>>[azzuri] Good to see a reaonable person trying to address a legitimate question. Not sure if Chico skipped his medication, but suggesting Lexington, CFC, Aiken or Congaree might just be able to play with the CESA premiere or bridge teams leads to a ridiculous rant about breaking 12 year old girls legs. Man you have problems! <<
Sigh... Let's go back to basics. The concept of "breaking their legs" is a metaphorical "ridiculous rant" based on typical dystopian literature best exemplified by Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron. The opening line is pretty famous: "The year was 2081, and everyone was finally equal." The concept was that equality was achieved through bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
To apply this comment to this dialogue -- the idea that we should "force" teams to play in less capable age brackets for the benefits of other, less qualified teams, seems to be a bit akin to the dystopia that Vonnegut was warning us about. In essence, there are two ways we can make South Carolina youth soccer more competitive -- by making the average team better or by making the best teams worse. I don't want to go into my typical "SCYSA rant" concerning their decision last year -- but basically, my core problem with the geographic solution was that the SCYSA chose to invent a set of rules to handicap competitive South Carolina soccer rather than trying to solve the issues it faced by increasing the quality of South Carolina soccer. But enough of that...
And while there is no doubt that I "have problems" (as do most of us), one problem I don't have is being able to read what is written on this message board occasionally in a non-literal sense. However, I do apologize for confusing you into thinking that I was actually advocating the literal breaking of anyone's legs. But then again, perhaps this entire conversation is yet another "equality" problem that we need to solve. I'll be checking in for my lobotomy later tonight. [Note: Once again, this is not a comment that should be taken literally.]
>>All I was saying (and others) was keeping teams that are elite in their age group challenges every other team (which are not far behind).<<
I actually understood what you were saying. I just find it to be a reprehensible philosophy to cripple the best among us in the name of achieving the common good, whether it's done at an individual or a team level.
>>Are you really concerned about SC soccer or just two teams?<<
Here's what might be fascinating to you -- I'm really concerned not just about SC soccer but about SC in general. No matter how much some of us might want to ignore it, there is life outside the borders of SC. Our children -- heck, we ourselves -- are living in an increasingly global world -- and trying to meet an increasingly challenging environment through the "dumbing down" of our best and brightest -- whether that be on the pitch, in the schools, or wherever -- does not seem to me to be an incredibly viable theory.
>>As an argument this was being sold early in the season that no one could beat the CESA U14 girls...Yea they are just that much better...I dont think so, and now we know so. Cesa and Bridge may dominate at the U 13 level, but suggesting they won't is not holding them back.<<
Okay...I'll admit that I'm not bright enough to completely parse the semantics of this particular section. I don't follow this age group at a level to understand the wins and losses of CESA or any other team, which I'm guessing I'd have to in order to grasp your point here.
