Quote:


cc,

I didn't mean for my post to make it seem as though you were being dishonest. I guess reading what has been written regarding affluence is what I was addressing. I just want others to understand that private does not ALWAYS, 100% of the time equal affluence.

I myself went to a small (now closed) private school growing up and I can assure you we were not affluent by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't believe that you are attacking the kids or the institutions. I just felt the need to offer a few stats of my own...ones that I can back up with proof of my own knowledge. That isn't to suggest yours are not truthful.

I know that back in the years when CCES was very strong as a team, the ratio of club players was much higher. I would like to think that even though those numbers have declined, we have managed to remain marginally competitive.

I would also like to mention that the reason CCES competes in the SCHSL is because the administrators and coaches feel that the SCHSL gives the student athletes a great arena within which to compete and perform against the best student athletes around the state. (NOTE: This is not to say that SCISA is not competitive or does not have great talent within it's ranks.)



Thanks for offering more. I would like to emphasize that you are making a HUGE and important point.

The reality is that affluence and poverty do not CAUSE anything, but that they are MARKERS (correlations) for many elements that are causational. Your specific example of "number of club players."

When I started coaching at Woodruff, CC's girls keeper would STAND AT MIDFIELD during our matches. . .Woodruff has achieved some parity with CC because the direct influences (such as year-round/club soccer) have balanced, thus eliminating the value of the marker (relative affluence).

"Living well's the best revenge." r.e.m.