SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP BFA & MPSC

Hurst, CSU is up around Goose Creek, that's only about 4 miles closer to Charleston than Summerville. I think the idea is that you need a central location. There is a large amount of land available from Daniel Island northward off of Clements Ferry Rd. Charleston Battery has a new Practice field on Daniel Island that BFA already uses, add these two new resources on DI, plus add another field or two off Clements Ferry and now you have something central to Summerville, James Island and Mt Pleasant...closer proximity to the coast so you may even draw from the North Hwy 17 crowd.

I didn't even think of Daniel Island, but it's definitely much more convenient than North Charleston and would probably draw many more people.

In response to other emails about the Bridge FA/Mt. Pleasant topic.

Word from those-in-the-know out of the Lowcountry is that after a series of meetings and negotiations between presidents and DOCs (from Bridge FA, Summerville, Mt. Pleasant, Charleston United and James Island) in the last few weeks, all sides agreed to the Bridge FA concept and structure for Challenge and Premier teams in the Lowcountry.

However, the Mt. Pleasant Rec. Dept said "no" to it's soccer coordinator, the MPSC president and the MPSC DOC. Don't know if that decision effects Charleston United as well??

So, Bridge FA growth will continue without Mt. P Rec. Dept. support and will roll with it's upcoming field expansion as well as addition of teams, programs and coaching staff.

Still, a bunch of good players, current and in-the-making, that are part of programs that can't offer them the level they need due to lack of coaches and other top players.

Can you provide additional information?
+++What are BFA's field expansion plans? [key issue in drawing upon the 'good players' to commit additional time and resources]

Any truth to the rumor that the Wando Head Coach is leaving BFA to coach the Mt P U15's next year?

FYI, I can understand the Mt P position given that there are several hundred micro youths at the fields on some nights. However, I think a Lowcountry Alliance at Challenge/Premier is the only way to go. Recreation ( and Classic ) should be left to the local clubs only...no exceptions.
Thanks Much

This is such a shame. Get soccer out of the hands of politicians and they might just move forward in the lowcountry.

I don't know specific details on the fields except an identified location should be online in the near future. And, I don't know anything about Bridge FA/Mt. Pleasant coaching plans or anything relating to the Wando coach.

I agree about the no exceptions on levels below Challenge and Premier: the clubs should control all ages of those levels below Challenge and hand off the top U11/U12 players to the Bridge FA for Challenge and Premier development.

It would seem to be a win-win situation. The DOCs worried about their job status/income still run their programs and get paid (since most have few to no Challenge/Premier level teams anyway) and the Bridge FA runs all the Challenge and Premier teams. The club DOCs could still coach a Bridge FA team to have input and involvement in the alliance. It seemed like a good setup for all.

'INCOME' - I think most of the club or rec dept income comes from the micro/rec/classic initiatives. Club Coaches would be forgoing minimal income by turning the challenge and premier levels over to BFA.

'STATUS' - This is the sticking point [on behalf of the club's perspective] that prevents the alliance. The Club's DOC will not make the decision - the players/families will. The players will only make this decision when 1) BFA obtains "CENTRALLY LOCATED" fields of good quality and 2) MPSC can no longer field a competitive Challenge/Premier team.
MPSC's 2006/2007 team's:
U17 was competitive in CLASSIC not CHALLENGE
U16 was not competitive at CHALLENGE
U15 is PREMIER
U14 is competitive at CHALLENGE
U13 is competitive at CHALLENGE

MPSC's rising U15s and below will make up competitive STATE CHALLENGE teams but are not strong enough to compete at the PREMIER level. The goal of the Alliance is to BUILD lowcountry teams that could showcase the best talent we have to offer and compete at the REGION Level, and of course, that's what aspiring CHALLENGE players want, right?
So, it really doesn't matter what the MPSC DOC or any other Club DOC says or does, IT'S UP TO THE PLAYER/PARENT TO JOIN THE ALLIANCE! That said, BFA must offer significant incentives to draw upon the individuals [not force a cooperation between clubs]. The incentives are: 1) better coaching, 2) central location, location, location, 3) better facilities, and 4) better opportunities (e.g. programs that expose players to college recruiting). BFA currently offers better coaching than most clubs, location is not good, facilities are adequate, minimal (local) recruiting exposure. Address these four issues and BFA will draw the best players in the region and you won't need an Alliance!

Good points! It's just a shame all the clubs can't endorse the Bridge FA so parents and players don't have to make that "tough choice" but, you're right, they need to now.

The Bridge FA does have better coaching/players/teams but the facilities are adequate enough to not sacrifice development. Youngsters in other countries grow up playing on anything they can! Development is the word all these clubs use but very few are willingly to assist and make sacrifices in doing it.

As far as central location, agreed, it would be ideal. But, a 25-35 minute, one-way commute is minimal compared to the drive top players in the top clubs around the country make 3-4 times per week. The Lowcountry, and South Carolina, have to realize that putting alot of good players together with a good coach doesn't happen next door. A minimal drive to Summerville, Daniel Island or James Island isn't a big sacrifice.

The Bridge FA is only a year and a half old and has done some things the Lowcountry hasn't achieved. It looks like it will have to succeed a more cut-throat way by "convincing" parents and players to join or, in simple terms, recruit.

Beezer,

You were doing well advocating the benefits of Bridge FA, until your last statement. An attitude of us vs them currently exists, and your statement will only perpetuate it.

From the very beginning, as pointed out by others on this board, Bridge FA was seen as a takeover operation, in lieu of a cooperative effort. There are many reasons for that sentiment, and that is and will be a significant hurdle to overcome. The latest "news" concerning the MP rec department isn't new. There is not a single "soccer" person in the Charleston area that didn't think the best way to compete beyond the state was to combine resources. After all, it was the "soccer" people that originally proposed the idea.

Parents make choices based on perceived benefits. If they don't perceive any additional benefits, which will overcome the negatives, i.e. practice location, then they will not make the choice that you obviously desire.

"Convincing" individual players/parents to make the move serves only short term goals. And if you don't think that's not already happening, in many different directions, then you are either very naive, or just putting your head in the sand.

Rather than spending significant energy trying to convince individual family units, a better approach may be to redirect that energy to building a better product, with some of the ideas that GOAL mentioned. The right product will draw better than individual players. Only then will you truly succeed with one of the original premises, of "cooprerative" efforts between clubs.

That will perpetuate the growth of the club, for the long term. Long term growth is what will provide the better opportunities for the Low Country players, into the future, not just the ones that are currently playing in the competitive environment.

These "building a better product" and "improving services" statements are mindboggling. Look at what the club has done in its short history! They've 1) gotten the best coaches 2) have most of the best players 3) have numerous Premier teams and SCYSA/US Club titles and 4) have three nice places to train in Summerville, James Island and Daniel Island.

It's not utopia where a Manchester Meadows complex will pop up immediately for the club in the exact central location for every player. Is there room to grow at the Bridge FA? Of course.

But Bridge FA is by far good enough that a player looking for a higher level and more opportunity would benefit more then staying in a place offering a lower level on a picturesque facility. Who cares what you're playing on, and where, if the ones around you and coaching you are sub-standard.

I'm not perpetuating anything but stating the fact that everyone tries to hide and pretend doesn't happen. Because clubs object and say "they don't need it," the best players that are members of clubs who oppose the Bridge FA will be recruited because 1) that's what they deserve for development and 2) that's what is best for the elite club that is trying to improve it's "service." Because if the team is better and results ate better then the service is deemed better. Simple fact of perception in youth soccer.

Try to act the right way, first, which the Bridge tried and then act the needed way, second, which I'm sure the Bridge will do now. The takeover chat is absurd considering the concessions the club offered in structure, coaching, team formation, programs, etc.

Again, if they have good fields and have the top coaches and have most of the top players, then what "products" and "services" are people looking for?