[Preface: Sigh... I guess I'll take this a tiny bit more seriously. By the way, I do not have a relative or a child associated with this team. I've got no feelings to hurt in this.]

>>[greenacres] I was not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers. I said I HEARD....IF ANY WAS TRUE.<<

I heard that "greenacres" was a greyhound wanna-be chihuahua. See how rumors can hurt?

>>I did not say I was stating known fact. However, since some of you do appear to be on the inside and dispute all of what I said..here are some facts:<<

I didn't see anyone who disputed all of what you said. But be that as it may be...

>>Last year the CESA 92 Girls Premier team rostered 17 players,7 of those are not rostered on the team this year. That is 41% of a state championship team not returning. That is a huge percentage of a team to leave and expect the same level of performance.<<

If Jim Rinker expects the same level of performance, then I hope that CESA fires him. My understanding is that CESA expects better performance each year from its coaches. My guess is that Jim Rinker expects better performance each year from his teams. And therein lies the rub.

You're astounded by 7 players from last years team not being selected to play on this years team. You appear to be fishing for some nefarious reason (and I don't say this as an insult -- I fish on this message board a huge amount!] I took a literal 2-3 minute look at the roster; what I came up with are that of the 7 there are more than 28% new girls from Columbia, that there are more than 14% girls that decided to drop down and play their natural age, more than 14% of the girls were selected to challenge instead of premier. These aren't fictionalized numbers. I have not a clue as to the rest; I only follow this age group in passing -- but that resolves almost 60% of the mysterious 7. My guess on the other several is that some weren't chosen to play at the premier level, that there was a decision to get the team size down [see next paragraph], and/or that some of the girls decided they liked lacrosse better or something -- at this age, it's not exactly rare to have different interests one day versus the next, let alone one year versus the next.

>>Since this year they are only rostering 14,that leaves this team with 10 returning players an four new players. This means there are only three subs, which is not very many for a repeat championship run and the unknows(injuries) of a long season.<<

Take a look at the CESA bylaws (or is it rules and regulations -- I honestly forget). There's a target of no more than 16 players on a team. Now -- that's a target only -- and coaches can exceed it -- but it is there because the #1 problem at any youth soccer club in my experience are players not getting playing time.

There is a strategy at CESA for selecting fewer players on a team for fundamentally several reasons: (1) more playing time and thus less contention, (2) if injuries occur players are brought up from the challenge team, and (3) so that new players can be added.

>>As for as the Knoxville tournament goes...that is excellent. Do you know if guest players were allowed and if so how many did CESA 92 take.<<

I have not a clue; however, I believe that "sbs" has answered "no guest players." See the conversation on "facts" below -- it appears to me that you're searching for the validation of a theory here rather than "facts." But -- it's an absolutely valid question when there are facts that counter a theory.

>>Sorry if I hurt anyones feelings.<<

You didn't hurt mine. I do think a lot of the talk about "team chemistry" and the such that I read on this message board is bogus. You select the best players to play on a team, period. You do not reward seniority, or whether your mother is a board member, or whatever. It's then the coach's job to get them to play together well. If the coach can't do that, then you need to find another coach. Period.

>>The facts speak for themselves.<<

Well...not really. That's the problem, isn't it? The facts appear to be that there was turnover larger than you expected on a team and that you'd expect this to hurt them, and while that may be true to date all evidence is to the contrary, right?