Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 14 of 15 1 2 12 13 14 15
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
Offline
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
oh, and LadyVolDad, i'll go a step further...when i made the comment about the "state" team, i was specifically talking about odp. if a player is trying out for odp, their goal is not usually to make the "state" odp team and then stop. they typically try and do well enough on their state odp team so they get picked for the region odp team, and onward.

Go Vols !!!

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
B
goal
Offline
goal
B
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
It was two minutes that I really didn't want to spend and was going on memory from when I was looking at/defending the dual rostering and other things associated with US Club Soccer.

My understanding of this type of the chart is the same, whether you look at it bottom up or top down, just depends on what you are trying to say. In the case of Academy vs ODP, to me, this is a case of the parent organization basically saying the program that it had delegated to the lower organization isn't working for it's intended purpose. Whether that purpose is new, old, or whatever. With this arrangement it's very easy to understand why there aren't more issues that have surfaced between the two. It's kind of hard to tell the boss that they are wrong, if you want to keep your job, or at least some part of your job. Mostly what I'm thinking of is the comparison as far as recruiting is concerned. With this different organizational structure, it presently is either okay, or it hasn't been challenged by enough organizations to clarify by the higher organization, that it's okay for the academy programs, or US Club programs to actively recruit players which are rostered with other organizations. And I understand that stays within the current rules, which is why the initial announcement here puts the emphasis so boldly on US Club Soccer affiliation.

As for the player gap question and relating it to CESA, (which comparing is not something that I intended to do, because it sets it up to be club against club, and those types of discussions tend to spin nowhere) I don't know how CESA does it, but I would think that they don't do it that way. But then again, the programs that they run appear to be solid enough on their own that they don't have significant gaps such that they would potentially have to combine with other organizations to fill them. As for attracting other players from outside of their area, they seem to be the one that has a record for being able to do that, at least in larger numbers. That's not to say others don't have the capability, just that it doesn't appear to be or have been as successful.

For the what ifs/but fors: I really don't think if MPSC had joined initially, the current situation with CUFC/Bridge would be happening. With respect to SSC, again, I don't think this would be happening, and further there wouldn't have been so many hurdles to jump to keep it going. I think both of these have a common denominator, maybe not necessarily the lowest common, but common none the less. As for the microsoft comment, I take that to be a derailing tactic from what I'm sure you were able to interpret from my earlier statements.

Let me try to clarify the leap of faith, so hopefully the perspective will be seen. To explain that, I don't know much at all about CUFC, but as you know, I do know quite a bit about the other partner in this endeavor. My comments about this leap of faith has nothing to do with the qualities of the coach, or players, or based on my lack of knowledge of them, the organizational leadership of CUFC. Likewise it has nothing to do with the players in the low country, and to a lesser extent the coaching abilities either. However, this leap of faith is essentially being requested by the players and parents, from the CUFC perspective, from an organization that appears to be solid, to one that is assuming risk. The amount of risk could be debated, but, I think you would have to agree there is risk, from the CUFC perspective. From the Bridge perspective, this is a good deal and the leap of faith doesn't necessarily carry the same risk. In the current structure, the organizational dynamics are pretty known. What this partnership provides the Bridge players and parents of Bridge is the "possibility" of something better, and that normally is very attractive. With this possibility comes the hope that the consulting to the board provided as part of the partnership by CUFC will be sufficient to increase the longevity. However, consulting with the board won't be enough to do it, it will require more. Perhaps that will happen, but the track record isn't very good for that at this time.

Care to tackle how this partnership between Bridge and CUFC is different than between the proposed partnership between CESA and CRSA?

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
Offline
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
actually, i don't really care to tackle it. the cesa-crsa attempt wasn't anything that interested me then, and it doesn't now. and, the funny thing is, apparently nobody else cares, either. just you. what i get from that, and the fact that i am seeing many more people talking positive about the academy (or at least much less negative) is that the tide is turning. i know you either don't want to admit it, or flat out refuse to, but it's happening. you can continue to cast doubt all you want. i just don't see the regulars here piling behind you like they used to.

for the most part, you have been a positive force on these boards, but you have chosen to take a very negative path lately. you've really been grasping at straws the last couple weeks. you had a chance to be a part of something a while ago, but for whatever reason (i know, it's personal) you chose to walk away. and now you're coming back and trying to tear it down. and it's really kind of sad.

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
R
throw in
Offline
throw in
R
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 90
bear, you're being tactful but i get it. bridge ran itself in to the ground and has been shopping its wares around sc for the last year and finally someone agrees to become their strange bedfellow. i don't know why cufc would take on all this baggage but they did and maybe it will work out.

Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
B
goal
Offline
goal
B
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
Okay, I'll admit it, the partnership thing does interest me, and maybe it is only me, but, I was part of some of the organizational dynamics at the time it occurred. That said, I was hoping someone would discuss it, at least a little so I could gain a different/better perspective. Otherwise, the previous decision remains one where the SCYSA just pulled something out of the air.

For the academy piece of this, if you were to ask around you would probably find that I believed that the academy would really begin to show the fruits with the current U16 group, and yes, I think it is. Do I not want to admit it, or refuse to, nope. Part of this though, if you do a touch of research, or at least ponder it a little, you may realize that many of the posters who used to be active with discussions of this type, organizaational in nature, have either aged out or gone on to other things, or changed their logins. So, no it's not surprising to me either that people aren't piling behind it, or even talking about it.

As for being positive, that too is a matter of perspective. For those that want to see this endeavor succeed, I'm sure what I'm saying could be seen as negative. For those that are a little unsure about it, it could be that what I'm saying is positively bringing some things to light that should be considered.

I don't understand the grasping at straws. I did post a couple of things early, and then swap some PMs with people during what was more the chest thumping, and then stayed out of it until someone said why don't we talk about something real. It's kind of funny, haven't heard from many of those lately.

Not only did I have the opportunity to be a part of something a while ago, as you and many others know I was a big part of something a while ago. That something today, does not in any way resemble what that something was supposed to be at this time when it first started. It was heading that way when I left.

As for coming back and trying to tear it down, all I can say is I'm sorry you see it for that. I've cared for a very long time for the players and parents that are caught up in the dynamics of things, and really hope it works out for all of them, you and yours included. Perhaps this endeavor will be the key, only time will tell. I really hope that the parents and players are going into it with eyes open though. And yes, it is really sad that it is what it is today, because it could have been much more.

There has been annual discussions about merging/combining forces in the low country, and I still feel the Bridge FA "concept" is the one that has the capability to do that.

Are we going to continue to play volley ball, or let the ball drop to the court?

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 202
B
corner kick
Offline
corner kick
B
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 202
CHICO - Help!!!!!! anybody know how to get in touch with him to get his opinions?

Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
S
coach
Offline
coach
S
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
I actually have been reading this - and I've been tempted to post a few times but was concerned anything I write quickly could be perceived as a criticism of one or more clubs. I'll make it clear - I think that CUFC is doing a good thing here for players, parents, coaches, and itself.

I perceive that are three major facets of youth soccer; these are (from most to least important) the players (and their parents), the coaches, and the administrators.

I think that the players (and their parents) are well-served by the CUFC announcement (and the CESA announcement as well.) I’ve always been a broken record on the concept of choice – greater choice, and greater diversity of service offerings, is precisely what South Carolina youth soccer needs. So I applaud CUFC for this.

Likewise, from the coaching perspective, I see the CUFC announcement as a win – although less so just because all it does is shift around opportunities. I actually thought that the YMCA announcement CUFC made was more important with respect to coaching – because it gets at the core issue of getting more kids playing who might not otherwise be playing. But in this announcement an alliance (or partnership, or whatever) between CUFC and Bridge seems positive for coaches.

Finally, the least important group: the administrators. Please note that I am not stating that many (or even most) of these people aren’t important – they’re just not as important as the players, parents, and coaches. I think that the CUFC announcement is absolutely fascinating – a veritable soap opera of shifting interests and alliances.

Emerson once wrote that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” You can’t accuse the CUFC administrators of having small minds – the fact that they lodged complaint after complaint toward CESA and coaches associated with CESA – and even one against my dog “Chico” (hard to believe, but actually a true story) concerning CESA creating first a club in Columbia and then creating alliances/partnerships with clubs in the Columbia area was pretty well documented. This resulted in what was in my opinion the single worst ruling of which I’m aware – the creation out of whole cloth of the “district rule” whereby a player who wanted to play on a team not in their “district” would be forbidden if adding that player would result in over half of the team being from “out of district.” To watch the administrators at CUFC decide to go outside of the USYSA (and thus SCYSA) structure to create teams that can bypass the rule that they themselves so adamantly lobbied for is simply fascinating. I don’t think that anyone can argue that the administrators at CUFC did this “for the kids”; it was a nakedly aggressive and ambitious ploy and I think it helped the club. Despite all of this, I actually think it was pretty clever – although perhaps not possessing quite as much integrity than that for which I might have hoped.

Finally, there’s the SCYSA. I honestly do wonder if the incisive and brilliant minds over there have quite yet made the connection concerning just how all of this has unfolded – that even the club for whom they carried the water and made a ruling against player and parent choice has now elected to go outside of the SCYSA to defeat that ruling. Ironic – in a lemming-like fashion.

In closing, I’ve got to tell you that the SCSYSA’s role in all of this reminds me of an old story. A college professor asked a student if for $1M the student would go on a date. The student enthusiastically agreed. The professor then asked if the student would go on a date for $10. The student indignantly replied “What do you think I am?” The college professor noted that there was no doubt of the answer to that question; that at that point all that was occurring was negotiation.

The SCYSA is a negotiating body. Perhaps there's brilliance in what they do that I just don't get. But if so, I need to stick to "for-profit" companies; the non-profits are just entirely too smart for me.

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
Offline
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
Nice to see you are still out there lurking.

The Lady Wildcats look like they are getting their stride right before play-offs.

Hope you and your family are doing well.


Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,429
B
hat-trick
Offline
hat-trick
B
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,429
Awesome.......does anyone besides me see the rhetorical and literary resemblances between Shibumi and George Will?

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
Offline
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
As in, George Frederick Will, the Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author, who was born in Champaign, Illinois, and eventually graduated from University Laboratory High School of Urbana, Illinois, and attended Trinity College, in Hartford, Connecticut, and is the son of Frederick L. Will and Louise Hendrickson Will, his father being a respected professor of philosophy, specializing in epistemology, at the University of Illinois? Well, sorta...

Page 14 of 15 1 2 12 13 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.048s Queries: 34 (0.018s) Memory: 3.2207 MB (Peak: 3.5861 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 19:44:28 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS