|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Does anyone, who has been to at least one of each club’s tryouts, have any comments (for comparison purposes) ?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Great topic!
There were MANY new faces at the Bridge tryouts Monday. Not as many new faces at the MPSC tryouts on Tuesday - looked like business as usual there, except that a few faces were missing (not as graphic as that may sound).
It appears that some people are testing the waters at BFA, and some people are just fed up with MPSC in general (mostly with their lack of vision towards the future, from what I have gathered). Large, solid group of coaches in attendance at the Bridge tryouts.
There will definitely be some very strong teams at the Bridge in the Fall.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Hey! way to answer your own question. It must be awesome to be in 2 places at once!!! There was quite a showing at the BFA tryouts last night. You are correct that there will be some strong teams at the BFA in the fall. It's just a shame that all the clubs in the area can't seem to see the big picture and force kids and parents to make a tough choice to stay or go to BFA and end up being the bad guy's for leaving a club not affiliated with BFA.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Politics aside, I think most folks do their homework and play where they feel they will get the best coaches, trainers and facilites. BFA has done an outstanding job marketing their club and I am confident we will see some awesome soccer coming out of this new alliance. It's truly an exciting time for the Lowcountry.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Vapor, I figured that it was such an awesome topic, SOMEbody needed to respond. But, no...although I have been able to trick my kids into believing I have those powers, the truth is that I can really only be in one place at a time. So, I drive to Summerville one day and Mt. Pleasant the next.
The stench of bureaucracy East of the Cooper will probably keep me over towards James Island tonight. For Saturday, I guess I'll have to decide if Daniel Island is far enough away from the source that I will be able to breathe safely.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The big temptation on any message board is to 'throw grenades'. Pleae only speak to your own knowledge and the facts. Do not speak for others and their motives.
Don't cast me as a naysayer either. If you do your research, you'll see I have been a proponent of a premier level merger for several years. The devil is in the details.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Swimmer1, in all seriousness, I think I'm missing something with your post...nobody on this thread said anything about you. No one called you a naysayer, and no one said you were not a proponent of a merger.
The FACT is that the MPSC has rejected a plan to make Charleston area soccer competitive with the rest of the state. I read Christi Arnold's letter, and it was all hot air. She gives absolutely NO reasoning for not joining the Bridge, other than that Mt. Pleasant Soccer Club is "the most well-rounded and successful club in the Lowcountry."
I can see it now - next year, when CESA takes home all the state championships again, the Mt. Pleasant administration will be saying "that's okay, we STILL have the most well-rounded and successful club in the Lowcountry."
"The devil is in the details." Let's check with Arnold again..."MPSC...not a part or supportive of this alliance in any way to include PHILOSOPHY..." That is an awfully HUGE detail.
Which part of winning state championships and becoming the most-successful club in the STATE does she not agree with?
Apparently, grenades won't do the trick - we need something much louder to make them WAKE UP!!!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>> [Vapor7] It's just a shame that all the clubs in the area can't seem to see the big picture and force kids and parents to make a tough choice to stay or go to BFA and end up being the bad guy's for leaving a club not affiliated with BFA.<<
Okay...for another perspective on this...
Let's imagine the following scenario: CRSA and Lexington decide to form Dam FA. Dam FA is set up like Bridge FA, Dam FA plays premier/challenge and alliance clubs play classic/recreation. Dam FA tries to enlist CSC and NECSA, who says "no thank you." People begin berating CSC and NECSA for not seeing the "big picture."
In that situation, if I'm on the board of CSC or NECSA, I'm going to ask myself "What is the benefit to joining Dam FC?" Most parents aren't clamoring for it, and it's not clear that it gives us a competitive advantage since the core of the best players are already here. In theory it sounds really nice, but asking CSC or NECSA to go onto the same footing as these other clubs isn't really a win/win for this organization CSC or NECSA has built here, is it? You're asking them to sacrifice what they've built for the "greater good"; but while they'll put in more highly ambitious players their return will be the same as any other member of the alliance.
Before you say "...it's not the same..." -- of course it's not the same, it's an analogy. But I think realizing and empathizing with the MPSC position might be more constructive in the long-term in terms of building an attractive package for MPSC to participate than simply evincing hostility toward the club because of their position.
Look...I think that Bridge FA is a neat idea...and I hope it works. But the constant shots at MPSC [note: I guess you guys don't care about CUSC] miss the point. I'm sure you worked hard to get MPSC involved in Bridge before the announcement. They've now told you that they're not interested. At this point, the only way to get them interested is to hit them where they live -- execute successfully. I know it's harder to walk than talk, but in this case that's about all you're left with -- "walking the talk." or, to put this in corporate M&A speak, you need to go straight to the investors [i.e., the parents] and convince them to support this directly by moving players.
And any parent that would hesitate to have their highly ambitious child go to a better club for fear of being "...a bad guy..." isn't the kind of parent that I think you want in Bridge FA, from what I gather reading your web site.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
[Preface: Thanks for the great post; I've been reading this stuff for months now and this wonderful post encapsulated the issues very well.]
>>[Belligerant] The FACT is that the MPSC has rejected a plan to make Charleston area soccer competitive with the rest of the state.<<
The fact is that MPSC has rejected the Bridge FA plan to make Charleston area soccer more competitive. The fact is that MPSC believes that it can do it on its own. Can it? That's arguable; MPSC has the past on its side in terms of its last few years improvement; Bridge has the argument that organic growth alone won't beat the non-organic growth of CESA with its merger. Reasonable people can disagree on this.
>>I read Christi Arnold's letter, and it was all hot air. She gives absolutely NO reasoning for not joining the Bridge, other than that Mt. Pleasant Soccer Club is "the most well-rounded and successful club in the Lowcountry."
But from the MPSC perspective, this is a pretty powerful reason, to wit, MPSC is the most successful club and why would we want to join with these less successful clubs when we've been the ones to show the most success in the last two years with our plans and execution.
>>I can see it now - next year, when CESA takes home all the state championships again, the Mt. Pleasant administration will be saying "that's okay, we STILL have the most well-rounded and successful club in the Lowcountry."
The really scary part of all of this from the highly ambitious Charleston player perspective is that MPSC might just do that. Municipal supported soccer is wonderful in terms of keeping fees down [although taxes seem to rise -- TANSTAAFL], but municipal supported soccer caters to quantity, not quality. I've been impressed that MPSC has been able to achieve what they have with so much municipal funding.
>>"The devil is in the details." Let's check with Arnold again..."MPSC...not a part or supportive of this alliance in any way to include PHILOSOPHY..." That is an awfully HUGE detail.<<
Bottom line to any M&A activity; what can you offer to a target company to make it more attractive to come into your fold than to go it on their own? With normal companies, you offer the investors more money. With soccer clubs you have to come up and sell them on a plan where they get something that they really want and they get it with less risk/cost than they would in doing it on their own.
>>Which part of winning state championships and becoming the most-successful club in the STATE does she not agree with?<<
Bridge FA does not offer MPSC the chance to "become the most successful club in the state"; Bridge FA offers MPSC the chance to be an equal partner with arguably weaker clubs to be an alliance member of what could possibly be "the most successful club in the state." MPSC doesn't see that as attractive. Yelling at them, telling them over and over again that they are stupid -- none of that is going to make them think it's more attractive.
>>Apparently, grenades won't do the trick - we need something much louder to make them WAKE UP!!!<<
The most likely thing that's going to work is Bridge to execute and undoubtably replace MPSC as the strongest club in Charleston in terms of services and teams such that MPSC players move en masse to Bridge FA.
Other than that, you have to show them how to achieve their goals with less risk/cost than on their current course and speed, which may or may not include being the most successful club in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I am going to try real hard to live up to my original premise - keep it clean.
Thanks Chico for reasoned discussion.
I just can't find it in myself to be belligerent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
Folks,
I don't know who any of you are, and I'm reasonably certain that Belligerent, is not part of the decision makers at Bridge FA.
Chico, first I don't disagree with much of what you have said. However, I want to add a little (for now, as I have much to do today).
Risk/Cost: As PERSONALLY explained to numerous members of MPSC coaching staff, board members, and town employees, Bridge FA, has no financial impact to MPSC, and actually could have lowered the cost of the Director of Soccer. Further could have provided some stability in the time of searching. Some could argue, win/win, with overall operating cost reduction.
Swimmer,
Perhaps you could PM me some of the details to pull this off. Unfortunately, putting all of the best players under a current club is one that won't work.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
Chico, you have some excellent points...mainly, that my overzealous attempts to rally the troops are totally the wrong way to get it done...for this, I apologize. And, I would like to add that Mr. Sweet's post is correct - I have absolutely nothing to do with the decision makers at the Bridge. I hope that no one has gotten that impression.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that many MPSC parents see what the administration either does not see or does not want to admit. Yes, MPSC has been very successful, but if you have ever read the Who Stole My Cheese book, you will understand that MPSC cannot continue on their current path if they want to be not only the most successful club in Charleston, but in the state.
No, there is no guarantee that MPSC joining the Bridge will help them, but sometimes you just have to take a chance. As it is, they are taking the easy road, which does not appear to go in the same direction as the Bridge.
Again, Chico, you are absolutely correct...only time will tell. I'll leave it at that.
Good luck to all Charleston-area clubs now and in the future.
Belligerent....signing off....
(this subject, at least)
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
WHile I am new to this forum, I do have afew comments. We have now been through one week of tryouts. Having witnessed tryouts at both MPSC and Bridge FA, I have some thoughts to ponder:
1. BFA has a much better and experienced coaching staff - Brisson, Lundy, Posnanski, Dempsey, Santoro, Khouri. MPSC has new director with little experience. He has Christi Arnold who has been with Mt.P Rec/MPSC for several years. He has surrounded himself with kids just out of college with little or no coaching experience. There are also parent coaches with little or no playing experience, much less coaching. The most experienced coaches visible at the tryouts were David Jordan and Ralph Polson. It seems David is coaching at least one team. Polson participated in the tryouts, but has not been given a team. Juan Roncancio is working again with Mike Richmond with one of the older girls team. They have been a regular coaching duo for several years with state championship to their credit. Their tryouts are scheduled for this week. There are a few Battery players assisting. It seems that even most of the MPSC coaches wanted the BFA experience.
2. BFA's organization and presentation were second to none. There was an unbelieveable feel at the BFA tryouts - a definite feel of professionalism. MPSC were the "same old -same old" again. The BFA College Recruiting Seminar was a nice touch for the older players (MPSC had talked about such a seminar, but never put it together). To bring three profile college coaches to lead it was special. Parents and players were impressed. The vision, the structure, the staff. That is the type of environment serious players want. How can BFA not succeed?
3. BFA seems to be facing a real issue with fields for training. Most other Mt. P parents are questioning how worthwhile it will be to travel to Summerville and James Island. Everyone talks of training at Daniel Island. How will that be possible? It seems every team thinks they are training there. Try driving to Summerville at 5:00 pm up 526 to I-26. MPSC has quality fields at both ends of the town and only has to battle Highway 17 traffic.
4. In most age groups, it seems the best players are leaving MPSC for BFA. The only quality (state championship caliber) team left at MPSC is the girls Conquest team. Santoro and Dempsey took their teams to BFA. Lundy has taken his group to BFA. I see MPSC becoming a Classic club much like JIYSC had become. I believe there will always be plenty of kids playing in Mt. P to form teams in every age group, but the quality will diminish. The best players will realize the need for quality coaching and competition.
4. It seems BFA is providing a quality experience for the serious, committed players. MPSC/Mt.P Rec Dept is providing a "soccer experience", mainly for Mt. P residents.
5. That being said, not every kid will make the BFA teams (1st teams). Will they be satisfied on the 2nd/"B" teams? Maybe they will turn to Mt.P for a Challenge team experience.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
quote:
Originally posted by lowcountrysoccerfan:
WHile I am new to this forum, I do have afew comments. We have now been through one week of tryouts. Having witnessed tryouts at both MPSC and Bridge FA, I have some thoughts to ponder:
1. BFA has a much better and experienced coaching staff - Brisson, Lundy, Posnanski, Dempsey, Santoro, Khouri. MPSC has new director with little experience. He has Christi Arnold who has been with Mt.P Rec/MPSC for several years. He has surrounded himself with kids just out of college with little or no coaching experience. There are also parent coaches with little or no playing experience, much less coaching. The most experienced coaches visible at the tryouts were David Jordan and Ralph Polson. It seems David is coaching at least one team. Polson participated in the tryouts, but has not been given a team. Juan Roncancio is working again with Mike Richmond with one of the older girls team. They have been a regular coaching duo for several years with state championship to their credit. Their tryouts are scheduled for this week. There are a few Battery players assisting. It seems that even most of the MPSC coaches wanted the BFA experience.
2. BFA's organization and presentation were second to none. There was an unbelieveable feel at the BFA tryouts - a definite feel of professionalism. MPSC were the "same old -same old" again. The BFA College Recruiting Seminar was a nice touch for the older players (MPSC had talked about such a seminar, but never put it together). To bring three profile college coaches to lead it was special. Parents and players were impressed. The vision, the structure, the staff. That is the type of environment serious players want. How can BFA not succeed?
3. BFA seems to be facing a real issue with fields for training. Most other Mt. P parents are questioning how worthwhile it will be to travel to Summerville and James Island. Everyone talks of training at Daniel Island. How will that be possible? It seems every team thinks they are training there. Try driving to Summerville at 5:00 pm up 526 to I-26. MPSC has quality fields at both ends of the town and only has to battle Highway 17 traffic.
4. In most age groups, it seems the best players are leaving MPSC for BFA. The only quality (state championship caliber) team left at MPSC is the girls Conquest team. Santoro and Dempsey took their teams to BFA. Lundy has taken his group to BFA. I see MPSC becoming a Classic club much like JIYSC had become. I believe there will always be plenty of kids playing in Mt. P to form teams in every age group, but the quality will diminish. The best players will realize the need for quality coaching and competition.
4. It seems BFA is providing a quality experience for the serious, committed players. MPSC/Mt.P Rec Dept is providing a "soccer experience", mainly for Mt. P residents.
5. That being said, not every kid will make the BFA teams (1st teams). Will they be satisfied on the 2nd/"B" teams? Maybe they will turn to Mt.P for a Challenge team experience.
Any thoughts?
With due respect to your statement number 4 that the only state championship quality team remaining at MPSC is Conquest shows your lack of knowledge of the teams "remaining" at MPSC. While I advocated the move to Bridge, it did not happen. If you do not believe the U16s are a viable contender for state - then you obviously do not know the team nor do you know the level of competition at the U16 level. Stand by and watch this fall. Just don't get in their way!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Like soccerdog6, I have to admit I was pretty surprised when I read this. I believe that MPSC had the following teams as state challenge cup finalists in the 2004-2005 season [i.e., add 1 to get their rising 2005-2006 bracket]: - MPSC U17B
- MPSC U16B
- MPSC U12B
- MPSC U16G
- MPSC U15G
- MPSC U13G
- MPSC U12G
I thought it was a pretty impressive performance by the club. How many of these teams have moved out of MPSC?
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
5. That being said, not every kid will make the BFA teams (1st teams). Will they be satisfied on the 2nd/"B" teams? Maybe they will turn to Mt.P for a Challenge team experience.
I wouldn't take the BFA 2nd/"B" teams lightly...BFA isn't fielding teams just to say they have 2 teams. They made it quite clear that if there were enough "challenge" level players they would accomodate accordingly. Looking at the U15B's, I would say both teams are extremely strong.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Lowcountry,
Who is "Lundy's group"? He did not coach with MPSC last year?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
A couple of comments:
Bridge FA tryouts for the older groups are still on going, as well as other area clubs. It's too early to really tell the relative strengths of many of the teams. Bridge FA is pleased with the turnout in the older age groups.
Bridge FA is only fielding challenge level teams, where the numbers and ability warrant it. So moving away from a Bridge FA "Red" team for the "challenge team experience" is faulty logic.
There is and has been much discussion about Mt Pleasant players driving to SSC or JIYSC for practice. Can every team train all sessions at Daniel Island, probably not. Can every team get one session at Daniel Island and one session at another location, possibly so. Bridge FA is intended to be a cooperative arrangement with the local clubs. Each Bridge FA team therefore is a representative of this cooperative arrangement. As such, the individual team members, that seek to train and play at the highest levels, should be willing to compromise a little.
This is complicated with not all area clubs joining the alliance. With continued cooperation with the clubs, this can be overcome. However, it has to start with people that share a common vision. If you desire to train and play at the highest level, then you should seriously consider Bridge FA, and find ways to overcome some of the present inconveniences.
In the words of Max DePree, "Management has a lot to do with answers. Leadership is a function of questions. And the first question for a leader always is: Who do we intend to be? Not what are we going to do, but who do we intend to be."
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
I said I would never, ever, ever again say anything about a Cola area merger, because I finally realized, thanks to frequent counseling sessions with my personal sports therapist and also thru the wisdom I gained from reading Chico's rational posts; that a merger can never happen here due to the goals/priorities mindset of the multiple clubs. So I will couch my comments here to reflect more on the current BridgeFA/MPSC situation. I am not familar at all with the lowcountry clubs and their goals, but I venture to say that none of them -SSC,JIYSA,MPSC and now BridgeFA- had or have as their primary goals to serve as nurturers for their respective area high school soccer teams or to provide a neat, convenient social setting for satisfactory soccer. I believe their goals were and are always focused on producing the best possible club competitors. These goals are in great contrast to what we see in Cola., where one club admittedly serves to primarily prepare players for their area high school; another club serves to have a semi-social setting for its area players who desire average, but not too intense soccer; another club has great facilities, but no one has yet been able to determine why they don't desire that more than adequate soccer be played there; and then only one club that is trying hard to combat the 'CESA menace' and strives to field teams that seek championships. This Cola environment is in extreme contrast to that at 'monster CESA' and what is now coming out of the lowcountry where the obvious, specific goals are to field great and competitive teams. Therefore, with all that garbage said, it is a no-brainer to participate in the alliance when you have 2 clubs -BridgeFA(after an obviously successful merger of SSC & JIYSA) & MPSC- with the same ideals and goals of producing high quality club teams, but who can not yet come to a mutual agreement to compete under the one alliance. BridgeFA & MPSC - that kind of alliance cannot and will not, ever happen in Cola., but you are so close to a great thing. You need to resolve any differences, assuage any egos, and purposely seek what is truly the best alliance of the lowcountry players. With such an alliance, maybe one day in the not too distant future, I may hear (from my nursing home bed), that the 'evil Red CESA machine' sputters and spits and frets when it attempts to compete with The Bridge. Tell me where I am possibly wrong in any of my many assumptions here. I still do not think too clearly due to my many head balls in my youth.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
BridgeFA,
You said it all.
2004striker,
You will here it before the nursing home.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Lowcountry,
Who is Lundy's group? Is there an answer?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 117
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 117 |
Ralphie Lundy played with the Bridge U-14 player pool that won the U15 division of the Virginia Beach tournament in March. I do not know what the club make-up of this pool was or if Coach Lundy was involved at all. The link to the article is here http://www.bridgefa.com/content/default.aspx?nid=3&cid=12.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 181
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 181 |
The players that played in the Virginia Beach tournament were Brandon Tyner and Ralph Lundy III. There were other players from Summerville and Pawleys Island. Several other players were invited to play but had commiments to JV. When this team comes together it is awesome. Some real committed players and parents which is what the Bridge FA is looking for.
Lundy has a large group of players he has trained. From college kids to high school to middle school.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
How do the numbers look at BridgeFA for U-18 teams? How many tried out?
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
2004,
Are you the official manager for a u18 team yet? How many tryouts have you been to? I hear that "mega" team at CSC is falling apart? Any truth? How many are out there and how do you feel about the "new" coach?
All serious questions (for once) and you had a semi decent post above.
No hell did not freeze over.....2004 finally had a good post!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60 |
Hey, I thought the "mega" U18 team is in MP. Or is this a "mega" team for CSC?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
1 good post out of 691? Not a bad %. Where is LE Dudeman to calculate that out?
0.00144717 % of my posts meet Shearer's approval.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Ok I played nice...what no answers.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 441
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 441 |
Shearer, it appears everybody will be back except, Tristan, Branson, and Carl. Several BC, Cardinal Newman, and assorted others were at tryouts. The final roster will be posted later this week.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Originally posted by 2004striker:
I said I would never, ever, ever again say anything about a Cola area merger, because I finally realized, thanks to frequent counseling sessions with my personal sports therapist and also thru the wisdom I gained from reading Chico's rational posts; that a merger can never happen here due to the goals/priorities mindset of the multiple clubs. to combat the 'CESA menace' extreme contrast to that at 'monster CESA' and what is now coming out of the lowcountry where the obvious, specific goals are to field great and competitive teams. 'evil Red CESA machine' . Tell me where I wrong in any of my many assumptions here. I still do not think too clearly due to my many head balls in my youth.
I will tell you where you are wrong.
I was reading a very intelligent topic until I got to your name calling. Evil, Menace, Monster
Really what has CESA done for SC!
Organized a city to be more competive at the Premier League level . Will it be successful
Only time will tell.
Yes we are a very small state and maybe some are satisfied with 6th place at regioanls but Peirce and Andrew have the COUARGE , DRIVE and DREAM to
want more.
I applaud the people at Bridge FA for making the attempt to do something similar. I repeat what I said when CESA started the worst year is the first
it only gets better.
We had some problems parents and kids with egos mostly.
This year is going better.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 441
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 441 |
scdad, I believe Mr 2004's reference to the"evil red menace " is tongue in cheek. Everyone recognizes CESA's success and I think Mr 2004 is frustrated because the clubs in Columbia will not adapt a similar program.
How many players did MPSC Sting lose and did many new players from other clubs try out?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
sc,
I too applaud all that CESA and now BridgeFA are doing to further the state of quality soccer in SC. My use of the evil,etc. descriptions were all said in jest because of envy for what you and Bridge are doing. I venture to say that in a few very short years CESA's vision of quality soccer in SC will rival that of CASL in NC.
Also: you may remember this discussion back in Jan. when some said that Eastside should not allow some of its players to play at the Score, and instead stay and play Irmo. And then a reply from an Eastside coach in response to another poster, Always Right:
2004striker
Rate Member posted January 13, 2005 02:24pm
Its a no-brainer! Score at the Shore is one of highest profile tournaments in nation with lots of college coaches and high caliber competition. Ya gotta go with the club team. College coaches don't attend high school games. Its the first game of the year, and will not count against you Eastside, in the 3A standings. Plus if Eastside is as good as everyone here says, they will be focused on winning a state championship, not just winning a single game against a team in a higher classification. If they beat Irmo, who will really care; as long as they win that state championship? You can never pass on an opportunity to play in such a high level tournament. The high level of competition at Score will also help make the guys, who have the privilege to participate, even better players. But.....the HS coach may not see it that way and punish those who go. Hopefully, Eastside has a coach who does care about the boys and their big opportunity at Score.
Always Right
Rate Member posted January 13, 2005 02:06pm
Sounds like a built in excuse for Eastside already.
Here's the situation: (1) A chance to play the state's premier boys soccer program, which they haven't done in a very long time; or (2) Go play for a club team against three or four teams you'll never see again.
It's amazing to me there would be a dilemma. If Eastside's players decide to do this then I hope Irmo puts 10 balls in the back of the net!
dcsoccer
posted January 13, 2005 10:20pm
Always Right:
My take on the situation: You are correct in your labeling of the Irmo Soccer Program. You have failed to look beyond what is right in front of you though. Check 2004striker's comment. One of the elite club tournaments in the nation with ample college coaches attending. It's a situation that I cannot prevent my players from being exposed to...
dcraig@greenville.k12.sc.us
URL=http://www.geocities.com/eastsidehighsoccer/soccer1.html
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
quote:
Originally posted by 2004striker:
sc,
I too applaud all that CESA and now BridgeFA are doing to further the state of quality soccer in SC. My use of the evil,etc. descriptions were all said in jest because of envy for what you and Bridge are doing.
I know I just like to listen to you rant and rave about Columbia.
I grew up there and want whats best for Columbia also.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 302
Corner Kick
|
|
Corner Kick
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 302 |
FWIW when Thorsten Path left MPSC and Arnold took over, the club altered course to be the all inclusive local rec org. They ditched their other team and specialty trainers and brought in a group of generally less qualified people and became the best well rounded city recreation dept. club in the lower state.
Bridge FA will do fine without them and they won't know whats happening until they look around and don't see anyone.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815 |
quote:
One of the elite club tournaments in the nation with ample college coaches attending. It's a situation that I cannot prevent my players from being exposed to
.
Which Eastside players are taking advantage of this opportunity to "Score at the Shore"? What schools will they be attending on soccer scholarships? How much academic money are they requiring? ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
The college coaches I know of that attend this event do so just to "relax" and not really recruit. Did these kids gain any collegiate advantage by playing in this tourney? Let us know the schools if so. ![[Embarrassed]](images/icons/blush.gif)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60 |
Me thinks we are getting a bit off topic....
Tryouts are now done for both Bridge and MPSC. It seems that both clubs had lots of players trying out. Now we wait for the evaluators to make their decisions and see how the rosters shake out. Hopefully, as a region, the lowcountry will field as many or more competitive teams than last year. Only time will tell....
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
It is a little surprizing that no one is commenting on the number of or how talented the players are that have shown up for tryouts at MPSC, Bridge OR CUSC. You don't need the final roster to make an assessment of how successful teams will be. MPSC U16G had a great turnout. More talented players turned out than they have in years. They had a couple of out of towners (a CESA player and a Winston-Salem Twins player) and several players from throughout the lowcountry. This team will be significantly stronger than they have been in the past couple of years.
Also,it seems as if everyone is talking like MPSC and Bridge are the big dogs in the lowcountry for the fall season. You might take a hard look at CUSC for a big jump.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
should be Charleston United Soccer Club. Something in line with that
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588 |
Shearer is correct, (dangerous statement).
CUSC is Charleston United Soccer Club. Last year Carolina Girls and Charlestowne merged to form Charleston United.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
"I don't like you b/c your dangerous.....That's right Ice...Man....." I guess that's how it goes!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60 |
...and CUSC is still holding tryouts. This thread started as MPSC v. Bridge. Maybe we should start another one that includes CUSC. Charlestowne will have some tough teams and I don't think anyone would discount the quality of their club with Andy there.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
I was hoping that BridgeFA would get all the clubs in lowcountry together to form another 'evil CESA'. But it looks like, for now, that smaller new clubs are forming, like CUSC. Will the lowcountry turn into another Cola. area, with multiple clubs, diluting the talent pool? CUSC: http://www.charlestonunitedsoccer.com/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
2004striker
CUSC combined two existing clubs before Bridge formed. Thus, the lowcountry actually has the same number of clubs when considering the formation of Bridge.
The proof is in the pudding when it comes to taking on the evil empire. Just wait until December and let's evaluate things then. I'm not too sure but it is quite possible that one team at MPSC now actually has the top talent in the lowcountry. Not sure yet, just possible.
NOW, that should start a fire storm. Things are getting a little boring on the old forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 60 |
Duck, Swimmer, here comes another grenade...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
Bridge FA was and still is hopeful that all the clubs in the low country will join the alliance.
To my knowledge there aren't really any new clubs forming. Yes Bridge FA is a new club, but there are clear and distinct reasons to do so, but would be more suitable for a different topic.
In looking at the Charleston area, there basically are 4 clubs that fielded challenge teams last year, SSC, JIYSC, MPSC, and CUSC. Discussions were undertaken with this entire group. To date, only SSC and JIYSC have joined the alliance. Each of the clubs that have not joined have had their individual reasons for not joining. Bridge FA is still committed to working with each of these clubs to resolve any differences, but as all clubs have shifted to operations, there is little time left for these discussions.
When the Bridge FA concept was developed, the talent pool in the Charleston area was already "diluted". And with no new clubs forming I don't think it's reasonable to assume that it either is or will be more diluted. In fact, in some cases, Bridge FA has been successful in pooling the talent, not all, but some. Only time will tell how successful it has been for it's first year of operations.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
My fingers are still crossed on this one. We can only hope.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 588 |
Soccerdog,
I'm a little confused. On one hand you are apparently very proud of the MPSC U16 Girls being able to attract what you call the best talent in the area, taken from your two other posts. Yet on the other hand you appear to be hopeful of the success of Bridge FA.
Given the stance of MPSC, and your apparent involvement, aren't those two opinions in conflict with each other?
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
MPSC U-18 Boys and MPSC U-16 girls are 2 strong teams -as I understand it- that had already had some migration occur to them form other clubs so there didn't seem like an opportunity to find any new players give them something they didn't already have.
My opinion of a merger helping team be more competitive w/ CESA is that it will be more effective at younger age groups.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Bear: I obviously can't explain for Soccerdog6; but since I want both MPSC and Bridge to succeed I thought that I might perhaps be able to give you a perspective on this. MPSC is a strong South Carolina club; in the last several years, they've demonstrated that they are among the top several clubs in our state. As I previously noted, in 2004-2005, MPSC was able to place finalists in the following age groups: - MPSC U17B
- MPSC U16B
- MPSC U12B
- MPSC U16G
- MPSC U15G
- MPSC U13G
- MPSC U12G
[Note: I repeat this list as a non-subtle reminder that if anyone knows of multiple players leaving these teams to go to Bridge, I'd sure be interested.]
For the 2004-2005 season, CUSC placed one team in the finals; neither JIYSC nor SSC placed a team in the finals of the challenge cup.
Thus, if Bridge is to do as it wants and increase the success of "lowcountry soccer", then it needs to either ally with MPSC and CUSC and then place eight or more teams in the state finals or it needs to add to the cumulative total without MPSC and CUSC alliances.
The most effective way for Bridge to increase the success of "lowcountry soccer" in the next 12-24 months if it can't achieve more alliances in that timeframe is to provide the lowcountry with finalists in 2005-2006 where there were not finalists in 2004-2005. The best way to do that is not to try to draw individual players from state finalist teams, but rather to provide teams in which ambitious players can achieve state final appearances where they previously haven't.
To put this a bit more clearly, Bridge trying to build a "best-in-state" rising U16G team when MPSC has one that won a state championship a year ago and was a close second in the state in 2005-2006 might have the unintended effect of reducing the competitiveness of lowcountry soccer by fragmenting the talent base, unless building it includes taking the entire MPSC team plus a few ambitious players from elsewhere. Soccerdog6 already came out and said that he personally would have preferred the rising U16G team to play at Bridge [I think I remembered him saying that -- I know I wish it had been the case because I'd like to see some of the teams now in MPSC to step up to RIIIPL play]; since that didn't occur you can wish Bridge the best and still hope to draw the absolute best players to the absolute best rising U16G team in the lowcountry.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
Chico,
Bridge FA has done everything it could to ally with both MPSC and CUSC. As noted numerous times, each club for their own reasons has not joined the alliance. Due to these decisions, unfortunately, in some age groups we are going to be competing against each other. This competition against the local clubs is not at all what Bridge FA is about.
Only time will tell on the cumulative total of finalists, but I think it will grow. I think you will see some shift in teams, but I think the cumulative total should increase.
Bridge FA has provided a framework for the area clubs to allow players to migrate without feeling like they are "leaving us to go to them". That framework still can be tweaked, but with the current position of area clubs, I think players/parents, still feel like they are in the position of old.
Unfortunately, in an open tryout situation, there is never a guarantee that an "entire" team would remain intact. I agree with Swimmer that both the rising U18 Boys and rising U17 Girls teams from MPSC are very strong. However, there may have been some players that could have made each of these teams even stronger, if the team had been under a neutral entity. Back to the leaving us to play for them. Some SSC people won't play for MPSC, and some MPSC people won't play for SSC, but in many age groups we have found that both MPSC and SSC people will play for Bridge FA, at least tryout and test the water anyway.
Club decisions have been made, many individual decisions have been made, but some still remain, and we are going to move forward and do the very best that we can in raising the level of soccer in the low country.
Can Bridge FA and MPSC both succeed in State Cup play, possibly. Can Bridge FA and MPSC both succeed in Regional play, maybe not. Can one neutral entity in the low country succeed in Regional play, more likely than if separate. Of course until all low country clubs unite under this neutral entity, we'll never know.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I have been reading these posts about MPSC and their inability to merge with Bridge FA and a lot of bashing of Christie Arnold. I would like to touch on one thing. A merger is an agreement between clubs to join forces to make a better program. What Bridge FA was trying to do was acquire MPSC for the use of their players and their fields. I believe the concept of a super club in Charleston is an important step in the Low Country's ability to compete with CESA, but it has to be done the right way. I believe this will happen over time, but Bridge must look to merge with MPSC. With the current format it isn't a merger with MPSC it is an acquisition.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
When thinking of a merger between Bridge FA and MPSC I want to commend the people involved with Bridge FA for the hard work they have put forth to get this club up and going. But, MPSC must be convinced this is the right thing to do for them. MPSC had the second most teams in the finals a year ago in the u-15 to U-18 age groups. The only club with more was CESA. So giving all their fields and players to be run by the president of Summerville Soccer Club and the DOC of Summerville Soccer Club, doesn't seem right in the minds of MPSC. I know Clark and I know he does a tremendous job. But there is going to need to be more flexibility with the powers that be on both sides, before this merger takes place.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I would like to respond to the comments made by guardrail22...
"FWIW when Thorsten Path left MPSC and Arnold took over, the club altered course to be the all inclusive local rec org. They ditched their other team and specialty trainers and brought in a group of generally less qualified people and became the best well rounded city recreation dept. club in the lower state.
Bridge FA will do fine without them and they won't know whats happening until they look around and don't see anyone. "
This statement is ludicrous. MPSC had their best season in years last year. Based on results last year had the second most successful club last year behind CESA. I am not sure what you know about MPSC, but it is obviously a bias uninformed comment that you are making. Bridge needs MPSC and MPSC needs Bridge for both clubs to achieve their goals. Hopefully next year they will be able to iron these things out.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
From the outside BridgeFA sounds good, looks good, nice uniforms, attractive website, with strong coaching, leadership. Yet, it is naturally difficult for MPSC to give up its good and excellent thing they have established. I believe they have 4 new teams in fall premier league. A fabulous accomplishment for a medium size club. But they don't have to look at it as giving up their club or being acquired by BridgeFA. That would never work. But as both BridgeFA & MPSC have the same philosophy of producing quality soccer teams, it sounds like its a matter of flexibility, negotiation, and open communication to seal the deal. It will now take some ego assuaging and some selfless discussions. The main focus of these discussions should be what is best for the development of the lowcountry youth; and not focused on what is best for me as a coach, a parent or a DOC. If your respective missions are to establish permanent quality soccer in the lowcountry, then the merger will best serve all concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Wow - DRic hit it right on the head. There is a big difference between a merger and an acquisition. Even if it is a merger of equals - it should be a 50/50 proposition. As shown by past club performance MPSC was the strongest club . Brige will make some big gains - and unfortunately probably water down MPSC clubs enough that the Lowcountry will have less finalists next yr than this yr.
I didn't see gurardrail's cooments but if true, obviously someone with their head in the ground -
After Christi's arrival and a more committed Board the club has made very noticeable changes in quality teams as well as financial strength. Things they did not have under prior DOC.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 815 |
What players will makeup the U15-U18 MPSC and Bridge FA teams? What schools are they from? Please list!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158 |
A Problem: lets look at the lowcountry U15s, during Fa'04 Sp'05, Summerville posted 2 Challenge/1 Classic teams & JIYSC posted 1 Classic team and MP posted 1 Challenge/1 Classic teams = 3 Challenge/3 Classic teams. With the NEW Bridge concept (if MP joined), Bridge would field 1 Premier & 1 Challenge teams and JIYSC, Summerville & MP would each field 1 Classic team. This equals less opportunities to play Select soccer (2 Challenge+ & 3 Classic).
Production of 'Individual' Quality Players requires competition but it seems to me that the 'Local Pool' is reduced over time in lieu of fielding a Single winning team.
YOUR THOUGHTS PLEASE???
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The problem is in the talent pool available in South Carolina. In order for teams from our state to compete at the level of the other teams in our region (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina) we must combine. Look at the population in those states. There are just so many more players to choose from in those other areas. We don't have a Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta or Miami in our state. If we want to develop our best players to compete with these other states, this is the only way to go. Our focus is producing the best players we can. That doesn't take away from the average player. The average player can have fun playing soccer regardless of where he/she is playing. But the best players need to be challenged, and this is the only way of challenging them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
quote:
Originally posted by Bear:
Soccerdog,
I'm a little confused. On one hand you are apparently very proud of the MPSC U16 Girls being able to attract what you call the best talent in the area, taken from your two other posts. Yet on the other hand you appear to be hopeful of the success of Bridge FA.
Given the stance of MPSC, and your apparent involvement, aren't those two opinions in conflict with each other?
Bear,
Yes, I am VERY proud of the MPSC U16s and their ability to continue to attract talent, especially this year. Several posters have already answered your question for me and I appreciate their responses. You see, we have to play the cards dealt to us and this year it is playing as an MPSC team. The aquisition statement was most appropriate because that is exactly what the merger would have been for this age group. No arguement there, please. AND yes, I do hope that Bridge is successful because it is the future, period! It just ain't going to happen this year for these girls. Nothing wrong with hoping for the right thing to do for the future, is it? You can support your team AND hope for the eventual improvement via merger, can't you? Or is it a fact that you cannot?
How many of your girls in this age group came to Legend tryouts? None. So, it isn't about playing on the best team in the lowcountry for many families. It is about NOT playing with the evil enemy from years gone by. My daughter, and several others, tried out a couple of seasons past and were welcomed warmly. We immediately became part of the family and continue to feel as such. Bridge may be the only way to overcome this attitude, and that is exactly what it is. If players really want to play on the most talented team with the best chance of success over the next two years, why are they refusing to do so? This is the real question for you, rather than finding a perceived inconsistency in my stance. By the way, I am involved with MPSC only as a player's parent.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654
goal
|
|
OP
goal
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 654 |
CIWS*GK (in all seriousness) I believe the number one purpose (written or unwritten) of the Bridge is to produce the strongest and most competitive teams in the state. They start off with that in mind. Everything after that is secondary. So, let's say they create one premier team, and one challenge team in the U15 boys age group. Theoretically (hopefully) these are two teams made up of the strongest players in the area. They (BFA) have now accomplished one of their main missions (of course, they want to actually bring home trophies).
Now that that is done, you have all the remaining players to worry about. Of course, these players are all important, but the MAIN purpose is to produce the strongest team(s). If these players did not make one of those teams, they will now be playing classic or rec. If it just so happens that there are not enough kids left to make up the same amount of teams as before, then that's just the way it has to be. You can't forget about these players, but again, when you prioritize what you're trying to accomplish, finding a place for them is not at the top of the list.
But, to address that, I don't believe any of the three clubs you mentioned has said that they will have only one classic team each. I would imagine that if enough U15 boys showed up at Mt. Pleasant, they would field two classic teams.
Darren, I am not an official spokesperson for the Bridge, so please correct me if I misstated any comments about BFA; and CIWS*GK, the same for you if I am wrong about the clubs fielding more than one classic team. But, even if there IS one less challenge/classic team than before, there is still rec.
I guess everyone involved has to weigh the options - is it more important to try and field the strongest team(s) possible at the expense of possibly losing some players, or is it more important to involve as many players as possible at the expense of having the most competitive team(s)...
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 34 |
CIWS,
Belligerent is correct with regard to the number of teams. Bridge FA is looking to only field two Challenge teams. However, there should be no limiting factor for the local clubs to field multiple Classic teams, if the numbers, desire, and ability warrant. So your use of those numbers of teams is not an accurate analysis, taken at face value.
With that said, it may be that the number of teams does decrease, but there are factors that have more control over that than Bridge FA.
Soccerdog,
I too appreciated the comments and perspectives of others, and now yours too. Yes, I agree that you can support your team and hope for the future.
As is often the case when peoples opinions are quoted, it's a risky endeavor because it may be taken out of context. I take this quote from your post, because I believe it represents several aspects that are relevant to the discussion of what Bridge FA is intended to do.
"How many of your girls in this age group came to Legend tryouts? None. So, it isn't about playing on the best team in the lowcountry for many families. It is about NOT playing with the evil enemy from years gone by."
In reading this quote, it starts out as "your's and ours". Bridge FA was/is intended to overcome this. A neutral entity provides a place for people to migrate to, so it's no longer your's and our's, but an inclusive our's. Again, not playing with the evil enemy. I've said several times, MPSC players won't play for SSC and SSC players won't play for MPSC, hopefully, they will play for Bridge FA.
I was not looking for an inconsistency in your stance. I was looking for root causes and hopefully solutions, but more importantly, people willing to help identify, discuss, and implement solutions. As has been pointed out, only through discussion and effort are we going to be able to provide the best opportunity for the low country players.
This topic started out as a comparison of tryouts, and has gone all over the place. Perhaps it's time for a new topic.
|
|
|
|
