SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums College, Pro & International Soccer How many college games did you attend?

Okay...one last question to make sure I understand...using approximate numbers. A top 20 player is a national team player. A top 80 player is a region team player. A top 160 player is a region pool player. And a top 1000 player is a state ODP player. [Note: I'm using these just to put a label on the numbers -- I realize that there can be a top player that actually doesn't play ODP.]

Again, honest question from someone just trying to understand a different perspective: if there is a region team player available from Georgia (let's say), and a region pool player available from South Carolina, should USC pick the South Carolina region pool player first? Second question: if there's a region team player available from Georgia, and a top-1000 (state ODP player) available from SC, then which should USC pick?

You really like to put numbers on everything and I think that is some of the problem of USC is that they continue to put numbers on players. I realize coaches have a lot of rules put on them but they need to use the system to find players that fit and not just the player with the highest number on his/her head. In football look at the heisman players over that last 30 years or the top 5 picks. A lot of the top players in the NFL came from smaller schools. Just because you are the top player in HS or Club doesn't always translate to being the best player when you go to the next level.

I have made my bid on what needs to be done at USC. I could easily be in left field. What is your solution to the USC problem? I take it you agree with the recruiting process, so is it bad coaching?

In the short-term, I think that USC needs to recruit even better players, regardless of where they live.

In the intermediate- and long-term, if I could pick one thing to help USC, what would it be? Better elite women's-side SC clubs, starting in Columbia. The absolutely wretched general state of elite women's soccer in SC in general, and Columbia in particular, is hurting the USC-Women's program.

So fundamentally, we agree: it would be easier and better if USC were able to recruit more within the state. Our difference: I hold the elite clubs of South Carolina accountable for the generally poor quality of SC female player and want the clubs to drive improvement rather than wanting USC to create some type of quota-based affirmitive action program for South Carolina women players.

Great discussion; thank you!

Location is my problem. College of Charleston is the closest college team I can watch, and they don't even play on campus (Patriots point). So driving an hour and half to watch USC or 3 hours to Greenville to watch a division one school is not a regular option. And since those teams do not even sport in state talent, I do not feel an attachment at all.

I recently made seperate trips to Limestone and Newberry to watch the women's teams play. Both of these schools have players that I used to play with during high school and club. Even though they are div. 2 and limestone only averages 125 people each game, I found these games to be just as exciting than the Clemson/USC games I have attended.

Funny thing. I love to listen to talk sports radio. And last night the radio was just blasting the USC Men's Basketball team for the exact same problem. And citing the fact that USC's only recent success was when they had a majority of SC players on the team. Now they have only 1 player from SC and he almost left the team after the Clemson game.

Your short term problem is that what better players are going to come to USC with a 2-9 SEC record and no history of success. Why would a national player want to come to "the other" USC? I agree completely with 202677. If USC is going to post a 2-9 SEC record then at least use local SC players.

Coach Smith and her husband get paid to improve USC soccer not the other way around. If they think Columbia Soccer is so bad then maybe they should work to improve it. All the clubs would welcome the involvement even on an advisory level. Lets face facts, most clubs are ran by parents trying to do the right thing and do not have the money to pay someone a lot of money to be dedicated to the job. You pay for what you get. That's probably the greatest benefit a mega-club gets over the smaller clubs is the ability to pay a full time person just to live and breath to improve the club. It's always easier to blame someone else. I know Mark Berson has been working with all the local clubs for years.

>> [Chapindad] It's always easier to blame someone else.<<

Amen. The Lord helps those that help themselves.

USC had a poor season. The coaches are responsible for fixing that. If they can't, the AD has to get involved. They may choose to fix it by relaxing their recruiting standards and building some type of local quota-based system. I believe in that way lies insanity, but I'm not a soccer coach -- it's just my opinion.

Columbia-area clubs that proclaim themselves as "elite" (or "premier", or whatever) have had what is going on a poor decade, particularly on the women's side. The administrators are responsible for fixing that. They may choose to fix it through a variety of options (e.g., DOC's, coaches, mergers, professional administrators, opting out and declaring themselves not interested in elite play, etc.) or it may be resolved without them (e.g., clubs moving into the area); but in the end it's largely their option. If they can't fix it, then instead of the AD it's the parents who must get involved -- by voting with their feet.

Regarding the Smith's involvement in club/HS soccer, you've tried to advance this before and been roundly refuted across the board.

George Santayana once wrote that a fanatic was someone who redoubles his effort when he has forgotten his aim. If your aim is to get more Columbia-area female players into USC's program, then you've got to provide dramatically better clubs...all of the harping at USC coaches in the world isn't going to matter...because if they get new coaches tomorrow you're still not going to get the recruiting you want without better clubs.

-Guys-
As everyone knows it take lots of time and effort to develope an Elite level soccer player, male or female. Before anyone points fingers at your childs club, regardless of size, look at your child's training schedule. A club like CESA,CSC,or the bridge train premier teams three times a week for approx an hour and a half. That works out to four and a half hours per week, weather permitting. A D-1 prospect in other sports might easily train three or four hours per day. My point is this, unless your child is picking up extra training sessions with their club, doing extra work at home, school etc, and is working on speed and agility stop complaning about quality of soccer in SC. If a player is putting in less than 5-6 training sessions per week forget about the big time.

sweet feet: So if your kid is doing all of these things, do you earn the right to complain about the quality of soccer in SC?

I honestly believe this is being debated at an abstract level. It would be too easy to personalize this and say that Chapindad and 202677 are demonizing USC's coaches because they're angry that their child or child's friend is not being recruited or that I'm defending USC because my child is being recruited (disclaimer: my kid is too young to be contacted by any D1/D2 coach regardless of any effort she applies, or lack thereof.)

Chapindad/202677 have a point -- there are no Columbia-area club female players in the last few years that have gone directly on to play at USC (or Clemson, or CofC, for that matter). The question is "why?" I think you're right -- that a kid has to put in a lot of effort -- but if effort is a major factor then why is it that there is so much self-selection away from the Columbia-area clubs? Columbia is the largest metropolitan area in SC (Greenville is second, Charleston is third); why is it that kids from the "elite" or "premier" Columbia clubs are at such an apparent disadvantage when compared to Greenville or Charleston?

This is a fairly simple question to answer! Not too many people outside of player's families or fellow students watch college soccer. It is important to remember that most soccer fanatics would rather play soccer (pick up game) than go watch one. If a fan wants to get the most of his two hours watching soccer he/she is probably going to turn on the FSC and watch ManU or another world class team. Why do college atttendance figures look poor? The same reason that MLS attendance is poor! Some do better than others and that is because of success and or local talent that is having success. Soccer fanatics (life long soccer fans) are the most into the sport and most likely to watch it. However, they are not going to take up time watching college level ball, especially if they have no real connection. They will watch Christiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney or RVN perfrom at the highest level. It may not be fair to compare the likes of Ronaldo and Rooney to our American college players, but they are fighting for the same audience. Which would you pick if you had a couple hours to watch "The beautiful Game"

Chico,

You have access (and a pretty darn good memory) to CESA historical data. Can you provide an analysis of where the CESA girls have gone onto play after HS graduation? Break it down to CESA Premier and CESA Challenge, go back two years (if possible) and also include the current U-18's and U-17's (for those who have verbally committed).

Over the past few years CESA is certainly the benchmark of SC girls soccer (with apologies to Mt. Pleasant who also has turned out some very fine teams).

Before we blast USC or Clemson for not using in-state players, let's look at how the "best of the best" are doing. Where have the CESA girls gone on to play? What calibre of schools? How have they faired (are they in the starting line-up or are they seeing any playing time?).

Historically, do the best six players from CESA's U-18 Premier girls team attend schools that are better than Clemson or USC?