SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Challenge vs Classic Gap

In looking at the SCSCL and PMSL lists of teams it would appear that the gap is emerging between the number of teams playing at the highest level and those staying in classic. Even when adding in the premier teams to the SCSCL, the number is "low" (what happened to all the U15 girls? challenge and classic) with the exception of the U18 boys.

Although not necessarily a bad thing, it does not add for much suspense to the season when you know you will advance to the playoffs and you have to only jockey for position. It does however require you to play everyone twice (except U18 boys and U17 girls) to meet the min 7 game requirement.

This has been a pet peeve of mine when a team is required to give their 3 weekends "off", especially since you have to apply to some of the high level tournaments months in advance. Maybe you could have gone to an additional tournamnet but you did not apply because you did not know how many games you would have.

Also, anyone notice that some age groups are skewed to one part of the state over another (i.e U15 boys) I wonder what the travel will be? And what is the SCSCL argument over using fields in a club that does not have a team in the group.

The only other downer is the cinderella stories may not be as good.

Ironically, in the age group that I coach, U-13 classic boys, we have the exact opposite situation from what you see at the older ages. For us, there are 8 classic teams and 13 challenge teams.

Looking at the teams in each group, the challenge teams are from the clubs that you would expect (CESA, CSC, Bridge...) The classic teams are generally the smaller soccer markets, and the second and third string teams from the mega-clubs. On paper, this should work to keep things fair for everyone, except that the small market teams do a lot more travelling.

Last season, there was a fairly large performance gap between the top tier of classic teams and the bottom (at least in our division). I see this year's alignment as providing better parity in both classic and challenge.

After 5 of the challenge teams don't qualify for the State Cup this year, I'll bet that there will be more classic teams next year. It really should be self correcting.

As long as teams / clubs are free to choose what division they play, there will always be some teams that are not in the proper division. I hate to see any team go 10 - 0 in classic, or 0 - 10 in challenge, especially two seasons in a row, but it does happen. The alternative would be to force relegation and upgrade based on standings. This works for the pros, but I don't think it can be fairly applied to kids.

Based on where I see youth soccer in SC going, I think that at a certain point, if a player wants to play challenge, he / she will need to play for one of the three or four mega-clubs, since the smaller markets will not be able to compete at that level. Maybe at that point, a further subdivision of the classic division will be needed, with divisions based on club size, similar to HS.

In the meanwhile, play hard and have fun with anyone who is in your division.

Good points.... which oddly enough brings you to the NC model of dual layer classic and relegation system. This would work well if it wasn't for our population size. Where is CHICO when you need him....

Going to the challenge level clubs may result in less number of teams to play against which in turn would make a season a moot point. I see for example that the U15 boys have 5 challenge teams (not including premier) and 14 classic teams. This means that each challenge team plays everyone twice for 8 games. If there is a disparity in play (and I believe there is in this age group) it may not help as much as one thinks.

For example Bridge 90 Gold would probably give CESA premier a run for their money (Bridge dropped a lot of quality players from their 89 team to the 90 and won national championship) but they will not match up until state. Would playing 8 games against lower quality properly prepare Bridge for State ...????

There should be some degree of relegation in SC. It is frustrating for players/parents when a coach/DOC decides to play challenge level when they are more suited for classic. Relegation is used and works well in GA because of the population. Part of SC problem is population......just not enough numbers to field a lot of quality teams out there. So the competition is spread quite thin. But its not just a problem for SC...AR, LA, MISS.,TN,AL all have very few if any great teams. There is just CASL in NC and then all of metro Atlanta in GA. FL has a number of high quality teams. If you have a good to great team, as you surmise is the case with Bridge 90, then you need to qualify for premier league each year and play at a level that will constantly prepare you for state. If you don't make premier, (finish 3rd or 4th each year), then it is essential that you supplement your challenge schedule with high level tournament play. It is only going to be in those high density states- NY, ILL, TX CAL, FL where quality competition is found at various levels of play.

I tend to believe that there is not as much of a gap between Classic and Challenge as some folks WANT you to believe. Sure there is a difference between the Premier level teams and the top 2-4 Challenge teams compared to Classic, but after the first four in Challenge, there are several Classic teams that can play even (or beat) many Challenge teams. For many it's a "status" thing and really is not indicative of pure 'better-ability' level, but maybe based moreso on geography (as rural areas may have a multi-aged Classic team, but capable of beating some Challenge squads) or a Challenge "level" team (used loosely) that posts an 0-10 record (or close to) during the season but gets to say -- "Hey, at least we were Challenge".

I got to the message board after a few weeks absence, and read with interest this thread. In particular, I thought the discussion concerning the number of teams in challenge and classic was interesting. I believe a relegation system is badly needed in high school, and would like to see it in club as well, but agree with "futbol(soccer)" and others that we don't have enough teams. The question I started wondering about is why we don't have enough teams -- is it just population or could there be other, equally important, factors at work?

South Carolina has 18,976 registered soccer players [source: USYS Registration Report, July 31, 2005]. South Carolina has a 5-18 year old population of 771,370 [source: US Census, 2003]. Thus, South Carolina has a 2.46% penetration rate of 5-18 year olds playing soccer.

The average penetration rate of all of the states constituting Region III is 3.59%. South Carolina is thus 31.45% below the average penetration rate of Region III. Only one state, Alabama, has a lower penetration rate [2.25%, which is 37.29% below the Region III average]. Thus, hypothetically, if South Carolina were to raise its penetration rate to the Region III average, and we assume that these gains were across the board, South Carolina would field almost 1/3 more teams in challenge and classic than it does now.

If South Carolina were to raise its penetration rate to that of the highest state in Region III [Oklahoma, 5.62% penetration rate] then South Carolina would field more than 1/2 more teams in challenge and classic than it does now, assuming these gains were across the board.

Also note that Oklahoma is far from having the highest penetration rates in the US. Colorado is 7.86%, Oregon is 8.48%, and Washington is 10.15%! So a goal of increasing penetration rates to that of Oklahoma is far from far fetched.

The old excuse that South Carolina is a "football state" doesn't ring true. South Carolina is no more a "football state" than many of the other states in Region III -- particularly Oklahoma or Georgia [Georgia has a 3.74% penetration rate]. And the old excuse of "South Carolina is a poor state and only rich kids play soccer" doesn't make sense when you see Mississippi with a 3.89% penetration rate or Arkansas with a 3.8% penetration rate.

It seems to me that the SCYSA, and its constituent clubs, need to prioritize its resources and effort on increasing the penetration rate of South Carolina soccer into ages 5-18. How? The obvious first place to do this is in partnership with our schools.

Impressive as always. I also believe the clubs need to do a better job in getting the schools involved. I know that when I was on the board of the chapin soccer assoc., we recruited the heck out of the schools. We would send older players to school to do demostrations and such during PE. We would send out flyers for the kids to take home. When the club quit doing this, it died. Penetration is a stat that SCYSA and local clubs should use as a measuring tool and not just total number of players.

Chico.... there you are... hope you had a good vacation.

I have to say that I started to write a second version of a tale of two cities, but subsequently I decided to listen instead. I am open to your suggestions on how to improve.

Chico, As usual, you're the man with the stats. Do you have any numbers on the breakdown between rec league registrations and classic / challenge? I know that some clubs do a great job of grooming the little 'uns for travel team soccer, but some clubs are more content with maintaining a large rec league (which isn't necessarily a bad thing).

What, if anything, are your clubs doing to prepare U-8s and U-10s for the idea of stepping up the commitment (for both parents and players)? During the spring rec league season, I put on a series of free training sessions for U-10 and U-12 rec players to let them know what a classic team trains like. It seems to have helped a bit, since we had good turnout for the new U-11 classic team. But, is this too little, too late?

As far as recruiting in the schools goes, I have the feeling that some kids, and their parents, feel that if they didn't start at U-6, it's too late to start the sport. I've had kids show up at the U-10 level, never having played before, and getting frustrated at their lack of skill compared to their teammates and competitors. I know that many, many years ago, I went through that with Little League baseball. After not having played before, I thought I would try it as a 10 year old. I sucked, therefore the game sucked, and I never played again. If we're recruiting kids over 6, how do we make them feel welcome? How do we instill in them a love for the game?

Or are we as adults over thinking this? Can we just let the kids play? I get the impression that soccer "penetration" in Brazil is near 100%, but how much of that is on sandlots and alleys, and how much is on organized teams? When was the last time you saw a pick-up game in a park where no adults were involved?

I wanna be a kid again...

Chico...terrific post!

I think Lurker's experience is very common, I've seen it happen a number of times. I think it comes down to understanding the demanding fitness level required by soccer. As you go higher in both level (rec, classic, challenge & premier) and age:
Age Division Min. per half
U17/18/19 45 minutes
U15/16 40 minutes
U13/14 35 minutes
U11/12 30 minutes
the technical, tactical and fitness requirements increase dramatically. Thus it becomes more difficult to enter the sport. Club Coaches usually only have 2-3 days a week with the players and their focus is on the technical and tactical aspects of the game. They 'hope' that the players are working on fitness on their own time but this is usually not the case. I think that if SC clubs want to improve their penetration in the youth market, they must organize a flexible 'Fitness' program as a part of the Club schedule. You might find some interesting insight at http://www.soccerconditioning.net/research.htm