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

adidaskitten86: Anecdotally, yes, I think it is relatively common for soccer coaches to be involved with more than one team. It certainly takes a fair amount of planning to minimize conflicts with weekend travel and some coordination to provide coordinated practices and game coverage.

CHT,

There are deeper things that could have kept Bridge out of the greater alliance.

I saw some of the preliminary organizational models, which were structured very similarly to Bridge. That similarity being that players would be registered with this new entity so they could compete in SCYSA. But unlike the relationship with between Bridge and SSC/JIYSC, if bridge were to move it's Challenge players (and Classic U12s) to this new organization, they would have no players left, and therefore the club would cease to exist. For some of the skeptics out there, it could have been viewed as a cleverly conceived way to eliminate Bridge FA.

I was told by a MPSC parent that since MPSC had about 75% of the teams playing in LSYSA, they wanted more contol in scheduling of teams and fields.

I think the kids looking to play at the challange level should look to Bridge FA. Remember, when we talk about MPSC, we are really talking about the Mt. Pleasant Rec. Dept. (MPRD). The MPRD is the one that runs the shows. That is why MPSC is forming partnerships with City of Charleston Rec., St. Andrews Rec. and other local rec. departments.

Bear,
Would we not be eliminating all of the clubs if all the players were under one umbrella? If need be..they could call the challenge portion of this new organization Bridge..
I just feel we are in to small of an area to have five clubs..We have to stop choosing sides to make this work We currently have five soccer clubs within a thirty minute ride to one another..Should be one club

Thanks, greengrass. I just remember the teams back when I played always had their coaches with them at every practice and game unless there was an emergency or other rare event, so the practice of being listed as head coach for multiple teams is unfamiliar to me. It just seemed odd to me to think of having a different coach on the field for different games depending on when and where their other team was playing.

Thanks!

CHT,

We're kind of talking about two different things. You are advocating a merger of all clubs, which due to different business models isn't possible. The people who have done the mergers have realized that already. You have also spoken about the last attempt to kind of umbrella all clubs and players from rec to challenge. From a shared resource point of view, I think that had something to do with it. However, a complete merger wasn't really being discussed, only another umbrella organization, in which all clubs remained on their own.

Bridge was shown to be holding out on that and I was just offering a reason that hasn't been broadcast. Keep pushing for the entire merger, but you need to understand the reasons preventing it, which isn't always egos and lack of trust.

kitten, Having the same coach for 2-3 teams is not an ideal situation that is embraced by parents or players. One coach focused and committed to one team is the norm for the select player. I'm not familiar with greengrass' idea. We've played soccer at MPSC for 11 years at different levels and have never had to share a coach. This is the first time I've seen a club in our area share a coach. Trainers, sometimes. Coaches, never. It means so much for the players to have "their" coach at all the games. The way it was back when you played is how it should remain. One coach for each team.

I agree with you, soccerclan. I think that having a stable, consistent support in a coach is important. You should be able to count on your coach being there for your games and practices instead of feeling like you're second rate because the coach chose to be with the other team that day.

Sometimes our coaches helped to train other teams, but it was only on the rare occasion and they were never listed as head coach with the responsibility to be there for the team.

Looking at the MPSC coaches list though, it looks like at least eight coaches are listed for two teams each when I know there are other capable coaches willing to take teams. I wonder if it's just because they aren't considered qualified due to no college or pro experience playing the game...but whatever the reason, it's sad to see the lack of personalised attention the kids are going to be getting.

Bear / CHT
Bridge FA will have to get more aggressive with promoting their alliance concept to grow like they want. More sponsorships need to be brought on board, fundraising, etc., so the club can afford to hold some trainings outside the metro area, yes....road trip for coaches. I think if this concept of growth was really pushed, you might see some good challenge teams looking to play under the BFA umbrella, which is very feasable.

It is easy for certain clubs and board members to be negative towards the whole alliance concept (Until it becomes extremely convenient for them.)