SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP One Club in Columbia

CSC wil never get a cent of mine again.One BIG RIPPOFF taught me & about 7 other parents that lesson!!!!---------- MESSAGE to DAMON HUBERT--Apply for the U-18 CRSA position-The majority of that team could be your old Dreher JV team & you could bring your U- 18 Sumter guys.That would be the most competitive mid-state U-18 team. --On the other hand, I would love to see a Coulumbia merge of this U-18 group with CSC-NECSA-LEX & CRSA but it's probably too late for this year.

What was the CSC "big ripoff" to which you refer?

Would not discuss that on this board but the Pres. of CSC and their VP of boys soccer & their Treas. are aware- with not a response from either!

Guys have you not read anything Spoton writes? Everything is a"ripoff" for him and his kids! NOTHING is ever good enough for him/her and the kids! It is always next year etc!!!! Just let the kids play ans shut up!

Chris

I hear you but not everyone wants to have to drive out Ballentine for sessions and games!!!1 Good luck and best wishes
shearer

My last comment on this merger stuff (that will not happen) is that it is quite apparent that CSC is totally committed to fielding the best teams possible in all ages. With Crosby as DOC, you can see the passion and direction he has for that club. CSC will soon draw the best from CRSA and NECSA, if not this year, then the next. As Tom P. commented, "it is not essential that there be a complete and total merger of clubs....," but I cannot see NECSA, CRSA putting in the time/resources/efforts to compete on the higher level that CSC strives for. NECSA & CRSA may survive; yet their respective clubs will only be a shell of their former selves and only on par with LSC. How do NECSA/CRSA propose to compete against the plans/efforts of CSC?

csc HAS EXCELLENT COACHES.IT'S A $$$$$ THING.

How do CSC fees compare with NECSA/CRSA?

[Warning: Long posting...]

I've read these message boards with interest for quite a while; it was this thread that got me interested enough to register for an account so that I could post. I've been involved in a relatively minor degree in youth soccer programs in multiple states in large cities, and have seen the same issues repeated over and over again. Here's what I perceive to be the case. Clubs can be categorized into two groups: those that want to compete at as high a level as possible and those that do not. Parents can be categorized into two groups: those that care enough to seek out the best team (which is often, but not always, the best coach) for their child and those that do not.

If we constrain our discussion only to clubs that care about competing at a high level, and parents who care enough to seek out the best team, then the discussion becomes simpler. Clubs are organizational structures that should exist solely to service teams (although all too often the bureacracy of the club structure is such that the officials of the club get this reversed). Parents don't care about clubs; they care about teams. Thus the club exist as a mechanism for acquiring and retaining the best coaches. This is often oriented toward pay, but it can also be oriented toward other, more intangible benefits (e.g., flexibility, freedom, etc.).

What often happens in places with more of a mature soccer program is that the number of clubs a community supports is ever-changing, where a great team can spawn a new club or where clubs are merging because of resource inadequacies (e.g., players, money, fields, etc.)

What CSC seems to be doing is representative of this. CFC, which appears to have been founded with the idea of highly competitive girls soccer, merged in order to take advantage of greater resources (note: this is my understanding -- if I'm wrong, please enlighten me). I'm sure that there is going to be a fallout as some parents decide they don't want to drive to Ballentine; however, rather than being a problem this is healthy in that it is a further segmentation of parents into those that care enough about children playing at a higher level of competition and those that do not.

Thus, I think that what "spoton" says about it being all about coaches and money is -- pun intended -- spot on. And I think what "GGG" is asking about how the other clubs plan to compete is also spot on and is the optimal and best reaction in order to make soccer more competitive in this region. Rather than trying to force a "central planning" mentality onto the region (much akin to the former USSR model... ) the competitive model seems to be the best for forming an infrastructure in which the best coaches can form teams and the best teams can learn how to compete nationally.

Many of the hard feelings and confusion occur because clubs and parents aren't willing to confront the actual category in which they reside -- in other words, they want the best teams without paying (either in terms of money or time) or they want a "rec-plus" program that hovers between true recreational play and true competitive play.

I'm not intimately familiar with NECSA and CRSA; however, I do not believe that they are in danger of descending to the level of the average of the four (4!) clubs that are loosely referred to by some as the "LSA" unless they get confused about whether they are trying to be "rec-plus" or whether they truly want to be competitive.

Shibumi:

Welcome to the "conversation". I think your analysis is exactly correct.

I believe many, many families fall into the category of folks who really only want "rec-plus" soccer. Families are pulled in so many directions these days. Many just can't commit the time and resources to a truly competative soccer situation. Doesn't mean that they don't care about soccer or care about the quality of their child's team, just that it is not at the very top of their priority list.

Just as some very talented recreational players who COULD play on a classic team, CHOOSE not to, I think there will be many players who COULD play for CSC but will choose not to.

The reasons why players choose not to play for a more competative team include convenience; where their friends play; or some dislike for the competative team's club, coach, etc. There are lots of reasons why very good players might choose to continue playing at clubs other than the most competative. And that is ok.

Same reasons why the soccer landscape is so fluid. Takes very little for a player or group of players to change teams, change clubs, form new clubs, etc.

In general, a case can be made that more clubs is better for soccer as a whole. The more clubs there are, the more chance for parents to shape the club to meet their specific needs.

All of this having been said, I am still willing to talk about a merger or formation of a new club. A new club that fields ONLY challenge cup teams, leaving existing clubs to handle recreation and classic cup teams (basically "rec-plus" could have some advantages if the details could be worked out.

Good post Shibumi. The point I made about NECSA/CRSA becoming very average clubs, was made for 2 reasons: 1)CRSA has no young teams at all and therefore, no ongoing development of players. 2)NECSA has average,younger teams, but when the best players begin to migrate towards CSC, then the talent level will slowly drop off. It will be very difficult to compete with CSC with its superior resources and mission to produce the best teams throughout all age groups. When you are able to provide exceptional training and instruction from U-10 on up, then naturally you will produce the best teams as the players advance in your program. I would rather see the combination of efforts now, so as to avoid the slow demise of talent in NECSA/CRSA. By sharing resources, talented coaches, fields, organizational skills now, a more unified and focused soccer program for Columbia will result.