Carolina Elite Soccer Academy-Columbia (CESA-Columbia) Tryouts for the 2007-08 Academy and Select teams will be held at the SOAR soccer complex on Old Bush River Road at Cornerstone Presbyterian Church on the following dates: Ages U9-U14 boys and girls, May 29 & 31; U15-U18 boys and girls, May 30 & June 1 from 6:15 to 8 p.m.
Registration begins at 5:45. Registration fee of $20 is waived if application is submitted by May 21. Application form, directions and other information can be obtained at
www.cesa-columbia.comTo pick up a registration form click
web pageDirections can be found here
web page
How many teams does this club field? In what age groups? What level do these teams play?
Thanks
TS,
i'm not sure but drop Eddie a note for an overview at
EddieCrosby@CornerstoneSC.org
This past year....1...U11
This is to the best of my knowledge
They are making a bigger push this year, and I would not be surprised to see more CESA Columbia teams next fall.
The U11 team they fielded has done quite well. They won the Piggly Wiggly this year and the CESA Spring Challenge.
Unlike what I have heard CESA-Columbia will practice in Columbia not Greenville.
serpiente en la hierba
And a deadly snake it is.
I'd love for someone to explain why CESA-Columbia is necessary? In other words, what gap in youth soccer is it supposedly filling?
Who knows? there may not be a gap for CESA-C to fill beyond the ten or so u11s that are playing now. Then again, maybe more teams will materialize and we'll find out the gap is bigger than it appeared. Either way, what's the harm? It seems to me that CESA is taking rhe risk, by entering a market in which CUFC clearly has all of the advantage Buut the players benefit from having another choice.
I agree. While in it's infancy CESA-Columbia does have some exceptional talent at the coaching level.
Being able to choose where to play from among competing clubs and/or coaches is a sign of how our community is growing and how talented coaches like Eddie and Chris are finding niches which fullfill their needs.
Granted, there certainly will come a time in the distant future when the market will say there are too many clubs and we'll see consolidation.
However, as of right now, clubs competing for players is great for the player. Clubs are investing in the future of youth soccer so they can win players. That's great for all of youth soccer in SC.
Check your ego at the gate of just about any growing Club with outstanding coaching and then put your kid in front of an excellent coach and watch what happens. I don't think you'll be dissapointed in his or her development.
Competition breeds excellence and like it or not that's the role see CESA-Columbia is playing in the market.
We played rec and then academy at NECSA and CSC. Training was non-existent. Amazing what a year of having a Coach can do for an child's level of play and confidence. CESA-Columbia may not be for everyone but it offers an option we didn't have before.
Quote:
I'd love for someone to explain why CESA-Columbia is necessary? In other words, what gap in youth soccer is it supposedly filling?
What gap is CESA-Columbia filling? Good question. hhhmmmm ooohhh I don't know...perhaps QUALITY COACHING AND TRAINING??? Surely that's a gap needing to be filled up in Columbia. Now when it comes to gaps in "billboard & website marketing" in Columbia, I think that gap has been covered 
Apparently Steve you are very familiar with the lack of quality coaching and training in the Midlands can you give me some examples?
I guess you also agree that the quality is lacking in the Charleston area. My guess is that Coah Khoury or Brissom or Lundy etc. are not up to your expectations.
Point 1- the number of quality coaches is finite
Point 2- CESA is/has been succesful because of the merger of St. Giles and GFC which pooled the resources and reduced the fragmentation.
The areas you speak of are fragmented and are all fighting to stay independent, witness MPSC/Bridge and soon North Charleston.
Actually, (fs), I'm not very familar with either. I'm just going by the facts. CESA is known for their quality staff, players and program. CUFC is known for their marketability and vested interest in HS soccer. BFA is known for fielding and developing elite talent to try and compete on a regional/nat'l level.
I would assume that CESA would adequately staff the Columbia and Charleston sites? (again, I'm only assuming this b/c their reputation precedes them.) In terms of products and service, IMO, CESA clearly outpaces the other BIG 2 in that respect.
No, Charleston is not lacking quality coaching it's lacking leadership and unity. We need someone or (group) of folks to help unify all of this talent to compete on all levels.
And...it seems to me, that CESA's success stems from more than just a merger. Obviously, they seem to be doing more than cufc and BFA based on their continued success and expansion plans. cufc merged and got 1 classic and 1 challenge state champ....Summerville and JI merged to form BFA and it resulted in a 3 or 4 state champs in it's first year, but even after the CESA merger they continue to be successful, even beyond the state level. Why do you think that is and the others arent?
Both St. Giles and GFC were quality clubs prior to the merger and brought in the top players in the area.
The coaching staff are also quality coaches who know the game and most importantly teach it. Why they continue to be succesful, not barring the aforementioned. They have the base (i.e. rec players) and the credentials (which CUFC is trying to buy with marketing).
To the credentials, there is no better marketing program than to show the results.
Now there are many clubs nipping at the giant in the upstate, CFC comes to mind where they are fielding competitive teams with CESA. It is a mystery to me why these two do not merge (talk about a behemoth).
The best view is to separate the myriads of clubs associated with SCYSA and concentrate on the challenge level only.
No disrespect to anyone, IMO these come down to the following
CESA, Bridge, CUFC, Lexington, CFC and MPSC with a couple other ones here and there. Probably in that order (although Coast FC may be in the mix with MPSC).
Ironically you have two from the Upstate, two from the midlands and two from the lower state. In each region arguably one stronger and one weaker, you can decide which is which.
SO what does CESA gain from offering training, etc. far away from home? Players... the quality players already playing for the Bridges and CUFCs.
The number of quality players is finite and CESA needs them to be regionally and nationally competitive (as is their desire) but unlike the Atlanta area where there is the same number of people within 1hr drive as there is in the whole state of SC, they have to try to do it state wide, thus the expansion.
Will they succeed? maybe... maybe not. But Johnny or Sally's parents will have to vote with their wallets with gas at $3/gallon and the possibility of local team being just as well coached and competitive as the one in gville.
Choices are what parents/players make, therefore services and pedigree are important...somewhere in the mix is cost. I would have to be convinced that CESA team A is a better fit than Bridge team A to make the choice to go to the upstate. If my child is playing in a competitive team, with a quality coach, in quality environment at an acceptable cost why change?
All I am saying is there are quality coaches and teams in the other areas of the state not with the same club pedigree for sure. CESA has created a beneficial push....forcing the others in the state to keep up or step aside. This will make the state as a whole stronger.
Steve
Your are correct in stating that CESA has some quality coaches. though i think you are a little off in suggesting that is superior to other big clubs. If you check the CUFC coaches list you will see that they in fact have an equally qualifed staff
gamecock44,
"equally qualifed staff"? and you are basing this on what? coaching licenses?
Steve
I can tell from your words that you do not value the licensure held by coaches when determing the level of a coach. I will grant you that you may have some great coaches out there that do not have a USSF license. However in this day and age those numbers are dropping dramatically. To even by talked about any young upcoming coach must partake in the Education system aimed at improving the instruction our youth receive. That is probaly why the SCYSA has now implemented minimum license requirements for each different level of play. So yes licenses are important.
However when dealing with youth soccer many more variables are at play. Like what caliber of Kids do you coach. I.e if you only coach elite players then of course your records will be better then taking rec or classic teams and then improving those players. Also in play is how the players on a team have been assembled. If by the u16/17 age of an elite team the majority of the players have been together since 11 or 12 and the team is achieving great results then credit may go to the coach. Alternatively if by u16/17 you have a team made up from players recruited away from "smaller" clubs from all over the state or even region maybe the coach is not such a great coach more a great recruiter. i could go on and on but you get the point.
Quote:
gamecock44,
"equally qualifed staff"? and you are basing this on what? coaching licenses?
Steve: There are two schools of thought out there: one that regards licensing as an indication of a minimum level of competency in a profession [e.g., soccer coaches, teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc.] and another that regards soccer licenses as as direct indication of the level of competency in a profession.
Personally, when I need a lawyer to go to trial, I don't look for a lawyer that advertises that she passed the bar; I look for a lawyer that wins cases. But that's just me...
Chico
Some cases may be harder to win than others......
Quote:
We played rec and then academy at NECSA and CSC. Training was non-existent. Amazing what a year of having a Coach can do for an child's level of play and confidence...
GSDad:
This is puzzling to me since the technical director at CESA Columbia was the DOC at CSC through the fall of 2005 just prior to the merger. Are you saying that the same person who directed "non-existent" training at CSC is now directing "amazing" training at CESA-Columbia?
To add to this. The CESA staff is just as licensed as any other staff- they just don't advertise it.In this respect the website is a little behind but it may also be that that is not the priority of their website. looks they they like to publicize their players accomplishments.
gamecock44: Okay...I'll assume that you're taking the position that licensing reflects a minimum level of competency versus an absolute indication of competency and now you want to discuss "win rate" as a metric.
I think we both agree that "win rate" as a single entity number is only one indicator of competency -- that there are other factors that should be taken into account.
Let's imagine that there are two lawyers: lawyer A who wins 90% of her cases and lawyer B who wins 10%. However, lawyer B believes that she is a better lawyer because lawyer A always chooses a better jury while lawyer B chooses any jury pool but in her opinion argues a better case.
I'm still going with lawyer A.
Now...let's take this to youth soccer. I've long advocated that since I'm the parent of an individual child, that a coach's (or club's) winning record is actually secondary to helping my child achieve her ambitions. Part of that ambition of course is team related (e.g., let's win nationals!); another part is strictly individual (I want to make the state ODP team, I want to make the region pool, I want to make the national pool, I want to play in college, etc.)
And complicating this further is that I don't care how good the coach is if the players around my child aren't going to help my child achieve her individual dreams, or if the club can't get the team into tournaments my child wants to get into, or if the club can't help my child get attention from college coaches, and so on.
Thus, I believe that a coach's (and club's) win rate is only one metric -- that other very important metrics are ODP players, region players, national players, outside honors, college signees, and so on.
Bottom line: I like competition and clubs competing with each other; however, I personally care about how well their teams and in particular how well kids do in the club as a basis for inter-club competition.
Quote:
Quote:
gamecock44,
"equally qualifed staff"? and you are basing this on what? coaching licenses?
Steve: There are two schools of thought out there: one that regards licensing as an indication of a minimum level of competency in a profession [e.g., soccer coaches, teachers, lawyers, doctors, etc.] and another that regards soccer licenses as as direct indication of the level of competency in a profession.
Personally, when I need a lawyer to go to trial, I don't look for a lawyer that advertises that she passed the bar; I look for a lawyer that wins cases. But that's just me...
Chico,
While I basically agree with your statement, I think there is a little difference between taking graduated coaching licenses and passing the bar. If I understand it correctly, passing the bar is a one-time initial exam that is required for admission to the bar, whereas the coaching licenses are more like continuing education culminating with the USSF A or equivalent.
My philosophy is that the courses provide you with a set of tools and guidelines that you have to apply through experience. A combination of training and experience is what makes a qualified coach (or any other profession, for that matter).
As for my own situation, I held only the USSF D from 1998 - 2004. In 2004 I took the NSCAA National Diploma (USSF C equivalent). I came back from that course and tried to put what I had learned to practice over the last 3 years combined with experience. As a result of that combination of training and application through experience, I feel that I am a much better coach/trainer than I was before taking that course.
Coach P: Understood -- it was intended only as an analogy. I'm not trying to say that coaching licensing is inversely related to the quality of coaching (of course!), nor am I even trying to say that coaching licensing is unrelated to the quality of coaching. Coaching licensing over a wide group of coaches I hope may be correlated to the quality of coaching. It's just that when I'm looking at data to try to make a decision regarding the quality of a coach, licensing is at most a minor thing I look at when compared to that coach's history.
Let's take an example from CUFC. I think Heather Frederick is a good coach. I don't know her license (I'm sure she has a very good one) -- however, I've spent the time to understand what she's done in the past and even had my kid train with her a few years ago. If she turned up tomorrow and had no license at all, it wouldn't change my opinion of her.
This isn't simply a soccer issue; I had severe issues with South Carolina's plan several years ago to reward teachers based on their certifications rather than rewarding teachers based on incremental student achievement. Compare the budget outlay for the high school national board certification program in terms of certification expense and bonus salary versus test scores of students. You could have easily predicted that one a mile away...
Quote:
...rewarding teachers based on incremental student achievement.
What a revolutionary idea! I am the son of a career educator (teacher, principal, state dept administrator) who always said "If the student fails, the teacher has failed, at least to some degree, to do his job."
Quote:
Quote:
We played rec and then academy at NECSA and CSC. Training was non-existent. Amazing what a year of having a Coach can do for an child's level of play and confidence...
GSDad:
This is puzzling to me since the technical director at CESA Columbia was the DOC at CSC through the fall of 2005 just prior to the merger. Are you saying that the same person who directed "non-existent" training at CSC is now directing "amazing" training at CESA-Columbia?
...Or Coach P, GSDad could be saying that his or her player received sub-par training/development from CSC/NECSA as opposed to what they're receiving now. Now, if "you-Coach P" were the actual coach for GSDad's kid and(based on your own merits or lack there-of) then their claim is valid. Otherwise, I highly doubt this coach did a poor job at CSC/Necsa and they'd followed him to CESA!? To paraphrase "Chico" that is just non-sensical. 
Right?
Steve:
So I guess you are saying the difference is the individual coach rather than the leadership of the director. But I would still believe that "non-existent" training is also the responsibility of the director.
I would still be interested in knowing why it is that two programs directed by the same person produced such drastically different results: "non-existent" and "amazing".
Coach P,
I think it's both. Now my son was fortunate enough to be trained by Coach Brisson and Coach Jamie P...while friends of ours had a good coach, but certainly less qualified than the two mentioned IMO. Now is that Coach Brisson's fault? Yes and no. Due to limited resources (man-power, time, money) He made the decision to place his next option/coach(s) with that other team. So, now that the coach has been placed, it's truly up to him or her to determine then if the player's experience is a positive or negative one. Obviously, the Brisson's, Hyslop's, Tormey's of the coaching world can't coach every team, but they rely on others to adhere to their standard and yes, Coach P, sometimes they fail. Resulting in a negative experience for the player and family. Then, the DOC has the option of retaining/firing this problem and gauging from your post(s) weren't you also (and currently) part of both these organizations? So are you partly to blame for the player's discontentment, too then based on your theory?
I really don't have a theory. I would just like to get a handle on what is the difference. Why is a coach in an organization allowed to produce "non-existent" training? It may be exactly what you are saying, ie that there was a one time failure by a coach that would have been subsequently corrected by the leadership.
I would like to state that I have no issue with the DOC of whom we are speaking. I coached in the Select program when he was DOC and he made considerable efforts to insure excellent training by his coaches: encouraged licensing classes, conveyed training guidelines in writing and verbally, held demonstrations on conducting training sessions, etc. I was just curious as to how this "non-existent" training could have happened in the Academy program that was also under his direction. It is puzzling to me kowing his emphasis of training quality for the Select teams.
I was not involved in the Academy program at CSC, so I really do not know what may have happened in this situation.
I really don't think CESA Columbia's woth has to come at the expense of CUFC or other clubs. They are vastly different organizations. The most obvious difference being that CUFC is the biggest club in the midlands and CESA-C is the smallest. There are good coaches and players at both clubs at CESA-C, as well as at CUFC. It comes down to personal preferences. Some people do very well in large organizations, others prefer the small venues. Each has advantages. In this sense, CESA-Columbia seems very different to me than CESA - Greenville. CUFC clearly has the edge in resources and number of players, and therefore in its ability to form elite teams as the kids get older. CESA Columbia kids, who are academy level players, may have to go somewhere else as they get older (Greenville, the Bridge, CUFC if they would be welcome (?)) On the other hand, you may have a better idea of what you're getting in terms of coaching and teams going into a CESA, CRSA, or LSC than you would in CUFC's larger Academy system. Both clubs play a role, and need not exist at each other's expense. This is not a zero sum game.
Quote:
Quote:
I'd love for someone to explain why CESA-Columbia is necessary? In other words, what gap in youth soccer is it supposedly filling?
What gap is CESA-Columbia filling? Good question. hhhmmmm ooohhh I don't know...perhaps QUALITY COACHING AND TRAINING??? Surely that's a gap needing to be filled up in Columbia. Now when it comes to gaps in "billboard & website marketing" in Columbia, I think that gap has been covered
Dear Steve
It looks as if that "quality coaching and training" gap has already been filled here in Columbia--at CUFC. Let's take today for example with the U14 Boys State Cup Semis. CUFC 2 BFA 0. A well played game on both sides between two evenly matched teams but CUFC played very well and prevailed. Bridge with a good team that played hard to the whistle--a classy group of kids and parents. Good luck to CUFC tomorrow against CESA. This is another CUFC team playing premier for next year. Tryouts for this age group will be held next week so all interested U15(for next year) boys should be at BB&T fields on Monday night.
Oh and Stevie--one other thing, I think those Spring Valley Boys who just won State and just so happened to beat Stratford on the way to the championship recieved this same "hhhmmm oohhh I don't know--quality coaching and training" at CUFC (and NECSA prior to the merger). These kids must have been "sneaking" over to CESA-Columbia for those "open training sessions" to get those skills.
Quote:
These kids must have been "sneaking" over to CESA-Columbia for those "open training sessions" to get those skills.
Dear socdad
I don't know. You tell me. DID they go to training at CESA-Columbia?
CUFC has the two great coaches in Tripp Miller and Greg Vallee. I think trip was an all american in high school dont know where he played at in college. I hear hes pretty good and Greg turned the CUFC academy around in one year.
Socdad...although most of the players in Spring Valley played for NECSA/CUFC not all did. some of them played elsewhere.
Quote:
CESA Columbia kids, who are academy level players, may have to go somewhere else as they get older (Greenville, the Bridge, CUFC if they would be welcome (?))
Not really sure what the last part of this means "...if they would be welcome." Are you saying that CUFC has a big stick up its' a**? that they're made up of a bunch of stuck-up babies? What exactly do you mean?
Is CESA-Columbia offering older age group teams? If so, when are there tryouts? Where?
See their website at
www.cesa-columbia.com for complete listing of times and places for tryouts. Tryouts for younger kids are Tuesday and Thursday, Wednesday and Friday for the older kids.
I am a little confused. You really only have 2 coaches with the CESA-Columbia group; Eddie and Chris. All the others listed are just names to put on the site. So comparing the 2 Coaches from CESA-Columbia to the 32 at CUFC is just not working. And finding fields and coaches in Columbia is always a problem, which will happen if CESA-Columbia grows to just 5-6 teams.
As far as CESA in the upstate. They have some great coaches but I do believe the leadership of Andrew is what has made CESA the powerhouse. I may not always agree on his tactics but I have always admired his vision and ability to execute that vision. None of the coaches or parents really question Andrew and he isn't afraid to to say bye to a coach or group of parents that are causing problems. The greatest strength at CESA and St. Giles before that was that they could have 2 quality teams at any level and train them both as the Elite team. This allowed the players to learn with a greater group and with better competition during the training. Trying to get 2 quality teams together is tough in the Midlands because parents will pull their kid from Soccer all together if their child is not on the Elite team. This attitude in Columbia has really hurt the Midland's soccer clubs. CUFC has done a good job in changing this attitude but it will take a few more years.
Congrats to Coach P and his season this spring!
Will there be a U18 team? If so, where are the players coming from that will make up this team?
I don't know what "Coach P"'s team accomplished this spring -- maybe someone could start a thread and discuss it for ignorant folks like me!
Quote:
I am a little confused. You really only have 2 coaches with the CESA-Columbia group; Eddie and Chris. All the others listed are just names to put on the site. So comparing the 2 Coaches from CESA-Columbia to the 32 at CUFC is just not working. And finding fields and coaches in Columbia is always a problem, which will happen if CESA-Columbia grows to just 5-6 teams.
Congrats to Coach P and his season this spring!
You're right, you are confused as you don't know what you're talking about. And who is Coach P?
If I understand this correctly...CESA-Columbia is a training site for players in the area that play for CESA..
You can not compare a club to a training site for players
I don't think so.
CESA-Asheville is a training site.
CESA-Rock Hill is a training site.
CESA-Charleston is a training site.
CESA-Columbia is a club.
Quote:
If I understand this correctly...CESA-Columbia is a training site for players in the area that play for CESA..
You can not compare a club to a training site for players
CESA-Columbia's web site
I stand corrected....I thought the move to Columbia as a club got squashed by the SCYSA..
Thanks for the info
Quote:
You're right, you are confused as you don't know what you're talking about. And who is Coach P?
I guess I must read between the lines to understand exactly why I am wrong. Maybe you can explain to me where I am in error. I have no problem admitting and correcting my beliefs when I am in error. I find the best way to grow is to be able to listen and understand other points of views and not just my own.
SCYSA squashed the fact that CESA wanted to set up an extension of their current club. CESA-Columbia is a fully independent club that has its own by-laws and board members or at least is suppose too. It is possible that the parents from CESA-Columbia could decide to disassociate themselves from CESA and merge with CUFC, Lexington, or CRSA and there is nothing CESA could do about it. I would be surprised if it ever did happen but it is important to understand the difference between the extension or training site and a fully independent club.
CESA Columbia had a Columbia based u11 team this year, and apparently will more Columbia based teams next year.
Quote:
It is possible that the parents from CESA-Columbia could decide to disassociate themselves from CESA and merge with CUFC, Lexington, or CRSA and there is nothing CESA could do about it. I would be surprised if it ever did happen but it is important to understand the difference between the extension or training site and a fully independent club.
Any team from any club could decide to do the same. If all the parents/kids on any CUFC, Lexington, or CRSC team wanted to leave their current club and play at a different club they could and should do that. That's exactly what happened at CSC/CUFC and why Cesa-Columbia ever got started. If other teams/players are dissatisfied with the goings on at their present club they are capable of doing the same. Not many clubs will turn down a successful ready-made team with good players and excellent chemistry.
As to you other post about the CESA-Columbia coaches, there have been at least three other coaches involved in training at CESA-Columbia, not just the two you mentioned. I'll leave it to you to find out who they are. They are not all listed on the team's website as some other things have not been updated (such as the team winning the CESA Spring Challenge in Greenville without giving up a goal).
Quote:
Any team from any club could decide to do the same. If all the parents/kids on any CUFC, Lexington, or CRSC team wanted to leave their current club and play at a different club they could and should do that. That's exactly what happened at CSC/CUFC and why Cesa-Columbia ever got started. If other teams/players are dissatisfied with the goings on at their present club they are capable of doing the same. Not many clubs will turn down a successful ready-made team with good players and excellent chemistry.
You are correct. But one team or parent leaving for another club in entirely different then an entire club leaving for another club. CESA managers will have put a lot of time and money into CESA-Columbia by the time it finally gets past the one or two teams. And lets just say, that CESA-Columbia does very well, 16 teams, and starts competing very hard against CESA at the state tournament level, but just can't seem to make that last step in beating CESA in the state cup because Columbia is now very fractured again. The CESA-Columbia board(Parents) decide that they want their kids competing for the state cup, with region play and the only way they see to do it is to merge with CUFC, they are only a few miles from each other and going after the same pool of players. The entire club, all 16 teams could merge with CUFC and there is nothing CESA could do about it. This is a very big difference, especially if CESA seeded CESA-Columbia with a lot of money in order to grow the program, purchase fields and add lights. Then all that goes to CUFC during the merger. Teams and single parents do not own assets. The club does and anything CESA gives to CESA-Columbia in assets is the sole property of CESA-Columbia.
Quote:
As to you other post about the CESA-Columbia coaches, there have been at least three other coaches involved in training at CESA-Columbia, not just the two you mentioned. I'll leave it to you to find out who they are. They are not all listed on the team's website as some other things have not been updated (such as the team winning the CESA Spring Challenge in Greenville without giving up a goal).
I guess I stand corrected. I can only go by the info that is published. I did go to their web site and get the info directly from their site. Maybe you can enlighten us on who these extra coaches are, unless they are like being a super secret friend that no one can know about.
John: Respectfully, you are an official with the SCYSA. CESA-Columbia is a member in good standing with the SCYSA. Don't you need to at least try to appear to be unbiased?
>>[Chapindad] I am a little confused.<<Okay...I'll try to help...
>>You really only have 2 coaches with the CESA-Columbia group; Eddie and Chris. All the others listed are just names to put on the site.<<I actually happen to know that this is incorrect. I know more coaches than you have named that coach teams, which coaches do training, and so on. Since you are the one making the assertion that everyone else are just "names on a page", you need to bring forward the factual basis of your assertion.
>>So comparing the 2 Coaches from CESA-Columbia to the 32 at CUFC is just not working.<<I actually agree that comparing CESA-Columbia to CUFC is a difficult at best proposition. CUFC is the second largest club in the state, has a tremendously large recreation program, and in terms of their select program is one of the top clubs in the state. CESA-Columbia is tremendously smaller.
However, to a parent of a child, a club consists of the folks doing the coaching and training of their children. Just as I think that there are some wonderful trainers and coaches at CUFC, there appear to be those that believe that there are wonderful coaches and trainers at CESA-Columbia. But there are certainly fewer coaches and trainers at CESA-Columbia.
>>And finding fields and coaches in Columbia is always a problem, which will happen if CESA-Columbia grows to just 5-6 teams.<<It sounds as if you are making this assertion based on some insight into CESA-Columbia's plans and constraints. Are you? Or are you saying that any club that wants to grow in the Columbia area will have these constraints, or are you aware of some specific constraints with respect to that club but not others?
>>As far as CESA in the upstate. They have some great coaches but I do believe the leadership of Andrew is what has made CESA the powerhouse.<<Pearse is kinda okay too...
>>I may not always agree on his tactics but I have always admired his vision and ability to execute that vision.<<Okay...
>>None of the coaches or parents really question Andrew and he isn't afraid to to say bye to a coach or group of parents that are causing problems.<<Wow. I don't know exactly what to say. Uh...
I've been involved when coaches question each other (including Andrew) quite strenuously. I've been involved in situations where parents question coaches (including Andrew) beyond strenuously. So I'm honestly not sure where you're getting this from.
I do believe that there is at CESA less tolerance of parents who believe and act as if they lead the team rather than the coaches leading the teams. Maybe that's what you mean.
>>The greatest strength at CESA and St. Giles before that was that they could have 2 quality teams at any level and train them both as the Elite team. This allowed the players to learn with a greater group and with better competition during the training. Trying to get 2 quality teams together is tough in the Midlands because parents will pull their kid from Soccer all together if their child is not on the Elite team. This attitude in Columbia has really hurt the Midland's soccer clubs. CUFC has done a good job in changing this attitude but it will take a few more years.<<I have a relative that has trained with CESA since its inception...and GFC before that. It has been incredibly rare that the premier and challenge team trained together; in fact, it is more common that a boys and girls premier team trained together. Where are you getting this from?
>>Congrats to Coach P and his season this spring! <<I found out more about this. Coach P led a CUFC team that had trouble competing in the fall to the state classic finals in the spring. It was an amazing accomplishment and the team, Coach P, and CUFC should be really proud of it.
>>SCYSA squashed the fact that CESA wanted to set up an extension of their current club.<<More precisely, Ron Tryon (former president of NECSA, now president of CUFC, a lawyer by training) wrote a complaint and the SCYSA decided that their bylaws could be interpreted that teams had to have more than 50% of its members from the "district" in which that club resided. Not a great moment for parental choice, but it's "water under the bridge."
>>CESA-Columbia is a fully independent club that has its own by-laws and board members or at least is suppose too.<<The statement "or at least is suppose too [sic]" seems to intimate that it may not. If you have any evidence that CESA-Columbia is in violation of the SCYSA rules regarding club creation then don't you have a duty and obligation as a member of the SCYSA board to raise that formally?
>>It is possible that the parents from CESA-Columbia could decide to disassociate themselves from CESA and merge with CUFC, Lexington, or CRSA and there is nothing CESA could do about it.<<This is absolutely true; as you note, CESA and CESA-Columbia are independent clubs. If a club wishes to merge with CESA-COlumbia, then I would recommend that they contact the board members of CESA-Columbia.
>>I would be surprised if it ever did happen but it is important to understand the difference between the extension or training site and a fully independent club.<<I agree that it would be surprise. It is more likely that CESA-Columbia might decide to merge and/or form alliances with LCSC, CRSA, Lower Lexington, SOAR, one of Lexington's recreation clubs, and the like. But one never knows.
>>[...] But one team or parent leaving for another club in entirely different then an entire club leaving for another club. CESA managers will have put a lot of time and money into CESA-Columbia by the time it finally gets past the one or two teams.<<Really? How much time do "CESA managers" put into CESA-Columbia? How much money?
My guess is that you don't know. Which raises another question: what is your motivation for making these allegations?
>>And lets just say, that CESA-Columbia does very well, 16 teams, and starts competing very hard against CESA at the state tournament level, but just can't seem to make that last step in beating CESA in the state cup because Columbia is now very fractured again.<<COlumbia is "fractured" again? When was Columbia "unfractured" from your perspective?
Is the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson metropolitan statistical area "fractured" or "unfractured" from your perspective?
>>The CESA-Columbia board(Parents) decide that they want their kids competing for the state cup, with region play and the only way they see to do it is to merge with CUFC, they are only a few miles from each other and going after the same pool of players.<<Do you know anything about the CESA-Columbia board structure that leads you to this conclusion?
>>The entire club, all 16 teams could merge with CUFC and there is nothing CESA could do about it. This is a very big difference, especially if CESA seeded CESA-Columbia with a lot of money in order to grow the program, purchase fields and add lights. Then all that goes to CUFC during the merger. Teams and single parents do not own assets. The club does and anything CESA gives to CESA-Columbia in assets is the sole property of CESA-Columbia.<<This is true.
Then again, if CESA-Columbia decides to begin worshipping goats and sacrificing puppies to the great goat-god pagan image they have erected, neither CESA nor any other club can do much about it.Why is my "if" any less probable than your "if"? In other words, do you have specific information regarding CESA seeding CESA-Columbia with a lot of money, or any money at all? Or are you simply hypothesizing?
If this is simple hypothesizing, what is your motivation for doing this? Why are you posing hypotheticals about one club but not another?
I don't think Chris C. is coaching in Columbia anymore. I was at Saluda Shoals yesterday and stopped by the SOAR Complex (had not been out that way in at least 10 years). Needs some work, but nice infrastructure. Couldn't help but notice the CESA Tryouts sign on the side of the road and the Columbia United FC billboard above. Took a drive over the new Lake Murray Dam as well (nice work, but lots of traffic).
It does appear that Chapindad may have an agenda of his own. His comments about Andrew show his ignorance as does many of his other comments. If he is indeed a member of the SCYSA he should cloak his bias a little better.
Chapindad—I find the implications about Andrew H (and the running of CESA) to be irresponsible and misleading—I have the highest regard for him as a person and a coach—My child respects and loves him for what he has contributed to her life—I have felt completely free to express myself to him and he has always responded fairly and professionally when I have—even when we have disagreed—
I know this is a discussion board of opinions, but we should monitor ourselves on some issues related to specific people—If you meant nothing negative—accept my apologies for misunderstanding—
Cola Fan: I didn't want to confuse anyone with the facts, but I think you're right -- I believe Chris Christian has or is moving to Greenville and is coaching next season at CESA. Excellent trainer and coach; CESA is fortunate to get him.
Let me clear up a few things. It seems the CESA folks want to find a conspiracy behind every corner.
I have the up most respect for Andrew and the way he handles things. Since being on the SCYSA board I have become to respect him even more as a business man and a soccer coach. My implication about everyone following him, has nothing to do with him being a soccer coach but being a great business man and leader, by not allowing parents or coaches to distract CESA from its goals of providing soccer to the youth in the upstate. Leadership like that is needed at all the clubs to help things come into line. I watched as Chapin Soccer first and then CSC, one or two parents where able to distract the entire club with complaining and stirring up things. Both those clubs had a hard time letting loose the bad apple for the greater good of the club. Andrew seems to able to make those business decisions.
Chico I am going to quote everything and to the detail because I do not have time. But I do not think CESA has done anything wrong with the formation of CESA-Columbia or else I would have reported. I only wanted to qualify the distinction between a training site and a fully formed and nothing more. I only made the scenario to help GSDad understand the difference between a club leaving and a parent leaving, again nothing more.
Fields at hard for EVERY club in the Midlands.
I said fractured only to supply a reason why CESA-Columbia might want to merge with CUFC and not Lexington. Nothing more. Competition is great for the Midlands but it is factual that CESA-Columbia will be pooling from some of the same players as CUFC because they are about 6 miles from each other. I thought the word "if" was showing I was trying to supply a fictional scenario to help explain my statement. I find scenario sometimes help with understanding but it was fictional and nothing else.
Chico, I have no bias against CESA or you. We have sparred over the years but it seems that you took it very personal at some point. I apologize to you and your family for anything that I may have said that you felt harmful enough to always attack me before trying to understand the context of what I am writing. I feel that information is good for the greater community but being attacked at every turn makes it hard.
>>Chico, I have no bias against CESA or you. We have sparred over the years but it seems that you took it very personal at some point. I apologize to you and your family for anything that I may have said that you felt harmful enough to always attack me before trying to understand the context of what I am writing. I feel that information is good for the greater community but being attacked at every turn makes it hard.<<Very, very, very respectfully...what follows is a short list of statements you've made in this thread which are factually incorrect or appear to use hypotheticals to advance an agenda (I've used a bold font to highlight specific sections of these statements.)
- You really only have 2 coaches with the CESA-Columbia group; Eddie and Chris. All the others listed are just names to put on the site.
- And finding fields and coaches in Columbia is always a problem, which will happen if CESA-Columbia grows to just 5-6 teams.
- The greatest strength at CESA and St. Giles before that was that they could have 2 quality teams at any level and train them both as the Elite team.
- CESA-Columbia is a fully independent club that has its own by-laws and board members or at least is suppose too.
- CESA managers will have put a lot of time and money into CESA-Columbia by the time it finally gets past the one or two teams.
- The entire club, all 16 teams could merge with CUFC and there is nothing CESA could do about it. This is a very big difference, especially if CESA seeded CESA-Columbia with a lot of money in order to grow the program, purchase fields and add lights. Then all that goes to CUFC during the merger.
How do I indicate to you that you are factually incorrect or are using hypotheticals to advance some agenda in a manner which will meet your criteria for an open and honest debate regarding the issues you raise? Is in the fact that I question your motivations? Heck -- let's question my motivations...more on this at the bottom of the page.
Let me again ask specific questions -- and I don't mean these questions personally -- I mean them as respectful questions in a debate on ideas -- and the questions arise directly because of your posts on this thread...
- How much time do "CESA managers" put into CESA-Columbia? How much money?
- When was Columbia "unfractured" from your perspective? Is the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson metropolitan statistical area "fractured" or "unfractured" from your perspective?
- Do you know anything about the CESA-Columbia board structure that leads you to the conclusions you reached concerning CESA-Columbia potential mergers?
- Do you have specific information regarding CESA seeding CESA-Columbia with a lot of money, or any money at all? Or are you simply hypothesizing? If this is simple hypothesizing, what is your motivation for doing this? Why are you posing hypotheticals about one club but not another?
My guess is that you're not going to answer these questions...although I really hope you will in the spirit of an open and honest debate given the subjects that you have raised. Now, you can ascribe my even asking you a question, or calling out a factual mistake or a hypothetical that seems to advance an agenda, as something "personal" -- however, you might want to ask yourself if I'm the only one -- or even in the minority -- in taking what you write and wondering if the factual mistakes and club-specific hypotheticals are indicative of some unstated motivation.
With respect to my motivations and possible biases -- within the Columbia area, although I don't have a child that plays in that area, I support with my time and resources two clubs: CRSA and CESA-Columbia. I support these two clubs with my time and money because I believe in what they are doing in terms of their trying to increase the number of kids playing youth soccer and their being "open" clubs that allow all kids to train at the club regardless of what club that kid is rostered on. I don't support these clubs "versus" any other club; I'd gladly support with my time and resources other Columbia clubs if I saw them doing what these two clubs do in that regard.
One other comment in all of this. I know that you have invested time and resources into helping youth soccer in South Carolina with the SCYSA. You are absolutely to be commended for this; most people only care about their child and don't step forward to help in the broader sense.
When you think of the points I raise and the questions I ask as "personal", consider the following...
CESA-Columbia appears to be allied quite tightly with SOAR -- which represents 600+ kids who are not registered by the SCYSA. Have you considered what a leader at CESA-Columbia might think reading what you've written in this thread? Do you perceive that you've increased or decreased the chances of CESA-Columbia ever attempting to use its influence to get those kids into the SCYSA?
CESA-Columbia has justed posted their teams and will be fielding 7 teams this fall from U-9 to U-15.
Can you tell where the majority of these kids are being drawn from? ie CUFC CRSA etc
I think some from both as well as some from SOAR.
Quote:
One other comment in all of this. I know that you have invested time and resources into helping youth soccer in South Carolina with the SCYSA. You are absolutely to be commended for this; most people only care about their child and don't step forward to help in the broader sense.
When you think of the points I raise and the questions I ask as "personal", consider the following...
CESA-Columbia appears to be allied quite tightly with SOAR -- which represents 600+ kids who are not registered by the SCYSA. Have you considered what a leader at CESA-Columbia might think reading what you've written in this thread? Do you perceive that you've increased or decreased the chances of CESA-Columbia ever attempting to use its influence to get those kids into the SCYSA?
I do not think anything I type would have any impact on whether a league would go with SCYSA or not. I will always be happy to talk to anyone man to man if they have any questions in my ethics or where I stand on issues. Reading a message board and making critical league decisions based on the assumptions and assertions of a message board would be irresponsible to say the least.
If anyone from SOAR or any league wants to discuss the benefits of SCYSA then please send me a private message and I will be happy to meet with you face to face and discuss why SCYSA would be a benefit and logical step for you. I think SCYSA is a great organization with a lot of people that care only about the organization as a whole.
Quote:
- You really only have 2 coaches with the CESA-Columbia group; Eddie and Chris. All the others listed are just names to put on the site.
- And finding fields and coaches in Columbia is always a problem, which will happen if CESA-Columbia grows to just 5-6 teams.
- The greatest strength at CESA and St. Giles before that was that they could have 2 quality teams at any level and train them both as the Elite team.
- CESA-Columbia is a fully independent club that has its own by-laws and board members or at least is suppose too.
- CESA managers will have put a lot of time and money into CESA-Columbia by the time it finally gets past the one or two teams.
- The entire club, all 16 teams could merge with CUFC and there is nothing CESA could do about it. This is a very big difference, especially if CESA seeded CESA-Columbia with a lot of money in order to grow the program, purchase fields and add lights. Then all that goes to CUFC during the merger.
Lets go through your list on my statements.
- According the CESA-Columbia website: http://www.cesa-columbia.com/Who%20We%20Are%20-%20Coaches.html.
They have 9 coaches listed on their official (not mine) website. Four of them are USC coaches and should as I suspect working on coaching their teams during the fall and not FULL time for clubs teams, and two of those are goal keeper coaches. Andrew and Pearse are in Greenville and I am sure provide great help in developing a training program for the club but can not be actively training full time a club team in Columbia. That leaves Jim, Chris and Eddie. I did not see Jim the first time so I did miss him and should have been 3 coaches. But they had one team last year. How many coaches did you expect to have for one team? I read they have 7 teams this year, then they should have 9 coaches on staff this year. This was not a bash at CESA-Columbia but pointing out a fact, only because everyone was trying to compare coaching a cesa-columbia to CUFC and I was just point out that it is apples and oranges. I did not see you comment to correct anyone for being bias on the statements about all the bad coaches at CUFC. They have 32 coaches, I am sure that they may have a few coaches that people don't like, but that just goes with the territory when you have that many coaches and your club is 1.5 years old.
- This is just from personal experience of being on the board at Chapin Soccer, being involved with PGSA, CFC, and the board at CSC. At every club it was a fight to find lighted fields and filling all the coaching spots. Especially when I was as Chapin Soccer and had CSC 7 miles from us and using Crook Creek for our fields. This again was no bash of CESA-Columbia but just a fact of something that they will have to overcome from my personal experiences.
- Again. I thought I was giving St. Giles and then CESA a compliment. I am sorry if you found treating all teams as equals to be insulting. I personally get upset when I watched the old CSC treat teams as an "A" and "B" and expect less from the "B" team and train them as such. I always thought CESA's training everyone on a equal level as being a positive. If that is insulting then I take it back and promise never to say it again.
- CESA Managers was probably not very clear. I meant that Jim, Andrew, Pearse and Eddie as CESA managers would have a lot of time and work put into CESA-Columbia just to get all the logistics set in starting a new club. Again, I am a little confused in why this is an insult. I figured that putting in hard work to grow your club was a good thing. But again I with draw this statement if it insulting to Jim, Andrew, Pearse and Eddie that they might have some work to do.
-
Quote:
CESA-Columbia is a fully independent club that has its own by-laws and board members or at least is suppose too. It is possible that the parents from CESA-Columbia could decide to disassociate themselves from CESA and merge with CUFC, Lexington, or CRSA and there is nothing CESA could do about it. I would be surprised if it ever did happen but it is important to understand the difference between the extension or training site and a fully independent club.
So I do not believe, as I said in an early post, that CESA-Columbia would ever do anything but the CESA vision. I was only trying to create, what I thought, as a scenario in where CESA-Columbia might would turn against its roots and join a rival club.
Dictionary:
Scenario: A plausible description of how the future may develop, based on a coherent and internally consistent set of assumptions about key relationships and driving forces (eg, rate of technology changes, prices). Note that scenarios are neither predictions nor forecasts.
I made some very big assumptions. My intent was to provide a statement that might would be in the thinking on the board in the far future if it made such a bold moves. My intent was not meant for current thinking here or anywhere. I just trying to explain the difference between a club leaving a team or player leaving, nothing else.
From GSDad
Quote:
Any team from any club could decide to do the same. If all the parents/kids on any CUFC, Lexington, or CRSC team wanted to leave their current club and play at a different club they could and should do that. That's exactly what happened at CSC/CUFC and why Cesa-Columbia ever got started. If other teams/players are dissatisfied with the goings on at their present club they are capable of doing the same. Not many clubs will turn down a successful ready-made team with good players and excellent chemistry.
Next time I will wait longer and see if you don't provide a better explanation on facts so that I do not insult you or anyone else that might be reading the message board. As I reread the statement I can see how you might confused it as as assertion and not as a future possible thought pattern of a board member. I feel that my experiences being on several boards allows me the ability to have some understanding into the dynamics and thought patterns that MIGHT occur on any soccer board. I stress the word MIGHT because I am not as nearly as smart as you and as such wrong at times.
One last thing:
Quote:
John: Respectfully, you are an official with the SCYSA. CESA-Columbia is a member in good standing with the SCYSA. Don't you need to at least try to appear to be unbiased?
I think you may want to get to know me personally before you question my ethics on the site. I do not believe I have questioned your ethics. But I do find it interesting that when I was trying to praise Andrew's leadership but people took it wrong they made the following quote:
Quote:
Chapindad—I find the implications about Andrew H (and the running of CESA) to be irresponsible and misleading—I have the highest regard for him as a person and a coach—My child respects and loves him for what he has contributed to her life—I have felt completely free to express myself to him and he has always responded fairly and professionally when I have—even when we have disagreed—
I know this is a discussion board of opinions, but we should monitor ourselves on some issues related to specific people—If you meant nothing negative—accept my apologies for misunderstanding—
But when you question my ethics, then it is okay and not irresponsible and misleading. Seems to me there is a double standard.
Your comment did seem to be a cloaked criticism wrapped in something like praise—but I stated I could be wrong—If I am—I apologize—but too many people on here like to speak about CESA while having no direct experience—I have experience with CESA—and refrain from speaking about Cola stuff—though I have an opinion—
Where is my double standard? None exists.
I don't have a dog in this fight (as Chico does), yet I wonder if the dramatic increase in CESA-Cola teams (from 1 to 7), may be due in part to some disenchantment already, with the merger of 2 clubs in Cola. Is there still a pervasive atmosphere of old NECSAism and social soccer in the new club?
2004striker: A personal opinion. Rather than interpreting the dramatic increase (my rough count shows nearly an order of magnitude increase, albeit in a very small base) in players at CESA-Columbia as a failure of any other club in the area, I personally interpret it as a success of Eddie Crosby and the coaches there. I also believe that it's vindication of the "open training" strategy used at CRSA, CESA-Columbia, and CESA where kids are welcomed to train regardless of club affiliation. I hope that this becomes standard at LCSC, CUFC, and other clubs in the Columbia area.
Of course, the affiliation with SOAR was brilliant as well.
Chapindad: Thanks for the incredibly detailed post; I think I understand much better your perspective.
I wrote a very long post; but after reading it I simply deleted it because I don't think that it's going to do much good. I don't think that there's a basis for an understanding between us. You believe that it's your right to write anything you like, true or false, and not have people question either the accuracy of what you write or question your motivations when you use a magic "if" and then proceed to make incorrect and misleading statements.
It is your undeniable and inalienable right to continue posting things that are incorrect, keep using "if" and attacking organizations under the "plausible deniability" ruse, and keep insisting that anyone who calls out your incorrect statements and questions your motivations regarding those and your "hypothetical scenarios" is engaged in a personal attack.
Might I humbly suggest, however, that youth soccer doesn't have to be a "win/lose" scenario for SCYSA-affiliated clubs? It's possible for clubs to increase the base of youth soccer players in South Carolina to the overall advantage of the sport and to all of the clubs.