SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Pounding Theses Into the Red Door

From information that was presented to the two clubs...

My understanding is that Savitz and Miller will be co-directors of soccer.

In addition, they are planning for an academy director, a recreation program director and a goalkeeping director.

Planning to put together teams as follows:

Recreation:
U4/U6 Micro

U7,U8,U9,U10,U11,U12,U14,U16 & U19 Age Groups

Coed and Girls

Academy:
U9 Boys & U9 Girls

U10 Boys & U10 Girls

U11 Boys & U11 Girls

U12 Boys & U12 Girls

Select (premier, challenge and classic as numbers allow):
U13 Boys & U13 Girls
U14 Boys & U14 Girls
U15 Boys & U15 Girls
U16 Boys & U16 Girls
U17 Boys & U17 Girls
U18 Boys & U18 Girls
U19 Boys & U19 Girls

Number of children for the combined clubs (assuming no gains or losses)--approx. 2,600.

TP,
I know its a ways off, but do you know if the U19 boys/girls will just play tournaments? There would not be a state league to play in.

2004:

I honestly don't know. During the presentation, there were some things I paid attention to, others I did not.

Thanx.

Why not have a boy's director and a girls director..If they are lumped together then the girls programs get less attetnion..There are more boys playing then girls so it seems like the attention goes to the masses.Even though the girls numbers are not as strong...we have some very competitive girls playing in SC and they deserve every opportunity that the boys have.It would definitely help if there are girls parents serving on the board to make sure that the girls best interest is served!!

Truth:

There definitely will be girls' parents on the new board and I am sure that they will work to ensure there is sufficient focus on the girls program.

When I was on the NECSA board, we had a VP of Classic, a VP of Recreation and a VP for Girls. We found that the role of the VP for Girls was difficult because it over-lapped with the two program VP's. It was difficult to establish lines of authority, etc. Was just not organizationally efficient.

My own opinion is that soccer players are soccer players and as long as a club focuses on serving soccer players, the gender issue will be irrelevant. [My opinion--not saying that this was the thought process for the new club--I have not spoken to anyone about this.]

My male child played in both programs, and I can say that the emphasis was clearly with the boys side. With this new merger it is a great time to start to demonstrate that girls soccer is as important as boys. If the girls side has their own VP or Director they will have more feeling of importance and status, as well as it would be attractive to girls that play in other programs where the boys get all the attention. Also girls are probably more dedicated, over the period of their soccer experiences, in comparison to the guys. They do deserve more attention and emphasis than they have received in the past in the Cola. area. Therefore, I have to disagree with TP that 'soccer players are soccer players.'

>> [thomaspietras] My own opinion is that soccer players are soccer players and as long as a club focuses on serving soccer players, the gender issue will be irrelevant.<<

I don't have the data on the boys side, but it appears antecdotally that midlands boys soccer is much more competitive than midlands girls soccer from the standpoint of both challenge cup finalists as well as division I recruiting. Certainly the Aiken Fire, and a few strong boys teams at CSC, have helped in this. If you look at region pool lists, you can see much more success for midland area boys than girls.

To what then do you attribute the dismal record of midlands girls club youth soccer in not only state challenge cup finalists since 1998 but in division I college recruiting and retention in the last 4-6 years?

If nothing changes, how do you expect to change these results?

>> [thomaspietras] There definitely will be girls' parents on the new board and I am sure that they will work to ensure there is sufficient focus on the girls program.<<

I probably wasn't clear enough in my earlier post (I tend to tip-toe around Chapindad these days.) Perhaps I'm confused about how a board works. I thought that a board was responsible not for day-to-day operations but instead selected one or more leaders (e.g., executive directors, CEO's, DOC's, etc.) who were operationally responsible. The selection of the leaders was the single most important function because it was through that selection that the values of the corporate entity would be implemented. Now...I understand that a board has an oversight responsibility...but the message that the selection of the leader sent in a new entity was the most powerful initial message that could be sent.

Does the board of the new corporate entity operate in some other fashion? In other words, is the board actually involved in day-to-day operations and thus it's really important which board member has what child playing on what team? Is that the way it worked at the constituent clubs?

chico,
what happened to the last post?