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

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.