It doesn't tarnish anything. . . it is called "sour grapes" because the other people didn't win. Don't sweat it.

I don't know if you can call it "sour grapes" in this case because I don't think anyone in this topic has any affiliation with the teams his team beat to win the championships.

We're just observing, commenting, exchanging ideas, ya know? The good stuff.

Friar,

I applaud you for coming on here and taking the heat in trying to defende OYR. Coming from VFC you do not really have anything to do with any of oyr past shenanigans. If we are going to be honest here though, lets look some facts.
You say they did not know what they had, but right from the start, you were playing AA teams non-league. You mention Quakers, Blazers, etc, I would advisde leaving those clubs out of any argument you try and make in defending your club. Quakers routinely field AA teams at all levels and in some cases field two at a level, these clubs NEVER field 2 A and no AA. Through no fault of your own, you have no leg to stand on, there is no excuse for ever fielding 2 A teams at a level. Forget your team for a sec, you completely uneven the playing field for all the other clubs whose 2nd team you are playing, that is wrong. Lets remember how you got to SS Finals, by winning in Maryland, why were you there? because OYR is banned from SS in this area for the very reason you are trying to defend!! They sandbagged, that is not an opinion, it is a fact.
Finally, no area team has ever gone to the Finals and won, yet we are to expect, that your team that could barely figure out what level they should be, went and won SS hadily? You won 40% of your league games by 7 or more, that is good? Then you justify it by saying it was the parents decision to play A, is it even their call? Where was the coach (who if worth his salt) would step in and say this team does not belong at A They have been doing this for years, you are just caught in the crossfire here, but next time your OYR team trys to get in to SS down here in West Chester and can't, just remember why?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mardi gras,

Why shouldn't I use those teams in my argument. The Quakers are off the hook because they have a AA team already? Well, Hatfield and the Ducks had 2 AA teams because that's where they felt the talent level was. The Quakers tied us for points in the league and lost in the quarterfinals at SS. They have a AA talent team playing at A legally, just like us.

Yes, I know all about last year. That team beat VFC 16-1 in our first league game. And I know what they did at SS in West Chester. But SS is not highly governed org. When I tried to look up several of our opponents' (Greensboro Stars, Duluth Jr. Thrashers, Valencia (CA) Express & others) roster's they turned out to be AA teams.

I know, for sure, that both the Kings and Quakers played very heavy non-league AA schedules even playing in AA pre-season tourneys. I am sure several of the other top teams did as well.

You should also know that there was no plan at tryouts for 2 OYR midget 16 teams. But some dedicated kids came and wanted to keep playing. The 2nd team played with a short bench (10-11 players) all season.

I understand the skepticism but this team played by all of the rules and won. Now its on to Dstricts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Friar00,

What is so hard to understand? The Quakers and Blazers put their TOP TEAMS at AA!!!!!!!! I do not care if their were plans for 10 teams, you cannot have it both ways, you cannot say on one hand the parents decided to go A and then turn around and say we did not plan on having 2 teams. You did have 2 teams and you played down! Whatever, teams have been doing it for years, No one can take away you SS win, good for you, I would just rather win it at my appropriate level, thats all.
You are losing me here, first you make your argument using 2 teams who put their 2nd team at A (players 16-30), then you throw the Kings in there? This is not skepticism, what you did was use a loophole, within the rules, but bogus. You played down and won, but then crowed about it, it does not fly. I know all of the complaining about VFC having to play Bantam AA last year when they probably should not have, I find it funny now that when the shoe is on the other foot and you are the one playing out of place and killing teams you try to justify it!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mardi gras,

Let me make this easy for you - I am not trying to justify anything - I am responding to your allegations which contain very specious claims.

You claim we broke the rules. We didn’t.
You claim we used loopholes. 65% win percentage is not a loophole - it's the letter of the law.
You claim we are altruistically supposed to “play up to our level”. But when I offer the rules and the behaviors of other teams you say I can’t.

Evidence:
The Quakers A-1 team played to virtually the same record as we did.
If you are supposed to play "up to your level" then why didn't they play up (the Ducks and the IceDogs had 2 AA teams)?
The Quakers-1 and our A-1 team played A with-in the rules.

You implied that we knew we were AA because we played a AA non-league schedule.
But when I said that the Quakers and Kings played lots of AA non-league games and tourneys - I am somehow out of bounds.

What loophole? The rule does not say if you have 2 teams one must play up. Our 2nd team would have been a B team if the league hadn't done away with the level at Midgets.

Finally, I made no complaints last year. My son got alot of work!

I have previously conceded that we should have played AA. I also think that the top 7 very tightly competitive A teams all were probably AA teams. I think that's true of the top teams at almost every level, if you are talking about altruistically "playing up to your level".

First of all, no where has any one accused you of cheating. Second, stop justifying playing down by saying other teams didn't. If you cannot see the logic of your top teams playing other clubs second team then I can not help you. Your only defense is to say the Quakers A-1 team was really good so yell at them too. Are you kidding? The Quakers took their top team and played them at AA, you took your top team and played A, the other team you have has nothing to do with this argument, the Quakers have nothing to do with this argument. You sandbagged, it was legal within the rules, but you sandbagged. This is not about you or your son, you just signed up to play, The reputation of OYR proceeds them, this is part of the package when you choose to play there. The sad part is, you guys can play A again next year if you want beacause of your second team, that is called a loophole. Congrats on your win, either way it is not an easy thing to do. Just understand that if you yourself say you should have been a AA team, then what are you arguing. The whole point here is this, you chose to play A and wipe up, when you were a AA team in reality. you declare your level in August, you knew by then what kind of team you had. Good luck in the future, again this is not about you, so I hope you know I mean no offense to you

I am going to have to side with Friar00 on the fact that the Quakers A-1 Team should have played up. Ive havent seen OYR play but the Quakers Team does not have the talent of an "A" team. They could have faired well at AA.

Agreed, but that was not the topic, and just deflecting blame.

So, an organization like OYR which barely fields 2 teams at each level should play by the same rules as a flush organization like the Quakers with 4-5 (even 6) teams at each age level.

That's ridiculous! Which Quaker team were you on?

quote:

Originally posted by Friar00:
So, an organization like OYR which barely fields 2 teams at each level should play by the same rules as a flush organization like the Quakers with 4-5 (even 6) teams at each age level.

That's ridiculous! Which Quaker team were you on?

If that is the argument, what about organizations like York, Haverford, and Warwick that are not "flush" but still field AA at every level?

I honestly do not care but I have a lot of trouble following your argument. Also, I think you should absolutely play by the same rules, that is why we have them, I think? Good Luck at Districts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: joehockey,

quote:

Originally posted by joehockey:

I honestly do not care but I have a lot of trouble following your argument. Also, I think you should absolutely play by the same rules, that is why we have them, I think? Good Luck at Districts.

This is what I am arguing about.

We did not break any rules -- we followed them.

AND

This holier than thou "you should have played up" even though these other's didn't.

We're hardly saints but it's also crowded down here in h*ll.

(Haverford is not flush with 3 teams at Midget 16U? Ha ha.)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Friar00,

This argument has gotten a little old.

All in favor of letting it go, congratulating OYR, and wishing them luck in whatever level of play they end up in next season?

It's way too old but it was fun! Congrats on player of the month!

Thanks! I was really surprised when I saw it. I'm getting ready to ship it off to some colleges as we speak, ha.