SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Shibumi

You have some VERY interesting posts out here? I'm not asking who you are but what your realationship with the Columbia soccer scene is! Thanks for the inspiring posts and keep them coming!
shearer

Here you go Shearer. How about your boy being done for the season?

Just did a little investigating on google. Don't know if this is right, but it made sense - http://www.mindamp.com/CEO.htm

WOW freaky! Hey hammer I have but one word for you NATIONWIDE!!!!!!!!! At least my team isn't done for the year! Maybe you'll have a good FA cup run so you can play in some EPL pitches! NOW your dead!

Shearer -- thanks for the kind words. Since you asked, and since there is speculation out there on this thread since you posted this, I’ll be glad to tell you the odyssey that led me to these postings and let you know who I am. However, I’ll warn you up front – this will be a long, and probably very boring, post in which I take you through the personal trip that got me to where I am.

I actually am no one in the Columbia soccer scene; I just have a daughter (Kira Campbell) that plays for ODP-90 and the Lexington United U-13 and before that played for the Lexington Amazons (the team that won the challenge cup state championship in 2001 in their division). I took the screen name “Shibumi” from a book I read some years ago; it’s a Japanese term and doesn’t mean anything in this context other than I liked the book. I wasn’t trying to hide my identify; I just thought that my identity wasn’t very important.

I've been studying Columbia soccer for a few years now trying to understand it. In my posts, my few critical words are for the Lexington club – in particular the girls club. This isn't personal; in fact, I'm extremely thrilled with the Lexington team my daughter plays on and I believe her current coach is absolutely fantastic. In fact, I think that we’ve been blessed personally with a few good coaches in the years here in Lexington. And I've never had a problem with any club because of the typical stuff -- playing time, money, too much travel, etc. So I guess I'm not the typical disgruntled parent -- I'm more of an interested observer trying to figure out how to replicate what my daughter has been fortunate enough to find for all of the girls in this area.

When I first began trying to understand the Columbia soccer environment, I came to the same conclusions that many did -- that there were just too many clubs. The more I tried to understand it, the more confused I became. So I've spent a lot of time talking to various people about the current club situation; basically listening and trying to understand. My wife several months ago finally got me to begin reading this message board. I never planned on posting until the "one club" subject came up -- and I only posted regarding it because I had come to the conclusion that the basic problem was ***not*** too many clubs. I came to this conclusion after having the opportunity to watch a lot of Atlanta players over the summer and watching top Atlanta teams in various tournaments. What I saw was that the disparity of talent that I’ve heard so much about wasn’t nearly as large as I thought it was. These teams are incredibly fundamentally sound at the team level – and the individuals, while well schooled, match up against the best I’ve seen on South Carolina teams.

By the way – for at least anecdotal evidence of this – as Paul Armstrong posted a few months ago -- in a highly competitive tournament held in Florida (with several state championship teams competing and very large brackets) two SC U-13 girls teams ended up in the championship with the very, very good one from the upper part of the state winning on PK’s.

The more I looked into this overall situation, the more I became convinced that the real issue was not that the players in South Carolina weren’t good enough, or that there were too small a talent pool from which to draw, or that there were too many clubs. Instead, I became convinced that the real problem with South Carolina soccer was that the level of coaching needed to be improved through the provision of greater resources to our coaches and that some clubs did not have a clearly defined mission that could be objectively judged. I actually believe that the mission/goal issue is more important in the long run because if you get that right then getting the best coaches with the right resources becomes an operational issue. I think that the coaching issue isn’t because we have bad coaches; but rather because in many cases we’re not giving the coaches the resources that they need to be the best.

In my zeal I then tried to “put my money where my mouth was” – I tried to donate money to the team my daughter played for and began to talk to some companies to do the same. The reasoning was simple: if you want better coaching, then you need to get the coach and the team better resources. I found I couldn’t donate the kinds of sums that I thought would make a difference – the team was not registered appropriately (i.e., a non-profit with the right federal identification). The people who help run the team then tried for months to make this happen, but it was blocked (or just not assisted) at the club level. So far, I’ve not donated a cent despite months of trying.

At that point some additional issues concerning coaching resources and the spirit of the club began being debated. All of this simply further exacerbated my concern with respect to coaches, particularly girls coaches in Lexington, having the full resources needed to consistently build competitive teams at state, regional, and national levels.

Now, for everyone who has made it this far that believes that I should shut up and just switch to another club, let me make it clear. First, I do not believe that players and secondarily their parents choose clubs – they choose teams. Secondly, as I mentioned before, we are incredibly happy with the team and coach for whom my daughter plays. I would just like to see other children, and in particular, other girls, be able to play highly competitive soccer in the future. This is the reason that I praised CSC/CFC; I’m hoping that perhaps they can together marshal the resources to have highly competitive regional and national teams at younger levels because I believe starting when a child is in high school is a bit late. My daughter is taken care of at this time; she’s getting what I consider to be one of the best coaches around. I’d just like to see that be able to be done at a club level, and not just through heroic action by a few girls teams.

And I’m not trying to change the world here to make Lexington soccer better than any other club. The reason I asked in other threads what the mission was of various clubs was that I was trying to understand if there were really clubs that had made a strategic decision to defer to other clubs competitively. If Lexington girls’ classic club is such a club, and that is clearly the objective, then it’s not bad – it’s just a fact. But if it is a fact then I want it articulated clearly so that I can then understand how serious the combined CSC/CFC is about highly competitive younger girls soccer – because without that, I know that trying to be the best in older groups is going to be very tough.

So what am I doing on these message boards? I’m still trying to learn about the overall situation. I do not believe that what I think that I know constitutes any final truth – rather, it’s simply a subjective view into a very complex situation. Eventually, after I learn enough, I’ll be able to perhaps make a difference – but for now, I’m just learning and I find the best way to learn after listening for a while is to form opinions, present them honestly and openly, and then let others disagree with you so that you can learn from them. I appreciate the time that some folks have taken on this board helping me learn. I realize that some folks get on these boards every time someone posts something critical and talks about “club bashing”; but unless people are willing to discuss what they believe and other people are willing to listen and respond, it’s not clear to me how we’ll leave this situation and get any better.

Great post Shibumi! You seem like a parent who's truly interested in helping your daughter succeed at soccer, without being overbearing. You also appear to be interested in building a girls soccer legacy in the Columbia/Lexington area. I wish you good luck with that.

I have 2 daughters who have played club soccer in the Columbia area for many years. My 16 year old plays for Dutch Fork, but my 18 year old gave up soccer a few years ago, mostly because she had no continuity of teams from 1 year to the next.

Since we moved to the Irmo area from Charlotte 8 years ago, we've struggled with the whole girls soccer scene in the area. Not knowing where to start, we began playing on Rec teams from the Irmo/Chapin Rec Dept. Then, we got them onto Mid-Carolina Girls Soccer Association teams (Nightmares) for a few years. When that club merged/folded, we moved them to CSC for a few years, then to CFC, and now it looks like we'll be back with CSC this Fall.

As you accurately stated in your post, we never selected a "club", we sought out the best "team" we could find in our age group each year. Every year after the high school season ends, we start over again trying to figure our where the best teams and coaches will end up during the upcoming Fall Season and where the majority of girls from our school team will play. This year will be no different. Once again, we'll be changing clubs. Not by choice, but because there is no long-term commitment to girls soccer by clubs in the Irmo area. CFC seemed like a good idea, but a lack of facilities and coaching depth could only last for so long. I'd like to think that we'll be able to stay with CSC for the rest of my daughter's soccer "career", but if history is our guide, we'll be forced to change clubs again before she's done.

She won't benefit from club consolidation, but if other younger girls can, then that would be great. CSC seems to have the best shot at long-term stability, simply because of their facilities. If they can get their best players and coaches to stay put for a while, then they will have gone a long way towards improving girls soccer in the Columbia area for many years to come.

I have really enjoyed these recent, well-thought-out, "calm" postings. Here and in other threads.

I've been on the NECSA board of directors for about 8 years. What I am about to write are my thoughts and observations, not an "official" NECSA position/response.

I agree that the "mission" question is very important, but also very complicated.

We had about 1600 recreation players in the Fall of 2002 and something over 300 classic players. While there might not be 1900 different opinions on what our club's mission should be, there are certainly many different opinions. Trying to reach a concensus is, I believe, nearly impossible.

One way to serve the different needs of our members is to provide two soccer alternatives: a recreational program and a classic program. On the positive side, this allows parents and players to make some choices. On the negative side, it can sometimes lead to internal conflicts between the two programs. Recreation parents and players sometimes resent classic "elitism" (not really a word?), resent losing good players to classic teams, etc. Classic parents and players sometimes do develop "superior attitudes", etc. The trick is to keep everything in balance so that the club can function.

We have tried to further increase the number of options by putting together multiple classic teams at a given age level (if the numbers and talent level justify). This allows us to field an "A" team and a "B" team so that "marginal" players still get classic team competition and training and can have time to improve. This works very well because a child who is a marginal 12 year-old player can turn into a great 16 year-old player. The down-side is that sometimes players really like the "B" team coach or their "B" teammates and won't play for the "A" team even if talent-wise they should. Again, the trick is to keep things in balance.

One of the problems with missions is that we operate in a very budget-constrained environment. We try to have the best facilities and the best coaches that we can buy with the funds that we have available. I understand that in theory, you should set your mission first and then go get the money to fulfill the mission, but when a club is staffed and managed by volunteers, it is difficult to maintain the long-term effort needed to make that process happen. So, what comes first, the mission or the money? Sometimes we make progress, sometimes we take a step back.

So, what is NECSA's mission? To provide our members with the best soccer experience we can. For recreation teams, that means a safe, enjoyable experience. If we can teach them the game and improve their skills along the way, great. For our classic teams, that means trying to put together the most competative teams we can, given our level of resources and to provide the best environment for them to improve their soccer skills, over the long-term.

Do we accomplish our mission? Sometimes. Do we make mistakes as a club? Sometimes. Do we make everyone happy? Never.

Mr. P & Shibumi,
Good, valid, concrete comments about the state of local soccer in Cola. There are hard answers for the soccer environment in Cola., with all the various needs and wants among the coaches,clubs,parents,players. I believe many of my prior comments were too idealistic, in that, I sought a utopian soccer merger in Cola. to serve and benefit all players/coaches/parents needs and wants. But, from reading the many responses here, I believe and sense a fear of the GREAT MONSTER CLUB. Thats why I suggested that this area look at CASL and its organization in Raleigh. It provides a lot for all levels of play. No matter where your child is in his/her soccer development,
that club offers every type of training/instruction/coaching to meet your respective needs/wants. But it appears that that is not the type of club setting that is desired in Cola. I really believe that associations/boards greatly fear they would lose their respective 'power' and 'local feel' of the neat, comfortable club program. Again, I say that this approach continues to divide the soccer pool talent in too many areas. But, I have been in the Cola. area for 34 years and I know that for this area, change is very difficult. Look how long it took to get a Hockey team, when Florence/Greenville had it so long. A Baseball field in the Vista would be a tremendous hit, but people are scared of that. The Rolling Stones could not play in Williams Brice? The Panthers could not share the stadium for one season? Cola is just not as progressive in many areas of entertainment. But, I digress. I think we need to be progressive for our kids and want the best for our kids in soccer. So far, only CSC is stepping forward and saying we will be progressive, forward-thinking and involved in the future of Cola area soccer. And I know their mindset is to just wait til all the area clubs join in its mission and travel on out to Ballentine. I just wish that NECSA/CRSA would see the need to move forward while their respective clubs have talent/coaches/organization and possibly consider a mini-merger. These too clubs are fairly close together and draw from the same general area of players; and not the 'bleached blonde cuties' from Irmo. BUT, no I have said that dirty word 'merger' again......So I will end my epistle.

GGG:

Just one comment--there is no "power" involved in being a board member. None. Zip.

The people I know are on our board because they are willing to contribute their time. Most did not want, nor seek the board position. They were drafted and would hand over the "power" in a heart-beat if someone else volunteered.

We get b-tched at for almost every decision because someone in or out of the club does not agree. It is very frustrating.

On the other hand, I can stand at the Polo Road fields on a Saturday and watch 1600 kids having a good time and know that I had a small part in making that possible. Ok, so maybe being on the board is very powerful.

Shimbumi
Thank you! I hope your ideas are heard by the powers that be and you get the help you need! Resources are at a premium in Lex County! It is a lot like if you build it they will come theory! But thanks for the answer and thoughts!
shearer

Thomas,

Your recent post contained some "spot-on" observations that I personally have experienced with my club recently:

>The people I know are on our board because they are willing to contribute their time. Most did not want, nor seek the board position. They were drafted and would hand over the "power" in a heart-beat if someone else volunteered.

We get b-tched at for almost every decision because someone in or out of the club does not agree. It is very frustrating.

On the other hand, I can stand at the Polo Road fields on a Saturday and watch 1600 kids having a good time and know that I had a small part in making that possible. Ok, so maybe being on the board is very powerful.

--------------------
Thomas Pietras
>

Man , can I relate to this! The last sentence brought a lasting smile to my face - it's about kids playing a game isn't it? At many different levels. I have been fortunate to work with players all the way from the casual Rec player to High School hopeful to someone like Shibumi's daughter (very coachable with incredible drive and determination to excel!) and when I see them succeeding at each one's own level - it makes it all worth it! Thanks again!

ThomasPietras: thank you tremendously for the insightful message. I agree that the “mission” issue is very complicated and think that you did a superb job illustrating just why that is. But I also think that you did a fantastic job in your post of illustrating the core challenges facing many of the clubs today. I’m going to take your message and elaborate on it as I understand it; if I say something that you perceive to be critical or just plain ignorant please forgive me up front – it is unintentional.

From your illustration of NECSA, you have 1600 recreational players and 300 classic players. Of those classic players, you can further subdivide them into “serious” and “rec-plus” classic players (we can also use the official terms of challenge and classic, but what I am trying to get across here is not the official designation but rather an attitude of the player and supporting parents). This means that there are really three groups: the 1600 recreational players and then the two groups of subdivided 300 classic “serious” and “rec-plus” players.

Given this, I can well understand that consensus is probably almost always impossible. I can also understand who will typically win in conflicts. It has to be usually the recreational player group, just because of the sheer size of the player pool. Now, because the recreational player group and the classic groups are not diametrically opposed to one another, this doesn’t mean it’s a simple win/lose proposition. But it does seem to mean that win push comes to shove, that if I were on NECSA’s board I would tend to be biased toward the recreational program because that’s where most of my constituency was as well as a proportionally higher income stream.

I absolutely believe that the current clubs that support recreational play are doing a great job for the recreational player. And I think that this is an absolutely important thing to do and it must be done. I in no way want to dismiss that task; in fact, in reading your message it’s clear that you take enormous pride in it and even though I’m not from the area that NECSA serves, I am quite grateful to you for your work in making this happen.

Does this mean that NECSA can’t field a great classic team, or a great set of classic teams? Absolutely not; from what I hear, NECSA does very well. I don’t know any statistics, but I’m sure that NECSA teams win their share of challenge and classic titles and various local tournaments.

The problem arises when we start deciding trying to imagine how we might enable a greater number of children to be able to participate at the most elite level. One possible way of stating this in the most practical terms is how can increase the number of players from this area that are recruited by top division 1 universities. To do this, we are going to have to have teams that are able to be competitive not just at a state level but at a regional and national level. We are also going to have to have a supporting infrastructure that promotes an environment in which children can become immersed in an advanced soccer culture. Seem impossible in Columbia? I don’t think so; the basketball culture is an example where the area does quite well.

The thread that pulled me into this was the “one club in Columbia” thread. Later, I’m going to post more on that thread concerning some of the recent activity there. But suffice it to say I am not convinced (at least yet) that a “meta-club” is the answer. Now, it may very well be the answer, but the problem with collectivism and central planning is that they look great on paper but don’t work very well in practice. So what I’m trying to understand are the different models. You did a great job of outlining some of the challenges that recreational/classic combined clubs face. At the same time, there appears to be a consensus that a more fragmented approach (e.g., Lexington’s approach, where you have different clubs for classic and recreation) does not automatically work any better and in fact appears to work worse in this one example.

It still seems to me that coaches are the key. If I want the best coach available, it seems to me that I have to be willing to pay with some resource (e.g., money, driving time, tournament time, and the like). Thus, it seems to me that the right answer must involve supporting these coaches in some fashion. It may be that a meta-club is the right way to do it – or it may be that existing clubs need to ask more of the parents/players involved in their most challenging classic programs and pick and choose which age groups and genders will receive the most focus. But however you do it, if you’re going to try to build a regionally and nationally competitive team I think you’re going to have to start with the mission first. The reason is embedded in your note: unless you do, you’re not going to attract the types of players, parents, volunteers, board members, corporate sponsors, and the like that you will need to in order to get sufficient resources (quality and quantity) to make this happen.

As a postscript, responding to your responses to others – from my time serving on boards of a few small companies, I know that it can be a thankless job in which the only rewards are the results that you see over time. So let me again emphasize the respect that I have for what you are doing and the challenges that you face. The questions I’m asking and what I’m searching for will never impact the sheer number of players that you support in your recreational programs – and I absolutely believe that you and your fellow board members are having a tremendous impact on our community through your service.

GGG: I really appreciate the time and energy you are putting into this thread and appreciate what you are saying. We have both taken positions here and it seems to me that we are both working hard to understand each other. I want to use this message as an opportunity to try to “increase the contrast” on what I think that we’re both saying, and to say what I believe in a way that may allow us to agree rather than agree to disagree.

I do fear the “GREAT MONSTER CLUB”, but I think I fear it for a different set of reasons than some might. I do not fear at all “mini-mergers” and as you have noted I’ve applauded what I think that CSC and CFC are doing (although one posting on another thread said something that made me wonder what the terms were since it questioned whether a “full merger” would occur – but that’s another subject). I love the idea of different clubs merging because they see the need for resources that they can’t get alone to achieve some mission that they have set for themselves.

What I fear is central planning and bureaucracy. While I don’t have experience with soccer boards, I have a lot of experience with very large companies and thousands of people in competing and cooperating divisions. And I have seen all too often committees take the place of clearly defined missions and goals – and I’ve seen what I considered to be very good companies fail to meet their objectives because of that.

So here’s where I think that we can agree. I have no problem at all, and in fact would welcome, a single club that had as its highest priority competing on a regional and national level. If we merge all of the clubs together, I don’t think that this will happen – instead, what will happen is that the recreation side will overwhelm everything else. And a “virtual club” that somehow incorporates other clubs seems to me to be a bit complex. Instead, if you had a single club that had as its goal this level of competition, and it executed correctly (i.e., winning and supporting player development to the university level), then I believe that what would happen is that it would attract precisely the type of player and supporting parent that would drive an extra thirty minutes, stay at practice, pay the coaches more, buy better uniforms, go to more tournaments, and the like.

And although I haven’t touched on this subject before, but plan to in the future, this would possibly allow us to increase the talent pool beyond that of other much larger cities by building “scholarship” programs for players and their parents who are excluded from classic soccer by the costs involved. To me, better utilization of the existing talent in Columbia is the most exciting thing that could happen – widening soccer’s reach beyond where it is now such that it is more inclusive could be a huge win.

AK: one note regarding “it’s about kids playing a game, isn’t it”. I know that many parents have many different views of competitive sports. But for some players, competitive sports are a way to get into a university that they couldn’t get into without the sports (note: not just a USC or Clemson but even a Stanford). For some parents, competitive sports are the best way to prepare their children for a life in a very competitive world – particularly sports such as soccer, in which both individual performance and team performance, cooperation and competition, and the like are so much like life.

Today’s school system rewards children primarily for following rules, in most cases a very rigid set of rules. I think this is tremendously important. But competitive sports, particularly team-based competitive sports, teach children lessons in a more fluid environment in which adaptability and flexibility are incredibly important.

Each child has an inherent capability to perform, and I do not believe that each child should be pushed to perform at an arbitrary level. To me, it doesn’t matter whether it’s “recreation” or “challenge” – that’s up to the child. But a child learning to do her or his best, a child learning to push herself or himself to get better, a child learning to compete with a teammate for a position one day and cooperate with that teammate the next day to win a game, a child giving everything she or he has and learning to handle the misery of losing and the joy of winning and the self satisfaction of leaving everything out on the field – that’s what I think it’s all about.

It's been a busy week in the CPA biz. Haven't had much time for soccer.

Very interesting reading in the comments above.

First, let me repeat what I've said in other threads. If people want to sit down, face-to-face and talk about mergers, I will be there to reprsent NECSA. I am not an avid advocate of mergers, but I'm willing to talk and take a plan to our board.

About a month ago, I posted all of my telephone numbers. I've had no calls, which tells me that consolidation of clubs may be supported in theory, but not in practice.

In all of the conversations in this and in other threads, we have tended to focus on the advantages/disads of mergers vs a club or couple of clubs "stepping up" their efforts to be competitive. All of the ideas center around ways to consistently create the most competative teams.

Another point of view is that the clubs are irrelevant. I think Shibumi has stated this pretty clearly. Teams and coaches are what matter.

My boys have all played on classic teams and one thing I have learned is that clubs and coaches do not really control players.

If a team has a "good" coach (more about "good" coaches later) and manages to get a "critical mass" of talented players, the team will naturally draw other talented players regardless of the club or the geography. Talented coaches and talented teammates draw other talent.

There are no REAL barriers to forming elite, competative teams, even in the current Midlands market. I am familiar with examples from NECSA (Galaxy, Storm), but you can see the same thing with the current CSC u-15 team. I am sure there are many other examples.

I guess, the question I would like to explore here is: "what can we do within the current club structures to facilitate the formation of more competitive teams?"

Not sure I know the answer, but one thing that would help is if people would just keep in mind that competing with another club/team on the pitch is not the same as "hating those guys". Far too often, I've heard players, but more importantly parents, talking about other clubs in really hateful terms. This "poisons the water" and makes it a bit more difficult for players to change clubs. Would help if folks would just tone it down a bit.

Another thing that would help is if coaches would truly keep the best interest of players in mind and would direct them to other clubs or teams if it would mean a better chance for them "being seen". I know, I know. Easier said than done.

What else could we do to help the formation of these "elite" teams?

Just a "side" thought.

My experience is that defining who a "good" coach is, is difficult.

My boys played for guys who I thought were very good coaches for U11 players, not quite so good for U14 (boys out-grew them).

They also played for coaches who might not make anyone's "best coach of the Midlands" list, but I thought they were great. They correctly balances player development vs fielding competitive teams.

They played for others, who would be considered "good" coaches, and I thought they were "not so good".

All of which has no real bearing on our conversation, just my thoughts.

"thomaspietras" -- what a fantastic set of posts. I agree that the right coaches/players will draw the critical mass, and I think you’ve posed a more actionable question (at least in the short-term) with "what can we do within the current club structures to facilitate the formation of more competitive teams?"

Your first recommendation concerning clubs/teams not “poisoning the water” through hateful references seems like a great one. I've seen this too. While cross-town rivalries can be great motivators, they all too often seem to get out of hand quickly.

When I read your post, the first thing that came to my mind was increasing the amount of information that is out there concerning coaches and teams so that parents and players can make an even more informed decision concerning the possibilities that exist. All of us with children get the postcards concerning club tryouts, and those that care probably go to web sites and talk to others concerning the coaches and teams for which their children would potentially play. While this direct questioning is needed, it can also be a hit and miss way of learning information. So what I’m going to do, as a first small, yet direct, response to your question is to create a thread dedicated to the upcoming tryouts for the 2003-2004 season and information about specific, highly competitive, teams and coaches. I’ll do the first posting of a tryout as well for a team and coach with whom I’m familiar.

I agree with your assessment of the difficulty of assessing coaches. However, in my experience, the ability of a coach has to start (not finish, but at least start) with the wins and losses. We can at least get some of this information out there – and then leave the very tough assessment of matching coaches and children to the parents directly getting information on a one-on-one basis with the coach, other parents, and other players.

Thank you taking the time to read through all of the words written concerning these subjects and then writing these posts – hopefully more will think about your question and will come up with more direction actions that can be taken to help build superb, highly competitive teams – regardless of club affiliation.

To the folks sending me private messages without your e-mail address and who have accounts set up not to accept private messages: I can't respond to your messages and/or questions if this is the case.