Re-entry

I just checked the stats for our last season. Our roster ran 21 deep (not included DP girls that never moved full time). We had a number of injuries through the season (along with other commitments were girls could not make a game) and some girls were added late in the season to the roster so we rarely had to non-roster someone who could play. Even then those players not rostered often played that day with the older team. The 21st player averaged 32 minutes. 17-20 averaged from 48 to 42 minutes. Our 12th player averaged 66 minutes.

This is data for just one team at one club but in my mind it clearly shows how the no re-entry rules along with the 25% start rule ends up spreading out minutes and how the end of the bench actually can benefit by getting more playing time under these rules.
 
Simisoccerfan said:
I just checked the stats for our last season. Our roster ran 21 deep (not included DP girls that never moved full time). We had a number of injuries through the season (along with other commitments were girls could not make a game) and some girls were added late in the season to the roster so we rarely had to non-roster someone who could play. Even then those players not rostered often played that day with the older team. The 21st player averaged 32 minutes. 17-20 averaged from 48 to 42 minutes. Our 12th player averaged 66 minutes.

This is data for just one team at one club but in my mind it clearly shows how the no re-entry rules along with the 25% start rule ends up spreading out minutes and how the end of the bench actually can benefit by getting more playing time under these rules.
Click to expand...

I'm also happy to discuss math now that we've settled the discussion on biology. I'm better at math anyway.

It is axiomatic that the additional substitution flexibility offered by ECNL provides more opportunity for the equitable distribution of minutes. If you have more substitution opportunities, you have more opportunity to distribute minutes equitably in both a game and throughout a season. It's a mathematical certainty. If any coach (GDA or not) isn't passing out minutes equitably, that's the coach not the rules, unless you're in GDA.

Look at this another way. Let's say hypothetically my daughter played GDA last year and her team played down a player and occasionally two in at least 5 games due to injuries in the last 10-15 minutes of games. That's about 65 minutes over the season that could have been given to someone on the bench, and which would have been filled in any league but GDA, but which were filled by no one, and for what conceivable reason? Furthermore, because many GDA coaches understandably avoid this kind of problem, it leaves bench players on the bench longer than anyone would like in virtually every game. In other words, virtually every GDA game played results in some players playing more minutes than they need or should even have, and others playing fewer than they need or should have. Some games also involve players playing hurt unnecessarily because they can't be subbed without having to play short. It's one of reasons almost all of the best clubs in the country have jumped ship or relegated GDA to its B-teams.

Claiming that fewer opportunities to play in games means more opportunities to play in games is just more non-sense. If we didn't live in Trump land, I wouldn't believe people were this dumb.
 
End of the Line said:
I'm also happy to discuss math now that we've settled the discussion on biology. I'm better at math anyway.

It is axiomatic that the additional substitution flexibility offered by ECNL provides more opportunity for the equitable distribution of minutes. If you have more substitution opportunities, you have more opportunity to distribute minutes equitably in both a game and throughout a season. It's a mathematical certainty. If any coach (GDA or not) isn't passing out minutes equitably, that's the coach not the rules, unless you're in GDA.

Look at this another way. Let's say hypothetically my daughter played GDA last year and her team played down a player and occasionally two in at least 5 games due to injuries in the last 10-15 minutes of games. That's about 65 minutes over the season that could have been given to someone on the bench, and which would have been filled in any league but GDA, but which were filled by no one, and for what conceivable reason? Furthermore, because many GDA coaches understandably avoid this kind of problem, it leaves bench players on the bench longer than anyone would like in virtually every game. In other words, virtually every GDA game played results in some players playing more minutes than they need or should even have, and others playing fewer than they need or should have. Some games also involve players playing hurt unnecessarily because they can't be subbed without having to play short. It's one of reasons almost all of the best clubs in the country have jumped ship or relegated GDA to its B-teams.

Claiming that fewer opportunities to play in games means more opportunities to play in games is just more non-sense. If we didn't live in Trump land, I wouldn't believe people were this dumb.
Click to expand...

65 minutes over an entire season. Wow! That's a lot of missed opportunity; hypothetically, of course. Great point!
 
EOTL I feel safe in speaking for all of us in GDA to say that we are more than cool with you staying in ECNL. I say that with hesitation because I know, support and love lots of outstanding ECNL kids, coaches and families, but better them than us! We are all dumber for having listened to you, and may god have mercy on the souls of all the other parents on your poor child’s team :D
 
I wish ECNL/SCDSL/CSL published data on their substitutions and minutes played. Then we could see if open substitutions actually results in more playing time for those at the end of the bench versus the DA rules.
 
Roster sizes play a role in any league however since my kids have played or are now playing in those ones mentioned:

At U15+ DA is the least amount of play time for those on the end of the bench, when only 15 play (11 + 4 subs) the starting 11 gets what they need and everybody else not enough basically.

There is a disconnect between the roster sizes and sub rules in DA: with 18-23 players there is always going to between 3-8 players each week who don't play at all. 11 players get the majority of the minutes, 1-2 will get 20 minutes, 1-2 will get 10 minutes at game.

ECNL, DSL,CSL all seem to be about the same to me but again lots depends on the roster size. With 16 or so players in those leagues should be enough minutes for most, more than 16 yes depends on the coaches, situations, etc
 
Simisoccerfan said:
I wish ECNL/SCDSL/CSL published data on their substitutions and minutes played. Then we could see if open substitutions actually results in more playing time for those at the end of the bench versus the DA rules.
Click to expand...

Related to the playing time and injury discussion which got a few folks riled up, it would also be interesting for all of the leagues to publish an injury report where they list when injuries occurred for players (what time of the game, how many minutes played leading up to injury, etc.). Never gonna happen, but at least we'd then have some data to go by beyond those scientific studies... I'm sure everyone has an anecdote or 2 on this. The bad one we had on our team occurred late in the third game on a three day weekend (played 1 game per day).

From what I've seen and heard from others on teams with small benches like ours, the substitution limits are keeping starters 1-9 on the field longer and meaning fewer minutes to players 10-13. We have only 3 moments to sub (plus halftime) during the game so the coach uses those sparingly in the first half. Even with unlimited substitution, we wouldn't be making line changes.
 
Soccerfan2 said:
EOTL I feel safe in speaking for all of us in GDA to say that we are more than cool with you staying in ECNL. I say that with hesitation because I know, support and love lots of outstanding ECNL kids, coaches and families, but better them than us! We are all dumber for having listened to you, and may god have mercy on the souls of all the other parents on your poor child’s team :D
Click to expand...

I just won $100 for the god reference, although I was aiming for @simisoccerdad. If you lean on science deniers hard enough and blast through the typical rhetorical tactics they use to dodge the science, they virtually always eventually resort to expletives and default to a religious reference in a last ditch effort to end the discussion. The latter makes them think they'll get sympathy from part of the audience, even if it's just a handful of people so far in your case. They also expect religion to be off limits and can therefore end debates as "winners" without ever having made a single substantive point in an argument that really isn't a legitimate debate at all. It's fascinating dilemma. On the one hand, my buddy didn't want to expose religious bias as the basis for his initial reflex negative reaction to the pill because it would mean he has no credibility to bizarrely claim it can't help prevent ACL injury. On the other hand, he eventually found that the typical tactics - patronizing statements followed by personal attacks on credibility, misrepresenting prior statements, pretending using a couple numbers constitutes a real mathematical or statistical analysis, expletives, even falsely accusing me of personally attacking his children - that usually run people off weren't working, but were instead being met in kind and then one-upped (ok, twice-upped). So, inevitably, someone threw out the god card when it just wasn't going to stop otherwise. The only thing I can't figure out about your comment, though, is that you used a lower case "g". Did I just get lucky or are you also trying to hide the religious angle to the bitter end?

Let me know when you're ready for a serious ACL discussion. You and @simisoccerdad would be much better off admitting the pill probably does help reduce ACL injury risk, but your religious or social reasons outweigh the likely health benefit to teenage girls in your opinion, which is at least a fair point. Instead, your buddy would prefer to resort to the typical rhetoric by mocking me and trashing some poor Mt. Olive undergrad student whose article actually references solid professional studies if you actually read it. But if you're gonna be a jerk, I'm happy to play that way too, obviously. In the meantime, for the sake of our children's knees, can @simisoccerdad explain the basis for his position on the pill? Is it based on anything? Or did his sub-conscious puritanical upbringing get him in over his head on this one, so he finally threw in the towel and slithered off?
 
sdb, Not sure if this is your first year in DA but the 25% start rule will greatly increase the playing time for the bench players if implemented properly. It will force the coach to play substantial minutes to all players when they start since they also have limited subs and moments to sub. At least that is how I have seen it play out.
 
Simisoccerfan said:
I wish ECNL/SCDSL/CSL published data on their substitutions and minutes played. Then we could see if open substitutions actually results in more playing time for those at the end of the bench versus the DA rules.
Click to expand...
Just let it go......not worth continuing the comparisons. It ends up as nothing but Troll bait.
 
Bravo, End of the Line, Bravo.

That is some quality shit right there. Tail between the legs from multiple posters on a single thread. TROLL ON!
 
End of the Line said:
Your daughter's personal experience is a pretty small sample size for an ACL risk study. It's cute you think your daughter can go hard for 90 minutes straight without a significantly increased risk of an ACL injury, and that "listening to her body" can help avoid ACL injury. Which medical study gave you that advice? Regardless, your suggestion that there are only two options, play DA without reentry or play multiple games in one day is a false choice. Is your mind really so small that you can't figure out that you shouldn't be required to do either?

Placer dad, right? I get it, you had delusions of grandeur about what the GDA would do for your daughter and irrational hopes it would allow her club to leapfrog all the other clubs in the underwhelming and rather sad Sacto soccer world. I suspect you're beginning to realize, however, that the DA is going down in flames with your daughter on board, only you aren't quite in the acceptance phase yet so you're desperately trying to convince others (but mostly yourself) that its rules are gospel. But smart people know those rules are stupid, unnecessary and potentially dangerous. That paying $10K to fly to five states plus San Diego to play teams that are worse than probably 20 NorCal clubs is insane. That anyone with half a brain and a modicum of ability is far better off at one of the local ECNL clubs. Don't worry, though, soon your daughter's club will be back in the NPL where it belongs, and you'll be making day trips to Modesto and praying Stanislaus St. got your daughter's email inviting them to scout her game against Ajax. That is, if she doesn't blow out her knee first trying to "defy the limits".
Click to expand...

Ummmm, wow, that was pretty angry.
 
End of the Line said:
I think you're still woozy from the head injury I inflicted on you, because you forgot your medical study again and are seriously misrepresenting what I've been saying.

The truth is families with a genetic predisposition to knee injuries should consider whether soccer is the best sport for their daughter to play at a high level. Soccer has easily the highest knee injury rate for girls besides lacrosse (the same sport, only for those who weren't good enough at soccer), more than 5x the risk of most other team sports and also significantly higher than basketball. If your child has a genetic predisposition to knee injuries and has an opportunity to succeed in a different sport, they should consider it. I don't care if you don't give a s**t about your own kids' health, but suggesting no one should even consider genetic predispositions to catastrophic knee injuries when deciding whether their kid should commit to soccer 4-6 days a week, 11 months a year is just stupid, especially if you're going to throw her into the GDA (see below).

The truth is the GDA's no reentry rule is dangerous and unnecessary. No legitimate reason exists for this rule, not one, and there is simply no denying that in-game fatigue is the most direct cause of ACL injuries. Despite overwhelming evidence, the GDA clings to rules that significantly increase the risk of catastrophic knee (and all fatigue-related) injuries. Although you said that "ACL is not even mentioned" in the article I posted, you should actually read it when you get over being red in the face from the beat down I inflicted on you earlier and can read clearly. For starters, check out the big graph in the middle of the article titled "ACL Injury Frequency by Minutes Played". Despite being a science denier, you can at least read graphs, right? If not, the short lines on the left are good, and the tall lines on the right are bad.

The truth is that learning the appropriate biomechanics of running can significantly reduce the risk of injury. I'm not sure you're even disputing this, so I'll just move on to the subject that freaks you out, menstruation and the pill. The truth is that the pill almost certainly helps reduce the risk of ACL injuries in girls, and I take it from your failure to provide any medical study to the contrary despite plenty of opportunity and repeated requests, that all you have to say is "nuh-uh". I can only imagine how much time you spent frantically running Google searches without success. Let me speed things along for everyone, because they deserve more persuasive info than your anti-science, juvenile debate tactic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5524267/; https://ryortho.com/breaking/birth-control-pills-decrease-likelihood-of-knee-injuries/; https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/..._of_Oral_Contraceptive_Use_on_Anterior.9.aspx. Spoiler alert, these studies were not conducted by a Mt. Olive undergrad student who played DII soccer, not that there's anything wrong with that.

I understand why your daughter is going as far away as possible for college.
Click to expand...

The actual number of players who play a full 90 minutes is likely the same as in ECNL.

The actual number of ECNL games in a compressed season to accommodate a High School compressed season is also not very healthy.
 
Mullet said:
The actual number of players who play a full 90 minutes is likely the same as in ECNL.

The actual number of ECNL games in a compressed season to accommodate a High School compressed season is also not very healthy.
Click to expand...
Nor is the compressed HS schedule
 
Mullet said:
The actual number of players who play a full 90 minutes is likely the same as in ECNL.

The actual number of ECNL games in a compressed season to accommodate a High School compressed season is also not very healthy.
Click to expand...

That is some really great analysis. The authority you cited to support your assertion that "the actual number of players who play a full 90 minutes is likely the same as in ECNL" is very compelling. People should definitely support GDA's no reentry rule, since it is possible that some bad ECNL coaches might regularly play most of their kids 90 straight minutes despite the additional flexibility provided under that platform, especially kids with stupid parents who think that regularly playing full games is a great idea. Children should not be allowed breaks during games; it is imperative that we begin preparing them all for international competition beginning at the age of 13.

Do you really want to go down the road of defending GDA's no reentry rule? Before you know it, you're going to find yourself defending USSF decisions to hold soccer tournaments in Denver in April like the rest of the GDA mafia.
 
End of the Line said:
That is some really great analysis. The authority you cited to support your assertion that "the actual number of players who play a full 90 minutes is likely the same as in ECNL" is very compelling. People should definitely support GDA's no reentry rule, since it is possible that some bad ECNL coaches might regularly play most of their kids 90 straight minutes despite the additional flexibility provided under that platform, especially kids with stupid parents who think that regularly playing full games is a great idea. Children should not be allowed breaks during games; it is imperative that we begin preparing them all for international competition beginning at the age of 13.

Do you really want to go down the road of defending GDA's no reentry rule? Before you know it, you're going to find yourself defending USSF decisions to hold soccer tournaments in Denver in April like the rest of the GDA mafia.
Click to expand...

No, the larger point is having re-entry does not mean that ECNL players do not play full 90 minutes per game. The reality is that the amount of kids who get in full games across both leagues is likely the same. Feel free to review the game logs on the DA site to see just how many kids are really playing full games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top