SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYSA Board Notes

Chico,
Agreed. The second half of #4 is puzzling. It must be an attempt to restrict the use of guest playing as a recruiting tool, as if the existing rules against in-season recruiting were not enough. I typically don't favor adding rules unless there is a problem that a rule can correct. Is there a high incidence of players transferring to teams for which they have guest played? Or is this rule a reaction to minority occurances? In the latter case, I would be for dealing with the exceptions, not punishing everyone with a restrictive rule.

Coach P: I take it in the same way -- that it's an attempt to eliminate guesting as a mechanism for recruiting.

Of course, as most things like this do, it will actually have the opposite effect. It basically boils down to "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and kids have fewer choices." While I like the fact that it's probably going to make CESA more attractive, I dislike anything that has kids getting the short end of the stick.

Why does this help clubs like CESA? I can remember a year ago when several kids who wanted the exposure asked to guest on some CESA teams at Disney. These kids didn't transfer from their existing Columbia-based clubs, either then or the next year. The kids got something out of the guesting

If I had any influence at CESA, what I'd recommend is that they immediately stop allowing kids to guest from other clubs except at end of season events -- and even then to consider not doing it. That in essence is a "recruiting" move in and of itself; it's saying that these kids that want to play in front of Anson Dorrance or Robbie Church can either join CESA or forget it.

Before, you had kids that "used" CESA to get more exposure and you had CESA trying to put its best face forward to show these kids how great a place CESA was. But there was no quid pro quo -- my guess is that most of the time these kids walked away and never joined CESA and that was the end of it. Now, the SCYSA is in essence mitigating the motivation from CESA (or any other big club which can get into the absolute best tournaments) to allow guesting.

Chico- "I believe that this will make it much more likely since the clubs that previously would allow a player to guest will not simple say if a kid want to get exposure at Disney(for example) they have to transfer"

Rosters are frozen right before state playoffs (U15 and up) so they will not be able to transfer to the team. They must be guest players or not get to play.

Again - we're hurting the players.

The State is treating these boys and girls like professional players..Like they sign contracts with these teams..But these boys and girls are not getting paid are they? These professional teams are funded by the parents..
Maybe the state would like to take over funding all these professional teams since they feel they know what is best for the players..

I think the State is trying to get parents and players to recognize they have made a commitment to the team, the club adn also to the other parents on the team. After all, if a player drops off the team and you have not collected those team fees or club fees, the rest of the parents left must "pick up the $$ slack". Is it fair to these parents that have committed to pay their share, budgeted for their share and then be told they must pay more?

I have no problem with the player and parents having to pay the team fees..I do not like the 30 day period that the coach controls..If the state wanted to control player movement...they should of started that three years ago.
My bottom line is that if I pay all the costs for my child to play then my child should not be held to a 30 day waiting period because some coach feels jilted..

I agree completely with Chico on the issues of 4 and 5. I have no details because I was out of town on business for the board meeting but was disappointed to see the rules get passed. I do know that the several DOCs, including one from a very large club in the upstate wanted this change.

But like any good board, SCYSA is willing to admit mistakes quickly and willing to make the changes accordingly. I have seen it in action several times.

Chapindad: I understand that you dislike CESA intensely and that you apparently believe CESA personnel was partially or wholly behind #4 and #5. However, getting past that...

Are advocating that the SCYSA change their ruling with respect to #4 and #5?

Chico, this is why it so hard to debate with you. Despite the facts you still sing the same song .......

RotR: I'm confused; what facts am I ignoring, what song do you want me to sing, and what is it you're trying to debate?

"Screw your courage to the sticking-point and be brave." Or to put this more clearly: say what you want to say, don't hide behind ambiguous posts and hope others will say what you want to say... (<-- Hey...I found the other emoticons as well!)