|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
[Preface: Thought some of these numbers were fascinating. As always, I did this quickly and I'm sure there are errors so please let me know. Of course, it's early in the season -- just thought that there might be some interest out there.]U13 and up challenge league results to date [from the reporting web sites.]  U13 and up challenge league results to date of clubs with 30 or more games [from the reporting web sites.]  Chart of U13 and up challenge league results to date of clubs with 30 or more games [from the reporting web sites.]  These didn't seem right to me; so to sanity check I looked at two local clubs: LCSC and CUFC. Here are the results of head-to-head matches to date: All age groups, all levels where LCSC played CUFC: LCSC 16W 10L 5T. Challenge, U13+ [U13 and up] where LCSC played CUFC: LCSC 7W 2L 3T
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Chico,
I think your comparison between Columbia United and Lexington is somewhat misleading. A number of the games in those stats are played between the top Lexington team in the given age group and Columbia United's second team. Columbia United has 81% of their select teams playing at Challenge or higher levels while only 47% of Lexington's select teams are playing Challenge or higher. As far as I can tell, Lexington does not have more than one team playing Challenge or higher in any age group. In Challenge League/Division games, Columbia United’s Elite teams have a 1-1-3 record versus Lexington. Also, four of the Elite teams are playing R3PL where there are no Lexington teams.
Columbia United's decision to play their teams at a higher level will not look good initially on the win-loss records, but, hopefully, will lead to better development for the players and teams in the long run. I believe this decision will be revisited each season to make sure the teams are playing in the division that best suits their developmental needs.
(I also compiled these numbers quickly from the League web pages. Feel free to point out any errors.)
Last edited by Coach P; 09/27/06 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Coach P: I apologize for any "misleading" I've done in the posts above. Due to my incredible ignorance I'm actually not seeing where I misled anyone. Thus, several respectful questions: - Are all of the results "misleading" or only the ones associated with CUFC and Lexington?
- How can I restate the results above to make them less "misleading"?
- Is it simply that you want CUFC elite teams compared to Lexington's top teams?
The problem of course with the last one is that trying to compare "elite" teams would be an apples and oranges exercise. As you know, Lexington doesn't have an "elite/challenge/classic" designation -- basically, teams are formed for a variety of reasons with competition being only one factor. (Note: I like the CUFC elite/challenge/classic competition based system better.) Do you perceive that I am trying to say "the best LCSC teams are better than the best CUFC teams"? Actually...I really wasn't...the thought never crossed my mind (honestly, it didn't...maybe the billboards out here in Lexington have brainwashed me, but I haven't even perceived at an "elite" or "premier" level that LCSC was competitive with CUFC with the exception of some specific teams.) Sure...there are a few teams now and then that LCSC fields that are very good -- the LCSC U17B and U17G teams seem to be good examples this year -- but I would think on average that the top CUFC team would be much, much better than the top LCSC team. In fact, I wouldn't think that this was the comparison for which you were striving -- instead, the comparison for the top CUFC teams should be RIIIPL-East play and play against in-state clubs like Bridge. One thing that is interesting is the strategy difference between CUFC and LCSC. I didn't realize until your post that CUFC had made a strategic decision to play teams at a higher level thus resulting in more losses but better player development -- I had thought that in most groups CUFC had 2-3 teams with elite and challenge teams playing premier and challenge and classic teams playing classic. Look -- I've repeatedly said that I believe in what CUFC has stated that they are trying to do (offer better youth soccer services to Columbia kids.) But trying to figure out what they're doing is a bit difficult. Thank you tremendously for participating in this discussion so that more light is shed on the strategies and even tactics of the club.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
And Cesa has premier and challenge and Bridge has gold and red, etc. The fact is that Cesa's B and Bridge's B teams help the overall club perfomance in the numbers (which CUFC plays against). This may not be the case for CUFC.
At Lexington, we also make sure we place teams in the appropriate divisions so they can be the most competitive and if we have the numbers we consider multiple teams.
Based on the number of games 86, CUFC had many more chances to win (as they had many more to loose). The fact that it did not (30% winning ratio) says that the teams loosing are probably in the wrong classification.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Lexcoach: Exactly. What I was trying to do was compare all teams in a league; not try to make distinctions about "A", "B", and "C" teams.
Here's a small bit of background. I actually started looking at this after I saw some results from the RBC Liberty tournament where Bridge had done well and I wondered how CUFC had done. When I looked, I didn't see any CUFC teams at RBC at all (not sure what's going on there -- RBC is by far the top-ranked tournament in SC, CUFC has aspirations of being a top club in SC, so this is a bit confusing but I figured there must be some major club-wide conflict).
That got me wondering how CUFC was doing so far this season compared to Bridge and CESA. LCSC got thrown into the mix only because they had played as many challenge league games as Bridge. And I sanity checked CUFC and LCSC because they're both close to home and they've had more games against each other so far.
Again -- it's early in the season -- this is just a snapshot...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Maybe "misleading" was a poor word choice. I am simply saying that playing a higher level of competition often leads to a lower win-loss-tie record than playing in a lower level and that needs to be considered when viewing these numbers.
Columbia United made an aggressive decision to place their top two teams in Challenge or higher leagues in all but 1 age group. Lexington, on the other hand, has apparently made the decision to place their teams in the league where they will be most competitive. Both strategies have merit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13 |
One has to wonder if CUFC is shooting themselves in the foot by not attending top SC tournaments and really not supporting other SC tournaments with quality team number (elite, challenge or classic) turnout. I think they did well with Disney this year, but fear this focus on Elite is leaving the challenge teams to fend for themselves. I think this truth is reflected in the very poor turn out of quality teams for the upcoming Carolina cup in Columbia. How does CUFC interpret no really good teams being interested in their tournament, especially when Columbia is centrally located??? And, it is not a new tournament...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Based on the number of games 86, CUFC had many more chances to win (as they had many more to loose). The fact that it did not (30% winning ratio) says that the teams loosing are probably in the wrong classification.
I'm not sure I agree with the statement that the losing teams are in the wrong classification. At least not in all cases. I am most familiar with one team that decided to go Challenge instead of Classic for development purposes. The team is 0-4-0 in Challenge Division losing by an average of 1.75 goals per game. I believe they are competitive, though not winning, and that they are improving more by playing better competition than if they were in the Classic Division. At this point, I think Challenge was the correct decision for this particular team even though they have not won a match.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
One has to wonder if CUFC is shooting themselves in the foot by not attending top SC tournaments and really not supporting other SC tournaments with quality team number (elite, challenge or classic) turnout.
Columbia United Challenge teams are all playing in the Mt. Pleasant Tournament and Classic teams played at Aiken. I am not trying to defend decisions that I was not involved in. Just stating the fact that there is participation in in-state tournaments.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Chico,
You have CSC listed twice on your first table. The second CSC has played 42 matches, winning 46% of them, yet you leave them out of the analysis in the second table (>30)?
Why?
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13 |
Coach P, I appreciate that perspective, putting the facts out is not defending so I hear you, but if the perception is CUFC is getting teams to other SC tournaments. Why do you think the turnout is so poor here in Columbia. And, I have a child who plays for CUFC...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P ... I was not questioning your decision, nor was I questioning the merit of it. However your statement originally implied that Lex's decisions is what provided better results.
If you look at the younger ages 12 and below and you compare head to head LCSC is 9W, 6L, 1T vs CUFC.
In many of these age groups CUFC has the east/west blue/red breakdown which results in up to 4 teams in an age group were Lexington only has 1 to 2 teams. If I have to play a club 4 times I believe statistically Lex would have a better chance of loosing than winning ....Chico???
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Jagov... If you look at the tournament teams and you look at RBC. I am willing to bet that the most CUFC Elite teams are not participating, whereas in RBC the CESA Premier teams do.
If I am Atlanta Fire or South Charlotte I would be interested in playing your best, if they are not there then why go?
On the other hand I happen to think that the tournament does a bit better in the younger ages.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Just for reference, my daughter's U-13G South Charlotte team is going (went) to the following four tournaments this fall:
South Charlotte Carowinds (their own tournament)
Atlanta Cup
WAGS
Raleigh Shootout
I'm sure RBC would have been a good alternative as well (and a lot more convenient).
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Coach P ... I was not questioning your decision, nor was I questioning the merit of it. However your statement originally implied that Lex's decisions is what provided better results.
I do think playing in Classic will generally produce better win-loss-tie results than playing in Challenge.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
In many of these age groups CUFC has the east/west blue/red breakdown which results in up to 4 teams in an age group were Lexington only has 1 to 2 teams. If I have to play a club 4 times I believe statistically Lex would have a better chance of loosing than winning ....Chico???
I am not familiar with how the academy teams were formed at Columbia United. But I would think that more teams divided up by East and West would mean the talent is spread out and somewhat diluted. So, no, I don't think more games would mean more wins.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Hurst66: I took a look at the blatant mistake you're saying that I made and I can't find it. Thus I must assume that you're simply making things up to tarnish my already blemished reputation! And I ***promise*** I did not go and change the post!  P.S. But I may have changed the table image on another web server to correct my stupidity!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
I can't believe you can do that without leaving an "Edited by Chico" paper trail.
Good for you if you can! ;>)
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
>>[Coach P] Columbia United Challenge teams are all playing in the Mt. Pleasant Tournament and Classic teams played at Aiken. I am not trying to defend decisions that I was not involved in. Just stating the fact that there is participation in in-state tournaments.<<
Was there some type of club-wide conflict that prevented CUFC from playing at RBC? Was it just coincidence? Or was it mandated?
As I noted elsewhere, I saw where some CESA teams have been accepted into the CUFC Carolina Cup.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Chico: "Was there some type of club-wide conflict that prevented CUFC from playing at RBC? Was it just coincidence? Or was it mandated?"
I know of no mandate to avoid RBC.
A decision was made at the club-wide level that each level of teams would go to certain tournaments. Challenge teams, for example, were assigned to play in the Charlotte Carowinds Tournament, the Carolina Cup, and the Mt Pleasant tournament. I am not sure why the other teams did not go to RBC, but the team I am most familiar with used their 3 Challenge League bye dates for the 3 required tournaments. We had a league game scheduled the weekend of RBC.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P...let me help you then in the CUFC set -up
Blue means A
Red means B
East means NECSA
West means CSC
So talent dilution is not applicable based on the old standards of CSC/NECSA. Therefore the NECSA A team would have been their best team , etc...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
I think I understand what you are saying. But then I would think your comparison would be with East (NECSA) or West (CSC), not Columbia United as a whole.
Last edited by Coach P; 09/27/06 02:20 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Quote:
Chico: "Was there some type of club-wide conflict that prevented CUFC from playing at RBC? Was it just coincidence? Or was it mandated?"
Coach P: I know of no mandate to avoid RBC.
A decision was made at the club-wide level that each level of teams would go to certain tournaments. Challenge teams, for example, were assigned to play in the Charlotte Carowinds Tournament, the Carolina Cup, and the Mt Pleasant tournament. I am not sure why the other teams did not go to RBC, but the team I am most familiar with used their 3 Challenge League bye dates for the 3 required tournaments. We had a league game scheduled the weekend of RBC.
Actually, you just answered the question. At a club-wide level the tournaments were chosen and there was a decision not to participate in the [by far] most competitive tournment in South Carolina [source: GotSoccer.com]. Understood...fascinating stuff...
P.S. Thanks for participating in this thread. As I noted earlier, it's hard to tell sometimes what is going on. Honestly, CUFC should pay you for being an ombudsmen between them and the rest of the world. Great job!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
P.S. Thanks for participating in this thread. As I noted earlier, it's hard to tell sometimes what is going on. Honestly, CUFC should pay you for being an ombudsmen between them and the rest of the world. Great job!
I'm just a coach with responsibility for one team. Club level strategy is not my area. I'm just relaying what I know from my observation and club communications. I do not pretend to know everything that went into the decision making. So take my posts for what they are; observations based on limited knowledge.
Last edited by Coach P; 09/27/06 03:04 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P... I too thank you for your input.
if my numbers are right (please feel free to correct)
CUFC fielded 12 Elite, 11 Challenge and 3 classic teams (note I included the 4 R3P teams)
Lex fielded 8 (Elite/challenge equivalent) and 7 classic teams
U13 and up challenge league only, Lexington has won 45% of its games...with 8 teams. CUFC has won 30% of its games with 19 teams (23-4 R3PL teams...who have a combined record 3W 7L in R3P... and note that we would also like to have this opportunity which these fine CUFC teams achieved).
In the charts the record shown are only for challenge league play. Therefore if CUFC choose to play at the highest league why have 3 classic teams? why not do what bridge does and have just 2 teams in the challenge level...? Why not farm out the classic teams to Lex or CRSA?
Last edited by Lexcoach; 09/27/06 03:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 37
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 37 |
I'm just a coach with responsibility for one team. Club level strategy is not my area. I'm just relaying what I know from my obeservation and club communications. I do not pretend to know everything that went into the decision making. So take my posts for what they are; observations based on limited knowledge.
Coach P...so based on your own admission of limited knowledge of CUFC MAYBE you shouldn't be posting on topics about CUFC???? or everytime Chico presents some kind of stats that show CUFC is not doing so great you chime in to "defend" CUFC as if Chico or anybody else for that matter appears to be displaying CUFC in a negative light???lets face it, CUFC is an average club AT BEST. And until they clean house at State Cup (or even make an impact worth mentioning like Bridge FA did in it's first year) you shouldn't bother spending your time defending CUFC on the message board.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
...if my numbers are right (please feel free to correct)
CUFC fielded 12 Elite, 11 Challenge and 3 classic teams (note I included the 4 R3P teams)
Lex fielded 8 (Elite/challenge equivalent) and 7 classic teams
Columbia United has 27 select teams U13 and above: 4 playing R3PL, 18 playing Challenge, and 5 playing Classic.
Doesn't Lexington have 9 teams in Classic?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Steve,
As I said before, I am not trying to defend decisions that I was not involved in and have limited knowledge of what went into making those decisions. I do have knowledge of the club that some other posters on here do not and I am simply trying to point out some facts and maybe fill in some holes.
My point in entering this discussion was just to say that there is more to success and results than win-loss-tie records. Teams that are trying to improve by playing at a higher level of competition should not necessarily be seen as failing or in the wrong classification because they lose. It is not always better to go down to a lower classification just so you can win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 46 |
Coach P thanks for pointing the error.
I pressed the wrong number Lex has 8 classic and 8 elite/challenge. I will take your numbers for CUFC as I went quickly through the websites and could have missed some.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
I think I was counting a Lower Lexington team by mistake. So my earlier post was incorrect in saying 47% of Lexington's teams were playing Challenge. It should have said 50%.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 37
kick off
|
|
kick off
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 37 |
So coach P... if Chico had posted a stat chart that compared Tega Cay and Discoveries, instead of CUFC & LEX, showing two local clubs and one doing better than another, would you still have posted on this topic regardless of the clubs compared?
Still looks like your defending to me. I'd be careful if I was you. Last guy on here that tried to defend CUFC was "Chapindad" and he took such a beating on the scsoccer that he had to pack up and move out and start his own message board where he is the number 1 poster of topics and replies to HIMSELF!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
What's wrong with defending his club? He coaches there so should'nt his loyalties lie with his club?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427
coach
|
|
coach
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,427 |
steve,
sounds like you have an unresolved beef with chapindad, and are trying to find someone to take it out on.....
Everyone in the forum has the right to his/her respective opinions and comments.
Last edited by 2004striker; 09/28/06 12:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170
coach
|
|
OP
coach
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,170 |
Steve: Honestly, I deeply appreciate what Coach P is doing on this message board. I don't think Coach P is any more biased than I am about CESA. He coaches in CUFC, I have a kid that plays in CESA, we both like the clubs with which we're associated, and we both have more knowledge of these clubs than others. Thus, it makes a tremendous amount of sense for him to participate. And I find Coach P's arguments to be rational and logical. When I post a set of data there are typically multiple interpretations of that data.
If it weren't for Coach P, I would have never understood that there was a CUFC strategy of "pushing" teams up in classification with the intent of team and player development. Does this strategy make sense? I don't know...to do a full analysis you'd probably have to look at goal differential in these games and drilling down further into posession and the like. However, if we assume that the goal differential is 2 or less without the use of a 10-0-0 system (packing the box), then it seems to me to be a viable strategy presuming that during the season you see a sharp trend upward in terms of winning percentage.
Are there other answers for what's going on at CUFC? Sure. Here's one off the top of my head. As noted several months ago, the average invitations issued per team was extremely high which could result in a weakening of challenge and classic teams since there is almost never the kind of depth in any club to generally sustain 18-20 elite players and still be competitive in challenge and classic. You could argue whether the best thing to do would be to increase playing time per child by reducing the elite numbers and simultaneously help the classic and challenge players through the distribution of the lower ranked elite players into their ranks.
The point really is that there isn't a single strategy for what's going on -- what clubs have to do is to choose a strategy, communicate the heck out of it, and then operationally execute on it.
In the end, however, I'll make several predictions. First, CUFC will do better than a 30% winning rate for the year -- it's early in the season and CUFC is a new club. Secondly, if they don't do better than 50%, then it's not a sustainable strategy to put kids on the field and have them repeatedly lose -- it simply puts too much pressure on the coach and the club. Third, if they can't do better across the board against LCSC (and CRSA), that they're going to lose players to those clubs -- after all, why play on the challenge team at CUFC and lose when you can play on the top team at LCSC or CRSA and win (or at least win more)? Simply putting more and more kids on your "elite" team isn't a long-term solution -- playing time is just too contentious an issue.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
So coach P... if Chico had posted a stat chart that compared Tega Cay and Discoveries, instead of CUFC & LEX, showing two local clubs and one doing better than another, would you still have posted on this topic regardless of the clubs compared?
Still looks like your defending to me.
I certainly know more about Columbia United and Lexington than I do about Tega Cay or Discoveries. I would have much less to add to that discussion than I would about two clubs for which I have coached. But I might still enter the discussion as I did when the performance of the different states at regionals was being compared. I've never coached in N. Texas, NC, or GA, but have opinions on how they are successful at Regionals.
I don't wish to debate whether or not I am defending my club. I just can't defend decisions made by others when I do not have all the information on why they made those decisions.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Chico,
I think several of these issues will work themselves out over time as the club matures. As the club builds more of a track record with assessing it's teams, you may very well see more of a balance in the different leagues and teams being placed in leagues where they are more competitive. However, this is just my opinion and I am certainly not representing the club's position on any of this.
Also, I think the number of players selected at tryouts was due to the newness of the club and the uncertainty about how many would accept the offers. I think this, too, may change as the club matures.
My team made the decision to play Challenge after quite a bit of discussion and research, talking to coaches whose teams had played Classic in this age group last year. I was already familiar with Challenge having coached in the League last season. I still believe it was the right decision, and, at least to this point, the players seem happy with the decision. They seem to prefer playing in the Challenge league over the Classic even if it means we do not win as many games.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2 |
Long time reader, first time posting. Let's call a spade a spade. What CUfC has done is to take their Challenge level teams and call them Elite; take their Classic level teams and call them Challenge; and, wherever they could get enough kids together (as well as parents willing to pay the freight, they took what would be a high end recreational team and called them Classic. Good marketing!!They sold it to the parents by telling them that the kids would develop better by playing at a higher level - ok, remains to be seen! By that token, every club in SC should take their teams and call them "Super-Duper Elite Premier Challenge" and then play them in the highest level league that will accept them. By their logic, that would be good for soccer in SC.
Truthfully, the only teams that can be assured that they are playing at the correct level are the RIIIP teams - because they actually had to win something to get there. Kudos to them! Everyone else at CUFC is playing at the level they are at by voice vote of the CUFC Board - period.
The only thing that will sort this out is if SCYSA would adopt a promotion/relegation system for Classic and Challenge - as they have already done for Challenge and Premier. Then, if a team is playing at a higher level, you can truly respect what they have accomplished. Without that, its a lot of bloviating opinion. So lets push for that.
Head Coach
Super Duper Elite Challenge Premier 90 Girls Blue Dynamo
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
Sepp, how 'bout a friendly? What level are your girls at again?
Seriously, you raise a great point about the promotion/relegation system. I don't know all the SCYSA history, so I don't know why this isn't in place. It may be because there are not very many teams at some age groups.
Promotion/relegation works well, but I have found the going rough with my daughter's U-15 team in NC. It's painful....much easier to stay up than it is to move up.
NCYSA last year only promoted one team from the second division to the first. We went 8-1 and went to the semi-finals of the state cup. Still didn't get us promoted. One team in our division beat us 3-2, and finished with a record of 9-0. I don't think they even entered the state cup. They got promoted, and we got left down. If we stub our toe again, we will stay down again despite having a relatively strong team. The system is not very forgiving.
But I understand what you are saying. I like the idea of earning your way into a competitive league/division. How about two up and two down?
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
The only thing that will sort this out is if SCYSA would adopt a promotion/relegation system for Classic and Challenge...
I agree completely. Promotion/relegation is the way to go. It works well in other states (NC & GA both use it), so why not here? I sent an email to the SCYSA Cups & Games director earlier this year with this recommendation but have not received a response. If the teams are allowed to choose where they play we will continue to have problems.
The current U13 Girls Divisions are prime examples of why this is needed. 13 teams chose to play Classic while only 5 chose Challenge. The 1st place team in the Classic Division has won 8 games by an average score of 8-0. There have been other scores in this league like 11-0 and 9-0. This is not right!
Hurst, I agree that it should be 2 or 3 up and 2 or 3 down. I believe Georgia uses 2, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2 |
Two up and two down would be the way to do it. The real trick would be in getting it started. I would say that you need a minimum of six teams in the Challenge Division. That way when the two premier teams come back in for state cup, you have a very robust 8 team tournament - with the two premier teams getting the top seed in each bracket. Also, that gives you a 10 game league schedule - plenty of time for tournaments and such.
If you don't have six teams in the Challenge division, then you adjust until you can get there.
Everyone else plays Classic, possibly in a Division I and division II lineup, if there are too many teams.
For the first year, SCYSA would have to asign teams based on where they played in the previous year and their overall record. After that, the system should do the sorting.
First two places in Div. I Classic go to Challenge. Bottom two Challenge go to Div. I Classic, etc. Would make for some interesting games in the Challenge Division at the end of each year.
Nah! It'll never happen. Makes too much sense. Better to stick with the unregulated chaos we have now.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
I suggested that they do away with the designations "Challenge" and "Classic". These terms are too confusing since they are used differently in NC and GA. What's wrong with Division 1, D2, D3, etc.
A quick look at the league web site shows that, even without the 2 R3PL teams, every age group of boys and girls has at least 14 teams with the exception of U16 girls which have only 11. When there are 12 or more, why not just split them down the middle; half in D1 and half in D2, up to 11 teams in each division? When there is an odd number, that's when the League director can earn his big bucks and make a tough decision as to whether the odd team goes up or down. When there are more than 22 teams, split them into 3 divisions with 7 or more teams each. In the rare case where there are less than 12 teams, put them all in one division. That may lead to some lopsided games, but how often would this occur? This rare circumstance would not be any worse than what we have now across the board.
This should not be that hard to do.
Last edited by Coach P; 09/29/06 01:37 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147
goal kick
|
|
goal kick
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 147 |
I think that a system of promotion and relegation should be considered, but there are some scenarios that really need to be evaluated up front.
For the big clubs, the system of having a team in each division seems to work. If CESA Classic wins their division, does that mean they are forced to have two Challenge teams next year? Or should they still be allowed to have a Classic team the following year? I imagine that the rosters on the big club teams change quite a bit after every season's try-outs, so should a team with a significantly different roster be forced to play based on their predecessors' record? Similarly, a change of one or two players could really make the difference between Classic and Challenge for a smaller club team.
A lot of us complain about the SCYSA making decisions that affect our choices. Do we really want them forcing teams to play in divisions against the better judgement of their coaches, club administrators and parents?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Lurker,
You make a good point. I would suggest that SCYSA research to find out how the other states handle situation like you mentioned. Maybe they could use the 60% rule.
But I really think something needs to be done to avoid situations like we have in the U13 Classic Division this season.
Last edited by Coach P; 09/29/06 03:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,521 |
One reason I believe for the lop sided scores between these classic teams is that what I have noticed over the last couple of years is that if parents are willing to pay for classic soccer then their children are put in a league that they are not prepared for...What I am saying is we do not cut kids from claasic teams unless there is not enough kids to field a team so this makes the true classic teams look even stronger..To some degree I believe the classic program has become watered down
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,659 |
lurker,
If CESA Classic finishes first or second in the Classic Division, then yes, the team gets promoted to Challenge the following season. This means CESA could have two teams in the Challenge division.
Probably a good idea for CESA to drop Premier/Challenge/Classic and go to Red/White/Black....this would eliminate any confusion over who the stronger team is when both are in the same division.
I also agree with Coach P about changing the names of the divisions since they are just the opposite in our neighboring states. Maybe we should go with Classic Division 1 and Classic Division 2.
Kids play sports because they find it fun. Eliminate the fun and soon you eliminate the kid.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13 |
That is definately a problem in the U13 girls classic division. It is also a problem in the U13 challenge girls division. That division would be much stronger if the CESA U13 premiere and Bridge U13 team played in their own age group. I am sure they will be doing that in the Spring when a state cup is involved...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
That is definately a problem in the U13 girls classic division. It is also a problem in the U13 challenge girls division. That division would be much stronger if the CESA U13 premiere and Bridge U13 team played in their own age group. I am sure they will be doing that in the Spring when a state cup is involved...
CESA 93 Premier played up last year even in the State Cup. But I agree that they and Bridge 93 should probably play U13 this Spring in an effort to qualify for the U14 Premier League in 2008.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Maybe we should go with Classic Division 1 and Classic Division 2.
Why not just:
SCYSA Select Leagues:
Division 1
Division 2
etc, for each gender?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13 |
Coach, the point I was making was that at I believe if Lexington and Congaree knew that Bridge and Cesa were playing up and only five teams would be in the division, they would have played up too. The Congaree team has scrimmaged and can play with several of the U14 challenge girls teams. I also believe that Lexington is just as good and can hold their own. So, next year, if it goes like this season, there would be three treams left to play challenge. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
jagov:
Yes, I understand, but I think CESA and Bridge will play U13 in the Spring in order to play in the U13 Challenge Cup and qualify for R3PL.
Which U14 Challenge teams has CRSA U13 Gold scrimmaged? They will be in the U14 Division at the Carolina Cup this weekend and are playing LCSC Burn U14 and S.Charlotte U14 Gold on Saturday. I am very interested in seeing how they do.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13
bench
|
|
bench
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13 |
Coach, I have only seen them in recent months. I know they have scrimmaged CUFC teams in the past and have heard they held their own. They also played Bridge twice last year and are not at the level of a CESA premiere or Bridge team, but they did not embarass themselves either. I suspect they will compete this weekend , but believe they will probably lose to both of the U14 teams. The issue I have is that I think if you play up in the fall, you should have to play up in the Spring.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
Coach, I have only seen them in recent months. I know they have scrimmaged CUFC teams in the past and have heard they held their own.
I coach U14 girls at Columbia United and I am unaware of any scrimmages with CRSA. The CRSA coach and I have discussed it several times but haven't worked it out yet.
Quote:
The issue I have is that I think if you play up in the fall, you should have to play up in the Spring.
I don't see this happening. Fall has always been seen as a warmup for U13-U14. Spring is their main season. A couple of months ago I re-suggested to SCYSA the old proposal that the U13-14 Cup Season be moved to the Fall. As with my other suggestions, I have not received a response.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457
Hat-Trick
|
|
Hat-Trick
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,457 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509
hat-trick
|
|
hat-trick
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,509 |
Quote:
As with my other suggestions, I have not received a response.
I need to correct this statement in fairness to SCYSA. The one suggestion I made to the President was responded to. The multiple suggestions I made to another SCYSA officer have not been responded to.
Last edited by Coach P; 09/29/06 05:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Goal Kick
|
|
Goal Kick
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 159 |
Quote:
Coach P ... I was not questioning your decision, nor was I questioning the merit of it. However your statement originally implied that Lex's decisions is what provided better results.
If you look at the younger ages 12 and below and you compare head to head LCSC is 9W, 6L, 1T vs CUFC.
In many of these age groups CUFC has the east/west blue/red breakdown which results in up to 4 teams in an age group were Lexington only has 1 to 2 teams. If I have to play a club 4 times I believe statistically Lex would have a better chance of loosing than winning ....Chico???
Statiscally? yes. but thats before you take into account things like... skill and talent maybe?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 159
Goal Kick
|
|
Goal Kick
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 159 |
Quote:
So coach P... if Chico had posted a stat chart that compared Tega Cay and Discoveries, instead of CUFC & LEX, showing two local clubs and one doing better than another, would you still have posted on this topic regardless of the clubs compared?
Still looks like your defending to me. I'd be careful if I was you. Last guy on here that tried to defend CUFC was "Chapindad" and he took such a beating on the scsoccer that he had to pack up and move out and start his own message board where he is the number 1 poster of topics and replies to HIMSELF!
That makes absolutely no sense. Let the mature people have a grown up conversation. Go back to the JV discussion thread.
|
|
|
|
