select teams that was not allowed to play in the Rec for similar reasons to the ones I am stating.  So, I am not likely the only one who holds a position that you so easily (and I might add with a hint of condescension) dismiss.

[Independent]

If District Two screwed up and improperly prohibited a rec team from playing int he rec state cup, then the rec team and/or its association should have taken action - filed a greivence.  If it was not a true rec  team, by the state definition, then D-2 acted appropriately in your  purported example.

Or you could turn it around and say that they (Dist II) took the clause "...subject to District/Region approval. District/Regions will apply good judgment in order for teams to be placed in the appropriate state-hosted tournament." and tried to apply it.  I am not saying they did or didn't, but your black and white view of the situation sounds awfully dogmatic to me.  I don't have a horse in the race and frankly brought it up because I thought it worth discussing, not dismissing as you do.

Thanks to the other poster for sharing that information and their reasonable approach.

[CROCK]

I know of a girls D2 rec team that played in the NPSL this fall.  They were told by D2 that since they played in the NPSL (a select league) they could not play in the state rec cup.  They will do just fine in the Founders Cup.

D3 doesn't seem to do as good of a job as D2 in placing teams in appropriate leagues, league placement to me seems better than random, but maybe not much.  D3 has no problem having "rec" teams from their top select league play in the rec cup.

In some cases D3 even allows a team to play in both the Rec Cup and the Founders Cup.

[anyudes]

I wonder why The State didn't use Korrio for the Founders Cup...

[EWSoccer64]

The languange that you cite is part of the old hold over from when teams had to be sanctioned by Districts before they were allowed to participate in state cups or LPTs.
Further, as cited here, the district has to have sufficient reason to stop a team from participating in the state rec cup.   That is truely an unknown in the postulated situation.   It is entirely possible that the rec team was formed in such a way as to prevent it from participating in the state rec cup.  For instance, if a team only has 12 players signed up, and the coach tells the players to go out and get some friends to sign up so that there is sufficient numbers of players, does that constitute a violation of rec standards?  I have seen it ruled both ways.  (and seen the issue ducked entirely!).

The only black and white issue that I see is that if a team is set up as a rec team, it should be allowed to participate in any state tournament it desires to.  The system is supposed to be set up so that teams MAY, if they choose, play in a higher level, but not a lower one than they were constructed for.  Abuse of that principle leads to other abuses.

If District Two screwed up and improperly prohibited a rec team from playing int he rec state cup, then the rec team and/or its association should have taken action - filed a greivence.  If it was not a true rec  team, by the state definition, then D-2 acted appropriately in your  purported example.

Or you could turn it around and say that they (Dist II) took the clause "...subject to District/Region approval. District/Regions will apply good judgment in order for teams to be placed in the appropriate state-hosted tournament." and tried to apply it.  I am not saying they did or didn't, but your black and white view of the situation sounds awfully dogmatic to me.  I don't have a horse in the race and frankly brought it up because I thought it worth discussing, not dismissing as you do.

Thanks to the other poster for sharing that information and their reasonable approach.

[EWSoccer64]

I wonder why The State didn't use Korrio for the Founders Cup...

Interesting.   
One might think that because not all the member associations with select teams use Korrrio, it was not suitable.
Conspiracy theorists can come up with other ideas.

[Independent]

Further, as cited here, the district has to have sufficient reason to stop a team from participating in the state rec cup.

Cited where?  I saw no reference that stated the above.  It stated they had to meet certain requirements to be defined as a "Rec" team and that in addition the District has the authority to use its discretion to appropriately place a team in the right tournament.

Now clearly that language is not black and white and is intended to provide a District to use their judgement..  You would hope that the Districts would communicate and do their best to apply this judgement in a uniform way.  And, the evidence potentially points out that they do not.

[EWSoccer64]

In your arguement, the District has the authority to prohibit teams from participating in state competitions that they would otherwise be entitled to participate in.   In your ideal, the District uses "it's discretion".  Your inference that it is to appropriately place a team in the "right" tournament is not how this rule was set up.  Again, it goes back to when district's sanctioned entries into all state competitions, and was most often used (to my knowledge) to vet teams for LPTs.  There once was a rule that only two teams per district could enter into LPTs (after the initial age group).
Regardless, the Districts were never intended to have the power to stop properly constituted teams from entering into the proper level cup for them.  Rather, they were entrusted in helping to make sure that entries from their district were "properly constituted".  In other words, if a District had reason to believe that say for instance a rec team may not have been properly made up according to the rec rules and principles (such as a maniac coach driving weak players off and bringing in replacement stronger players), they could refuse them.    (Questions about birthcertificates have been more common, as in a  certain rec team playing in U-14 having players drive themselves to away games).  Those are proper circumstances for a District to use it's discretion. 
A rec team being "too good" to compete in a rec tournament?  If that is the cause, then that is abuse of discretion and certainly something that is grevience worthy.

I am pretty certain that there is more to this cited team from D-2 (?) that the district commissioner refused to allow to participate in the rec state cup than has been stated.

Further, as cited here, the district has to have sufficient reason to stop a team from participating in the state rec cup.

Cited where?  I saw no reference that stated the above.  It stated they had to meet certain requirements to be defined as a "Rec" team and that in addition the District has the authority to use its discretion to appropriately place a team in the right tournament.

Now clearly that language is not black and white and is intended to provide a District to use their judgement..  You would hope that the Districts would communicate and do their best to apply this judgement in a uniform way.  And, the evidence potentially points out that they do not.

[Independent]

In your arguement, the District has the authority to prohibit teams from participating in state competitions that they would otherwise be entitled to participate in.   In your ideal, the District uses "it's discretion".  Your inference that it is to appropriately place a team in the "right" tournament is not how this rule was set up. 

I am not inferring anything.  The following statement is pretty clear.

"District/Regions will apply good judgment in order for teams to be placed in the appropriate state-hosted tournament."

You seem to need to imply that I am feel that gives them right to "deny" a team entrance to a tournament.  Rather,  I am saying it gives them the right to place them in the "correct" tournament.

If I am inferring anything it is that the intent of the above is provide latitude to guide teams into the tournament most likely to provide "like" competition.  You eschew that and are advocating that as long as a team meets some "categorical" classification they should be allowed to play down rather than at the level they are better suited.

I know which course I would prefer.

[EWSoccer64]

Actually, this power has traditionally been used to deny teams entry into certain competitions, as poitned out earlier.
And "appropriate" does NOT mean "like".
An appropriate competition is one that the team meets the criteria for.

In your arguement, the District has the authority to prohibit teams from participating in state competitions that they would otherwise be entitled to participate in.   In your ideal, the District uses "it's discretion".  Your inference that it is to appropriately place a team in the "right" tournament is not how this rule was set up. 

I am not inferring anything.  The following statement is pretty clear.

"District/Regions will apply good judgment in order for teams to be placed in the appropriate state-hosted tournament."

You seem to need to imply that I am feel that gives them right to "deny" a team entrance to a tournament.  Rather,  I am saying it gives them the right to place them in the "correct" tournament.

If I am inferring anything it is that the intent of the above is provide latitude to guide teams into the tournament most likely to provide "like" competition.  You eschew that and are advocating that as long as a team meets some "categorical" classification they should be allowed to play down rather than at the level they are better suited.

I know which course I would prefer.

[Independent]

Actually, this power has traditionally been used to deny teams entry into certain competitions, as poitned out earlier.
And "appropriate" does NOT mean "like".
An appropriate competition is one that the team meets the criteria for.

Let's be very clear, in a closed competition such as the Rec up, "like" means that you should prevent teams from (either by intent or by accident) in effect sandbagging.  The integrity of a competition like a Rec cup should be guarded closely.  If we can't agree on this, I think you simply have a misguided view.

There should of course be Open competitions for those teams who feel they can play against the toughest competition.  And, if teams want to play up into another closed competition, that should be at the discretion of a competition committee.  In this case however it appears that Districts might be applying the same rules differently, which is not in anyone's benefit.

[EWSoccer64]

"like" is your phraseology, not part of the criteria for the State Rec Cup.
Again, "Appropriate" is not synonymous with "like".
The requirement for the Rec cup is that teams are true Rec teams.   IMHO, guest players should not be allowed in this tournament.
What you are about is penalizing a rec team because it has developed and become better, that seems to be the reality of your position.    Why not just disband the team while you are at it?

Actually, this power has traditionally been used to deny teams entry into certain competitions, as poitned out earlier.
And "appropriate" does NOT mean "like".
An appropriate competition is one that the team meets the criteria for.

Let's be very clear, in a closed competition such as the Rec up, "like" means that you should prevent teams from (either by intent or by accident) in effect sandbagging.  The integrity of a competition like a Rec cup should be guarded closely.  If we can't agree on this, I think you simply have a misguided view.

There should of course be Open competitions for those teams who feel they can play against the toughest competition.  And, if teams want to play up into another closed competition, that should be at the discretion of a competition committee.  In this case however it appears that Districts might be applying the same rules differently, which is not in anyone's benefit.

[Independent]

"like" is your phraseology, not part of the criteria for the State Rec Cup.
Again, "Appropriate" is not synonymous with "like".
The requirement for the Rec cup is that teams are true Rec teams.   IMHO, guest players should not be allowed in this tournament.
What you are about is penalizing a rec team because it has developed and become better, that seems to be the reality of your position.    Why not just disband the team while you are at it?

You simply aren't listening, or are just being obtuse for the sake of it.   Guest players are not allowed, that is pretty clearly called out in the tournament rules.  

Again, the rules give the Association (with District approval) the authority to place teams in an appropriate tournament. That clause is clearly to provide the Districts with the ability to place a team that meets the "definition" of a Rec team into a more competitive tournament.  It can serve no other purpose.  If it wasn't intended to grant that authority it is superfluous and should be stricken.

What I am talking about is about making sure all the Districts apply the rules equally, not punishing an individually successful Rec team.  


 

[EWSoccer64]

Beg to disagree, you are the one that is not listening.  The rules were not drawn up to punish a rec team that has become good.   They were written up and worded the way they are because of the old LPT system and to have the the Districts vet the entrants to state competitions to help ensure that they met the criteria.

A rec team can modify itself for league competition, just as a team playing up a year in league competition can add player(s) of that age, but such things with such modified rosters would disqualify that team from certain competitions they would have been eligible for without such modifications.

Independent, if you want to go chasing after chicanery, take a look at Crossfire dumping their U-19 players and replacing them with returnees from college so that they can win another state championship cup.   Take a look at the Club and District that allowed that.   Don't go after a rec team made good.


quote author=Independent link=topic=17845.msg294031#msg294031 date=1322673609]

"like" is your phraseology, not part of the criteria for the State Rec Cup.
Again, "Appropriate" is not synonymous with "like".
The requirement for the Rec cup is that teams are true Rec teams.   IMHO, guest players should not be allowed in this tournament.
What you are about is penalizing a rec team because it has developed and become better, that seems to be the reality of your position.    Why not just disband the team while you are at it?

You simply aren't listening, or are just being obtuse for the sake of it.   Guest players are not allowed, that is pretty clearly called out in the tournament rules.  

Again, the rules give the Association (with District approval) the authority to place teams in an appropriate tournament. That clause is clearly to provide the Districts with the ability to place a team that meets the "definition" of a Rec team into a more competitive tournament.  It can serve no other purpose.  If it wasn't intended to grant that authority it is superfluous and should be stricken.

What I am talking about is about making sure all the Districts apply the rules equally, not punishing an individually successful Rec team.  


 


[/quote]

[Independent]

Beg to disagree, you are the one that is not listening.  The rules were not drawn up to punish a rec team that has become good.   They were written up and worded the way they are because of the old LPT system and to have the the Districts vet the entrants to state competitions to help ensure that they met the criteria.

A rec team can modify itself for league competition, just as a team playing up a year in league competition can add player(s) of that age, but such things with such modified rosters would disqualify that team from certain competitions they would have been eligible for without such modifications.

Independent, if you want to go chasing after chicanery, take a look at Crossfire dumping their U-19 players and replacing them with returnees from college so that they can win another state championship cup.   Take a look at the Club and District that allowed that.   Don't go after a rec team made good.

In what world is having a team play against teams of their own caliber a punishment?  Clearly it is reward to be allowed to play in a higher level tournament, not a punishment.  I am not trying to persecute or make an example of this specific team, but they do provide an example that is worth discussing.  They had the ability and desire to play against select teams; they showed over the course of the league season that they were very competitive against that competition.  But, when the season is over they are playing in a tournament below the one their proven peers are playing in.  If I was a player, THAT would feel like a punishment. 

The only ones who might be being punished are the other Rec teams who compete only against other Rec teams and are now face with playing a team that has been sucessful at a higher level.  This applies to every Rec team they faced in the Rec cup.

And please, don't act like I am on some Quixotic quest, this is simply a discussion among (potentially) reasonable people. 

[Turner b1kr]

This is a good and healthy discussion.  I was drawn to the thread because I know a team playing in the semi-finals of the Rec Cup using a guest player.  I was talking with a parent on the team and asked about the guest player.  Their response was that the other parents wanted to win the Rec Cup, so they have all turned the other way.

When I was coaching rec, I saw coaches and parents recruiting and even using select or premier players as guest players.  And this was at the younger ages! In many ways, I can't help but wonder if the little league system might be better (though not without it's own faults).  You have terriroty boundaries, try-outs, try to divide teams up evenly and have minimum play requirements. 

Just food for thought...

 

[EWSoccer64]

Coming in fourth place in a district league does not make a team "competitive" against field of teams in the Founders/Commish Cup.  Let's get that straight right now.   We do not even know if this rec team was playing in the weaker of multiple on age divisions at the District level.   It has not even been stated that they had a local rec league to play in.

Not allowing a team to play on age, in its proper classification, is a punishment.   Plain and Simple.  If the team wanted to play up a level (or more), then they have that opportunity.   To stop them is punishing them for developing.   I do not hear any cries to stop Crossfire from having their teams that play up a year in league play and then play on age in state cup.  How is that any different than what you are objecting to?

Beg to disagree, you are the one that is not listening.  The rules were not drawn up to punish a rec team that has become good.   They were written up and worded the way they are because of the old LPT system and to have the the Districts vet the entrants to state competitions to help ensure that they met the criteria.

A rec team can modify itself for league competition, just as a team playing up a year in league competition can add player(s) of that age, but such things with such modified rosters would disqualify that team from certain competitions they would have been eligible for without such modifications.

Independent, if you want to go chasing after chicanery, take a look at Crossfire dumping their U-19 players and replacing them with returnees from college so that they can win another state championship cup.   Take a look at the Club and District that allowed that.   Don't go after a rec team made good.

In what world is having a team play against teams of their own caliber a punishment?  Clearly it is reward to be allowed to play in a higher level tournament, not a punishment.  I am not trying to persecute or make an example of this specific team, but they do provide an example that is worth discussing.  They had the ability and desire to play against select teams; they showed over the course of the league season that they were very competitive against that competition.  But, when the season is over they are playing in a tournament below the one their proven peers are playing in.  If I was a player, THAT would feel like a punishment. 

The only ones who might be being punished are the other Rec teams who compete only against other Rec teams and are now face with playing a team that has been sucessful at a higher level.  This applies to every Rec team they faced in the Rec cup.

And please, don't act like I am on some Quixotic quest, this is simply a discussion among (potentially) reasonable people. 

[Independent]

Coming in fourth place in a district league does not make a team "competitive" against field of teams in the Founders/Commish Cup.  Let's get that straight right now.   We do not even know if this rec team was playing in the weaker of multiple on age divisions at the District level.   It has not even been stated that they had a local rec league to play in.

Not allowing a team to play on age, in its proper classification, is a punishment.   Plain and Simple.  If the team wanted to play up a level (or more), then they have that opportunity.   To stop them is punishing them for developing.   I do not hear any cries to stop Crossfire from having their teams that play up a year in league play and then play on age in state cup.  How is that any different than what you are objecting to?

Yes boss, let's get that straight.   If winning 6 out of 10 including handing the top team in the division their only loss does NOT make them competitive enough for the Founders Cup, then the six teams (including 3 below them in table) in the Division that ARE playing in the Founders Cup are also not competitive.  Your argument is not logical or persuasive.  There are 30 teams in the Founders Cup, 6 from this Dist III Division.  That is 20% of the teams in the Cup. 

As to your other arguments, why don't you take the time to do some research before making an argument.  A quick look at the Dist III website shows 2 U11 division (Gold made up of Select  + 1 Rec, and a Rec division).

It is different because Rec meant to be a different experience than Competitive soccer.  And one that should be protected.  Your only argument appears to be that since they "technically" meet the definition of Rec, they would be "punished" if they are placed in the Founders Cup and not the Rec Cup.  It is frankly a weak argument.  But, don't let that stop you from repeating it....again.

[EWSoccer64]

OK, now we are getting somewhere.   There are 2 divisions, and one is entirely rec.   Apparently this team would not find the rec division competitive, so it is playing up into a "select" division.  Where, as a previous post pointed out, it finished 4th.
Anyone experienced with state cups can readily predict that if the state cup divisions were equitably formed (which would be abnormal, ha ha) then this 4th place team would not make it out of the first stage.   That is not being very competitive.  Let's say this 4th place team got an easy group, and advanced.  Any victory would end up being a real upset. 
Rec or not, a 4th place team from one of 7 districts is pretty much by definition not going to be competitive going up against the top 1-2 teams from the 7 districts......  Unless someone claims that this particular district III age has a special group of outstanding teams that are clearly better than the top teams in other districts?

You continue to make the assumption that because the team plays in a more difficult (theoretically) enviroment for league play, it is not a rec team at heart.   Does the coach minimize the playing time for the non-starters?   Does the team require expensive team fees?   Was there a tryout or recruiting?  Does the team prevent players from persueing other activities in addition to soccer?   Have players been run off the roster because of greater soccer commitments?

All I see is that you are wanting this team to be punished for being successful.   How does it offend the sensibilities that a team of kids gets some quality coaching and progresses even though they are defined as a lowly rec team?
Should any "select" team that can beat some "premier" teams be forced into playing the State Championship Cup, too?

Coming in fourth place in a district league does not make a team "competitive" against field of teams in the Founders/Commish Cup.  Let's get that straight right now.   We do not even know if this rec team was playing in the weaker of multiple on age divisions at the District level.   It has not even been stated that they had a local rec league to play in.

Not allowing a team to play on age, in its proper classification, is a punishment.   Plain and Simple.  If the team wanted to play up a level (or more), then they have that opportunity.   To stop them is punishing them for developing.   I do not hear any cries to stop Crossfire from having their teams that play up a year in league play and then play on age in state cup.  How is that any different than what you are objecting to?

Yes boss, let's get that straight.   If winning 6 out of 10 including handing the top team in the division their only loss does NOT make them competitive enough for the Founders Cup, then the six teams (including 3 below them in table) in the Division that ARE playing in the Founders Cup are also not competitive.  Your argument is not logical or persuasive.  There are 30 teams in the Founders Cup, 6 from this Dist III Division.  That is 20% of the teams in the Cup. 

As to your other arguments, why don't you take the time to do some research before making an argument.  A quick look at the Dist III website shows 2 U11 division (Gold made up of Select  + 1 Rec, and a Rec division).

It is different because Rec meant to be a different experience than Competitive soccer.  And one that should be protected.  Your only argument appears to be that since they "technically" meet the definition of Rec, they would be "punished" if they are placed in the Founders Cup and not the Rec Cup.  It is frankly a weak argument.  But, don't let that stop you from repeating it....again.

[tripleplay]

Not allowing a team to play on age, in its proper classification, is a punishment.   Plain and Simple.  If the team wanted to play up a level (or more), then they have that opportunity.   To stop them is punishing them for developing.   I do not hear any cries to stop Crossfire from having their teams that play up a year in league play and then play on age in state cup.  How is that any different than what you are objecting to?

There is a huge difference because the hypothetical Crossfire team will be playing in the highest cup - the idea of excluding teams from the Championship Cup because they are too good is illogical and contrary to the purpose of the tournament. That is not the case for lower tournaments - where sandbagging and rules to prevent sandbagging have always been part of the equation. In this area there is very little practical difference between rec and lower select levels at older ages.

[EWSoccer64]

But TP, it would violate Independent's view about playing "like" competition as being so important.  If the putative Crossfire team were fourth in the second division of RCL while playing up, it would be deemed to be competitive in state championship cup at the age that they were playing league play in.  Not my standards, these are the ones that Independent has set forth.   

Not allowing a team to play on age, in its proper classification, is a punishment.   Plain and Simple.  If the team wanted to play up a level (or more), then they have that opportunity.   To stop them is punishing them for developing.   I do not hear any cries to stop Crossfire from having their teams that play up a year in league play and then play on age in state cup.  How is that any different than what you are objecting to?

There is a huge difference because the hypothetical Crossfire team will be playing in the highest cup - the idea of excluding teams from the Championship Cup because they are too good is illogical and contrary to the purpose of the tournament. That is not the case for lower tournaments - where sandbagging and rules to prevent sandbagging have always been part of the equation. In this area there is very little practical difference between rec and lower select levels at older ages.

[Independent]

OK, now we are getting somewhere.   There are 2 divisions, and one is entirely rec.   Apparently this team would not find the rec division competitive, so it is playing up into a "select" division.  Where, as a previous post pointed out, it finished 4th.
Anyone experienced with state cups can readily predict that if the state cup divisions were equitably formed (which would be abnormal, ha ha) then this 4th place team would not make it out of the first stage.   That is not being very competitive.  Let's say this 4th place team got an easy group, and advanced.  Any victory would end up being a real upset. 
Rec or not, a 4th place team from one of 7 districts is pretty much by definition not going to be competitive going up against the top 1-2 teams from the 7 districts......  Unless someone claims that this particular district III age has a special group of outstanding teams that are clearly better than the top teams in other districts?

You continue to make the assumption that because the team plays in a more difficult (theoretically) enviroment for league play, it is not a rec team at heart.   Does the coach minimize the playing time for the non-starters?   Does the team require expensive team fees?   Was there a tryout or recruiting?  Does the team prevent players from persueing other activities in addition to soccer?   Have players been run off the roster because of greater soccer commitments?

All I see is that you are wanting this team to be punished for being successful.   How does it offend the sensibilities that a team of kids gets some quality coaching and progresses even though they are defined as a lowly rec team?
Should any "select" team that can beat some "premier" teams be forced into playing the State Championship Cup, too?

You are so wrapped around the axle about them meeting some definition of "Rec" that you have lost the ability to see any bigger picture.  You are arguing like a lawyer that chooses to willfully ignore a  clause in the law that doesn't support your argument.  That clause states that being a "Rec" team is not the only criteria that Associations and Districts need consider.  That is being a bad lawyer.

Then you ignore the fact that the division they played in makes up 20% of the Founders Cup.  A division in which they were better than 5 out of 9 teams.  On top of that they entered and won the District Rec Cup further proving they are of a quality better than the Rec Division they decided not to play in.  

Your only argument therefore is that they belong in the Rec Cup because of technicality, as the tournament rules indicate that Rec status is not the sole deciding factor to make a team suitable for entry.

And then, you go on to say that you feel the chances that they would make it out of group play supports your argument that they should play in the Rec cup.  By that logic (however unprovable the hypothesis is) we should only allow teams into a tournament that would escape the group and make it to the knockout.  With the knowledge you have, you should seed the knockout stages for tournaments yourself and just do away with the group stage.  We can save everyone some money and free up field times for other clubs to boot.

Damn....I can't believe it but you finally convinced me.

 

[Independent]

But TP, it would violate Independent's view about playing "like" competition as being so important.  If the putative Crossfire team were fourth in the second division of RCL while playing up, it would be deemed to be competitive in state championship cup at the age that they were playing league play in.  Not my standards, these are the ones that Independent has set forth.   

You would being standing on slightly stronger ground if you didn't insist on misrepresenting what I am trying to convey.   The below is what I wrote that applies to this:

"Let's be very clear, in a closed competition such as the Rec up, "like" means that you should prevent teams from (either by intent or by accident) in effect sandbagging."

We are talking about the Rec tournament, not about other competitive tournaments.  I I have shown reasons a plenty that support why that team should be placed in Founders Cup.  You however have no put forth no real argument other than made up scenarios and the fact that the team is by definition a Rec team.

My argument is all around trying to ensure that the players who have made the choice to be a Rec player are on as even a footing as possible when they play in their Cup.  This about the Rec Cup only, and desire to beat down an argument based on more hypothetical situations  about higher level tournaments is not relevant.