|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 32
kick off
|
kick off
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 32 |
Yea, it took alot of planning for the Germans to bomb Pearl Harbor.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404 |
Reccos:
They do recruit locally. I think the point that I and others have tried to make is that local kids are recruited but they are evaluated alongside kids from all over. The rosters of state schools reflect that. However, just looking at rosters can mislead. You can't tell who is getting money by looking at a roster. State schools are going to have more in-state "free" kids than out of state free kids.
The original issue was whether SC kids needed to play in regionally or nationally competitive leagues and programs if their college soccer aspirations were to play in-state. The person who positited that theory did it in a retrospective way, but the point is the same. The short answer is - yes.
More to your question - I think we are doing pretty well, given our size. My strong hunch is that if you were to compare our results in producing college soccer players to those states with 20% more or less than our population, you would find that we do significantly better than most.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 558 |
Quote:
OK guys ...
So if these 'big time' colleges in SC are recruiting nationally and internationally (and not locally), what are we doing wrong?
Maybe we are not travelling far enough away from SC? 
I think the 'big time' colleges in SC, at least for a few years on the girls' side, have been recruiting players from SC. What they are OFFERING the players from SC compared to players outside SC may have more to do with why we're seeing top SC players showing up on rosters elsewhere. Now, if what they are offering is what you mean by "recruiting", then they are not recruiting. Players from outside SC are offered scholarships, players from inside SC are offered the privilege of playing 'big time'.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 108
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 108 |
Quote:
Reccos:
More to your question - I think we are doing pretty well, given our size. My strong hunch is that if you were to compare our results in producing college soccer players to those states with 20% more or less than our population, you would find that we do significantly better than most.
We've lived in 6 different states and based upon my observations SC is the weakest. Our kids started playing in Oregon, population 3.8 million compared to SC's 4.6 million. Comparing the Women's rosters - Oregon's top three programs have 23 of 76 players coming from in state. U of Portland with 7 in state players is ranked 4th in the nation. Oregon and Oregon State were the other two programs I used. If you look at SC (USC, Clemson and College of Charleston) only 10 out of 79 players come from in state. If you eliminate C of C then there are only 5 in state players.
We also lived in Iowa (population 3 million). If you check Iowa and Iowa State's rosters you'll find numbers closer to Oregon's than SC's.
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404 |
I was talking about men. But, your numbers aren't really addressing my point anyway. And, there are seven other states that meet my criterion. Rather than look at the proportion of in-state players, we should be looking at the total number playing college soccer anywhere. I may yet be proven wrong but I still think we do better Than Alabama, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, etc.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270 |
HD, I took the time to look through your posts. Kudos to you for your involvement in youth soccer, but at the same time it does also explain your perspective.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270 |
Is the goal really to do better than these other states? Is that how we should measure our success?
Should we not be concerned about what we are doing?
Who is our leader by the way? Who exactly is showing us the way?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Quote:
Quote:
Reccos:
More to your question - I think we are doing pretty well, given our size. My strong hunch is that if you were to compare our results in producing college soccer players to those states with 20% more or less than our population, you would find that we do significantly better than most.
We've lived in 6 different states and based upon my observations SC is the weakest. Our kids started playing in Oregon, population 3.8 million compared to SC's 4.6 million. Comparing the Women's rosters - Oregon's top three programs have 23 of 76 players coming from in state. U of Portland with 7 in state players is ranked 4th in the nation. Oregon and Oregon State were the other two programs I used. If you look at SC (USC, Clemson and College of Charleston) only 10 out of 79 players come from in state. If you eliminate C of C then there are only 5 in state players.
We also lived in Iowa (population 3 million). If you check Iowa and Iowa State's rosters you'll find numbers closer to Oregon's than SC's.
I think the numbers speak for themselves.
While the numbers speak for themselves, sometimes it's difficult to grasp their nuance. 
Population density, rather than aggregate population, tends to work better in terms of understanding competitive soccer in the United States. Thus to understand what you're seeing, take a look below the state level at the MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) level. The Portland MSA is 2.2M of Oregon's 3.8M.
Comparatively, in SC, Greenville/Spartanburg MSA is at 1.2M, Columbia is 740K, Charleston is 640K. And there's a lot of argument concerning combining Greenville and Spartanburg into a single MSA.
To contrast, Atlanta is 5.5M. Lots and lots of players in D1 programs throughout the country from Atlanta.
Bottom line: I agree SC is weak. I think that the fundamental drivers for this weakness are (1) population demographics and density and (2) the lack of an offsetting wide scale effort to bring more young recreational players into the base of soccer which might fight #1.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270
corner kick
|
|
corner kick
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 270 |
SH ... I wish I had your brain - perhaps then some of my ramblings would make more sense!
Having said that, I believe you make my point for me! Given those 'restrictions' what should our goals and expectations be?
Are we not fooling ourselves with all this short letter stuff? (RIIIPLE, ECNL, USSF DA)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 404 |
There any number of metrics that one could use to try to judge how well SC does in producing college players. To me, the most meaningful is the total number of SC kids playing college soccer, proportionate to our population. I haven't seen anything yet that disabuses me of the opinion that we do very well indeed. One reason is certainly the number of SC colleges with soccer programs. I feel sure that we have more than most, if not all, of the states of similar size. If we don't produce players who can compete for those roster spots, they will be filled from elsewhere. One of the primarary criteria is excellent competitive experience - which is where those acronyms come in!
I'll leave it to another enterprising forumite to research, but I bet SC has a relatively high percentage of its population registered in youth soccer programs. I'll be anxiously awaiting the results of that research.
|
|
|
|
