SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Girls Varsity Soccer Enrollment numbers => SC Dept of Ed

All sports or extracurricular activities are "rich" if you want to label them. If you limit your view of soccer and it's existance to upperlevel play then maybe it's middle class at the most. Soccer even in this country and even in this state is played in many places. YMCA and Rec Dept total cost est. $50, clubs $100-500 guestimate. Camps $400.

To value Wando's success based on the GNP of the starting XI is selling them very short. To know the humble beginnings of a progam like this and the interest the community gave the sport you can really find the truth. There was and has been continual support since I was a kid in the 70s. Money doesn't buy these things.

Watching Wando play you can see/hear everything in one minute. First touch, heads up dribbling, sharp service, commo, movement.

The ball is $15-50 the effort you give is the State Champ variable.

Soccer even in this country and even in this state is played in many places. YMCA and Rec Dept total cost est. $50, clubs $100-500 guestimate. Camps $400.

Whoa, Tim. Name one HS team that is in the Top 30 of the Massey Ratings with teams comprised of Rec/YMCA players? It doesn't exist. Teams at the highest level of HS soccer have teams made up of players from club soccer and very few cost $100-$500. Most are in the $500-$1500 range when you factor in league dues, tournaments, uniforms, et al. However, I agree that the Mt. Pleasant community has been supportive of Wando HS and youth soccer for a long, long time.

You can make a very compelling argument for either side (economics vs. effort) because the truth of it is, both are major contributing factors in the success of a team (if success is measured in wins/losses, region championships, playoff runs, state championships, etc.) at the upper levels of competition. I don't think a team becomes great without effort and commitment by the players, the program coordinators, the coaches, and the supporters. If resources and opportunities are equal, then certainly the team who puts in the most effort will have the best chance at success.

On the other hand, if effort and commitment are equal, then opportunity is often the deciding factor. Players who have the opportunity to play year-round at high levels of competition will certainly have an experience advantage over those who can't. It doesn't necessarily make them better players, but it gives them the chance to become so. Even beyond the "club factor" is the simple fact that in schools with a high PI, many students who could develop into great athletes have other responsibilities--jobs, taking care of siblings, etc.--that by necessity take precedence over time that would have to be committed to mastering a sport--particularly a sport that has not historically provided the number of opportunities to "get out" that football or basketball, for example, are known for.

All of that said...you don't have to win a state championship to feel "successful," and you don't have to win region to really enjoy and love this game. Where we handicap our sport, I think, is when we measure success by these narrow standards to the point where we make young people believe it's all or nothing--if they don't have all of the right opportunities they might as well not even start at all. I think the more grassroots soccer we have--the young people who come out and play when they can, where they can, and can feel good about playing and not feel looked down upon--the more backing for soccer as a sport in general we will have, which will benefit the sport at all levels. As long as the general perception of soccer is as an "elite-only" sport, then only the "elite" will invest in it...and I'm talking about not just money and time for club dues, practice, team commitment, but also interest in the games, fan base, match attendance, etc., etc. More people identifying with the sport equals more popularity, more revenue, more respect--and more opportunity for funding, scholarships, team development, etc., even for the "elite" groups. So...contrary to the image that some try to portray...the elite would stand to benefit in the long run from not having the appearance of being so "elite," and every player who learns to love the game and feel a part of it, regardless of playing level and opportunity, contributes to the overall success of the sport.

(Chass now steps down from the soapbox.)

Chass & Tim, very good points. BamBam, right on as well.

With respect to Wando's success, it has to be attributed to the coaching and the parent and player commitment to the program. It's just not size and economics/demographics. There are at least 15 other 4A schools in the state that mirror Wando, yet Wando has turned in two great back-to-back seasons.

As for measuring success, I also agree. I hate the "there's only one winner at the end" approach. Also, it would be nice if we could promote/relegate across the state so that every school would have the opportunity to get more competitive matches and perhaps earn a championship on a more level playing ground.

Agreed, Hurst. Wando's program has an excellent level of commitment and support, and they show a lot of spirit and investment in each other as well as in the game. It's a good example of how these kinds of "intangibles" can make the difference among programs of otherwise equal opportunity and economics.

Just my 2 cts (or more). One of my areas of scholarship is poverty in education.

First, the primary reason it is so difficult to make any really solid claims (per the discussion in this thread so far) is that AFFLUENCE is an excellent marker of correlation, but it is not necessarily a marker of causation. In other words, if we want to generalize (very dangerous) we have to acknowledge that the most powerful factor in soccer success is related to affluence.

But, second, the affluence is probably only a marker for possibly dozens of other factors that are actually causing the discrepancies (or differences) in "success," however we might define that.

Finally, it is without a doubt true that relative affluence creates a disparity in opportunity in soccer (and most everything in our society). Yet, what any one person or group does in the face of that disparity is something we can never predict. One person in poverty may very well excel; one person in affluence may very well fail. I can predict, however, than over time and when we look at large numbers, most people or groups in poverty do not excel at the rates and numbers as those people or groups in affluence. The reasons, and thus any effort we could make to address the inequity, that there is disparity are so many and so complex, it can be quite overwhelming.