Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10
#58608 04/29/05 03:29 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158
K
goal kick
Offline
goal kick
K
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158
Bear, my point about the 40% is directly related to Mt P joining the Alliance.

If Mt P does not join, the liklihood of having significant team representation diminishes significantly (well below my 40% number), thus a Bridge Team will likely practice in other areas SSC or JI (maybe DI).

If Mt P joins, the liklihood of having a significant Mt P representation on any given Bridge Team increases (probably 40% [if there's a Summerville bias] to as much as 60% [if there's a Mt P bias]), thus teams will likley practice in Mt. P (given access to fields, coaches, etc).

My comments about bias are simply early perception based since we're dealing with speculation only at the moment.

Did you see the Mt P Soccer Coordinator mailing that Christi Arnold sent to Mt P players yet? I recv'd it yesterday in the mail.

#58609 04/30/05 04:13 AM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
B
Bear Offline OP
goal
OP Offline
goal
B
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
As a Summerville resident, I was not on that particular mailing list, (I don't think, since I didn't receive one, but it could take longer for the mail to get way out to Summerville. (That's meant only in jest!)). I've heard what some of the basis of the mailer was, and I'd be interested to see it.

As for the bias of the team make up, I think I understand your point. And from your reply, I think you understand my point of it being too early to tell.

I know there's some frustration over this point of practice location. Practice location can't be determined until the teams are formed and teams can't be formed until tryouts. People are having difficulty in making the decision about trying out without knowing the practice location. It's a viscious loop that can only be broken by faith in the stated intent, that teams will practice where it's mutually beneficial to all players on the team.

Some people have a much broader knowledge base than I do when it comes to age groups. I only really know one. What I do know is this, currently there are Mt Pleasant residents playing in Summerville, Summerville residents playing in Mt Pleasant, James Island residents playing in both Summerville and Mt Pleasant, and the list goes on. The group of players that Bridge FA is designed for, has a tendancy to move from club to club to find that "team" that suits there need. In the current environment, when that player decides to move, they are not held in very high esteem from the "losing" group. Bridge FA is designed to allow for movement to a neutral organization, not "going to play for them". That is why it is structured as an all "inclusive" cooperative arrangement, not an "exclusive" competitive arrangement. Until we break that barrier, these players are the ones that will continue to suffer. One reason another low country attempt at this did not last was because it drew the best players, and then competed with the remaining clubs. That's why Bridge FA is only Challenge level, and the alliance member clubs agree not to field challenge teams.

Would like to hear more from you, but probably off line would be good. Feel free to PM.

#58610 04/30/05 04:20 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Bear,

You need a knighthood.

#58611 04/30/05 04:49 AM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547
S
Goal
Offline
Goal
S
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547
Have been watching this debate from afar & since my 2 players are all "grow'd up", I have no dog in this fight. As such, I have zero connection with anyone on the Mt. Pleasant Politburo.

My only comment is this. Based on recent state cup results, the need to join forces, and why hasn't Mt. Pleasant joined the alliance; maybe Mt. Pleasant isn't feeling the same pressure as James Island and Summerville to bump up their level of play.

#58612 04/29/05 06:47 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
SW,
My kids are out of soccer,too.
Though I will admit to a fondness for all things East Cooper - I have for years advocated an elite level merger sponsored by a neutral party - for ex. Battery. All local clubs would maintain their independance except for the very highest levelteams.Please refer to my posts ad nauseum on this from a year or so ago.

MPSC is in midst of hiring new director (which had over 100 aplicants including many notable Lowcountry names). This prevented club from committing to something which club director would have a lot of involvement in. As you noted , in many age groups - MPSC already had the State Cup runner up team with most of the talent. So urgency naturally wasn't there either.

I would also think, for it to be attractive to MPSC, it would have to recognize the natural
distribution of current talent. Like OSSOC's Hurricane team of a couple of years, after a while the 80% of the team that does all the traveling for practice on poorly lit fields and 'home' games figures out there has got to be a better way.

Hopefully, this effort can be refined and improved for the future.

p.s. Hope to see you at the Battery game tonight.

#58613 04/29/05 07:00 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049
Brace
Offline
Brace
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049
I wish the Battery would get more involved in this at the grassroots level and use their organization to bring all of Charleston soccer together.

#58614 04/29/05 07:26 PM
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
B
Bear Offline OP
goal
OP Offline
goal
B
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
SW, Swimmer, and Hammer,

There is so much more to the discussions that have taken place than is suitable for the open forum.

SW, this is about providing a service to the low country players, that individual clubs simply cannot offer. It is not about any clubs trying to increase their level of play. SSC and JIYSC just happen to be the first two clubs that more than "philosophically" agree with the concept.

Swimmer, the natural distribution of talent is considered with practice locations. However, that's limited because of which clubs are full members of the alliance.

For you two that no longer have children playing, it would be good for the planners of Bridge FA to learn from your experience. Perhaps you could contact them and set up some time?

Bridge FA can be refined and improved, but only if true concerns/issues are expressed and worked through.

#58615 04/29/05 08:50 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547
S
Goal
Offline
Goal
S
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547
As a follow-on, the concept has been kicked around for years, even when my players were coming through the ranks. Personally, I'm for it, I'm for almost anything that provides more options. Options are a typically a good thing. I hope Mt. P does come on board.

As for the Battery, I've had more than a few conversations about this topic with several Battery folks in the past when they sponsored the Super Y teams. In theory, it sounds good, in practice, they take a business risk which I can understand. The "my kid didn't make the Battery team, so, the heck with them, I'm not buying their tickets" is a very real concern. Plus, they are very organized and have a good staff but any youth effort would dilute their pro program. They have camps, they run coaching clinics, many of their players coach area teams. I think for now, that's how they feel they want to contribute to the youth scene. While I would never say never, people really should not wait on the Battery to be that top of the pyramid option.

#58616 04/30/05 03:27 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
MPSC staff posted their position, for sure. But the staff also quickly removed an article that was posted on Tim Santoro (former DOC at MPSC) regarding his involvment in the Bridge, and they also deleted all the Links to other clubs. It seems MPSC staff does not want any discussions on the subject.

#58617 05/01/05 03:10 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
Offline
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
I have to say that I feel the letter from Christi Arnold at MPSC was very poor, and greatly lacking any real substance. She states that "MPSC and the Town of Mt. Pleasant are not supportive of this alliance in any way to include philosophy, direction,..." blah blah blah. As far as I can tell, she doesn't say what it is about the Bridge philosophy and direction that they don't like.

She states that MPSC is the "most well-rounded and successful club in the Lowcountry." I will agree with that, but "well-rounded" does not consistently beat the CESA's of the world, and nobody outside of the Charleston area cares about being "most successful in the Lowcountry."

The Bridge FA may not be the perfect solution, but is that even possible? Right now, the Bridge is the best opportunity the Lowcountry has to BE the best in the state, and beyond. If you can't see that, you need to wake up!

If you are not part of the solution, you ARE part of the problem.

Page 8 of 10 1 2 6 7 8 9 10

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: 0.032s Queries: 33 (0.011s) Memory: 3.2052 MB (Peak: 3.5861 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 21:20:58 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS