SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Boys Varsity Soccer Time to transform how we do soccer?

I noticed the following scores this week: 12-1, 10-0, 7-0, 10-5, 6-0, 9-1, 0-6, as well as several 5-0 scorelines. Does anybody think this is good for soccer in South Carolina.
So my idea is to realign soccer-playing high schools to encourage competition that is really competitive. In the current structure, in any particular region at any particular level (A, AA, AAA, and AAAA), there are usually a few good teams and a few not-so-good teams, and the good teams find themselves playing a few competitive games and a few not-so-competitive games (a 5 or 6 to nil score is usually indicative of a lack of competition, though 10-0 is always so). Uncompetitive games do nothing for either side, except present the opportunity for injuries and bad feelings. So how do we eliminate the bulk of these uncompetitive contests?
Let’s break the state down into four regions. The SCHSL website currently lists 205 schools playing sports, and while not all of them are necessarily playing soccer, let’s assume they are. Breaking the state into four regions will give us 51 schools in each region (with 1 extra).
In each region, then, let’s break the schools down into 5 leagues: the Championship League, and Leagues 1 through 4. That puts 10 teams into each league. Teams are allowed to play between 16 and 18 games during a season, so each team would have roughly have of its games within its league if they played only once per season, alternating the home site from year to year as they do in football (we could just as easily add more games to the soccer schedule—I think 16 is too few, but that’s an argument for another day). In their remaining schedule, schools go out of their region to play quality teams from other regions, or they could play historic rivalry games if their historic rival is in a different league.
At the end of the season, the bottom two teams in each league (except for League 4) would be relegated to the lower league in their region, and the top two teams in each league (except for the Championship League) would rise to the league above them. (If you don’t know, this is what happens in European professional soccer.) The top two teams in each of the four Championship Leagues could then do one of two things. First, the SCHSL could have a state-wide playoff to determine that year’s state champion (the league could actually do the same thing with the lower leagues as well, just as it currently does with each of the size divisions). That would be an okay option, and one might guess that we would see the end of playoff results in the 10-0 range. Second, the SCHSL could form a South Carolina League to be made up of the top two or three teams in the 4 Championship Leagues to play the next year, in addition to their regular league play (this is the concept of the UEFA Champions League or the CONCACAF Champions League. I like this option better, but there would be a one-year lag declaring state champions each, and some people might not like that.
Some SC high school teams are good every year, those who draw a lot of kids who play club soccer. Some are rarely if ever good in soccer. Some go in cycles, having a few good years as a group of players who play club come through, but then dropping off as the next group doesn’t. Such a league structure as I’ve proposed would allow for competitive soccer to be played at every level and would give players at each level something to strive for—either a championship or at least the opportunity to move up to the next league.
It would also, I think, improve the level of soccer throughout the state, and obviate the need to eliminate all private high schools from the SCHSL.
I would add to this a couple of changes as well. First, I think we should allow ties. Unfortunately, I believe the insistence on no ties goes to the national level, so I’m not sure we could do anything about that in South Carolina (anyone know for sure?)
Second, it’s time to end the two-man referee system. For anything that happens in the middle of the pitch, both referees are 40 yards away from the action. If any of us got a call from a ref 40 yards away in the three-man system, we would go bonkers. I’m not criticizing the refs, but the two-man system makes it virtually impossible for them to do a good job night in and night out. Non-fouls get called, frustrating the players, will rough challenges are not seen, angering the players. This is a safety and fairness issue. Every fan who attends chips in $5, and that should be enough to pay for a proper complement of referees.

Paul you took the words right out of my mouth and I would like to add to lets also play by the FIFA LOTG and do away with the HS rules that can confuse the best of us at times.
2 man system can work on less competitive matches but sometimes even those can be tough on a 2 man system depending on how the teams play.

This would take care of the teams that dominate there A-AA-AAA-AAAA division almost every year.

To have a promotion/relegation system, you'd have to assure fully balanced scheduling within a "leahue," with home-and-homes at each level. Not that I oppose the concept. But it would take some serious tweeking.

There is already a system like you described. It is called club soccer. You have Premier League, Challenge League, Classic 1&2 and Rec. Scholastic sports are just different.

Blowouts happen in every sport. There are football games every week that the winning team outscores their opponent by 40-60 points, basketball games where teams don't score more that 15-20 points and some don't even get into double digits. this why they have mercy rules in baseball and softball.

what could prevent some of the lopsided scoring is a proposal where once a team gets up by 5 or six, the referee reduces the time by half

i do agree with you that every game needs to have 3 referees.

Your first problem is blow outs. There is no mercy rule in this state which makes going to some of these already decided games to officiate dreadful. There is no reason to play a full 80 minute game when a team is already down 5-0 15 minutes into the match.
Second is the overall culture of H.S. school soccer in South Carolina. I asked the away coach in one match who was killing the other team if he wouldn't mind cutting it short. He argued with me that his fans came from so far away (10 miles) to see a free game. There is the problem, the game is not for your parents, fans or coaches, its for the players. I tried to remind the coach that, he wouldn't listen. Remember coaches the game is for the players not your parents.
Third, there is nothing wrong with the 2 man system if handled by proper officials. The problem is a lack of human capital, and the question you have to ask is in this tough economic situation the state is in why can't they find people willing to be paid to go out and do games? Is it the players? Is it the fans? Is it the coaches? I remind coaches about sportsmanship before every game and its like talking to a wall. If a referee makes a call from 40 yards away you go bonkers? Really? You do remember you are an adult and the game is an extension of the classroom, would you like a perfect stranger to walk into your classroom full of 22 kids and "go bonkers" on you for something?
Again the culture needs to change in South Carolina.

If you had asked me about cutting time during a 10-0 blowout I would ask to play the game to it's entirety. I do so because of a promise I make to serve my players. The true heart of a player is to play, to cut away time is deny the player chances.
Just as an example and a bit of fun consider the world of "Let's bail out when things get tough"

Wiliam Wallace rides in front of his men and begins the Braveheart speech..."I am William Wallace. And I see a whole army of my countrymen, here in defiance of tyranny! You have come to fight as free men. And free man you are! What will you do without freedom? Will you fight?” „Two thousand against ten?” – the veteran shouted. „No! We will
run – and live!"
That is the end of the story for some, but I prefer the option of riding into the field screaming " FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!"

From a personal perspective, and with a developmental eye, I have to agree with Coach Tim. I've been on the receiving end of double digits far more often than on the dishing end, I know that with the right attitude, that time on the field can be made to work for the losing team--much more so than the winning one, actually. Cutting the time short essentially says to a team, "You have no business out here and it's a waste of everyone's time to have you on the field right now." However, if a team is not competitive, it's their business to LEARN to compete. Sometimes one of the best ways to learn to compete is to have someone kick your tail until you figure out how to stop them from kicking your tail so much. That was our benchmark--to show improved results against top-notch teams as we developed.

If you take away that playing time, you take away the opportunity to experience just how a quality team plays the game--the opportunity to see the moves and patterns up close, to see how the pieces fit together, and, given enough repetitions, perhaps figure out firsthand how to defend against and even replicate some of the tactics of a quality side. You just have to be willing to accept the lesson for what it is rather than resent the loss.

It was just a week ago today that my girls got an 11-1 lesson from a talent-laden Hilton Head Island team. The goal we scored to make it 2-1 was a short-lived moral victory just over midway through the first half; the remaining 55 or so minutes were the lesson. Do I wish the time had gotten cut short while the score still looked close, or that HHI had kept all of their starters on the bench and passed in circles to make the scoreboard look more "respectable"? Heck, no. Every touch was a valuable lesson, and I could visibly see the light come on and adjustments made a few times when they saw things unfold on the field that I had only been able to describe to them in practice. Games like that can make you a better team in the long run, and my girls did not leave bitter and broken...they walked out with their heads up and realizing what they'd learned in the process.

Not least among those lessons was how quickly things can go south when you start backing away after being hit by really talented competition instead of continuing to charge forward crying, "FREEEDOOOMM!!"

That is all well and good in theory, but saying that a harsh scoreline eventually leads to improvement is assuming there is a competent coach in place and we all know that is not the case at each and every school. Also, a team can learn as much as it wants, but if the other school has all premier level club players and the team getting pounded has guys that only play soccer in high school season, there will never be any change in that scoreline. How is that good for development? How is playing obviously inferior talent good for development?

However on the other hand, what if a team is really good, gets "promoted" to a higher league, then all their best players graduate. I think questions do need to be asked about our current system.

Lastly, how anyone can support a 2 man ref team is beyond me. It is unfair to every single affected individual from the players to the refs. It's not fair to a defense that holds a great line to let an offside goal stand because the ref could not catch it. It's not fair to that ref to be yelled at because he could not catch it. Refs are humans, so they will always miss stuff but with 3 refs it really is much easier to consistently see everything. Each ref may have different interpretations but at least everything is seen.

2 man systems are only good when you have 2 good officials, so I support the 3 man system. Biggest issue is there are not enough officials, let alone good ones, to have 3-man systems everywhere. Also, saw a 3 man system the other day where all 3 refs were doing a bad job. Most are so used to floating near the side in a 2 man system that when we do go to 3-man they don't know what to do and look lost

yep, make it first division, second division and put the best programs where they belong.

15-0 games are a complete waste of time.