SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP SCYS Presidents Medal Cup & Recreation Cup

Information regarding the South Carolina Youth Soccer Presidents Medal Cup & Recreation Cup can be found at www.CarolinaFC.net.

Carolina FC will also utilize the SC Soccer Forum to disseminate information.

This was an email that was sent out Tuesday, October 21 by Steve Cothran, SCYS Cups and Games Director

Hey Everybody,

I know there is some confusion out there around State Cup Applications. I will try to help end the confusion.

Recreation Teams U15 - U19, Teams are eligible to play in the Publix Recreation State cup as long as you have played in a league and not been placed in bad standing. You must complete an application for state cup.

PMSL Teams U15 - U18, Teams are eligible to play in the Presidents Medal State cup as long as you have not been placed in bad standing. You must complete an application for state cup.

SCSCL Team U15 - U18, Teams are qualified to play by your seeding in league play. No application, because you must play if you qualify.

Premier league teams U15 - U18, Teams are qualified to play by your seeding in Premier league play. Premier league teams must complete a Challenge Cup application.

There have been numerous emails about which fields certain age groups are going to play for the Presidents Medal and Recreation Cup. Until all the applications are in or the applications are closed 10/26/08 I can not give you that answer. The field assignments will be determined by the number of teams in each division. The Challenge Cup will be played at the MESA Complex in Greenville.

If you reserve a motel/hotel somewhere in the Woodrruff Road, Pelham Road area off of I-85 you will be at most 15 miles from a field and as close as 2 miles.

Get those applications completed as soon as you can and we can get the fields decided. Application deadline is Sunday October 26. This date is also the roster freeze date.

Thanks,
Steve Cothran

"The Fall 2008 South Carolina Youth Soccer Publix Recreation Cup, Presidents Medal Cup and Challenge State Cup will be hosted in the Greenville/Spartanburg area over the weekend of November 7-9." (from the Greenville FC webpage)


Is the Challenge Cup really the same weekend as the Presidents Cup?

Thanks Bruin. The correction has been made.

Thanks Coach P for responding to Bruins question.

PS: Bruin: It is Carolina FC, not Greenville FC. We are located in Spartanburg.

Fall 2008 Presidents Medal Cup and Recreation Cup Schedules are now available:

http://scysa.demosphere.com/index.html

Can't believe this thread is so quiet in the middle of the PMSL Cup...I'm having a ton of fun up here in Greenville!

Yeah! The board has definitely been boring this season..How are the girls doing up there coach? Pullin for ya!!

So far so good...two come-from-behind wins...hoping for more of the same, preferably without the come-from-behind part!

OH there's no fun in that..What's a win without a lttle drama..Good Luck!! Hoping for the best..Go United!!

Thanks!! And yeah, what's a few more gray hairs when it comes to a nail-biting adrenaline surge, right?

Up here in York County, where most of the girls are playing club soccer in North Carolina, there have been many upsets in the NCYSA State Cup. Semi-finals were yesterday, finals are today.

Has the President's Medal Cup always used a round robin format, as opposed to a lose and you're out format like they use for the Challenge Cup? There was one case today where two undefeated teams tied their game and one was eliminated because the other team had scored more goals in the previous games. Doesn't seem like the best way to determine a champion.

Great job by Carolina FC and the SCYSA tournament committee on the organization, great fields, and superb weather this weekend in Greenville/Spartanburg! Job well done!

I was looking over the list of champions and to my surprise I found no CESA teams..There were a couple of finalists..Does this strike anyone else as odd? Should not the talent pool trickle down into the classic level? Maybe I am missing something but it strikes me as unusual..

I think you need to wait and see CESA's results in the "A" Cup. I wouldn't be too concerned with their performance in the Presidents Medal Cup.

I'm sure CESA will show well at the highest level.

They always show well at the highest level..They dominate Challenge and seem to be a non factor at Classic? I would think the talent pool would trickle down to the classic level. I am not beating anyone up here..I have always supported CESA on this message board but it looks as if the emphasis is on one group of players.Are not the next level of challenge players going to come thru the classic program?

I agree it seems to be a matter of focus...I'm sure the fact that the "E" in CESA stands for "Elite" is no accident.

I'm pretty sure that most of CESA's "B" teams (CESA Challenge) play at the Classic level and enter the higher cup.

How many competitive teams do you think they should have at each age group?

Hurst forget Challenge..Think classic. Are you saying that they play their classic teams up to challenge? I could understand this..Does this mean that the rec teams are playing up to classic? So that's why they don't run the table on the championships?

cht,

Maybe they do play what one could consider classic-level teams up one level higher at challenge. I don't understand the exact difference between the two cups (or leagues).

In North Carolina, state premier and R3PL teams must play in the State Cup. 1st and 2nd Division Classic teams have the option of playing in the State Cup. Most play in the Presidents Cup but a handful of 1st Division teams that want a real challenge will enter the State Cup.

As for league play, there is promotion/relegation, where in South Carolina you can sign up and play where you want.

How do the cups work in South Carolina?

In SC,

the State Cup takes the two R3PL teams and the six top 'challenge' league teams in a single elimination format, with the finalist and champion going to R3PL play the following year, and the champion going to regionals. Prior to R3PL play (i.e., at U13), the top 8 'challenge' league teams play in a single elimination format.

The President's Medal State cup (this past weekend) is a sign-up based tournament for SC's Classic teams. One or two divisions are made based on entrants. In divisions that were divided as I and II in regular season, that's pretty much how the teams are divided in the President's Medal State Cup. In divisions that had East/West flights, it seemed that the top half of teams from East and West played in President's Medal State Cup Division I and the bottom half played in Division II. The winner of Division I goes on to the Region President's Medal Cup .. which this year will be played in Greenville (last year was FL).

In terms of where did CESA end up at the PMSL divisions, I applaud them for continuing to place player development above results. They continued to put players in a position to be challenged and maximize their development. They've got 1 or 2 teams in each R3PL division this fall, and at least one team in every challenge division (except U18G). The fact that they didn't win a PM cup title this weekend has no relation to whether they care about classic level soccer ... and to say otherwise is ridiculous.

In looking at the results, I was more interested in the meaning of the diversity of clubs represented as champions and finalists. Your thoughts?

Would you not expect the 'A' team from one club to beat the 'C' from another club?

The fact that the 'C' team is competing with the 'A' team should be commended.

Perhaps we should be asking questions of those 'A' teams ....

Note: The above classifications are in reference to this thread and the PMSL and Presidents Medal Cup.

I am just asking what is going on..A club wins 6 of 8 divisons at the challenge level and sometimes both teams playing for the title are from this club and no titles in the classic league..seems a bit odd..If the emphasis is on development so they play the teams up..that's fine for the player with the ability to move up but as we all know as the level rises the numbers go down.

recos,
I do not believe you need to ask questions of the A teams..alot of the scores are close and some games went to PKs so I do not think their are to many big fish in the little pond when it comes to classic play

Depends on the nature and focus of the clubs, the number, experience, and goals of the players who are signing up, levels of program available at each club, and what you define as "A" through "C" teams.

Seldom a very simple answer to questions such as the above.

Quote:

---

They've got 1 or 2 teams in each R3PL division this fall, and at least one team in every challenge division (except U18G).

---

U18G Challenge division.

CESA 90 Girls Challenge plays in the SCSCL. They are currently second with a shot at first.

SCSCL standings (Lexington page)

I didn't realize that some teams in south Carolina (7th place or below in the Challenge league) don't even have the opportunity to participate in a State Cup.

Not saying it's wrong, after all, you have the whole season to finish in the top eight.......just interesting.

Yes..It's been that way for a while..Narrows the field down for State cup..The eight teams will play after league play has ended and the four winners from each age group go to State..One game on Saturday and one on Sunday..Not much of a chance of any Cinderella teams in Cup games

State Cup in North Carolina is group play, usually a 16-team or 12-team field. Sixteen-team you have to win your group to get to the sem-final. Twelve-team tournaments are three groups of four with a wild card getting to the semi-final as well.

Hurst66,

NC (group play) setup is much better and allows for 1 bad game in group play but better teams can still make into the final 4.

SC (knockout play)not the best way to determine the best team and team that moves onto regionals.

letme,

NC group play is very expensive for the parents if your team qualifies for the Final Four. It can require three weekends of gas + hotels + meals.

There are pros and cons to both methods.

I am not a big advocate on the knockout play..A strong team has a bad game and their out..I do like the one game per day schedule.It takes the WE did not get enough time between games excuse out of it but to play a round robin would take three to four days

In North Carolina, for a 16-team or 12-team tournament, you play Saturday and Sunday the first weekend, Saturday OR Sunday the next weekend, and then Saturday (semi-final) and Sunday (final) the third weekend.

It's OK, but not perfect. In a four-team group you have seeds 1v4 and 2v3, then 1v3 and 2v4, then the last weekend it is 1v2 and 3v4.

That third game between the #3 and #4 seed is often meaningless. Both teams are usually mathmatically eliminated from advancing. There is also no promotion/relegation at stake so you are only playing for pride. If Greenville is the site and #3 is Bridge FA and #4 is Mt. Pleasant....it sure doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

One thing I did like about the format of this year's PMSL Cup was that everyone in our division (U18 Girls Division 1) had exactly the same game times across the board. I thought the games were placed a bit close together--8:00 and 11:30 for everyone on Saturday, 8:00 game and 12:00 final on Sunday--which may have favored teams with deeper benches, but at least everyone was guaranteed exactly the same rest period between games so there was not the "they had more recovery time than we did" issue.

Surely doesn't make sense to have to travel on a separate weekend to play a game that has no hope of gaining advancement, no. I'm ok with the two-game-per-day format we have; in most cases it gets the job done in one weekend, it provides multiple opportunities for players to compete and be seen, and it makes fitness and endurance a factor in overall winning potential--which would seem to support the idea that it is the best and most dedicated athletes who will prevail in the end.

If you want fitness and endurance to be a factor in the match, why not limit substitutions? How about seven subs allowed so everyone can play.....but no re-entry?

True, but as has been discussed on the Disney thread, limiting substitutions also limits exposure...which can be a negative thing in a tournament where one of the reasons to be there is to see and be seen. Unlimited substitution gives a coach a chance to give more players more chances at playing time without having to weigh long-term consequences of giving them a shot to perform.

I would not advocate limiting substitutions in a showcase or tournament, only in league and cup play.

Coach P - Well said!

OMG - parents/players are paying to play club ball, plus hotel/tournament/uniforms/gas/coaches fees and they want to limit subs!! Why? This rule can only translate into limited playing time for the non-starters! How stupid can this be?

I agree with not limiting subs in league and cup play. Players come out to get training, gain experience, and enjoy competition. You can't do those things while sitting on the bench. Of course, teams are in this to compete, and the best players are going to get the majority of the field time, but having unlimited subs gives coaches a lot more flexibility to give other players the chance to come on the field, test themselves, and then come back off if necessary. If we start putting limits on subs at this level, coaches will have to think long and hard before giving a second-string player a chance to step on the grass--which means fewer players will be getting opportunites to have the experience they're coming out for. I know I would be much more reluctant to pull a starter off the field if there were no re-entry...which means someone on the bench would be sitting there a lot longer, if they got in at all. That just doesn't seem fair in the spirit of development and opportunity.

The rest of the world limits substitutions so that fitness is part of the game. In the US, we can just shuffle anybody in and out at any time to give someone a rest, and play high pressure for 90 minutes because conditioning isn't a factor.

How about we limit roster sizes to 15 or 16? No re-entry and EVERYONE has to play? When the coach chooses the player at tryouts in May, the coach is obligated to play that player in every match. If a starter has to come off the field for the last 20 minutes of a match so that the #15 player on the roster has to get playing time.....so be it.

As for player development and game experience, how does the second-string wrestler at 125 pounds ever "develop"? Does he sub in for the third period for the starter? Soccer still provides the opportunity for a substitute to play.....not true with wrestling.

Agree with Hurst. A player should not be on the roster if the coach is 'afraid' to put them into a game. It shouldn't be just a matter of a parent being able to write a check.

As for wrestling, that's sort of apples and oranges...wrestling, although matches are decided by "team" points, is really an individual sport. It only takes two wrestlers of similar nature to provide a good practice that simulates real-match conditions. Not all soccer teams can put together practices that allow players to learn to interact in real-game-style, 11v11 scrimmages...so the only way for them to truly gain that experience is in inter-team match play.

Now you're proposing a system that would make development of weaker players even more unlikely in a lot of situations. So now the ones who, at tryouts in May, don't look like someone I would want to put on the field in every match...shouldn't even be selected? Under the current system, players can be given opportunities as they earn them without posing serious risk to the performance of the team as a whole. A coach in a developmental league does have a split obligation--to the success of training the individual players, and to the success of the performance of the team. Less-experienced players can start off on the roster, train with the rest of the team, and earn their playing time bit by bit as they develop. They can sub in for short intervals to test their development, and have that chance more often when the coach knows he can put the starters back in if it isn't working out yet. I've had players who may have been a liability on the field at the beginning of the season turn into valuable assets by the end. I see no reason to put a coach in the position of having to choose between accepting a weaker player on the team knowing he/she will play every game and may create a weak spot for the team, and denying that same player the opportunity to have a chance at all. As for fitness, for most teams, the key players will be on the field for almost all of the match even with the opportunity to sub. If those players can make it through 85-90 minutes of a match, rest a couple of hours, and step back out to do it again the same day, I'd say fitness is definitely being emphasized. At levels of play where development and competition intersect, playing time should be earned by the athletes, not mandated or restricted by the rule book.

One thing people from the larger metropolitan areas need to understand is that it is not as easy to field teams in less populated areas; therefore, the talent level will not be as balanced as one might hope. An association has to create teams from the kids that are available in the area. A few of the better Florence players travel to Columbia to play, but many parents (and players) do not want to spend the time and money traveling to Columbia to practice. In Florence, most of our Classic teams are made up of a small group of “Challenge” level players, a larger group of true “Classic” level players, and maybe even a few players that should be playing recreation soccer. It may not be the perfect situation, but we have been able to field competitive Classic level teams. The alternative is that 125 Florence area kids would not be playing competitive soccer.

Coach P,

I stand corrected, didn't realize Europe allowed unlimited substitution at the youth level.

Hurst,

You said, “In the US, we can just shuffle anybody in and out at any time to give someone a rest, and play high pressure for 90 minutes because conditioning isn't a factor.” Are you serious? You honestly believe that every team, at every age level, that goes out there on the field, is able to play high-pressure ball for 90 minutes? In all the years I’ve been involved with soccer, I would have to say that more often than not, the overall level of conditioning of a team HAS affected the outcome of the game to SOME degree. Some matches, it has come down to which team was still fighting HARD by the end of the game, but some matches, it was which team was still able to just RUN by the end of the match. RARELY do I see matches where every player on a team is able to play high-pressure the entire match.

There are WAY too many factors at the younger levels of soccer (especially in this state) to force as many limitations as you suggest. I wouldn’t even know where to start with a list of the negatives.

If your team is skilled, and your team is deep, and your team is well-conditioned........

Don't you think you can successfully play high pressure for 80 or 90 minutes with the added benefit of being able to shuffle kids in and out?

I'm aware of at least one girls varsity high school program in the northern part of the state who has gotten pretty good results with this strategy for the past four or five years. I've seen a couple of club teams put it to good use as well.

"If your team is skilled, and your team is deep, and your team is well-conditioned..." you could compete just fine (barring injuries) with a roster of only eleven.

I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. What strategy are you talking about?

Yes, I "think you can successfully play high pressure for 80 or 90 minutes with the added benefit of being able to shuffle kids in and out." I thought YOU were arguing earlier AGAINST unlimited substitutions.

I AM against unlimited substitutions in regular season and state cup matches. For tournaments and showcases I am for unlimited substitution.

If you have 11, good, well-conditoned players you should be able to succeed and you should be rewarded with a good result. If you are playing against a team of 18 who shuffles them in and out, in an effort to get a result through high-pressure, it messes up the beauty and flow of the game (with all the stoppages for subs).

Now, if that team is fit, and can be successful playing high-pressure with 11 starters and three to five (pick a number) subs, with no re-entry, I tip my hat to them.

I agree that a team with a deep bench will have a definite advantage in being able to play a higher-pressure game from start to finish. It doesn't necessarily mean that the team with more players will be able to maintain higher effective pressure, though, if the team with fewer on the bench is well-conditioned and well-disciplined. There is an element of strategy involved in matches against superior numbers. As someone who coaches a U18 classic girls team that more often than not has 11 -13 available players in any given match (and two matches per day) I have to say I actually enjoy the challenge of playing against the numbers advantage. Some of the best player AND character development I've seen has come from finding ways to win even at a disadvantage. I guess restrictions to enforce some degree of artificial equality are fine for some sports--after all, that way of thinking led NASCAR to such fan favorites as restrictor plates and the COT--but offhand I can't think of any other high-school-age-level team sport that restricts substitutions and allows no re-entry.

Sub restrictions may be ok for premier and maybe challenge teams (I still have reservations), but at the PMSL level, I say let 'em play. It should be about getting as much experience and field time for each player as possible within the bounds of effective competition. When you start talking about limiting subs, further limiting roster numbers, etc., we're also talking about limiting opportunities for young people who want to come out and enjoy playing the game.

I'm sorry if I just don't "get" it, but to me, the beauty of the game at this level isn't about uninterrupted flow and undisturbed aesthetics; it's about what the opportunity to get on the field and play does for the young people involved, so I'm not a big fan of restrictions that limit chances for participation. If another coach shows up with 18 players, I don't feel the need to force him not to let some of them play just because I only managed to bring 12. On the flip side, if I only have 12, I've made one sub, and there's an injury, I don't want to have to play short because the one player on my bench is restricted by a no re-entry rule.

And if a team with small numbers can learn to condition, pace and position itself to stand up to a high-pressure attack from a team with greater numbers and unlimited subs, or if a coach can bring a team with enough talented, well-trained players to sub continuously without creating weak spots in the field that can be exploited, then heck...I tip my hat to them too.

Coach Chass,

I agree that we should maximize every player's opportunity to play so I'm probably guilty of not practicing what I preach in this case. If there is no re-entry, and I have 15 on the roster, then I'm subbing four at the half so everybody gets at least half a game. Of course that leaves you very vulnerable and if someone goes down with a second-half injury you are going to have to play short.

I'm not totally adamant about this position and I'll certainly agree that the current rules allow a coach much more flexibility.

Call me old-school. I'm not a fan of the designated hitter and I don't like inter-league play (although I am in favor of the wild card).

I'm definitely with you on the designated hitter rule...I still have the image of a talented dribbler working her way through the defense, breaking through the defense to go one-on-one with the keeper, and then yelling "Everybody freeze! I need to bring in a designated shooter!"