OBGC Capital Cup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:U16 DORADUS SDOR 05 ELITE (VA) cheated their way to the finals today by having at least 3 DCUnited rostered players on their team. It may not be Doradus policy but it sure is DCUnited’s policy current rostered players can’t train or play with other teams.

This is more a result of US Soccer's/MLS's/DCU's ineptitude in developing a youth program than it is nefarious intent on the part of Doradus.

Basically, DCU's U16s are in no-man's land. They want to continue to train at DCU but (most) can't fight their way into a starting lineup with a roster of 40 kids on the U16/U17 books. As recently as last year, the DA's U16 teams would spend a year in EDP--except for the few who could get game time at the U17 level. That was sensible, but not sure whether it will continue this year.

So these U16s are going out and looking for clubs who are willing to give them significant game time without them actually having to train regularly with the team. I don't know to what extent DCU is arranging these awkward relationships, but you can bet that they approve of them.

The only people who really have grounds to be upset are the kids (and parents of kids) at Doradus and other clubs where they work their asses off and pay the club and coach only to have game time snaked by DCU because DCU doesn't want to go out of its way to actually ensure that its academy members are afforded sufficient game time to develop.

How good are these 3 players that won the tournament for doradus?

1. There are actually at least 5 DCU players on the Doradus Roster.
2. They didn't win the tournament. They made it to the final but lost 3-2.
3. No tournament rules were violated, so the OP with this complaint is as ignorant as he/she is pathetic.

Even if they weren't on the Doradus roster (which they are) the tournament rules allow up to 6 guest players. Nothing requires the game roster to be the same for every game. Teams can roster up to 22 players for the tournament and only roster 18 for each game. So the fact that some good players might have shown up for a game Sunday morning and helped ensure qualification for the final even though they may not have played the other two games - even if that's what happened - is entirely permissible according the rules of the tournament (which are pretty standard).

Looking at what actually happened makes the parent complaining about this even more ridiculous. There was a 4 team bracket with Doradus, Liverpool FCIA, SAC/Armour Pre-Acad, and BRYC ENCL. BRYC lost all 3 games so if was a BRYC parent complaining - just GTFOH. On Sat night after the 1st 2 games were played, SAC/Armour was 2-0 with 6 points (having beaten Doradus), while Doradus and Liverpool were both 1-1 with 3 points (with Doradus having won the head-to-head). On Sunday Doradus was set to play BRYC while Liverpool played SAC/Armour. So all SAC had to do was win or draw and they would be in the final. Instead they lost to Liverpool. Since it was then a 3 way tie with 6 points each, the head-to-head tie breaker didn't apply and instead it was determined by goal differential. Doradus (with the DCU ringers), had thrashed BRYC 6-0, so they went through.

So as I see it, Liverpool really can't complain b/c they lost the head-to-head to Doradus. The only team that has some reason to gripe is SAC b/c they had beaten Doradus head-to-head and still didn't make the final, but that's the way tournaments go. At least this one didn't have the not uncommon situation where one team has to play it's second game of the day against a team that's completely fresh.

The bottom line here is that everyone played by the rules, so there is absolutely nothing to complain about.

Also, not that it matters, but no one except those players and DCU even knows whether what they did was against DCU's rules. The DA had explicit rules against playing for other teams during the seasonal year, but the DA is no more. Does anyone even know what the new MLS league policy is on that? Besides, even with the DA they had a designation for "Part Time" players which allowed some players to train with the DA team while playing games for another club team. It wouldn't be at all surprising if DCU did that for most of its 05 players this season, given that the majority aren't going to see the field let alone make the 18-man game day roster this year. Actually, I take that last part back. It would be surprising. It would make too much sense.

Easy, Doritos Dad.

We had already literally covered all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Looks like they all finished in the toilet. Also, thanks for confirming your identity. Talk about stupid, your crap sure does get old and crusty.

Dear Stupid:

I hate Barca just as much as you do. But even though English is not my first language, I am able to understand that you are the only person here raving about Barca.

--Leo Messi

PS Do you have Pep's number in Manchester?

-1 I was enjoying your responses up to this one. You should have stopped while you were ahead. : )

[Anonymous]

Doradus wasn't the only team with DCU U16 refugees playing in this tournament, was it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Looks like they all finished in the toilet. Also, thanks for confirming your identity. Talk about stupid, your crap sure does get old and crusty.

Dear Stupid:

I hate Barca just as much as you do. But even though English is not my first language, I am able to understand that you are the only person here raving about Barca.

--Leo Messi

PS Do you have Pep's number in Manchester?

-1 I was enjoying your responses up to this one. You should have stopped while you were ahead. : )

LOL what a couple of macacas you two Barca posters are. The married couple sharing coffee over DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s well known in the MLS academy world DCU is not very good, regardless it’s not because the lack of talented players but bad leadership and trainers. The last several players that got contracts came from local clubs; one from VDA and the other from Loudoun.

The DCU Academy leaves a lot to be desired, but those 3 were with DCU for a few years. One had been at VDA; the other didn’t come up through Loudoun (even though he’s from Loudoun County). He played with Bethesda before DCU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Looks like they all finished in the toilet. Also, thanks for confirming your identity. Talk about stupid, your crap sure does get old and crusty.

Dear Stupid:

I hate Barca just as much as you do. But even though English is not my first language, I am able to understand that you are the only person here raving about Barca.

--Leo Messi

PS Do you have Pep's number in Manchester?

-1 I was enjoying your responses up to this one. You should have stopped while you were ahead. : )

LOL what a couple of macacas you two Barca posters are. The married couple sharing coffee over DCUM.

Macacas, who says that? Oh, right, that one senator like 20 years ago. That you, George?

[Anonymous]

Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

That's not an ethical situation. That's just a screwed-up by your team manager.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

That's not an ethical situation. That's just a screwed-up by your team manager.

Missing the point. Falsely claiming to have pictures of a kid playing for another team in the tournament in an attempt to get him kicked out or force roster check was the ethical situation OP mentioned. Hope they won the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

That's not an ethical situation. That's just a screwed-up by your team manager.

Missing the point. Falsely claiming to have pictures of a kid playing for another team in the tournament in an attempt to get him kicked out or force roster check was the ethical situation OP mentioned. Hope they won the game.

Seems like the roster check was both reasonable and warranted if it exposed three players who were not eligible to play.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

That's not an ethical situation. That's just a screwed-up by your team manager.

Missing the point. Falsely claiming to have pictures of a kid playing for another team in the tournament in an attempt to get him kicked out or force roster check was the ethical situation OP mentioned. Hope they won the game.

Seems like the roster check was both reasonable and warranted if it exposed three players who were not eligible to play.

+1 And the claim that triggered the check was not any less ethical than using ineligible/unrostered players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Random ethical situation this weekend.

Opponent asked for roster check before final. Claimed they had pictures of one of our players also playing for another club in the tournament. Wasn't true. But in the ensuing check, three guest players were not shown on one version of the roster and all three were excluded from playing. Never seen that before.

That's not an ethical situation. That's just a screwed-up by your team manager.

Missing the point. Falsely claiming to have pictures of a kid playing for another team in the tournament in an attempt to get him kicked out or force roster check was the ethical situation OP mentioned. Hope they won the game.

Seems like the roster check was both reasonable and warranted if it exposed three players who were not eligible to play.

+1 And the claim that triggered the check was not any less ethical than using ineligible/unrostered players.

Well it was a very strong field. The club had to bring in other players.