SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP CUFC Tryout Analysis

>>[Blind Ol Ref] The merger should bring more parity to CESA's dominance on the girls side.<<

Coach P...this is the type of expectation to which I was referring. And it makes sense from a CUFC point of view; CUFC is as large as CESA and CESA started out well so why wouldn't CUFC achieve parity with CESA quickly?

2004striker: Berson was at CESA?

In any case, one reason could be he's in demand. I know that folks I talk to in Lexington were pretty happy to get him.

Chico,
I made correction. I meant CRSA. I just don't understand why he moves each year to a different club?

>>[who_me?] [...] we are taking a limited data set and trying to extrapolate all kinds of meaning. All kindsof things should happen [...]<<

I really do agree with you. Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I think that there's typically a wide gap between expectations and actual results -- reality has a bad habit of getting in the way. What I've been attempting to illustrate is a CUFC point of view.

No one expected CESA to sweep in the fall of 2005; quit bluntly, I expected them to win slightly more than half of those games [given that SGU and GFC had won only approximately half of the state challenge cup games over time]. Now...if CESA had lost more than half, I would personally have been disappointed. All I'm trying to do is illustrate why some CUFC folks are expecting to do well out of the gate -- there are some compelling reasons for them to believe it to be true.

2004striker: Sorry...I thought I had missed something! I honestly don't know the answer. But in any case I do think that the Lexington U17B, which arguably had a very good team last year but was not all that lucky, has the makings of a very, very strong team.

I never thought Lex. had a chance to field a competitive club team with the CUFC merger and the sinister desires of CESA to field the best teams.
Anyone have definite rosters for CUSC and Lex. U17 boys?

I think CESA will still dominate.
Take a team that won the state challege cup.
Instead of giving those kids a bye they had to tryout again. From what I saw at CESA, many of those kids did not make the new team. CESA is going to a new level

dad,
If you are speaking of U17 boys, from what area did the new guys come from?

Chico, I believe you a placing very lofty expectations on the new CUFC. In comparing CUFC to the 1st year CESA organization you are forgetting that CESA's competetion remained realtively weak. The 1st year CESA club should have been way ahead of the competition due to the total popluation from which their teams were selected. Whereas, CUFC has just increased their population to that of their competitors (we believe). There should be more parity in the league this year if anything but to think that anthing less than winning all age groups (ala CESA) is a failure, just doesn't seem right.

scdad - I am more in agreement that CESA may still win it's share of state cups but do not believe that your supporting reason makes sense. I beleive CESA will continue to win state cups do to their quality service not their player pool. I thought the success of teams has alot to do with the building of that team. CESA appears to have that figured out. Do you really improve a team through subtraction? It may very well be that they will not win the state cup because it is a totally new team. It takes alot of players knowing their roles to win championships. By stating that "many" of the encumbant players did not make the new team makes it sounds as if a mojority of the team did not return. Is that true? Where did the new (supposedly better skilled) kids come from? If this model works I would expect CESA to dominate for years to come because the skill level at the other clubs must be dropping in order for CESA to improve the quality of players. The players must have come from other clubs. The only other possiblity is that the newbies are coming from recreation or are realtively unknown players. I highly douby that, so do they come from another club? Again, I am not sure this is taking CESA to this new level or not. Only time will tell!

>>[USMNT2014] Chico, I believe you a placing very lofty expectations on the new CUFC.<<

I've never once stated my opinion concerning what will occur; what I've done is reflected what the numbers and history depict and then noted what it seems is expected by many CUFC fans.

>>In comparing CUFC to the 1st year CESA organization you are forgetting that CESA's competetion remained realtively weak.<<

Two things: (1) you are ignoring the fact that I didn't say that CUFC was expected by many to "sweep" anything -- what I said precisely is reproduced below:

Chico: The creation of CUFC and the number of teams and players they are sponsoring means to me that the issue is no longer how many state championships are "taken" from CESA; instead, the expectation has to be that CUFC will win as many as CESA in the 2006-2007 season. Anything else it seems to me would have to be a classified as a disappointment from a CUFC point of view.

To put it succinctly, this is the "parity" that others have spoken about on this thread.

The second thing you're ignoring is the fact that Bridge, a relatively small club/alliance, had such success in its first year taking two of four boys championships.

>>The 1st year CESA club should have been way ahead of the competition due to the total popluation from which their teams were selected. Whereas, CUFC has just increased their population to that of their competitors (we believe).<<

Here's a fascinating question: what do you believe CUFC sees its "population from which their teams are selected" and what do you think CESA sees as its "population"? My guess is you're going to say "Columbia" and "Greenville", respectively. I don't think this is correct.

>>There should be more parity in the league this year if anything but to think that anthing less than winning all age groups (ala CESA) is a failure, just doesn't seem right.<<

I'm confused; where did I say this?