What "services" are people looking for? - 03/10/07 02:27 PM
The following excerpts of posts by Beezer raise some interesting questions and perspectives:
>>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.<<
I understand this perspective; but would argue that it's incredibly misguided. Clubs look at CESA and believe that creating a "monopoly" in an area will lead to success. What they miss is that there's measurably more competition in terms of clubs in the upstate than in most other areas.
The answer isn't to coerce players into playing at only one place. The answer is to entice players with a common value system (e.g., ambition, dedication, etc.) to come to a club.
As long as the leadership of the other clubs in South Carolina view coercion and the elimination of choice as goals, they aren't going to achieve their goals.
>>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.<<
Recruit away. I mean it -- for most players the majority of the year is "legal recruiting season." You might find, however, that offering something better is more of a recruitment tool than much else.
>>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.<<
>>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?<<
Okay...let's go through this. I've got a daughter that drives 90+ miles to practice from Columbia but has never seriously considered Bridge. Why? Because for over 50% of the population Bridge seems to be unserious about offering them very high quality soccer. CUFC absolutely demolishes Bridge in this respect -- and CESA is completely beyond either of those clubs.
Let's go beyond that. Bridge doesn't appear to offer anything for U15+ players in the spring. Bridge seems more focused on attracting low-country players than attracting the best players (and has from the inception of the club.)
There seems to be a built-in institutional arrogance surrounding Bridge. For example, you make the claim that Bridge has "the best coaches." Maybe. But I'd rather my kid be coached by someone with demonstrated success in RIIIPL-East and competitive tournaments -- and (for example) Andy Grist has it all over you guys in that respect. Now -- I'm sure that Bridge has fine coaches -- but if you believe that Bridge's coaches make the choice of the club a "no-brainer", then that really is mind-boggling.
Bridge may have "most of the good players" in some age groups, but it doesn't have this nearly across age brackets and genders. That cuts down the attraction of the ambitious kid who wants great soccer but isn't the "right" gender or age for Bridge.
In terms of fields, well -- you guys could have the greatest field complexes in the history of humankind -- and the best players won't care very much. If you're trying to get more kids who value convenience, then fields are important. If you're trying to get more kids who value the best soccer possible, look at what you're offering in terms of "mindboggling" services and work back from there.
>>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.<<
I understand this perspective; but would argue that it's incredibly misguided. Clubs look at CESA and believe that creating a "monopoly" in an area will lead to success. What they miss is that there's measurably more competition in terms of clubs in the upstate than in most other areas.
The answer isn't to coerce players into playing at only one place. The answer is to entice players with a common value system (e.g., ambition, dedication, etc.) to come to a club.
As long as the leadership of the other clubs in South Carolina view coercion and the elimination of choice as goals, they aren't going to achieve their goals.
>>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.<<
Recruit away. I mean it -- for most players the majority of the year is "legal recruiting season." You might find, however, that offering something better is more of a recruitment tool than much else.
>>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.<<
>>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?<<
Okay...let's go through this. I've got a daughter that drives 90+ miles to practice from Columbia but has never seriously considered Bridge. Why? Because for over 50% of the population Bridge seems to be unserious about offering them very high quality soccer. CUFC absolutely demolishes Bridge in this respect -- and CESA is completely beyond either of those clubs.
Let's go beyond that. Bridge doesn't appear to offer anything for U15+ players in the spring. Bridge seems more focused on attracting low-country players than attracting the best players (and has from the inception of the club.)
There seems to be a built-in institutional arrogance surrounding Bridge. For example, you make the claim that Bridge has "the best coaches." Maybe. But I'd rather my kid be coached by someone with demonstrated success in RIIIPL-East and competitive tournaments -- and (for example) Andy Grist has it all over you guys in that respect. Now -- I'm sure that Bridge has fine coaches -- but if you believe that Bridge's coaches make the choice of the club a "no-brainer", then that really is mind-boggling.
Bridge may have "most of the good players" in some age groups, but it doesn't have this nearly across age brackets and genders. That cuts down the attraction of the ambitious kid who wants great soccer but isn't the "right" gender or age for Bridge.
In terms of fields, well -- you guys could have the greatest field complexes in the history of humankind -- and the best players won't care very much. If you're trying to get more kids who value convenience, then fields are important. If you're trying to get more kids who value the best soccer possible, look at what you're offering in terms of "mindboggling" services and work back from there.