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

[Warning: Long post…but one in which I try to lay out the argument…I promise to try my best to post more tersely and concisely about this subject in the future…]

Coach P: thank you for this incredibly wonderful message and thank you for taking the time to read and post. I think that you are in the “informed majority” with respect to one big “meta-club” (whether it’s virtual or physical) and that I’m in the minority – and in the case of me, it’s probably the “ignorant minority”.

The arguments for mergers and central planning are often very compelling. And there are absolutely cases in which they work. However, in my experience, these are the minority of cases. The primary advantage of mergers and central planning is the concept of synergy: what one wag in the late 1990’s called “1 + 1 = 3”. This synergy is typically broken down into supplier-side efficiencies (e.g., greater buying power), internal efficiencies (e.g., less money for administrative tasks and more money for the doers (e.g., coaches)), and market-side efficiencies (e.g., greater market share translating into stuff like greater pricing power). As you note, the buying power would be increased, uniforms, field rentals, etc. Internal efficiencies probably are not much of a factor with volunteers and the like doing administrative work, but it could be better. And market-side efficiencies should be increased because each corporate entity is approached once and is more likely to donate because of a bigger player base.

I mentioned once the USSR as a straw man of how badly central planning works. I admit, it’s a bit hackneyed to use this example. But the corporate world is littered with examples of why mergers and central planning don’t work as well as people think that they would. Just a few examples range from AOL/Time Warner, Compaq/Digital, AT&T/NCR. I’m not saying that mergers never work; just that it’s more of the exception than the rule (note: obviously, with my beliefs, I do not and will not own HP equity at this time!)

Here’s what people often miss: it’s typically much easier to work in, lead, manage, and buy from a smaller focused organization with a clear goal/mission than it is to do the same in a larger organization with competing constituencies and factions and an unclear or disagreed upon mission/goal. The term “much easier” is beguiling because you can measure saved supplier costs but it’s more difficult to measure the costs of increased complexity.

However, I think that there’s an even more important factor at play here. As many people have stated, the central concept should be about serving players. What we’re discussing in this thread for the most part is supporting those players and their parents that are in the minority – that care passionately about winning on a state, regional, and national level. These players and their supporting parents are willing to sacrifice resources to play for the best team and the best coach. This is the reason that I’ve stated often that at least for these types of players and parents that the coach/team is the central issue and that the club exists only to serve these coaches as the embodiment of the team. In some clubs, the boards exist to serve the players; what I am arguing is that this model changes when the constituency is highly competitive players and supporting parents and instead the boards have to exist to serve the coaches. The coaches have to then serve the players and parents; otherwise, the players “vote with their feet” and leave.

The highly controversial analogy that I can make concerns the current vouchers issue. The two most widely discussed views on vouchers are that they will take away from badly needed public school revenue versus that they will introduce a much needed element of competition in public schools and give students/parents more control because of choice.

My position on this is probably rather clear given the position I’ve taken on soccer clubs. But I don’t want to argue vouchers; instead, I want to just use this as an analogy for what I’m trying to present. I would rather have an existing club (if possible) or a new club (if needed) clearly define that they have a goal/mission of being competitive at a state, regional, and national level and that everything else that they do is in service of that mission. Does this mean that recreation or recreation+ programs couldn’t be supported? Absolutely not; instead, it means that these programs would be run in service of player development to accomplish the mission/goal of the club.

I’ve seen people talk about the current clubs and DOC’s and existing coaches not sharing players and the like. But the truth is that for the type of highly competitive players and their supporting parents that you need to achieve this type of mission, the issue is not the club or DOC or existing coach; instead, it is whether a player/parent becomes convinced in their own “selfish best interest” that they should move to a different coach/team. Bluntly, the players/parents are already in control at this level of competition; the clubs are not.

What I believe needs to be done is rather than attempt to coerce area players/parents into playing on a centralized team, instead offer the player/parent a better and more differentiated product in the form of better coaches and thus better teams. Of course, better coaches will cost resources; but I believe that there is a largely untapped market that is willing to pay more for a better product (i.e., a better coach and team). And please note, as I’ve stated before, I do not believe that the use of the term “better coach” means our existing coaches are bad; I think that the provision of greater resource to our existing coaches is a wonderful first step to having “better coaches”.

To all of you who are tired of this subject and believe that it’s just talking and that nothing will be done differently – well, you could be right. However, in this competitive model, we do not need all of the clubs to cooperate; we need either one existing club to establish our mission/goal or we need to create a new club. Either is okay with me.

So, in all seriousness, does anyone know where one might find at least 20 acres and as much as 100 acres that is far enough out of Columbia to be reasonably priced ($2000 to $5000 per acre)?

WARNING?WARNING!! ---Excessive thoughts from a fervent, passionate soccer fan---
This is my absolute last, final post/comment on this topic!! (Yeah right!) Many great ideas and thoughts have been proposed on this merger/non-merger issue and I applaud all who are making the efforts to at least create the discussion that has never occurred to this extent in an open forum. There is obviously much interest/desire that something be done about the local soccer environment in Cola and surrounding area. And at least that interest is conveying the notion that we no longer want the status quo which produces basically the same results among the clubs year after year. As a staunch, fervent supporter of the type of central system in effect at CASL and other clubs, I believe that the one club approach will greatly provide much for a lot of players; whether they are Rec, Classic,Challenge, Premier. This system will not harm or adversely impact on the vibrant Rec leagues in the area. NECSA/CSC/LSC and others will still be involved in Rec programs and the development of players who may subsequently move to the more advanced system of play offered by the central club. Or, you can have a program like CASL, which encompasses all divisions of play, including Rec. Their club presents all levels of play to suit any player. And aren't we about the size of Raleigh?? This fall may be a good barometer for any future discussions of possible 'mergers' as CSC is stepping forward and out into the community with a new, energetic DOC, which proposes to produce some of the best teams in the state. If CSC succeeds this fall, do the other clubs NECSA/CRSA/LSC join with them in the Spring? Or do the better players at CRSA/NECSA begin their trek over to Ballentine to play with the best? Or do CRSA/NECSA stay put and just continue to produce reasonable, average teams? If CRSA/NECSA just stay put in their own little soccer worlds,(after the better players leave for CSC), then they will truly not be competitive with CSC, and possibly not competitive with Aiken and Charleston/Coastal teams. I do believe that the end result of a merger/one club venture would produce: 1) consolidation of soccer resources/coaches/training/instruction. 2)high level state/regional teams 3) higher level, more skilled players for their respective high school teams 4)A more unified, less fractional approach to soccer development in Cola area.
Or, do I have to create my own ONE MAN MERGER and take on all comers on the pitch 11 v.1? Of course by that time, maybe there will be a mercy rule in place and I will have to play 11 v. 1 for only a half!!!

I have read with much interest the debates that have been presented here concerning a "larger, more centralized club" in Columbia.

I certainly support a club that would offer the highest caliber players an opportunity to compete against the state and region's best teams. But that only accounts for maybe 3-5% of the players in a given age group. It's the other 95% of the kids that I'm concerned with.

The "old" Columbia Metropolitan Soccer Association (CMSA 1993-95) idea was to have the local clubs (NECSA, Irmo, Chapin, Congaree, Trenholm, Lexington, etc.) train/develop the average players, while CMSA would take the top-level players in Columbia and compete at the highest level possible.

This partially worked as not all clubs were willing to "give up" their top players and try to compete with lesser players. Also, many of the smaller clubs couldn't afford to lose 2-3 players off their individual teams and keep their teams intact due to numbers.

Another point that dogged CMSA was the inability to secure a field/facility for training and match play. Most fields in the area are governed by recreation commissions and are reluctant to open up much use (or control) to classic league soccer clubs. I think the fact that CSC and NECSA have soccer facilities at their disposal (due to hard work and commitment) give them the biggest advantage in the Columbia region.

Until all the key members of the clubs coordinate an effort to work together and secure facilities for a mega-clubs use, I think much of this is simply wishful thinking. Sorry gogogoal and Shibumi.

Wishful thinking is right,Kevin.Speaking of wishful thinking,heard any more about Damon Hubert for the U-18s?That could be the superior mid-state team.

Dreaming and wish-ful thinking is where it has to all begin...... You have to dream and imagine the possibilities for the future of club soccer in Cola.

Thanks tremendously for posting, Mr. Heise. A few, very respectful, questions. Please forgive me up front for any and all of my ignorance that I display.

>>I certainly support a club that would offer the highest caliber players an opportunity to compete against the state and region's best teams.<<

It’s kind of a Mom and apple pie thing though, right? Everyone would “support” it; the question is whether people think it’s an important enough thing to actually proactively do something about.

My real question to you, however, is why you aren’t screaming for this to occur and trying daily to make it occur? You are involved in coaching high school soccer in this area; wouldn’t such a team be a great boon to you and other high school coaches? If it would be a boon, and you’d win from it, why wouldn’t you be striving to make it happen rather than dismissing it?

There was an article in an Anderson paper recently concerning dual participation between upper state high schools and the Greenville Futbol Club. I believe you posted the link in another group on May 5. It was amazing to me the advantages that the high school coaches gained from advanced club play – I was particularly blown away by the fact that the GFC had a girls team playing against Clemson, South Carolina, Wake Forest, etc. This is certainly the top 3%-5%.

>>It's the other 95% of the kids that I'm concerned with.<<

Why? With NECSA’s fields, and the new Lexington fields, with the overwhelming focus by clubs on this 95%, and with your role as a high school coach taking the best players available you’re your district for your high school team, why are these the kids that you’re concerned with? Is there something that isn’t being done for recreational soccer players that needs to be done that isn’t being done?

>> […deleted material concerning CMSA and it’s two major problems: getting players from existing teams and fields…]<<

I completely agree with this after corresponding with others in this thread; it is clear to me that this concept of “centralized club” is flawed. I know others don’t agree with me here, but that’s the best conclusion I’ve been able to draw. And it’s also clear to me that without fields controlled by a club that has as a primary mission competing at a state, regional, and national level, that this is not feasible.

>>Until all the key members of the clubs coordinate an effort to work together and secure facilities for a mega-clubs use, I think much of this is simply wishful thinking. Sorry gogogoal and Shibumi.<<

Respectfully, I think that this coordination is wishful thinking. It’s been tried before and failed, as you eloquently noted previously, and no one has as yet figured out how to make this work as a win/win for the “local club” and “meta-club”. It seems to me that this means an existing club or a new club would have to handle it.

The GFC and St. Giles model seems appropriate; as opposed to failures such as the CMSA, this model can be demonstrated as working. They appear to quite unapologetically be trying to have a club that does a great job supporting the “top 5%”. They are represented quite disproportionately in state leagues; and I know I see them in some of the best out of state tournaments as well.

I wanted to re-post an earlier post I made on this subject because for some reason all the responses here indicate that the 'central club monster' only will be for a small percentage of players 3-5 %. That is NOT it at all. The central club will benefit all players: rec, classic, challenge, premier. Or, you can have a club that does not include rec. and let them continue their successes on their respective levels at Trenholm Park, NECSA, CSC,LSC, etc. NO ONE wants to do this for one simple reason-- the respective club egos. No one wants to 'give up' their neat little, comfy club for the benefit of Cola. area-wide soccer. Some comments have said that CSC would not cooperate and participate in central club because they are now establishing their own 'monster club', and will just wait til all other clubs join them in 'their quest' for the best soccer. I have even heard that CSC plans to use CRSA,NECSA and some other area fields for training and practice in order to accomodate their city or east-side players. So....either you join in CSC's quest or you develop your own. Assuming that CSC is gonna 'do their own thing', then what about CRSA/NECSA/LSC considering a merger (sorry for that dirty merger word). You would then have access to many fields/facilities for training. I am sure NECSA/CRSA players would not mind traveling once a week to Lexington for training/instruction and then train another day or two on their area fields. NECSA/CRSA need practice fields desparately. They are there...... waiting at LSC. I believe NECSA/CRSA would consider a 'merger' with LSC rather than just falling in line with CSC because there appears to be some degree of dislike for that 'famous Irmo attitude' and bleached hair. I don't believe there is that much dislike for LSC.
So......
NECSA/CRSA/LSC PLEASE consider the possibilities.
Cola. area could easily support two strong clubs in Cola., just as Greenville does with St. Giles and GFC.
I will stop now and wait for all of you to shoot down this proposal...yet again. Oh..and one last comment to Shibumi. I do believe that the more competititive you make Club soccer in Cola., the more successful high school teams you will have in your area. Imagine if you had a few players play on a premier team and that competition they face; and then they return in the spring to play high school ball. They will be dominate players. But if those players play average, satisfactory club ball against average state teams, they will possibly be average high school players. They will not have attained their maximum potential.
Prior Post follows:
May 05, 2003 09:14 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING?WARNING!! ---Excessive thoughts from a fervent, passionate soccer fan---
This is my absolute last, final post/comment on this topic!! (Yeah right!) Many great ideas and thoughts have been proposed on this merger/non-merger issue and I applaud all who are making the efforts to at least create the discussion that has never occurred to this extent in an open forum. There is obviously much interest/desire that something be done about the local soccer environment in Cola and surrounding area. And at least that interest is conveying the notion that we no longer want the status quo which produces basically the same results among the clubs year after year. As a staunch, fervent supporter of the type of central system in effect at CASL and other clubs, I believe that the one club approach will greatly provide much for a lot of players; whether they are Rec, Classic,Challenge, Premier. This system will not harm or adversely impact on the vibrant Rec leagues in the area. NECSA/CSC/LSC and others will still be involved in Rec programs and the development of players who may subsequently move to the more advanced system of play offered by the central club. Or, you can have a program like CASL, which encompasses all divisions of play, including Rec. Their club presents all levels of play to suit any player. And aren't we about the size of Raleigh?? This fall may be a good barometer for any future discussions of possible 'mergers' as CSC is stepping forward and out into the community with a new, energetic DOC, which proposes to produce some of the best teams in the state. If CSC succeeds this fall, do the other clubs NECSA/CRSA/LSC join with them in the Spring? Or do the better players at CRSA/NECSA begin their trek over to Ballentine to play with the best? Or do CRSA/NECSA stay put and just continue to produce reasonable, average teams? If CRSA/NECSA just stay put in their own little soccer worlds,(after the better players leave for CSC), then they will truly not be competitive with CSC, and possibly not competitive with Aiken and Charleston/Coastal teams. I do believe that the end result of a merger/one club venture would produce: 1) consolidation of soccer resources/coaches/training/instruction. 2)high level state/regional teams 3) higher level, more skilled players for their respective high school teams 4)A more unified, less fractional approach to soccer development in Cola area.
Or, do I have to create my own ONE MAN MERGER and take on all comers on the pitch 11 v.1? Of course by that time, maybe there will be a mercy rule in place and I will have to play 11 v. 1 for only a half!!!