I agree to that everything is legal according to the high school league and hence the over-turning of the postseason ban, my issue is more with the league itself than with this particular case. If the purpose of these rules is for fairnes and equitity then how are any of these things: -NW coach works with an outside club team in the off season (legal). -Said team contains some NW players, but fewer than the 75% rule allows (legal). -Practice takes place on property that according to the paper was possessed by rental agreement by the outside club (legal). Legal in the 1st place? Last May Coach Heise had an interesting breakdown on poverty rates at schools and their success in soccer, and suprisingly schools with high poverty rates are terrible at soccer, why because they don't have the same access to play that kids at rich schools do. If I were to take 8 of my players to a public park 2-3 times during the week and every Saturday in the fall and practice/ play with the kids we would be banned from the posteseason. If I put a nominal name to it and claim its an "outside" organization its perfectly legal. Now I know CRSA has fincial assistance for disadvantaged players as well as CUFC but there is more than just a fee obstacle, poor kids have NO transportation, my assistant and I drive half our team home every night after practice, if they were to try and play for these outside organizations, how would they get there? This leads to the unequitity in soccer in particular. Now I understand that club soccer will be around kids want to play and that's their right, but I do know most clubs don't have practice in June and July, since most of the upper level teams are coached by high school coaches is it too much to ask to have a dead period of December/January as well to eliminate these sticky issues of what's "club" practice or what's "high school" practice because from where I'm sitting it looks pretty much the same to me.
