SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP U13G CHALLENGE PREDICTIONS

Okay folks, what are your prodictions for the u13g CHALLENGE LEAGUE THIS FALL.

It would easily be CESA 93 Premier, but they are playing up into the U-14 Challenge Division.

Bridge FA handled Aiken in the Carowinds tournament a couple of weekends back. Have to give the nod to them.

Hurst,
Bridge FA 93 Gold are also playing in the U14 Challenge Division, so they aren't in the running either.

Here are the teams in the U13 Challenge Division:

CESA 93 Girls Challenge
CRSA 93 Girls Gold
LCSC Lexington Lightning
SAA Elite
Columbia United FC U13 Girls Challenge

Definitely not as strong without Bridge and CESA Premier. I don't know anything about the CESA Challenge and SAA Elite teams, but I think the LCSC and CRSA teams should do well. Could be a very competitive division.

Where are the Aiken Fireballs playing?

The Aiken Fireballs are listed in the U13 Girls Classic Division.

They are sandbagging. Aiken should easily win the Classic division.

The CESA 94 Premier and Bridge 94 Gold are U12 teams playing up in U13 Classic. They could be factors.

Here are all the teams listed for U13 Girls Classic:

CFC 93 Girls
SSC 93 Girls Blue
CESA 93 Girls Classic
MPSC 93 Girls White
Bridge FA 94 Girls Gold
CESA 94 Girls Premier
CSC Coast FA 93 Girls Red
Aiken Fireballs
FSA Florence Strikers
LCSC Ice
NACSC Lady Kicks '93
CRSA Rapid Girls Red
TrCSC Stars

If Lexington went with an A & B....I like the Lexington Lightning in U13 Challenge (assuming their players didn't leave for "redder" pastures).

Aiken Fireballs should be playing Challenge....that would give you 6 teams in challenge and 12 teams in classic.

Looking at results to date, you'd have to pick the Coast FA 93 team as at least among the favorites in U13G Classic. They've dominated all the teams they've played. They should be playing Challenge.

League play starts Sat. the 9th, what are your predictions?
WEEK 1 MATCHUPS
Columbia United FC U13 Girls Elite vs CESA 93 Girls Challenge
SAA Elite vs CRSA 93 Girls Gold
SAA Elite vs LCSC Lexington Lightning

Anyone catch the CESA vs. CUFC U13 game. Looks like it was a tight game. Is the score reflective of the match?

The Score was not reflective.(although hard fought by boths teams) CESA played one of their better games to date. They controlled the ball most of the game. CUFC scored on a short direct kick outside the 18. CESA just did not finish thier opportunities.

Thanks, I was surprised to see that score...finishing at this age can be frustrating!

Several things:

(a) Wow! It's great to see folks on this message board talking more about the girls side!

(b) The CUFC versus CESA game; that was the Elite CUFC team versus the Challenge CESA team, right? It ended 1-1?

That is correct. 1-1 draw for the season opener for both teams.

Here are this weeks games. predictions anyone???
Week Two September 16th & 17th
CESA 93 Girls Challenge vs SAA Elite
LCSC Lexington Lightning vs CRSA 93 Girls Gold
Columbia United FC U13 Girls Elite vs CRSA 93 Girls Gold
Columbia United FC U13 Girls Elite vs LCSC Lexington Lightning

I believe CESA will win a close one against SAA. I would think CRSA and Lexington are a little stronger than CUFC, but can't say that for sure. I do believe the CRSA and Lexington game should be a nice battle. You seem to have seen some of these teams as well, what is your take?

CRSA plays well together, at this point I think they are tops in week 1 and two, just an opinion. They beat the CESA team 3-0 in Knoxville a couple of weeks ago. Although the CESA team had not been togeter very long. Should be a good weekend.

CESA u13 challenge comes away with a win ,after a finalist showing at the RBC, Against a solid LCSC Lexington Lightning Team. Goal came off a pk. CESA looked suspect in the first half but hunkered downa and walk out with much needed points.

CESA u13 challange girls 1
LCSC Lexington Lightning 0

CESA u13 playing the CRSA u13 this weekend, these two met in Knoxville this year with CRSA winning a tough match. Should be a good match.
LCSC Lexington Lightning vs Columbia United FC U13 Girls Elite, these two matches could produce a new leader in this division to date.

Nothing more riveting than U13 girls soccer.

gotta start somewhere

The CESA /CRSA game has been rescheduled for a date in November.

Congratulations to Bridge FA Gold U-13 Girls on their seeding in the CASL Shootout. Excellent competition. Good luck in the Champion B bracket.

http://www.caslnc.com/files/tournaments/Shootout%2006%20W%20Game%20Schedule.pdf

CUFC did not field an elite U-13 team because there were no elite players in the club at that age. The team's results prove that was a wise decision. They have struggled mightily at the challenge level. Imagine the pounding they would take in an elite league.

"Completely ignorant question: how is the decision make not to field an elite team at a specific age group within CUFC? I would have thought that with the theory of pushing teams into more challenging competition [i.e., the discussion previously concerning season-to-date results] that the most competitive U13 team would be elite. "

Thanks...a few more questions, trying to understand philosophy...

Wouldn't an "Elite" U13 team play in the same South Carolina Challenge League in which a "Challenge" team would play? How would that be different? Or are you referring to the tournaments which CUFC "Elite" versus "Challenge" teams enter?

I'm not saying anyone made the wrong decision...I'm sure the folks at CUFC know better than anyone what they should have done. From the CUFC web site, here's the passage concerning team creation/selection that has me a bit confused:

In that regard, the Club's two Directors of Soccer and their Select Coaching Staff will select the players they need to field the most competitive team in each age group and place them on a corresponding Elite team. Next, they will select players they need to field the next most competitive team in that same age group and place them on the Challenge team.

Chico,

As you pointed out, a U13 Elite team would play in the same league since there is no U13 league in SC above Challenge. The only differences are the name and the tournaments in which they are playing.

I believe the policy you quoted from the web site is the goal. However, this was a situation where the reality of the level of candidates indicated an exception should be made.

As Wayne indicated, this team's results are more in line with the other CUFC Challenge teams than they are with the Elite teams. Therefore, it would seem that the name Challenge better represents this teams' playing level.

Unless I am missing something, U13G for CUFC is called Elite and they are 0W 6L 1T

Never mind I am missing something...should have read more carefully.

Is Bridge FA Gold ready for the CASL tournament this weekend? Will anybody be going up early to attend tomorrow's ACC womens semi-finals?

The Bridge FA team is in a good bracket this weekend. This is another great opportunity for them to continue proving that they are a quality team. Good luck

Good showing by Bridge FA U-13 Girls in this past weekend's CASL Shootout. Bridge and two other teams in their bracket all went 2-1-0. Bridge's two victories were by shutout and the tie-breaker was goals allowed. Bridge did not advance because they gave up five goals in the one game they lost. Ironically, the team that scored five goals on Bridge was NOT the team that advanced out of the bracket. Crazy!

Here are the results for the U-11G - U14G in Raleigh:

http://www.caslnc.com/files/tournaments/Shootout%2006%20W%20Game%20Schedule.pdf

The U-13 Coast team (2nd in PMSL U-13 Classic) tied CRSA Gold (1st in PMSL Challenge) last weekend at the CESA Fall Challenge.

I heard that the Bridge FA U-13 girls beat Lexington last weekend 3-0. This would move them into third position in the standings; playing one game less. In the U-14 Challenge league we have two U-13 teams in the top three. I would have thought that this league would have been dominated by CESA 92 Premier and CUFC Elite. CESA 93 Premier was clearly the top team in the league, playing good soccer and was consistent each week. Great team!
Should these two teams really play in the U-13 league in the spring? Can someone help me see the benefits it would serve for them playing in the U-13 league?
The only one I can see clearly is that they might have a greater possibility of qualifying for the RPL for the next year. They would be playing in less competitive games each compared to what they played against in the fall. As we know, teams play to the level of competition they face most of the times.

SIL: You're right. U13s being successful at U14 challenge in the fall will not find the same level of competition at U13 challenge in the spring. However, you need to propose a tractable (i.e., clear, concise, and without room various interpretations) rule that SCYSA could implement for these situations. On the boys side, a similar case could be made for 93bridge and if we go back a year to 92cesa boys. I would argue; however, that 93cesa boys, while a good team with some potential are not at the same level as the 93bridge boys. My point is this, yes it's unfortunate, but you've got to give the administrators a simple rule that can be applied without subjectivity, otherwise they open themselves to all sorts of protests, and potentially lawsuits.

I couldn't come up with a tractable rule, so I think you're stuck with biding your time for the spring season. So what do you do? To me, you supplement your regular season U13 challenge schedule with extra scrimmages or friendlies against available U14s, continue to play up in quality tournaments, and possibly play U15 next fall while waiting for RIII play in spring of 2008. (I didn't see anything to prevent a U14 team playing up to U15 in the fall and forfeiting your U14 RIII spring spot, but I'd check w/ SCYSA to make sure.)

greengrass,

Good advice for a tough situation. One comment though. I don't think the Bridge 93 or CESA 93 girls need "to play up in quality tournaments". They just need to enter quality tournaments (get placed in the highest bracket) and I'm sure that there are teams from GA, FL, TN and NC that can give them a decent match. Jefferson Cup comes to mind as a good, competitive Spring tournament.

Another way of looking at it also is while we think these teams will not be challenged in their age groups..How do we get the rest of the state to step up to the plate competitively? Is consolidation the answer? The two teams that keep being brought up is CESA and Bridge..Are they not products of consolidation? The real question I feel is how do we get the rest of the state to step up? I feel this would be in everyone's best interest.

CHT,

Do you want competition within the state, or competition within the region? If you want our teams to be competitive within the region, yes consolidation is the answer. We builde Bridge's and CESA's that are competitive in R3PL.

If you want competition within the state then restrict or prohibit consolidation (Chico is cringing right now). Use the Williamsport Little League philosophy of adhering to geographical boundaries. This may lead to more competitive balance.....but of course, the cream always rises to the top. If you restrict player movement, good luck at the R3PL level.

CHT: I was trying to answer SIL's "what do we do with U13/U14 SCSCL play starting in two month's question". My answer was simply 'very little can be done by SCYSA' -- certainly not in 2 months and from my perspective very little they could do without opening pandora's box. On the other hand there are things a particular team can to to mitigate their situation for one season. Hurst was correct to point that there are quality tournaments that they can get into rather than playing up, but I wouldn't rule playing up either.

How to raise the playing level across SC, that's probably the subject of a different thread.

Here's an interesting article in today's Raleigh newspaper regarding the impact that Triangle-Area (particularly CASL) soccer is having on the local collegiate level.

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/512063.html

Below you will find a table of the Region III states , their population and their R3 championships. In reviewing the data you will note that there is a correlation between population and championships with the odd point here and there (i.e. Fla has as many R3 championships as SC)

When we speak of competition we have to be careful to define against what... It would seem that Texas and specifically NT is the beacon. On the other hand we have to realistically understand the consequences... It would make perfect sense to take all the best players in SC and make one team, that basically attends top level tournaments and is defacto state champ. This will bring higher capability in competion, but at what cost...If you do not make this team, do you keep on playing???....

			Region III Championships
State	US population 2005 (millions)	2006 Registered youth players (thousands)	2006	2005	2004	2003	2002	2001	2000
Texas	23		8	6		5	6	5	7
Florida	18	100	1						1
Georgia	9	70	1	1		3	5	4
NC	9	64		3		2		2	3
Tennessee	6	37
Alabama	5	18
Louisiana	5
SC	4						1	1
Oklahoma	4	37	2	2		2
Mississippi	3								1
Arkansas	3

by the way.... icould not find 2004 data

futbol: interesting stuff. i've seen some argue that we need to consolidate more teams, reach out more and get more players involved, etc. I looked at your population vs championship model. I pulled up census data for children aged 5-17 from the 2000 census, the number of soccer players that you reported and computed a simple percentage.

TX 4,262,131
FL 2,700,517 100,000 3.7%
GA 1,574,084 70,000 4.4%
NC 1,424,538 64,000 4.5%
TN 1,023,641 37,000 3.6%
AL 827,430 18,000 2.2%
LA 902,407
SC 744,962
OK 656,007 37,000 5.6%
MS 570,823
AR 498,784

I thought it was interesting that market penetration ranged from 2.2 to 5.6 percent of youth.

I recall some statistice for SCYSA at ~19,000 giving SC roughly 2.6%. (I know that we have a good number of YMCA and city recreation programs that are non-affiliated in my neighborhood and would assume that might be true through out the state. So SC youth playing soccer exceeds 2.6% [I hope]).

To me, I see two things in the numbers: 1) FL doesn't seem to get their share of championships based on population, and 2) I want to know Oklahoma's secret for having the highest market penetration.

This is my third year on the board and it's amazing that the same topics, and the same information, continue to be revisited. I think it speaks well for different people who are analyzing and understanding the problems South Carolina faces.

With respect to consolidation, limited geographies, etc. -- here's what's changed in the last three years. Three clubs have stepped up to attempt to compete at a higher level (note: clubs, not teams.) The SCYSA has stepped in and created a new rule to address intra-state competition. And we've had the defection of one club to North Carolina.

At some point, it appears to me that your choices become simple. You can either (a) help an existing "super-club" become more successful, (b) try to create a new "super-club" in your particular area, or (c) try to create new rules to limit the success of "super-clubs."

CESA and Bridge appear focused on (a). CUFC, with its focus on "one community", focuses on (a) and (c).

The interesting clubs to me are LCSC and MPSC. Both are large clubs that have not yet chosen to do anything. The choices that they make in the next few years will be the most important with respect to increased competitiveness in South Carolina.

Chico: how many super clubs can SC support? If you use gotsoccer as a measure of success (let's use the top 200 clubs as a measure of success), then Tennessee has 7 clubs, Georgia and Oklahoma have 6 clubs each, North Texas and North Carolina have 5 clubs each, Alabama has 3, Florida and South Texas have 2 clubs each, and South Carolina has 2 (although bridge falls just outside my top 200 criteria).

Oklahoma is an interesting case study because they have about the same population but spread over a bigger area so consolidation is not a terribly likely option for them, I'm guessing they're more likely a one town/one club state for the most part, and the concept of riding 80 miles on the school bus is common. Yet, they're carrying 6 'successful' clubs but also have twice as many registered soccer players.

So on one hand, I agree that should LCSC and/or MPSC choose to align themselves with CUFC or Bridge would certainly change the playing field in SC (for the better), and might even begin to justify a regular 3rd spot in RIII play. And this will certainly be the stuff for great forum material for the next 2-4 years. (I think we're just starting to see the fruits of CESA merger, and that in another 3-4 years, the full impact will be seen more clearly. And Bridge will be following suit in time. Admitedly, the jury is still out for CUFC, but I wish them well also.)

As a state we're still competing with just ~19,000 kids. Assuming CUFC comes along, then we'll have 3 successful super clubs ... about one half of OK's program (in terms of players and successful super clubs) ... but with about the same population. It's taken OK 6 successful clubs to get 2 regional championships in each of the last two years.

We need another 10K-20K kids playing soccer to begin to have the same pool of players to work with. How do we attract an extra 1,000 players per age group in the state?

I did not mean to change the direction of this thread..The point I was trying to make is how do we make age divisions more competitive so that the stronger teams are not forced to play up..Playing up does not mean you are playing better competition..They are just bigger and faster because of age difference.What we could end up with is younger talented kids getting whacked by a larger kid who has no skill.
I agree that these talented kids should look for competition in their age groups outside of South Carolina.

>>[greengrass] Chico: how many super clubs can SC support?<<

Direct evidence: 2. Hopefully 3. No more.

>>As a state we're still competing with just ~19,000 kids. [...] We need another 10K-20K kids playing soccer to begin to have the same pool of players to work with. How do we attract an extra 1,000 players per age group in the state?<<

If you look at what CESA has done, or what Bridge is doing, you'll see that they don't limit themselves to South Carolina players. That seems pretty important in the short-term. I don't see how CUFC is going to become regionally competitive with their community-focused approach that seems to be almost exclusively Columbia oriented since they are limited in this not just to the 19K SC kids but the many fewer than that kids that happen to live in the Columbia area.

In the longer-term, the way to increase the penetration of youth soccer is to go after underserved markets starting at the recreation level. Everyone wants to complain about costs -- but I highly doubt that there are many kids not playing recreation soccer because of cost. The truth is that our clubs, and the SCYSA, don't typically give a rat's behind about doing much more than serving the existing status quo.

So how do we increase the number of kids playing soccer? The most direct way is to support those clubs trying to make a difference and grow their younger recreation programs.

To further illustrate this post, I've noticed two things in the days since I posted it:

• Bridge has a new web site up (looks good) at http://bridgefa.com/index.html. On their home page, they talk about drawing kids from multiple areas, to wit:
  

  Quote:

  ---

  
  
  Our players come from a wide geographic area within the state including Aiken, Beaufort, Columbia, Hilton Head, Myrtle Beach, and the Charleston area. Several even come from as far away as Georgia and North Carolina.
  
  
  

  ---

  
  
• Greenville County Council allocated $3M for new soccer fields that appears to me will allow CESA to double its recreation capacity.
  

Just thought it was interesting that these two events occurred in the last few days and illustrate what we're discussing here.