I am sure the title has sparked major interest but sad to say it is not so at this time my quest is this. I have observed on this forum that there are so many supporters of a united lowcountry "soccer giant" to represent the lowcountry and even South Carolina for that matter.
In our "professional" opinions what do you feel we would need to do to accomplish this goal can we surpass personal "egos" (oh oh might get in trouble for this one hehehehehe)and make this happen or is this goal wishful thinking in reality????
hhhhhmmmm
Real quick, look at the CESA model. Find two or three successful clubs, merge with the ability to reach a reasonable geographic area, win and establish superiority.
Not being from your part of the state I will not pretend to know what divides you, but the word dysfunctional comes to mind. It appears that based on the local rivalries and mistrust it will take strong leadership to bring these clubs together. I thought that was what the "Bridge Club" was supposed to do, but recent postings suggest that this may not happen. I wish you luck!!
The egos in the lowcountry are the problem
Playing devil's advocate--which so often gets me into trouble, but it's hard to break the habit--
Is achieving dominance in state competition because you have the largest pool of talent to draw from NECESSARILY the same thing as providing the best possible training for the greatest number of players?
And if you happened to answer "no" to that question...then how would such a club NECESSARILY improve the overall status of Lowcountry soccer?
Just thinking out loud, not making a judgement.
Spiritdad,
The only way to get past the personal egos is for someone, probably, not currently in the low country youth soccer scene to step in and lead the change. It's not just egos, but it's also geographic and convenience to parents that gets in the way. Kind of like the "social soccer" that someone used to rant about in the mid state.
W&E,
The local clubs business models make it very difficult for a merge to happen. For example, SSC has a long term lease for it's facilities. MPSC, the town's rec department owns the fields. JIYSC owns their fields. CUSC has shorter term arrangements for field space with the City of Charleston.
Giggs,
Bridge FA was intended to do that. However, some of the decisions that Bridge FA has made, rather than bringing unity, have compounded the divisive nature and increased the mistrust in the area.
Beenaround,
Egos do abound in the lowcountry. However, it's not just with the soccer professionals, but the parent board members as well. Of course with the parent board members it's hard to tell whether it's ego, convenience, or mistrust.
Coach Chass,
It is extremely difficult for any lowcountry club to be everything to all segments of the soccer players. For the most part, the people that are on this board are either players or parents within the competitive sector. Further, if you look at the volunteer support, I believe that you will see in the lowcountry that the majority of the volunteers that are involved with the day to day operations of the club are from the competitive sector. Bridge FA was intended to allow for focused attention on all sectors by consolidating the competitive sector, and allowing other clubs to focus on the rec and classic level.
Wow so many avenues to go with this thing It will be interesting to see what direction soccer in our area will take over the course of the next year or two we might have to drive to CESA or CUFC just to have a place to play.
Bear,
I see what you're saying, and I agree. But again, as devil's advocate...it seems what people are trying to do is eliminate competition instead of trying to make more players and teams competitive. If we reduce the number of competitive teams in the Lowcountry, then we are also reducing the number of opportunities for players to actually be competitive.
I'd like to hope that with all of the talent we have in the Lowcountry area, we could train and field more than one competitive team in each age group.
Coach,
I've been to this dance before.
There needs to be consensus with what "competitive" means. Are you satisified with being competitive within the low country district, the state, the region, the nation? All of these are different levels of competitiveness, and all of them are different in requirements.
In response to your devil's advocate statement. I don't think people are trying to eliminate competition for the sake of players and teams being competitive. A different view is, to be competitive we need all of the players together, but at club x, not club y. I have said several times that all of the soccer folks know that to be competitive, consolidation needs to occur, but at my club, not the others.
Of course...after all, I'm not the only devil in the mix.
So, serious question...that is, if you don't mind dancing the old dance with a new partner for a few...and I'm really asking an opinion, not playing DA this time.
Do you think there is enough talent in the overall pool to field more than one Challenge team per age division, for example?
If so, what happens to the players who don't get one of the 18 or so spots on the one consolidated team...if they want to play true competitive soccer to challenge themselves and improve their game, what are their options?
If a single, consolidated club has enough competitive players and fields more than one team at the same age and level (for example, two U-18 Challenge teams), would they more likely try to balance the teams, or stack one team with the best of the best to get the wins and leave the sister team to struggle? (I have seen this happen.)
I'm really curious about the proposed logistics...not trying to be difficult.
Random question that's mildly related to the topic:
Does anyone remember the initial reason Hungryneck Soccer Club gave up its autonomy and merged with Mt. Pleasant Rec? Was it just money or something else?
All I can remember is being told we were merging and that we had to buy new uniforms because the colours changed =(.
Coach Chass,
I'm not from the area and I don't know the area that well but I'll add my two cents anyway.
It seems that most successful competitive clubs that field more than one team per age group go A-B-C, at least by U-12. Sometimes the name is overtly obvious (Premier-Challenge-Classic) and sometimes a more covert approach is taken (Gold-Blue-White).
As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.
Coach C,
I'll respond later to your question(s).
adidaskitten,
What I was told was it was the issue of field space and it being better to merge with the town so that they could have a long term relationship for fields.
I am the one Bear refers to as 'used to rant' about social soccer in the midlands. With the merger that finally resulted in the midlands, there appears to be no more social soccer, nor selfish egos in the midlands. I venture to say that there exists in the lowcountry social soccer, egos, and selfishness that prevents the respective clubs from accomplishing what has been accomplished in the midlands. If the lowcountry ever came together as one, given the talents in coaching and players and great facilities, that CUFC and CESA would be fighting for second place in the state.
striker,
I think what the folks in the Low Country are looking for, with regard to the successful merger which became CUFC in the midlands, is this:
1. How many people took a pay cut?
2. How many people had to swallow their pride?
If the answer is "few".....then it should certainly be doable in the Charleston area. CESA and CUFC laid all the groundwork, all you have to do is follow the successful business model.
Quote:
As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.
The drive from NE Columbia to Ballentine is no picnic either!
Quote:
It seems that most successful competitive clubs that field more than one team per age group go A-B-C, at least by U-12. Sometimes the name is overtly obvious (Premier-Challenge-Classic) and sometimes a more covert approach is taken (Gold-Blue-White).
Agreed, Hurst. The earlier statement, though, was that idea was to consolidate the "competitive" sector and leave the other clubs to handle rec and classic. (Some, of course, would take issue with classic being left out of the "competitive" list, but as Bear points out, it all depends on what kind of competition you're talking about.) So...if they're only dealing with the high-level competition, that seems to do away with the A-B-C format...
Just wondering how a consolidated club would handle it if there were too many available challenge-level players to put on one team, and there were no other challenge-level teams in the area as options. Do we knock the overflow players back down to classic, move the displaced classic players down to rec, etc.? Or would we consider fielding two teams in the same bracket?
Since Challenge and Classic are divisions which both play state-wide, why not eliminate the confusion and just call it Challenge (or Classic) 1st Division and 2nd Division. Then there is no "stigma" attached to what level a child is playing at, everybody is playing "travel soccer". The only difference would be how competitive the team is.....whether it has earned the right to play Region Premier, 1st Division or 2nd Division.
Why not use a religation/promotion system? If you have 16 teams at an age group, go 8 and 8 with the top 2 moving up and the bottome 2 moving down. This way it will still be competitive and teams that want to move "up" to the first division have to prove that they are strong enough to do so. This would also eliminate teams "playing down" to win. if you were the 1st place team, you would move up (thought I would throw that in, because of another thread that talked about an undefeated team playing classic instead of challenge in the spring).
Hurst.... Amen. It does mean that you should install a promotion/relegation system ala NC.
FOR THE RECORD...CID I was typing while you entered your comment
In most of the age groups it may be doable (some may not have the numbers)... I would also limit the challenge league to 8 teams, 2 of which do not make the state cup as the premier teams come back and are relegated to the classic league and the classic league champion and runner up are promoted. Apply the same requirement as premier league does on the players coming back (I think it is 60%)
Of course none of this has anything to do with the thread but thoughts anyway...
And Coach Chass... for sure the low country has plenty of talent to make an A, B, C team in the same age group... But as stated by some it is not usually little Johnny that has the issue it is usually mom & dad who think Johnny should be in the A team and not the C and therefore I'll start my own club and bring the one coach who gives me the answer I want to hear...
Parents do not tend to grow up in soccer until they hit U15. By that point you have seen and learned enough to know it when you see it.... I'll give you a true example a parent was overhead boasting about their child at an ODP training session (won this and that). Now granted the child might have had an off day, but it was clear to those around, that the child was out of their comfort zone. Instead of praising the child for trying their best, the parent lashed out because the child had not tried hard enough...maybe/maybe not...I think it had more to do with the parent's embarrasement because of what he said.
People like these are the ones that end up getting involved for personal reasons and end up with the egos that prevent progress. IMO, this is why CESA's Tormey and Hislop have been succesful.
sorry futbol,
I will type a bit slower next time.
nah!!! I should have taken that typing class eons ago....
I know. I've been trying to get my computer set up with the voice program that types as I speak so I can just eliminate the whole typing thing.
Regarding HNISA, that wasn't exactly a "merge". Mt. Plesant did not have any competitive soccer at the time. More like, HNISA had to cede its membership to Mt. Pleasant because the Town of Mt. Pleasant owned the fields. The HNISA board members did not have a choice. For example, Whipple Road field was a nice regulation size field used for a lot of HungryNeck games and practices that was paved to expand the tennis facilities by the Town of Mt. Pleasant.
Quote:
And Coach Chass... for sure the low country has plenty of talent to make an A, B, C team in the same age group... But as stated by some it is not usually little Johnny that has the issue it is usually mom & dad who think Johnny should be in the A team and not the C and therefore I'll start my own club and bring the one coach who gives me the answer I want to hear...
I agree completely with that. Happens at all levels in all different areas, not just club soccer. In HS it's "I/my kid should be playing varsity" even though the player would get much better experience and development on the field playing JV than riding the bench at varsity. My kid should be in the honors classes, even though he/she obviously scores average at best in CP. Coaching at the classic level, I've seen players and parents get upset because a 16-year-old was placed on a U17 team rather than the U18 when they were obviously talented enough to play at the U18 level. Believe me, I know the scenario.
Still, the A-B-C division within a club wasn't exactly my question. I'll give a specific example to clarify. I don't have a dog directly in this fight, really, so I'm trying to be objective.
Let's say the Charleston-area clubs all decide to unite and field one Challenge team per age group under a single banner rather than competing with each other, so as not to "dilute the talent pool," to use the ubiquitous term. Each club is still allowed to field its own Classic and rec teams, as has been previously proposed.
Focusing on one age level and gender for a moment: In the 2007 fall season, Bridge FA, MPSC and CUSC entered teams in U18 girls' SCSCL competition. Bridge FA 89 Girls Gold listed 14 rostered players, MPSC U18 Girls Elite 16, and CUSC U18 Girls Black 16. That's a total of 46 athletes competing at that level and age group. Let's put these numbers into the unified-team scenario.
For training and playing time purposes, a unified team would probably not carry more than 18 or so players to fill out the roster. Logic would dictate that the best 18 out of the 46 would be chosen for a hopefully dominant, undiluted team.
My question is, in this scenario, what are the options for the remaining 28? Now, by the A-B-C everybody-wants-to-play-up theory, were all 46 necessarily challenge-level material? Probably not. Were more than 18 of the 46 qualified, though? Probably so.
So, what do we tell the ones who don't make the top-18 cut?
-Sorry, you can't compete at this level because we don't have room for you on our squad, and we can't allow another area club to field a team because it would dilute the talent pool. You may be as good as some who made the team, but for numbers' sake you'll have to drop down to Classic anyway. You can't go play Challenge for someone else in the area because we've eliminated those opportunities to make sure all the "best" players wind up on the same team.
-Ok, we have enough talent to form two SCSCL teams within the club, but we're going to make sure we place players so that one team is as dominant as possible, while the other may be left to struggle in the same league. (Example: 2007 CUFC 89 Girls Elite: 8-1-0. 2007 CUFC 89 Girls Palmetto: 2-4-3.)
-Hey, you can always drive up to Columbia and try your luck there.
-Tough break, kid, but we're winning without you, and that's what really matters to us, so we're not particularly bothered.
Other options/thoughts/ideas to make sure deserving athletes--the ones who are willing to pay and work to get training, experience and competition at the highest level--aren't left out of the loop in the process of creating a "dominant" team?
Your post raised in my mind a question to which I honestly do not know the answer, even as it applies to "my" club. It is this: How many clubs (if any) pay their coaches and/or DOC's for results? By "results" I would include wins, titles, numbers of participants, etc?
I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with doing it, if it is done, only wondering about the possibility of potentially conflicting motivations.
It depends on the goal of the club. If you are at this level though, making an "elite" team and a second team (aka CUFC) seems to be the theme. Once a player gets to a certain age (an age that will be debated I am sure), college recruiting becomes involved. It should be one of the goals of the club to get their kids into colleges and a good way to do that is to be successful at big tournaments. My no biased response, Chass, would be "how is it fair to the elite player who has to play on a watered down team instead of the 'elite' team?" Just to play devil's advocate.
Chass,
You hit the nail on the head...again!! And think about what has happen here in the lowcountry..Because all the clubs were not unified we have players leaving club A who was a member of the alliance to play for club C who was not a member because the player did not make the elite team so the club that was doing what was best for the elite player by joining the alliance is now losing players to rival clubs because they could play challenge there but yet the player may or may not of been challenge material..
Again, I think with all the talent in the lowcountry among players/coaches that you could field enough elite teams to satisfy everyone, if you have 'the big merger of clubs'. You may even have 2 elite teams at some ages, and definitely and at the very least, one strong elite team and a strong challenge team in the other ages. If its college exposure you seek, the player on either an elite or a good challenge team will be found. College exposure in this state involves a good bit of politics as well. So the players and coaches for both the elite and challenge teams need to be just as active politically, as they are displaying their talents on the field.
Quote:
Your post raised in my mind a question to which I honestly do not know the answer, even as it applies to "my" club. It is this: How many clubs (if any) pay their coaches and/or DOC's for results? By "results" I would include wins, titles, numbers of participants, etc?
I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with doing it, if it is done, only wondering about the possibility of potentially conflicting motivations.
I don't know what the answer is today. When CESA was founded, there was a deep discussion about bonus pay which would include incentives for customer/player satisfaction, growth and the like (never for winning that I can remember, although I'm not religiously against it as long as it was part of an overall set of metrics.) It did not end up occurring.
>>[Coach Chas] Let's say the Charleston-area clubs all decide to unite and field one Challenge team per age group under a single banner rather than competing with each other, so as not to "dilute the talent pool," to use the ubiquitous term. Each club is still allowed to field its own Classic and rec teams, as has been previously proposed.<<
Respectfully, this is a bit of a straw man argument, isn't it?
Why would they decide to field only one challenge team per age group? Why don't they field as many challenge teams per age group as they competitively can -- they just organize it such that the "B" team can play challenge if they're good enough -- as judged by the coaches of the club.
We have clubs in South Carolina that have their "B" team play RIIIPL-East -- so this isn't far-fetched by any stretch of the imagination.
Replicating a successful model requires more than just photocopying on different colored paper.
Back before the Premier League option was initiated, most clubs, HNISA in particular, fielded multiple Challenge and/or Classic teams.
I know we did an A/B team scenario when I started playing Select (back when U11's played 11v11 still) and due to numbers, the club organised two U12 teams: the A team, Lady Ice, and the B team, the Renegades. Aside from the knowledge that the Lady Ice had been playing together since rec and stayed mostly unchanged, very few people complained that their daughter was a Renegade and not on the Ice (and many moved onto Ice in later years as it lost players and they got better).
From my standpoint as a player, after I got over the initial disappointment, I was just happy to be on a select team on which I earned a spot. Knowing we were the B team was mostly incentive to get better and get more experience so that I could some day make it onto the A team or play up. Sometimes when we had a hopeless day or half, it was frustrating, but overall, I had much more room to improve and make a statement with the team that I wouldn't have had on the Ice.
I think most of the complaints are voiced just to complain. There will always be people who are better than you are and just because you run into some of them doesn't mean you suck at life or its the end of the world. Tiered teams, from my experience, give people more room to grow, make their statement on the field and lets them play with people of closer skill levels. If you pool everyone on even teams, the very good people can often showboat or get so bored with their teammates that it ends up detrimental to their team and themselves and the less skilled people may lose hope and feel so out of place that they never get the chance to work on being a better player because the good ones get play time and they don't or they never get the ball. The problem is compounded when the equal teams play tiered teams.
Also, just because you have an A and a B team doesn't mean that there has to be a huge separation in ability levels; it just depends on the quality of players trying out for the team. As someone mentioned before, some clubs have B teams who play RIIIPL. So just because you're a B team doesn't mean you have to necessarily sacrifice a great amount of success.
Quote:
As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.
I can't say I believe the long term overall interests of youth soccer in South Carolina have been served well by the mergers resulting in CESA and CUFC.
However, if a model could be developed in the Lowcountry that would draw the elite players of that area to a single team, the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville at 5:30pm can't be nearly as ugly as the drive players are currently making from Mt. Pleasant to Greenville or Columbia for a 6:00pm practice.
I have always hoped that Bridge would evolve to represent that opportunity for the elite players of the Lowcountry. By leaving the other clubs of the area intact, the burden is on Bridge to develop the training and access to higher levels of competition that will attract the elite players. At the same time, the opportunities for players not able to win positions or families not able to afford supporting postions on an elite team still exist for those players to come home after tryouts, smile ear to ear and say "Mom, Dad, I made the "A" team".
{I can't say I believe the long term overall interests of youth soccer in South Carolina have been served well by the mergers resulting in CESA and CUFC.}
Delta,
Maybe its just because you have only posted 10 times, or you are just dogged out, and even though you have the right to your own respective opinion,...........those 2 mergers have done more for the overall state of SC club soccer than even the wizard Chico has done with his brilliant piecharts, graphs, stats, and excessively wise analyses of the state of humankind.
I don't know what I just said about Chico. It just came out in the spirit of the game.
Quote:
Quote:
As for whether you have enough kids in the low country to pull this off, I would say "yes", but I have heard parents complain on these boards that the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville (and vice-versa) at 5:30 PM isn't pretty.
However, if a model could be developed in the Lowcountry that would draw the elite players of that area to a single team, the drive from Mt. Pleasant to Summerville at 5:30pm can't be nearly as ugly as the drive players are currently making from Mt. Pleasant to Greenville or Columbia for a 6:00pm practice.
Having been a supportive parent of a commuting player for 2 seasons now, I can honestly say, in general the drive to Greenville is better for us than any commute required in the Charleston area. There is so much more to it than just the miles driven. The choice that our family made, obviously is not for everyone, but it is a great thing that the choice exists. For us, it simply isn't enough to gather the elite players to a single team, there is so much more that can go along with that, and does in some areas.
Bear,
I think you just vocalized something that I've been sort of dancing around on this thread for a while now. The choice that your family made may not be for everyone, but it IS a great thing that the choice exists.
If all of the Lowcountry clubs unite their competitive teams under one banner (regardless of how many teams they field in each division)it would almost certainly create opportunities that were not available before, provided it were properly managed. It would probably result in more competitive teams that could gain more state and national attention. At the same time, if everyone "put aside their egos" and stopped trying to offer alternative, competing teams, it would also eliminate a lot of what many people value--choice.
I believe it's important to create the best possible opportunities for our young athletes--such as giving them the chance to unite under an organization that they trust and believe in, if they so choose--but I don't believe in forcing them to take those opportunities by eliminating their other choices.
You would not eliminate choice. You would have even more choice, with more resources, within one major club, and under one central umbrella. If all the lowcountry clubs merged you would still have your respective choices within the major club, as well as the continued choices to travel to CUFC or CESA. I am not saying that a 'big merger' would even work in the low country cause I had zero knowledge of the environment there, except for what I read in this forum. But if a merger can work successfully in the Midlands as it has done so far, with all the egos that used to exist here, then it can happen anywhere.
>>[Coach Chass] I think you just vocalized something that I've been sort of dancing around on this thread for a while now. The choice that your family made may not be for everyone, but it IS a great thing that the choice exists.
If all of the Lowcountry clubs unite their competitive teams under one banner (regardless of how many teams they field in each division)it would almost certainly create opportunities that were not available before, provided it were properly managed. It would probably result in more competitive teams that could gain more state and national attention. At the same time, if everyone "put aside their egos" and stopped trying to offer alternative, competing teams, it would also eliminate a lot of what many people value--choice.
I believe it's important to create the best possible opportunities for our young athletes--such as giving them the chance to unite under an organization that they trust and believe in, if they so choose--but I don't believe in forcing them to take those opportunities by eliminating their other choices.<<
Respectfully, again, I think that you're offering up another straw man. You are equating a "big club" with "a single club" -- they are fundamentally different concepts.
There are a lot of reasons for clubs -- for kids/parents who value convenience or social soccer over competitive soccer, for example. But going back to the way this thread started, people were asking for one large competitive club. If I've misread this, and there's a belief that the right answer is to create a forced monopoly in an area -- then I'd disagree with that. But then again, trying to force a monopoly is pretty dumb -- because it's relatively easy to start yet another club.
CESA didn't drive out Foothills Premier or CFC or the other clubs in the upstate just as CUFC didn't drive out LCSC or CRSA. What these clubs did was offer an increase in choice in that more kids in more age groups and genders were able to play highly competitive soccer -- if they chose to.
All of this talk of mergers and referencing certain clubs as the benchmaark begs the question: What qualifies as a successful merger? Performance? Variety of Programs/Services? Signed/Committed Collegiate Players? Qualifed Staff?
Respectfully returned, I don't think it's a straw man at all, if you listen to a lot of the things that have been said by folks from this area.
Take Bridge, for example. (Just one example, and I have nothing against Bridge or its concept.) Seems the idea behind its formation was to create an opportunity to form an elite series of teams to be highly competitive under its banner. However, to listen to the talk, apparently there have not been enough athletes flocking to the banner to make it as dominant as some hoped. The complaint I often hear is that the other area clubs, by "stubbornly" and "egotistically" insisting on continuing their own competitive-team offerings, are not supporting the concept of a unified dominant team. Nor are Bridge supporters the only ones to vocalize such things.
My point is, if the majority of stakeholders want to unify under a large competitive banner, it will happen naturally, through choice--it shouldn't be necessary to ask other clubs to shut down their offerings in order to make it happen. And even if clubs in the area actually want to effectively merge and combine their resources--instead of, as someone mentioned earlier, the attitude of "we need to unite under one banner--MY banner," then I still don't see the sin in still having a separate entity offering opportunities for competitive soccer for any who, for whatever reason, don't choose the large club as the best fit for them.
So--I agree with what you say; you're looking at the situation from the perspective of what people SHOULD be asking for. What I've heard people ACTUALLY asking for, though, is for the Lowcountry's versions of Foothills, CFC, LCSC and CRSA to stop insisting on offering competitive teams, because every talented athlete that goes to those types of clubs is effectively robbing from the talent pool of our potential CESA-style juggernaut.
All I'm saying is, offer the opportunity, yes...but don't begrudge those who choose to make other choices as well. Athletes come to CESA and CUFC because they believe those are their BEST choices to get what they want and need--not because someone convinced CFC and LCSC to stop offering alternative competitive-level teams.
And that's the way it should be.
40% Club Organization
35% Variety of Services/Programs
25% Qualified Staff
20% Facilities (but with the above 3, you can play in dirt)
20% Performance (but this happens naturally)
____
100 %
Quote:
CESA didn't drive out Foothills Premier or CFC or the other clubs in the upstate just as CUFC didn't drive out LCSC or CRSA. What these clubs did was offer an increase in choice in that more kids in more age groups and genders were able to play highly competitive soccer -- if they chose to.
My understanding BFA was for the challenge level player. A unified place where players from all the area clubs could go for more competitive and committed soccer.
To my knowledge no one is asking for a monopoly of all soccer or eliminate the area clubs. I believe BFA agreed not to field teams below the challenge level so as to not compete with the area clubs.
It is my understanding the local clubs feel they "own" these challenge level players because they trained them and do not want to let them go.
Soccer is changing for the better in SC. Let's get with the times, lowcountry. The challenge level player IS leaving the local clubs. BFA offers the best opportunity in our area at this time. IF the local clubs want to squeeze them out, we'll drive to Columbia or Greenville. It will be worth it.
There are definately enough options for the players that do not want to compete at the challenge level and more than enough players to support the local clubs.
Value for us...more committed players, more competitive soccer, better coaching, the opportunities to travel to higher level tournaments. For our family, those things are the fun of it!
Question for you lowcountryumitedsoccer...Say you decide to go to CESA and tryout but are put on the second or even third team..Will you be happy with this decision and make those trips to Greenviile or will you look elsewhere?
The point that I am trying to make is that it is alot easier to make a challenge team when we have 25 or 30 players trying out..Go to Greenville and some age groups they have at least three or possibly four teams at one age..That's alot of players to beat out of sixteen spots..
What I am saying is sometimes small has it's advantages for some players..You get the training but don't have to beat out 50 or 60 players
In HS it's "I/my kid should be playing varsity" even though the player would get much better experience and development on the field playing JV than riding the bench at varsity.
Coach Chass,
Say you have a player that had played challenge soccer for two years and has been selected by SC coaches to play on the ODP team for the last three years but yet this player is a freshmen..Do you place the player on the varsity or JV?
Depends. Are you asking from my personal perspective, based on the team I coach now, or from an overall perspective?
In my world, that player would certainly be on varsity. I don't have many (translate: any) players on varsity that could exceed those qualifications, and such a player would definitely be an asset to the varsity squad and earn plenty of field time.
On the other hand--if I'm coaching a team that is fairly well stacked with challenge players who are older, more experienced, and have earned their PT on the field, and I know that the freshman you refer to probably won't get a lot of game time, then why waste all that talent sitting on the bench?
It's not so much about a player's absolute qualifications as it is about how he/she compares to the rest of the team, not only in ability, but in how well they mesh with the other players who depend on each other. If a group of players has come up through the ranks together, play well with each other, and have a great group dynamic, it may not be doing the one player justice to be separated from that group and moved up without any of the supporting players he/she is used to working with. It may be better wait and move them all up together so that seamless group dynamic stays intact.
Lots of variables...most of which revolve around not only the talent of the individual player, but the composition of the teams surrounding her. I can't give one absolute answer to that...but I can say I'd love to have that player! :-)
Thanks for your insight...
Right answer!!
Like many other things, there is an absolute and a relative quality to the question/answer.
Our corporate attorney told me once that a running joke in the legal profession is that a lawyers two favorite words are "it depends".
Quote:
Question for you lowcountryumitedsoccer...Say you decide to go to CESA and tryout but are put on the second or even third team..Will you be happy with this decision and make those trips to Greenviile or will you look elsewhere?
Too many variables....so my answer is "it depends". 
Quote:
The point that I am trying to make is that it is alot easier to make a challenge team when we have 25 or 30 players trying out..Go to Greenville and some age groups they have at least three or possibly four teams at one age..That's alot of players to beat out of sixteen spots..
There are other differences with going and trying out in Greenville. When you try out in Greenville, you are trying out to play for the "club", not a particular team. Typically, the 3 or 4 teams are Premier, Challenge, and Classic. So if you're going to Greenville satisfied to play challenge soccer, remove 16 players (Premier team) from your thought process, and you only have to be within the range of 17 to 32 to play on a "Challenge" team.
Quote:
What I am saying is sometimes small has it's advantages for some players..You get the training but don't have to beat out 50 or 60 players
You have to evaluate the training, and as many have pointed out previously, often times the trainer isn't advertised for particular age groups until late in the process. But again, I think there is much more to it than just "the training".
Evaluate the options, apples to apples, make your choice, and above all, be satisfied with the decision you reach, until it's time to re-evaluate.
Bear,
Since you are a commuting parent maybe you can answer this..
How many players traveling from Charleston play on the Challenge team in Greenville compared to the Premier teams?
Coach Chass: I think we absolutely agree that any form of limiting choice is to be avoided. I don't believe clubs should be forced to merge and can understand why people would resist that. At the same time, I can understand why players who are denied the choice of more competitive you soccer would be frustrated. The answer, it seems to me, is to find ways to make Bridge more attractive (I've said this before, in the same form of discussion.)
coldhardtruth: I don't know of any kids playing on a "C" team at CESA that travel 50, 100, or more to do so. I do know of five or more cases in which players travel those distances to play on the "B" team. I even know of this when the "B" team isn't playing RIIIPL-East, so I would imagine that training (both from trainers and working with very talented player pools) plays a part as well.
CHT,
I honestly don't know. I can't even tell you the number of players commuting from Charleston, accurately.
From an ex- gung ho parent/director/manager -
I have said for years that Battery needs to be the single driving force behind a true Lowcountry club. The arguement about hurting ticket sales really doesn't hold water.
swimmer,
Good to see you back in the pool.
I think the Charlotte Eagles got out of the club youth soccer business for the very reason you state. They needed to get chummy with all the Charlotte-area clubs, rather than compete against them (for players, for "wins", for resources). You don't think it can hurt the gate?
Hurst66,
I have often wondered why the Battery wasnt more involved with the clubs, but you do raise a valid point I don't know that them being affiliated with one club only would stop my daughter from dragging me to every game though but it does make u wonder how many persons would actually stay away.
A few comments.
Regarding Hungryneck and their merge with the city years ago. The main issue was fields. The club was growing by leaps and bounds & the club was "borrowing" use of the town's fields. This situation was no longer workeable so the club was faced with purchasing land and building its own fields to the tune of several million dollars. Big risk. Big commitment. So, right or wrong, the Hungryneck board decided to merge with the city. The city didn't force the board to do anything, but there were limited options.
Swimmer, I hear you but I respectively disagree with your conclusion. I think it would hurt their ticket sales. Maybe not a lot but I can see some. Back in the Super Y days, the Battery did field some teams for one year. When they didn't participate in year 2, I asked Tony myself why not and he basically said he felt parents whose kids didn't make the Battery team might not be so inclined to purchase Battery tickets. You probably wouldn't do that but you can't say that for everybody. The fact that any forum thread about a merger in the lowcountry results in thousands of posts tells me that youth soccer might be a bit of a volatile business venture.
My kids are all grow-ed up so I might be wrong on this but from where I sit, the Battery is/has been very involved with the local youth clubs, mainly at the grass roots level with many of the players helping out in the coaching department. My kids had many of the Battery players as coaches and trainers over the years. Also, the Battery hosts camps and other training sessions from time to time. They probably are more involved with the younger ages rather than the older ages, I'll give you that. They've made a decision to stay out of the "business" of the youth clubs but help out with teaching the fundamentals to players and coaches.
Soccer Watcher,
Definately some good insight.