|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
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 ...????
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049 |
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".
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 640
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 640 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
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. ![[Confused]](images/icons/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147 |
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...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 158 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,305
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,305 |
i love it chico, do this sort of stuff in the high school forum, and you will be a tough contender in the 2006 posters cup
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Chico and the man...errrr... Chico is the man!
By U10 they need technic very little tactical. Thus the 6v6 concept which I happen to agree with.
Depending on the skill level U12 start complex tactics.
But I find that the majority of the problem are parents uneducated in the game. encouraging the wrong things in the children...Kick it!! kick it!!! big kick!!, I have not seen a player come into the game at U12 and be able to complete unless they are natural athletes. In the lower levels you can be reactionary instead of proactive and still be competitive. If this player cannot make the change they will not be succesful at higher levels.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Is the USYS Registration Report online somewhere, or where do I get access to it? andersonkwa quote:
Originally posted by Chico:
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
So, first weekend of games....
U18 G - No games
U18 B - CSC 3- NECSA 3
U17 G - No games
U17 B
Bridge 2 - Northside 0
Bridge 3 - CESA Challenge 0
Lex 3 - Northside 2
CESA Challenge 5 - Lex 1
U16 G
CSC (u15) 1 - NECSA 1
Coastal 1 - N. Augusta (U15) 0
CUSC (U15) 1 - CESA Challenge 0
CESA Challenge 3 - Coastal 1
U16 B
Bridge 9 - Coastal 1
Lex 3 - CESA Challenge 0
Lex 4 - CSC Burn 1
U15 G
CUSC 0 - N. Augusta 2
U15 B
No games
Comments on play?? 9-1 trouncing in Challenge?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 181
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 181 |
How did Bridge U-17 Premier do this weekend?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
[andersonkwa] Is the USYS Registration Report online somewhere, or where do I get access to it?
Sorry in the delay in responding. I've tried and I can't find it online. I pulled the numbers from a Georgia message board posting made a month or more ago that referenced the USYS report.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Bridge premier tied CESA 2-2 .... That is what I understand...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
Chico... how did your daughter do?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Under the threatened penalty of a slow, cruel, and harrowing death, I am restricted from posting concerning my daughter's individual performance and/or the performance of any club team upon which she plays.
I am allowed to post general information. Here's the South Carolina premier information I have:
CESA U18G Premier: 1-1 Charlotte United
CESA U18B Premier: 2-0 Charlotte United
CESA U17G Premier: 6-1 MPSC White
CESA U17B Premier: 2-2 Bridge FA U17B Gold
CESA U16G Premier: 3-1 Lexington United
NECSA U16B Blast: 1-0 CESA U16B Premier
CESA U15G Premier: 0-0 CESA U15G Challenge
CESA U15B Premier: 5-1 KFC (Tennessee) Crush
DSC U15B Green: 4-2 Charlotte Soccer Club
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 547 |
The SCYSA Board minutes usually have the number of registered players at the time. Unfortunately, those minutes usually lag several months. The last ones posted were for March, http://www.scysa.org/BoardMinutes/BODMIN20050313.htm and the number of players registered was 17,305. Sometimes they also give a more detailed breakdown, like February, which can be interesting. quote:
Total: 16,951
Boys: 10,352
Girls: 6,599
Rec: 12,355
Classic: 4,596
Piedmont: 5,836
Midstate: 6,101
Coastal: 4,877
Out of state: 137
Coaches: 1,932
Managers: 265
Volunteers: 461
Referees: 1,043
When my boys starting playing in the early '90s, there definitely were more teams and players playing. (The March 2001 minutes show 18,386 registered players). I think the focus is now on the elite players and teams. And while it's all well and fine to raise the bar, it perpetuates a culture where if you're not on the superduper team, you're wasting your time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
If those numbers are true, that's scary. The population is certainly increasing I would like to think that interest in "the world's most beautiful game" is as well.
I'm not going to blame the CESA's and the Bridge's of the world for this one. People serving the lower end of the market need to do a better job of keeping kids interested as well.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Soccer Watcher: Thanks for the numbers; it certainly can be frustrating trying to get these numbers and figure out trends. I tried once to get sets of numbers from the SCYSA in terms of clubs and regions; I failed miserably.
The theory that the celebration of achievement demeans others is certainly one that many people advance as part of a several decade old "self esteem" movement; of course, others resist this theory [I enjoyed "The Incredibles".]
One thing that I would note is that if your hypothesis is valid, we should expect to see much more growth with respect to youth soccer participation in the Columbia area than in the Greenville or Charleston areas, since Greenville and Charleston each has at least one club that is producing regionally competitive teams a bit more regularly than the Columbia area. My guess -- and it's only a guess! -- is that this is not the case.
In any case, I would urge anyone interested in this topic to contact the SCYSA as well as their own local clubs to understand what they are doing to increase the number of kids that they serve and to let them know you're willing to help.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
This is slightly off topic, but what the heck.
Although total SCYSA enrollment is down almost 8% over the last four years (3/01 - 18,386; 2/05 - 16,951), female participation has risen over 54% (3/01 - 4,282; 2/05 - 6,599).
One in four guys have migrated from soccer as male participation is down almost 27% (3/01 - 14,104; 2/05 - 10,352).
Co-ed teams must be ruining things for some. :-)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049 |
quote:
I think the focus is now on the elite players and teams. And while it's all well and fine to raise the bar, it perpetuates a culture where if you're not on the superduper team, you're wasting your time.
That's it exactly IMO! Kids at the older youth ages are quitting because they feel if they're not in the upper echelon (i.e. Top 20%), then they can find something else to do.
So in essence, you get all these clubs sparring over the 'elite player' and not many concentrating on the 80% that's left over.
Good thread and interesting analysis!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049
Brace
|
|
Brace
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,049 |
quote:
One in four guys have migrated from soccer as male participation is down almost 27% (3/01 - 14,104; 2/05 - 10,352).
What I would like to see is at what ages are these guys dropping out of soccer. I'm willing to bet, although I may be wrong, that it generally takes place in the 15-17 age groups as the older guys that are not on the elite teams start to question if it's "worth all that" if they are not going to play in college.
There are many more options for a high school kid than just Saturday soccer. I know many that would simply rather run cross country, swim, or play football (even though they're not great at these sports). Heck, some just want to be able to go to Clemson/USC football games and if they play club then they cannot do this.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
There are two ways to reach a decision. One way is to make your decision and then look for data that you can use to justify your decision. The other way is to look at data and then attempt to make the best decision possible based on those data.
Registration Data
Here are the data I've been able to find to date with my only opinions being that associated with the integrity, or lack thereof, associated with the data.
USYS Registration Numbers
FY 02/03 18130
FY 03/04 18493
FY 04/05 18976
The USYS numbers are collected from second-hand written reports of these numbers; however, they have an advantage of being based upon the final dues sent to the USYSA by the SCYSA.
SCYSA BOD Minutes Registration Numbers
6/4/2000 20292 [1]
11/19/2001 15781
3/25/2001 18386
6/1/2001 19504 [2]
9/17/2001 7469
11/11/2001 13788
6/9/2002 19296 [3]
1/19/2003 15596
1/18/2004 15981
9/12/2004 7380
3/13/2005 17305
The SCYSA registration numbers are snapshots and are subject to wide variations. Only two numbers are stated to be "final" numbers.
[1] "Distributed registration figures and comparison to 1998-1999"
[2] "Final total for registered players."
[3] No associated note; but given past data June seems to be the SCYSA final tally month.
Extrapolated Data
Thus, if we take a combination of the SCYSA and USYSA data, make an assumption that June data from the SCYSA was year-end data which was reported to the USYSA, then we have the following.
Combined Registration Numbers
FY 99/00 20292 [Source: SCYSA, June 2000]
FY 00/01 19504 [Source: SCYSA, June 2001]
FY 01/02 19296 [Source: SCYSA, June 2002]
FY 02/03 18130 [Source: USYSA]
FY 03/04 18493 [Source: USYSA]
FY 04/05 18976 [Source: USYSA]
It is highly suspicious, but certainly within the realm of possibility, that all of the SCYSA numbers show declining registration and all of the USYS numbers show increasing registration and that the largest year-to-year gap is between the SCYSA and USYSA numbers.
I've written the USYSA and SCYSA requesting more information; if I get it, I'll certainly post it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
[Soccer Watcher] I think the focus is now on the elite players and teams. And while it's all well and fine to raise the bar, it perpetuates a culture where if you're not on the superduper team, you're wasting your time.
[The Hammer] Kids at the older youth ages are quitting because they feel if they're not in the upper echelon (i.e. Top 20%), then they can find something else to do. [...] So in essence, you get all these clubs sparring over the 'elite player' and not many concentrating on the 80% that's left over.
[The Hammer] What I would like to see is at what ages are these guys dropping out of soccer. I'm willing to bet, although I may be wrong, that it generally takes place in the 15-17 age groups as the older guys that are not on the elite teams start to question if it's "worth all that" if they are not going to play in college. [...] There are many more options for a high school kid than just Saturday soccer. I know many that would simply rather run cross country, swim, or play football (even though they're not great at these sports). Heck, some just want to be able to go to Clemson/USC football games and if they play club then they cannot do this.
Regardless of the integrity of the data, both of you seem to have hypothesized that if players are dropping out then the reason for their dropping out are a decrease in available player slots on the "most competitive teams" and on an increase in other things to do besides playing soccer. The questions that come to mind even assuming that the data shows this are as follows: - Are there fewer clubs, and thus fewer teams, for these players -- particularly since the theoretical drop-off seemed to occur before Bridge or CESA?
- Why boys and not girls?
- Is there an significant increase in other things to do on weekends, e.g., hasn't the USC/Clemson game been going on a while?
- Is there any real evidence of clubs losing their focus on the "non-elite" player? If so, it seemed to occur before 2003 -- what was the causal event or events that occurred before that time in this regard?
- What are viable alternatives to "raising the bar" that don't involve eventually making South Carolina kids second-class citizens with respect to the rest of the kids in the United States, in soccer, academics, crime rates, or whatever?
- If you ran a club in a dictator-like fashion [i.e., you could do what you want], what would you specifically do differently to increase players registering with your club?
- Finally, and in my mind the most interesting question, why did you leap to the belief that some type of class warfare [i.e., the aristocratic elite versus the proletarian commoner] is at the root of all of this instead of considering decreasing percentages of players who register with the SCYSA [e.g., self-insured, US Club Soccer, etc.], with an increasing balkanization of clubs having fewer resources to penetrate into underserved communites, etc. I don't ask this to be insulting; I figure you guys have more experience then me so I'm trying to understand why you inductively leapt to this conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
The SCYSA BOD Minutes don't provide enough information with which to provide many meaningful comparisons (i.e. classic vs. challenge or by age), but two more comparisons can be made from the information readily available.
Classic enrollment has risen almost 4% over the last four years (3/01 - 4,429; 2/05 - 4,596), while recreation enrollment has fallen a little over 11% (3/01 - 13,957; 2/05 - 12,355).
During the same four year period the Coastal region has suffered enrollment losses of almost 25% (3/01 - 6,479; 2/05 - 4,596). The rest of the state is virtually unchanged as the Midstate region is down about 2% (3/01 - 6,221; 2/05 - 6,101), while the Piedmont region has grown almost 3% (3/01 - 5,686; 2/05 - 5,836). The 2/05 SCYSA data includes the registration of an additional 137 out-of-state players, which implies that the 2/05 registration figures are residence based. An out-of-state breakout was not provided for 3/01.
While it would be interesting to know if some of the decline in recreation enrollment is due to an earlier migration to classic, it is clear that the something has happened to overall enrollment in the Coastal district.
It seems equally clear that the repeated mergers in the Piedmont have not negatively impacted participation vis-a-vis the rest of the state.
Enrollment in the entire state, including the Piedmont, has certainly fallen relative to population growth, but that is an analysis for someone with far more time on their hands...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
zzzzzzzzz: Interesting stuff. Your posts on girls versus boys enrollment and now on geographic enrollment have been fascinating.
Here's my question about this snapshot data - what percentage of recreation players hadn't signed up by February of 2005 and what percentage had't signed up by March of 2001 versus June end-of-season data? The answer might be 0% with respect to both in which case the SCYSA data is sterling - but I just can't tell.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87
throw in
|
|
throw in
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 87 |
A lot of great discussion on the stats for participation but the question remains with respect to a drop in the numbers. All of the ideas discussed are reasons that contribute. At least for the girls up until about U16 soccer provides mostly a social function. During the mid-teens a lot of them reflect on the work required for the upcoming season, the travel for tournaments and the anticipated butt-whippings by the two or three major forces in the state and decide it just ain't worth the effort any longer. As posted, it is obvious to most by this point that they are not going to have the opportunity to play college ball and the expense and work just isn't attractive. They get all the social interaction needed at the school and soccer is no longer needed for this. Three to four a week practices, scrimmages and the dreaded tournaments actually take away from the high school social experience, which has become primary.
Now if you happen to play on one of the "butt-whipping" club teams things are a little different. Typically, these teams stay intact because of their successes but the same outside influences are still there and do create a distraction. By U16 you generally have a base team that is going to stay together, play college ball at some level and are willing to put up with the travel, expense, etc.
Just an observation of a parent that has dealt with all of this and continue to hear about it from a daughter.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
soccerdog6.......BINGO!, right on the money.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Soccerdog6: At least for the girls up until about U16 soccer provides mostly a social function.
If there's any single reason that I'm such a fervant proponent of clubs in an area offering diverse services to players, this statement lies at the heart of it.
There are kids that want to play serious soccer. There are kids that want to play social soccer. And there are kids that want to go to the mall, or play video games, or whatever.
A kid who is serious needs to have the opportunity to go to a place to play with others who are serious. A kid who wants to play socially needs a very different type of team. And the kid who only wants to go to malls or play video games -- I hope that that kid has parents who offers them the choice of physical labor, athletics, or more studying.
For years now, the major club-related issues I've seen are parents [mostly] and players [sometimes] that want to play serious soccer and social soccer at the same time. Parents/players want to stay with the same group of friends, and want to play at a high competitive level, but don't want to train and don't want to travel.
It's natural to "want it all"; however, the price paid for achieving it is a dumbing down of our most ambitious kids -- whether that "dumbing down" is in athletics or academics. The academic community figured this out and thus classes aren't focused on keeping the same group of friends together year after year; instead most schools figured out that their main function was to offer each of its students the best education that they wanted and/or could achieve. Soccer clubs, or at the very least groups of soccer clubs within an area, need to learn the lesson that their function alone or together is to offer services that address the widely divergent needs of all of the players that they service - whether those needs are serious or social.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
I must preface my comments here by saying that I hated Statistics at Carolina........so I cannot speak in those lofty terms. It taxes my less than massive brain and overworks those few cells up there that get me thru the day. But I can speak somewhat about the social/personal side of things.
The stat comments that zzzzzzzzzz made.......
"Although total SCYSA enrollment is down almost 8% over the last four years (3/01 - 18,386; 2/05 -16,951), female participation has risen over 54% (3/01 - 4,282; 2/05 - 6,599).One in four guys have migrated from soccer as male participation is down almost 27% (3/01 - 14,104; 2/05 - 10,352)."
......should reveal that it is the guys who are giving up on soccer to a much greater degree than the gals. Why is this? I propose these social reasons for the benefit of the discussion (anyone but Shearer please feel free to disagree or offer a rational rebuttal):
1. Girls have proven to be more mature than guys throughout the adolescent years.
2. Guys may have been pushed/disciplined harder at early ages and are just burned out with it all.
3. If the guys do not attain some of their early objectives,i.e league, state, region success, then why continue at ages 17-18. Guys want more immediate results than girls and are less patient by nature.
4. Girls get into soccer initially, and to a large degree, for the social interaction of it. That interaction usually continues for years.
5. Guys don't know what social interaction is. They just want to compete and win.
(Please dont take my comments as sexist. Girls have as great a tremendous desire to win, yet, they don't give up as easily as the guys when things don't go their way.)
6. Girls are more devoted to their respective club teams than the guys at ages 17-18.
It may be that the numbers do reflect the social differences, needs, wants in male/female athletes. Just some thoughts......
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
OP
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
From my post in the other thread:
I believe the model that will work best for the Cola area is a Bridge model, assuming it is succesful. This will provide the 'choice" that Chico is referring to for the player (and the parents who foot the bill) as to the direction they would like to go.
The problem is not that dissimilar to ODP pool.
(A whole different subject.)
Nevertheless, Chico if you look at the map again, you will note that the majority of the smaller clubs do not offer anything above classic ball.
At the challenge and Premier level of play, CESA leads the way with 25 teams (23%), CSC is next with 14(13%), Bridge 11(10%), NECSA 8 (7%), Lex 7 (7%) with thee remaining clubs all having 5 or less
61% of the teams in the higher levels come from 5 clubs. 3 of these clubs are in the Cola area.
A merger of LCSC and CSC (geography)will yield the same numnber of teams as CESA without loss of numbers, and one can argue increased competitivenes.
Other numbers:
25% of the teams come from the low country.
42% from the midtstate (N. Augusta to Rock Hill area)
33% from the piedmont
(all classical definitions of the old 3 tier division of the state)
Assuming 16 players per team - there are 1712 players in the upper levels.
Looking at these numbers a set-up similar to bridge in Cola may benefit all involved without loss of numbers and teams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188 |
Could a decrease in registration be a result of the number of younger kids playing at the YMCA?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
kdlsc,
Good observation. Thats possible. I do not know the stats on YMCA soccer. If the Y leagues have experienced a tremendous increase in kids playing in their leagues, then that would account for some of the numbers. It is possible that parents have heard negative stories of the costs, travel, time for classic soccer and have opted to do the most convenient thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
2004striker: The SCYSA data doesn't support or disprove your social "thoughts," but for your gender based discussions to hold water, we must assume that the gender dynamics you mentioned have only surfaced in the last four years.
To see if guys are abandoning the sport faster than girls we would need to track particular age groups over a period of years. For example, we would need U13 male and female enrollment at 3/01 and again as U17 at 2/05.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188 |
I think I will check at 2 of the Y's in my area. Seems to me I have heard they were busting at the seams.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
zzzzzzzzzz,
I was only going on your stats that said total boys participation was down and female was up over that same particular period of time. What does age have to do with it? And I dont know if it will hold water or not, but those were my personal impressions. I do not claim to prove or disprove anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
2004striker,
None of us can "prove" anything as most of the deck of cards is missing. That said, we are left with our impressions.
I inferred from your first post referencing the SCYSA data that your explanation for the documented decline was social.
My response attempted to suggest that if these social reasons do exist, and they may, that they have existed for longer than four years. Therefore, the social attrition would have existed in the 3/01 base line data.
In order for the social reasons espoused to have caused the decline, the problem must be getting worse. Where's a sociologist when you need one?
The age reference (U13 to U17) relates to one of the missing cards. If we knew how many males and females that played the game four years ago were still playing the game, we'd know which group had the highest attrition. We still wouldn't know why, but could offer more specific conjecture. Unfortunately, we don't have the necessary information available.
I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
striker & 9z,
Great analysis on the socio-side. I attribute it to teenage angst and the punk rock phenomena (or fenomena).
How many Hot Topic stores were there in '01 vs. '04?
;>)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
A single club in the upstate has 8 of the 9 female region III pool players for 2005. In the last 5 or so years, the only two South Carolina girls that have made the national team both came from a single upstate club. Why? Is it because only the upstate has girls that are highly ambitious and talented? No...it's because a few upstate clubs have a history of taking girls soccer more seriously than most other South Carolina clubs and thus the area has become a magnet for girls who are serious. And this isn't just occuring in the mid-teens; you're starting to see girls as young as U11/U12 commuting.
In most South Carolina youth soccer clubs it is a rare young girl that is lucky to find a local team in which the coach helps the girls understand that it's okay to be competitive. If she does, typically that team will be an anomoly within a larger club in which most girls teams will be primarily social in nature and in which peers will discourage girls from being competitive.
In South Carolina more than most states, girls grow up being socialized into a specific set of behaviors. Until more organizations [not just youth soccer] step up to actively help girls understand that it's okay to be competitive, our South Carolina girls on average are going to be at a disadvantage not just in soccer but in the rest of their lives.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
9z,
I appreciate the rational response to my social musings about the state of sc club soccer. You are correct that all the data is not in to adequately examine why and when there began the fall-off in male/female participation. And my feeble brain can't begin to calculate a method to obtain that data. I will leave that for Chico. Therefore, I chose to blame societal influences and adolescent tendencies to make my point. Maybe, I ought to stick with discussions about mergers and Red Necks.........
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 188 |
I found out today that the 4 YMCA's in Greenville have around 1000 kids playing soccer. The Golden strip Y has 38 teams and the Eastside Y has 350 players (200 of which are 7 yrs old or younger)
|
|
|
|
