SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP BridgeFA Tryouts vs. MPSC Tryouts

MPSC U-18 Boys and MPSC U-16 girls are 2 strong teams -as I understand it- that had already had some migration occur to them form other clubs so there didn't seem like an opportunity to find any new players give them something they didn't already have.
My opinion of a merger helping team be more competitive w/ CESA is that it will be more effective at younger age groups.

Bear: I obviously can't explain for Soccerdog6; but since I want both MPSC and Bridge to succeed I thought that I might perhaps be able to give you a perspective on this.

MPSC is a strong South Carolina club; in the last several years, they've demonstrated that they are among the top several clubs in our state. As I previously noted, in 2004-2005, MPSC was able to place finalists in the following age groups:

• MPSC U17B
• MPSC U16B
• MPSC U12B
• MPSC U16G
• MPSC U15G
• MPSC U13G
• MPSC U12G

[Note: I repeat this list as a non-subtle reminder that if anyone knows of multiple players leaving these teams to go to Bridge, I'd sure be interested.]

For the 2004-2005 season, CUSC placed one team in the finals; neither JIYSC nor SSC placed a team in the finals of the challenge cup.

Thus, if Bridge is to do as it wants and increase the success of "lowcountry soccer", then it needs to either ally with MPSC and CUSC and then place eight or more teams in the state finals or it needs to add to the cumulative total without MPSC and CUSC alliances.

The most effective way for Bridge to increase the success of "lowcountry soccer" in the next 12-24 months if it can't achieve more alliances in that timeframe is to provide the lowcountry with finalists in 2005-2006 where there were not finalists in 2004-2005. The best way to do that is not to try to draw individual players from state finalist teams, but rather to provide teams in which ambitious players can achieve state final appearances where they previously haven't.

To put this a bit more clearly, Bridge trying to build a "best-in-state" rising U16G team when MPSC has one that won a state championship a year ago and was a close second in the state in 2005-2006 might have the unintended effect of reducing the competitiveness of lowcountry soccer by fragmenting the talent base, unless building it includes taking the entire MPSC team plus a few ambitious players from elsewhere. Soccerdog6 already came out and said that he personally would have preferred the rising U16G team to play at Bridge [I think I remembered him saying that -- I know I wish it had been the case because I'd like to see some of the teams now in MPSC to step up to RIIIPL play]; since that didn't occur you can wish Bridge the best and still hope to draw the absolute best players to the absolute best rising U16G team in the lowcountry.

Chico,

Bridge FA has done everything it could to ally with both MPSC and CUSC. As noted numerous times, each club for their own reasons has not joined the alliance. Due to these decisions, unfortunately, in some age groups we are going to be competing against each other. This competition against the local clubs is not at all what Bridge FA is about.

Only time will tell on the cumulative total of finalists, but I think it will grow. I think you will see some shift in teams, but I think the cumulative total should increase.

Bridge FA has provided a framework for the area clubs to allow players to migrate without feeling like they are "leaving us to go to them". That framework still can be tweaked, but with the current position of area clubs, I think players/parents, still feel like they are in the position of old.

Unfortunately, in an open tryout situation, there is never a guarantee that an "entire" team would remain intact. I agree with Swimmer that both the rising U18 Boys and rising U17 Girls teams from MPSC are very strong. However, there may have been some players that could have made each of these teams even stronger, if the team had been under a neutral entity. Back to the leaving us to play for them. Some SSC people won't play for MPSC, and some MPSC people won't play for SSC, but in many age groups we have found that both MPSC and SSC people will play for Bridge FA, at least tryout and test the water anyway.

Club decisions have been made, many individual decisions have been made, but some still remain, and we are going to move forward and do the very best that we can in raising the level of soccer in the low country.

Can Bridge FA and MPSC both succeed in State Cup play, possibly. Can Bridge FA and MPSC both succeed in Regional play, maybe not. Can one neutral entity in the low country succeed in Regional play, more likely than if separate. Of course until all low country clubs unite under this neutral entity, we'll never know.

I have been reading these posts about MPSC and their inability to merge with Bridge FA and a lot of bashing of Christie Arnold. I would like to touch on one thing. A merger is an agreement between clubs to join forces to make a better program. What Bridge FA was trying to do was acquire MPSC for the use of their players and their fields. I believe the concept of a super club in Charleston is an important step in the Low Country's ability to compete with CESA, but it has to be done the right way. I believe this will happen over time, but Bridge must look to merge with MPSC. With the current format it isn't a merger with MPSC it is an acquisition.

When thinking of a merger between Bridge FA and MPSC I want to commend the people involved with Bridge FA for the hard work they have put forth to get this club up and going. But, MPSC must be convinced this is the right thing to do for them. MPSC had the second most teams in the finals a year ago in the u-15 to U-18 age groups. The only club with more was CESA. So giving all their fields and players to be run by the president of Summerville Soccer Club and the DOC of Summerville Soccer Club, doesn't seem right in the minds of MPSC. I know Clark and I know he does a tremendous job. But there is going to need to be more flexibility with the powers that be on both sides, before this merger takes place.

I would like to respond to the comments made by guardrail22...

"FWIW when Thorsten Path left MPSC and Arnold took over, the club altered course to be the all inclusive local rec org. They ditched their other team and specialty trainers and brought in a group of generally less qualified people and became the best well rounded city recreation dept. club in the lower state.

Bridge FA will do fine without them and they won't know whats happening until they look around and don't see anyone. "


This statement is ludicrous. MPSC had their best season in years last year. Based on results last year had the second most successful club last year behind CESA. I am not sure what you know about MPSC, but it is obviously a bias uninformed comment that you are making. Bridge needs MPSC and MPSC needs Bridge for both clubs to achieve their goals. Hopefully next year they will be able to iron these things out.

From the outside BridgeFA sounds good, looks good, nice uniforms, attractive website, with strong coaching, leadership. Yet, it is naturally difficult for MPSC to give up its good and excellent thing they have established. I believe they have 4 new teams in fall premier league. A fabulous accomplishment for a medium size club. But they don't have to look at it as giving up their club or being acquired by BridgeFA. That would never work. But as both BridgeFA & MPSC have the same philosophy of producing quality soccer teams, it sounds like its a matter of flexibility, negotiation, and open communication to seal the deal. It will now take some ego assuaging and some selfless discussions. The main focus of these discussions should be what is best for the development of the lowcountry youth; and not focused on what is best for me as a coach, a parent or a DOC. If your respective missions are to establish permanent quality soccer in the lowcountry, then the merger will best serve all concerned.

Wow - DRic hit it right on the head. There is a big difference between a merger and an acquisition. Even if it is a merger of equals - it should be a 50/50 proposition. As shown by past club performance MPSC was the strongest club . Brige will make some big gains - and unfortunately probably water down MPSC clubs enough that the Lowcountry will have less finalists next yr than this yr.
I didn't see gurardrail's cooments but if true, obviously someone with their head in the ground -
After Christi's arrival and a more committed Board the club has made very noticeable changes in quality teams as well as financial strength. Things they did not have under prior DOC.

What players will makeup the U15-U18 MPSC and Bridge FA teams? What schools are they from? Please list!

A Problem: lets look at the lowcountry U15s, during Fa'04 Sp'05, Summerville posted 2 Challenge/1 Classic teams & JIYSC posted 1 Classic team and MP posted 1 Challenge/1 Classic teams = 3 Challenge/3 Classic teams. With the NEW Bridge concept (if MP joined), Bridge would field 1 Premier & 1 Challenge teams and JIYSC, Summerville & MP would each field 1 Classic team. This equals less opportunities to play Select soccer (2 Challenge+ & 3 Classic).

Production of 'Individual' Quality Players requires competition but it seems to me that the 'Local Pool' is reduced over time in lieu of fielding a Single winning team.

YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE???